CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST
TUMACACORI ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AREA Transportation Analysis Plan
June 2005 Revised August 2009
Edited By
ELI CURIEL JR. ID Core Team Leader
Approved By
/s/ Kent C. Ellett August 13, 2009 Kent C. Ellett, Nogales District Ranger Date
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 2 Step 1 – Setting Up the Analysis ...... 4 Step 2 – Describing the Situation ...... 6 Table 2.1 – Existing Transportation system ...... 9 Table 2.2 - Existing Road Classifications ...... 26 Step 3- Identifying Issues ...... 26 Table 3.1 Annual Deferred Maintenance Costs ...... 28 Step 4- Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks of the Existing Road System ...... 30 Lands ...... 31 Soil, Water, Air, and Forestry ...... 42 Recreation ...... 53 Range Management ...... 60 Biology ...... 61 Minerals ...... 67 Cultural Resources ...... 69 Fire Protection & Safety ...... 72 Fire Suppression ...... 73 Step 5- Describing Opportunities and Minimum Road System ...... 74 Table 5.1 - Recommended Minimum Transportation System ...... 76 Table 5.2 - Transportation Analysis Comparisons ...... 94 Step 6- Reporting ...... 94 APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS ...... 99 APPENDIX B: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...... 101 APPENDIX C – INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ...... 105 APPENDIX D – Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Notes ...... 106 APPENDIX E – FSM 7700 ...... 121 APPENDIX F –FOREST TRANSPORTATION ATLAS ...... 122
References • Coronado National Forest, Forest Level Roads Analysis Report, January 13, 2003. Prepared by Melissa D. Shafiqullah, P.E.
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELOC
• ATION OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT ROAD 165, U. S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region Coronado National Forest; Nogales Ranger District; 2001
1
Introduction
Travel planning in the Forest Service was traditionally split between the engineering program for road management and the recreation program for trails management. A recently revised federal regulation now combines the analysis of the motorized use of trails and roads under the travel analysis process. This process is intended to identify opportunities for the Coronado National Forest transportation system to meet current or future management objectives, and to provide information that allows integration of ecological, social, and economic concerns into future decisions. This report is tailored to local situations and site conditions as identified by forest staffs and collaborated with public input. The outcome of this analysis is a set of recommendations for the forest transportation system. A thorough Travel Analysis supports subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, allowing individual projects to be more site-specific and focused, while still addressing cumulative impacts.
On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service issued the final National Forest System Road Management Rule. This rule revised regulations concerning the management, use, and maintenance of the National Forest Transportation System. The final rule is intended to help ensure that additions to the National Forest System road network are essential for resource management and use; that construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads minimize adverse environmental impacts; that unneeded roads are decommissioned; and that restoration of ecological processes is initiated.
This Ecosystem Management Area level Transportation Analysis Plan (TAP) addresses existing open National Forest System Roads (NFSR) as well as non-system roads located in the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area (EMA). This Transportation Analysis is not a NEPA document but supports NEPA Planning. It is an integrated ecological, social, and economic approach to transportation planning, addressing both existing and future roads. 36 CFR 212.5 requires that the forest identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands.
The Transportation Analysis process is described in Report FS-643, Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System. The Transportation Analysis requirements for Forest, Area, Watershed and Project Scale are described in FSM 7700 - Transportation System: Chapter 7710 - Transportation Atlas, Records, and Analysis; also see Interim Directives that may be policy at the time of the report. Below is the link to the complete FSM 7700 - Transportation System. http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/fsm/7700/7710.rtf
Objectives The objective of this analysis is to provide the Forest Service Line Officer with critical information to ensure that existing and future road systems are safe and responsive to public needs and desires, are affordable and efficiently managed, have minimal negative ecological effects on the land, are in balance with available funding for needed management actions, and are consistent with road management objectives FSM 7712.5. This analysis will not change or modify any existing NEPA
2 decisions, but information generated by this analysis might cause the line officer to reconsider, and perhaps at some future date revise previous NEPA decisions. Transportation Analysis Overview This analysis is intended to identify changes to the Coronado National Forest transportation system that may be needed to meet current or future management objectives, and to provide information that allows integration of ecological, social, and economic concerns into future decisions about areas. The process is intended to complement, rather than replace or preempt, other planning and decision processes.
Six Step Process The analysis process is a six-step progression, regardless of scale, customized to local situations; landscape and site conditions coupled with public issues, forest plan land allocations, and management constraints. The process provides a set of possible road-related issues and analysis questions. Only those relevant questions and any additional suggestions on information needs and research findings that might apply to the project need to be addressed. The six steps are:
Step 1. Setting up the Analysis Step 2. Describing the Situation Step 3. Identifying Issues Step 4. Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks Step 5. Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities Step 6. Reporting
The amount of time and effort spent on each step differs by the complexity of the issues, specific situations and available information particular to the project. Details about these steps can be found in FS-643 titled Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System.
Transportation Analysis Products This report is a product of the analysis process and documents the information and analyses used to identify opportunities and priorities for future national forest road and motorized trail systems (where applicable). Included in this report is a transportation map displaying the existing/recommended road system and where applicable the existing/recommended motorized trail system and the needs and/or recommendations for each. This report will:
• Identify needed and unneeded roads; • Identify road related social, environmental and public safety risks; • Identify site-specific priorities and opportunities for road improvements and decommissioning; • Identify areas of special sensitivity or any unique resource values.
This report will help managers address questions on road access related to ecosystem health and sustainability, commodity extraction, recreation, social and cultural values, and administrative uses.
3 This report may help to inform future management decisions on the merits and risks of building new roads; relocating, upgrading, or decommissioning existing roads; managing traffic; and enhancing, reducing, or discontinuing road maintenance. This analysis is based upon: • Use of the best available scientific information; • Economics; • Social and economic costs and benefits of roads; and • Contribution of existing and proposed roads to management objectives. • Input from resource specialists
Step 1 – Setting Up the Analysis
Purpose, Scope and Objectives: The purpose of the project is to identify the minimum road system needed to administer and utilize National Forest System (NFS) resources within budget constraints. This TAP will support the Forest Plan revision process.
The scope of this analysis includes the area bounded by the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area on the Nogales Ranger District. This is an Ecosystem Management Area level TAP with boundaries indicated on the map in Appendix F. A complete inventory of user-created routes is not required in order to complete a TAP. However, new routes are continually being created during the inventory process and therefore this report will only reflect user-created routes as of the date of this report. Some user-created routes are well located, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and non-motorized users alike, and would enhance the system of designated routes and areas. Other user-created routes are poorly located and cause unacceptable environmental impacts. The Coronado National Forest is committed to working with user groups and others to identify such routes and consider them on a site-specific basis. (36 CFR 212.2) This analysis will include recommendations where appropriate to add user-created routes to the forest transportation system or recommend prohibition or restriction of motor vehicle use on identified system roads.
The objective of this Transportation Analysis is to provide critical information for a minimum road system that is safe and responsive to public needs and desires, is affordable, conforms to the Coronado National Forest Plan, is efficiently managed, has minimal negative ecological effects on the land, and is sustainable with available funding for needed management actions. All existing system roads, additional motorized travel routes and proposed roads within the project area, as well as access roads to the Forest Boundary are included in this Transportation Analysis Plan. This analysis provides a comprehensive look at the network of NFS roads and motorized NFS trails as well as all other user-created roads located in the EMA and will be used during the NEPA process. The TAP is intended to be a broad scale comprehensive look at the transportation network. The main objectives of the TAP are: • Balance the need for access while minimizing risks by examining important ecological, social, and economic issues related to roads and trails; • Furnish maps, tables, and narratives that display transportation management opportunities and strategies that address future access needs, and environmental concerns;
4 • Identify the need for changes by comparing the current road and motorized trail system and areas to the desired condition; • Make recommendations to inform travel management decisions in subsequent NEPA documents.
This document provides information for the Forest Plan Revision and the Travel Management Rule as it relates to the Coronado National Forest. This analysis will look at the options concerning access issues and needs, proliferation of non-system roads, un-needed roads, user- created routes, mixed use, and OHV use where applicable.
Analysis Plan The following items were specifically investigated in this analysis: • Verify current road conditions and drivability. • Verify accuracy of road locations on maps. • Identify preliminary access and resource issues, concerns and opportunities. • Identify additional issues, concerns and opportunities through internal resource staffs. • Recommend changes to the existing road system based on the findings of this report.
Information Needs Information needs were identified and the IDT worked to gather as much information as available about the following items: • Accurate location and condition of all system roads and motorized trails within the project area. A complete inventory of all unauthorized (user-created) routes is not required but the IDT felt it provided valuable information about what the public and other agencies were doing on the forest. • Assessment of opportunities, problems and risks for all roads and motorized trails in the project area. • Public access and recreational needs and desires in the area including access to private landowners. • Areas of special sensitivity, resource values, or both. • Best management practices for the area. • Current forest plan and management direction for the area. • Agency objectives and priorities. • Interrelationship with other governmental jurisdictions for roads and motorized trails. • Public and user group values and concerns.
Potential Key Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities The following items were considered in this analysis: • Private property blocking federal land access • Access to special-use permit sites • Soil erosion, water quality, riparian issues • OHV Recreation Use • Motorized Trail and Vehicles route sharing • Access to grazing allotments and improvements • Special Uses
5 • Ecological effects to species and habitats • Mineral access • Cultural resources and Archaeological sites within the study area • Excessive roads in the study area
Step 2 – Describing the Situation
Regional Setting The Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area (EMA) is located on the Coronado National Forest and within the Basin and Range physiographic province (Fenneman 1931) in southwestern Arizona which is characterized by a northwest-southeast alignment of generally parallel mountain ranges with broad valleys in between. The EMA is comprised of 203,800 acres with the bulk of the acreage managed by the Forest Service, but there are also 2,898 acres of scattered State and private inholdings within the National Forest boundary. The primary mountain ranges in this EMA include the Tumacacori Mountains, Pajarito Mountains, and Atascosa Mountains, with elevations ranging from 3464 to 6,422 feet and retaining steep jagged cliffs. Along the bases of these mountains are bajadas, extending from the bases onto the valley floors and directing runoff from the higher elevations into the valleys below. The slopes and valleys are bisected by intermittent riparian tributaries. Cross-country motorized travel is currently not permitted on the Coronado National Forest except for the retrieval of game. Primary access is along Ruby Road, which runs through the center of the EMA. There are campgrounds and picnic areas near Pena Blanca and many dispersed recreation opportunities throughout the area. The 7,420 acre Pajarita Wilderness is adjacent to the International boundary with Mexico. Much of this EMA lies along the Mexican border, resulting in many issues, including illegal immigration, drug and people smuggling, and Border Patrol activities. Located in the northeast section of the EMA is the Wild Chili Botanical Area. [Reference: Fenneman, N.M., 1931 & 1938, Physiography of Western United States & Physiography of Eastern United States: New York, McGraw-Hill]
The following watersheds may be traversed within the EMA:
• East Fork Apache Canyon (1,256 acres)
• Sycamore Canyon (16,648 acres)
• Peck Canyon (27,313 acres)
• Unnamed watershed NE (26,031 acres)
• Unnamed watershed NE (4,637 acres)
• Unnamed watershed West (69,406 acres)
• Unnamed watershed SE (43,823 acres)
6 The prominent vegetation within the Tumacacori EMA can be characterized as Upper Sonoran (Lowe 1964). The vegetation types vary between desert, desert grassland, woodland, riparian and forest communities in response to changes in elevation, precipitation, and temperature. [Reference: Lowe, Charles. H. 1964. Arizona Landscapes and Habitats. The Vertebrates of Arizona; Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.]
The following communities are located in proximity to the EMA:
• Nogales Arizona • Arivaca
• Rio Rico • Sasabe
• Tubac • Carmen
• Tumacacori • Ruby
• Amado
Additionally, four manmade regional lakes in the vicinity: Patagonia, Peña Blanca, Parker Canyon, and Arivaca attract a large number of visitors to the southwest region.
The Interdisciplinary Team (Appendix C) convened and examined the existing transportation system in relation to current forest plan direction. This required a description of the road system; its location, ownership, condition, and current forest plan direction. A description of the physical, biological, social, cultural, economic and political aspects of the analysis area was discussed and generated by the team.
A map of the area’s transportation system was developed to facilitate this description. (See Appendix F).
The products of this step are:
• A map or other descriptions of the existing road system defined by the current forest plan, and • Basic data needed to address transportation analysis issues and concerns.
The following table provides existing data such as length of road within the Forest Boundary, current operational maintenance level and route status as listed in the INFRA database. The table also provides data on user-created routes that were GPS’d using a Trimble GeoXT handheld unit. The table provides data above and beyond what is required by a TAP.
Existing Direction for Roads and Motorized Trails Travel analysis is focused on identifying needed changes to the forest transportation system; identifying the existing direction is an important first step. In general terms, the existing direction includes the National Forest System roads, trails and areas currently managed for motor vehicle use. Restrictions, prohibitions, and closures on motor vehicle use are also part of the existing direction on the forest.
7
Existing direction from laws and regulations, official directives, forest plans, forest orders, and forest wide or project specific roads decisions, determine the motorized routes and areas open to public motorized travel. This information about a unit’s managed system is often documented in road and motorized trail management objectives, maps, Recreation Opportunity Guides, tabular databases, and other sources.
Maintenance Level Descriptions:
1 = Basic custodial care (closed) 5 = High degree of user comfort 2 = High clearance vehicles C = Convert use 3 = Suitable for passenger cars D = Decommission 4 = Moderate degree of user comfort
Maintenance levels shown on the table indicate roads currently in INFRA and under Forest Service jurisdiction. For unauthorized roads recommended to be added to the system, the maintenance levels are merely recommended levels.
Open Authorized Road Existing roads open to the public for motorized use are forest system roads, which are currently in the Forest’s INFRA database with attributes reflecting an existing, National Forest System Road under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service with an operational maintenance level between 2 and 5.
Closed Authorized Road (Maintenance Level 1) Closed roads have been closed to vehicle traffic for at least a year but are necessary for future activities. If there is a future need for the road but no immediate need, then it is placed in the system as a closed (ML1) road. They appear in the INFRA database with an operational maintenance level of 1. If there is no compelling administrative or public need for the road in the long-term, then it should be decommissioned.
Open Unauthorized Road An unauthorized road is not included in the forest transportation atlas or database. These roads are usually established by various users over time. They were not planned, designed, or constructed by the Forest Service.
Decommissioned Road Decommissioned roads have some type of physical closure at their entrance or may be completely obliterated. They appear in the INFRA database with a route status of decommissioned. In order to return a decommissioned road to service as a system road, the NEPA process must be followed even when no physical work is required to allow motorized traffic back on the road.
8 Table 2.1 – Existing Transportation System Note: Road numbers in brackets were previous report numbers. Revision Date: June 2009
EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
39 17.52 3 Ruby Road - (25.82 mi long w/ 17.52 mi on FS) 39-2.72L-1 0.32 Non system road - 39-7.61R-1 0.19 Non system road 39-7.83R-1 0.14 Non system road - 39-7.93L-1 0.80 Non system road - 39-9.38L-1 0.10 Non system road - 39-11.05L-1 0.66 Non system road - 39-11.42R-1 1.39 Non system road - 39-14.52L-1 0.17 Non system road - 39-17.05R-1 0.36 Non system road - 39 A 5.17 2 Summit Motorway - 39 B 0.10 3 White Rock CG Host Site 39 C 0.08 3 Pena Blanca Boat Ramp 39 D 0.40 2 Calabasas Campground 39 E 0.52 3 Red Rock Picnic Area
9 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
39 F 0.21 3 Atascosa Vista 115 1.98 3 Bear Valley 115-0.49R-1 0.57 Non system road - 115-0.98R-1 1.49 Non system road - 216 10.22 3 Tres Bellotas - 216-4.40L-1 0.16 Non system road - 216-5.10R-1 Jarillas Ranch Reroute (Titled vested April 2009) 216-6.38R-1 0.13 Non system road 216-6.81R-1 0.34 Non system road - 216-7.41L-1 0.79 Non system road - 216-8.58R-1 0.11 Non system road - 216-10.14L-1 0.22 Non system road - 216-12.01L-1 0.11 Non system road - 216-12.80L-1 3.10 Non system road - 216-13.44R-1 1.73 Non system road - 216-13.44R-2 0.36 Non system road - 217 12.32 2 California Gulch 217-1.64R-1 0.13 Non system road -
10 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
217-4.93L-1 0.24 Non system road - access to mining claim 217-5.40R-1 0.04 Non system road - 217-7.16R-1 0.68 Non system road - access to mining claim 217-7.16R-2 0.26 Non system road - access to mining claim 217-9.66R-1 0.09 Non system road - 217-9.76R-1 0.08 Non system road - 217-11.82R-1 0.72 Non system road - 217-11.82R-2 0.08 Non system road - 218 1.01 2 Meadow Hills 218-reroute 0.28 Proposed reroute away from subdivision 221 1.51 2 Upper Walker Canyon 222 6.14 2 Calabasas Ridge 222-0.23L-1 0.19 Non system road - 223 2.32 2 Lower Walker 223-0.47R-1 2.40 Non system road 223-4199 0.81 Gas Pipeline - Non system road - between 223 & 4199 289 4 State Hwy - 8.02 miles on ADOT jurisdiction 289-4.80R-1 0.27 Non system road -
11 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
289-6.38R-1 1.17 Non system road - 289-6.38R-2 0.10 Non system road - 601 6.87 2 Coches - (14.25 mi long w/ 6.87 mi on FS) 601-7.17R-1 1.45 Non system road - 601-7.17R-2 0.18 Non system road - 601-8.10R-1 0.31 Non system road - 601-8.41R-1 0.52 Non system road - 601-8.41R-2 0.11 Non system road - 601-8.50R-1 0.19 Non system road - 601-8.58L-1 0.11 Non system road - 601-10.06L-1 0.13 Non system road - leads to Coches Tank 601-10.38R-1 0.20 Non system road - 616 3.59 2 Beatosa 616-0.98L-1 0.21 Non system road - 616-4.56R-1 1.33 Non system road - extension of Rd. 616 623 5.23 2 Pesquiera 623-4.69L-1 0.61 Non system road - 682 1.56 2 Midway Dam
12 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
682-1.71R-1 0.68 Non system road - 682-1.71R-2 0.11 Non system road - 682-1.71R-3 0.52 Non system road - 684 10.97 2 Sardina Canyon - (18.4 mi long w/ 10.97 mi on FS) 684-4.92L-1 0.14 Non system road - 684-7.04L-1 0.41 Non system road - 810 0.15 4 Upper Thumb Rock 818 1.23 3 Peck Canyon - (4.1 mi long w/ 1.23 mi on FS) 4095 0.53 2 Saddle Tank Placerito - 0.60 miles long. 4868 is a duplicate road # in 4108 [4868] 0.60 Santa Rita EMA that is decommissioned; Use 4108 4108-0.32L-1 [4868-0.32L-1] 0.98 Non system road - 4112 0.66 2 Yank Tank 4114 0.99 2 Red Rock Tank 4115 2.63 2 Castle Rock - (9.9 mi long w/ 2.63 mi on FS) 4115-8.87R-1 0.55 Non system road - 4115-9.79L-1 1.96 Non system road - 4116 3.20 2 Arrieta - (GPS to MP 1.17)
13 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4116-1.39L-1 0.36 Non system road - 4117 1.20 2 Old Forester - (GPS'd to MP 0.33) 4118 2.20 2 Corona - (GPS'd to MP 0.90) San Lewis Wash - (12.81 mi long w/ 4.92 mi on FS); has 4119 4.92 2 been rerouted around the Jarillas Ranch 4119-9.14L-1 0.25 Non system road - 4120 0.64 2 Ajax - (0.22 mi off Forest) 4120-0.62R-1 0.38 Non system road - 4121 1.18 2 Longshot 4122 0.96 2 Edwards 4123 2.96 2 Fraguita Peak 4124 1.07 2 Side Pocket 4125 1.00 2 Grape Vine 4125-0.39L-1 0.55 Non system road - St. Christopher Mine access 4126 0.62 2 Frog Tank 4127 1.35 2,3 Papalote - (13.4 mi long w/ 1.35 mi on FS) 4128 2.37 2 Bear Grass - (9.75 mi long w/ 2.37 mi on FS) 4128-1.55R-1 1.27 Non system road - extends into IRA
14 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4129 1.18 2 Carrizo - (1.5 mi long w/ 1.18 mi on FS) 4130 0.85 3 Arivaca Lake - (2.45 mi long w/ 0.85 mi on FS) 4130-1.04R-1 Off Forest - 0.66 miles 4130-1.06L-1 Off Forest - 0.49 miles 4131 1.72 2 Chiminea - ( 6.68 mi long w/ 1.72 mi on FS) 4132 1.97 2 Cedar Dam - (3.21 mi long w/ 1.97 mi on FS) 4133 2.98 2 East Fork 4134 1.21 2 Apache Peak Cedar Canyon - (4.49 mi long w/ 1.56 mi on FS);access 4135 1.56 2 blocked 4136 3.90 2 Sopori - (8.74 mi long w/ 3.9 mi on FS) 4137 0.99 2 Lower Sardina 4138 3.50 2 Sardina Well 4139 1.20 2 Coyote Well 4141 2.87 2 Anita Well 4141-2.04R-1 0.19 Non system road - Dicks Peak Tank - was 4855 but this is duplicate road number in Chiricahua EMA; recommend change number to 4142 (4855) 0.56 2 4142
15 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4143 2.50 2 Jalisco Canyon; 0.28 mi in IRA; Blacksmith Tunnel - 4870 is duplicate road in Dragoon 4144 (4870) 0.80 EMA. Changed this road location to 4144.
4145 2.99 2 Rock Corral - (4.9 mi long w/ 2.99 mi on FS) 4145-1.42R-1 0.84 Non system road - 4145-1.42R-2 0.09 Non system road - 4146 0.93 2 Dry Tank 4147 1.07 2 Tinaja 4147-0.34R-1 1.10 Non system road - 1.91 miles long 4148 3.70 2 Fresno- 4149 5.24 2 Wolf Canyon 4149-2.21R-1 0.73 Non system road - 4149-2.21R-2 0.36 Non system road - 4149-5.02R-1 1.39 Non system road - 4149 A 0.65 2 Dutchman 4149-4198 2.57 Gas Pipeline road - 2.57 miles 4151 1.86 2 Pipeline - (3.4 mi long w/ 1.86 mi on FS) 4151-2.87L-1 0.95 Non system road - 0.30 miles off forest
16 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4151-2.87L-2 0.73 Non system road - 4151-2.87L-3 0.56 Non system road - 0.45 miles off forest 4152 0.20 2 Slick Rock 4153 3.77 2 Cumero 4154 0.90 2 Alamito 4155 0.25 2 Gil Water Tank 4156 2.22 2 Coches Canyon 4157 7.37 2 Yellow Jacket - (8.12 mi long w/ 7.37 mi on FS) 4158 2.15 1.03 2,1 Skunk; 2.15 miles is OA; 1.03 is ML1 4159 0.81 2 Palomas - GPS'd only 0.28 mi 4160 1.11 2 Brick Mine 4161 2.45 2 Margarita Tank 4162 2.25 2 Old Glory Mine 4163 1.76 2 Holden - only 1.32 mi GPS'd 4164 2.56 2 Cañoncito El Oro Mine - 0.73 mi long; was route 4846 but this is a duplicate road number in Whetstone EMA - recommend 4165 (4846) 0.73 2 change number to 4165 4166 3.30 2 Agua Cercada Tank
17 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4167 2.30 2 Sentinel Peak 4167-1.39R-1 0.42 Non system road- 4168 6.38 2 Sierra Canyon - (6.6 mi long w/ 6.38 mi on FS) 4168-1.90R-1 1.95 Non system road - 4168-3.21L-1 0.21 Non system road - 4168-4.90R-1 0.68 Non system road - 4169 2.27 2 Saucito Tank 4170 1.02 2 Grubstake 4171 0.84 2 Old Glory Spring 4172 0.91 2 Oro Blanco 4172-0.48R-1 0.33 Non system Road - Mine access road 4173 2.23 2 Hidden Tank 4173-0.30L-1 0.31 Non system road - 4173-1.08R-1 0.54 Non system road - 4173-1.08R-2 0.44 Non system road - 4173-1.08R-3 0.10 Non system road - 4174 0.50 2 Three Forks - (0.64 mi long w/ 0.50 mi on FS) 4175 0.42 2 Border Tank
18 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4176 3.36 2 Alto Shumaker 4177 0.89 2 Cramer Mine 4178 1.21 2 Ruby Peak 4179 0.45 2 Bolsa Tank 4180 2.93 D Tinaja Spring- Decommissioned Road; 4181 0.11 2.29 D Yanks Spring- only 0.11 mi GPS'd; 4182 1.64 2 Alamo Canyon 4183 1.10 2 Wood 4185 2.29 2 Cobre Mt. 4185-0.40R-1 0.07 Non system road - 4186 4.86 2 Corral Nuevo 4186-0.61R-1 0.73 Non system road - 4187 1.26 2 Oak Tank 4188 0.46 2 Coyote Tank 4189 1.26 2 Monument Tank 4191 3.56 2 Wise Mesa - (6.81 mi long w/ 3.56 mi on FS) 4191-3.42R-1 0.10 Non system road - 4191-3.62R-1 0.43 Non system road -
19 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4192 2.55 2 Basin Tank 4192-1.26L-1 0.63 Non system road - 4193 0.32 1 Castle Tank 4194 off Forest; 0.78 mi long; Not listed in INFRA 4195 2.27 2 Castle Rock- only 0.97 mi GPS'd 4195-0.28L-1 0.34 Non system road - 4195-0.52L-1 0.18 Non system road - 4196 0.47 2 St. Patrick Mine 4197 0.85 2 Morning Mine 4198 3.67 2 Lost Tank 4198-2.90L-1 0.64 Non system road - leads to Lost Tank 4199 2.65 2 Caralampi - (7.61 mi long w/ 2.65 mi on FS) 4199-2.61L-1 0.76 Non system road - (0.98 mi long w/ 0.76 mi on FS); 4199-4210 5.23 Gas Pipeline road- 5.23 miles long 4200 1.79 2 Bellota Tank 4200-0.47R-1 0.62 Non system road - Pena Blanca Dam access by AZGFD 4200-1.12R-1 0.74 Non system road - 4200-1.12R-2 0.05 Non system road -
20 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4201 1.44 2 Mud Tank 4202 1.90 2 Calabasas Tank 4203 1.35 2 Pajarito 4203-0.69R-1 0.27 Non system road - 4204 1.70 2 Lobo Tank 4204-0.53L-1 1.13 Non system road - 4205 0.90 2 Davis Tank 4206 6.61 2 Alamo Canyon 4206-1.02L-1 0.31 Non system road - 4206-1.08R-1 0.69 Non system road -(2.60 mi long w/ 0.69 mi on FS); 4206-2.80L-1 1.31 Non system road - 4206-2.80L-2 0.73 Non system road - 4207 2.60 2 Green Can Tank 4207-1.02L-1 0.58 Non system road - 4208 0.53 2 Little Alamo Tank 4208-0.53R-1 0.59 Non system road - 4210 5.04 2 Potrero 4210-2.50R-1 0.06 Non system road -
21 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4210-2.74R-1 3.40 Non system road- leads to Lobo Tank; 4210-2.74R-2 0.50 Non system road- leads towards Punk Tank; 4213 3.38 2 Trick Tank 4214 5.74 2 Mariposa Loop 4214-0.73L-1 0.12 Non system road - (0.54 mi long w/ 0.12 mi on FS); 4214-0.80L-1 0.30 Non system road - 4214-1.22L-1 0.24 Non system road - 4214-1.66L-1 0.22 Non system road - Border Road used by Border Patrol Non system road - Border Road used by Border Patrol (1.84 4214-1.92L-1 1.05 mi long w/ 1.05 mi on FS) 4214-2.55L-1 0.49 Non system road - 4214-2.55L-2 0.13 Non system road - 4214-2.55L-3 0.08 Non system road - 4214-2.55L-4 0.01 Non system road - 4214-3.02L-1 0.67 Non system road - 4215 0.76 2 Ridge 4833 0.44 2 Doodlebug - (1.92 mi long w/ 0.44 mi on FS) 4857 2.52 2 Apache Well - (2.87 mi long w/ 2.52 mi on FS)
22 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4864 0.90 2 Cerro del Fresnal - 4865 3.10 2 Cantina Reservoir 4866 0.76 1 Decommissioned road - this road a duplicate road # in D1 4867 1.04 2 Un-named [4868-0.32L-1] 4108-0.32L-1 See 4108-0.32L-1 4869 0.43 2 Blue Wing Mine 4871 0.66 Pipeline - used by Border Patrol 4872 0.16 2 Un-named Un-named - was labeled 4854 previously, but is a duplicate 4874 (4854) 1.07 2 road #. Use 4874 4875 0.03 2 Un-named - (2.79 miles long with 0.03 mi on FS) 4876 0.53 2 Un-named 4877 1.93 2 Encinas Tank 4877-1.45R-1 0.22 Non system road - 4878 0.73 2 Coches Spring 4883 0.40 2 Bluff Tank White Tank - 2.39 mi long; Duplicate road # in Huachuca 4888 (4856) 2.40 2 EMA - recommend change to 4888
23 EXISTING SYSTEM Road Classifications Tumacacori EMA
Road Number Description Level (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized Authorized Open (Miles) ML 1 Route Status Status Route
Closed Authorized Authorized Closed -
Open Unauthorized Open
- (Miles) on Forest on (Miles) - OHV Routes (Miles) OA New Proposed Routes Routes Proposed New CA Decommissioned (Miles) OU Operational Maintenance
4888-2.39R-1 Non system road - previously labeled 4856-2.39R-1; correct (4856-2.39R-1) 0.37 label is 4888-2.39R-1;
TOTALS 295.72 1.35 72.87 5.98 0.00 0.28
24 Table 2.1 Legend
Road Classifications:
OA = Open Authorized Road on the Forest Road System (NFSR) OAR = Open Authorized and Restricted to Admin or Special Use Permit CA = Closed Authorized Road on the Forest Road System (ML 1) OU = Open Unauthorized Road, not on the Forest Road System (Unauthorized Road/Non- system Road) D = Identified for Decommissioning
Maintenance Level Descriptions:
1 = Basic custodial care (closed) 5 = High degree of user comfort 2 = High clearance vehicles C = Convert use 3 = Suitable for passenger cars D = Decommission 4 = Moderate degree of user comfort
Maintenance levels shown on the table indicate roads currently in INFRA and under Forest Service jurisdiction. For unauthorized roads recommended to be added to the system, the maintenance levels are merely recommended levels.
Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria.
Roads may be currently maintained at one level and planned to be maintained at a different level at some future date. The operational maintenance level is the maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering today's needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns; in other words, it defines the level to which the road is currently being maintained. The objective maintenance level is the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. The objective maintenance level may be the same as, or higher or lower than, the operational maintenance level. The transition from operational maintenance level to objective maintenance level may depend on reconstruction or disinvestment.
Decommissioning Methods: • Reestablish former drainage patterns, stabilize slopes, and restore vegetation. • Block the entrance to a road, install water bars and/or outslope. Entrance treatment can include earthen barriers or hide with brush or woody debris. • Remove culverts, reestablish drainage-ways, remove unstable fills, pull back road shoulders, and scatter slash on the roadbed. • Completely eliminate the roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes. • Gate and closure order to eliminate all human uses. • Abandon and monitor for motorized use. • Other methods designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the unneeded roads.
25 Table 2.2 - Existing Road Classifications Road Existing Miles Classification of Road OA = Open Authorized 295.72 CA = Closed Authorized 1.35 OU = Open Unauthorized 72.87 Decommissioned 5.98 OHV 0.00 EMA Totals 369.94 (OA + CA + OU + OHV)
Step 3- Identifying Issues
The purpose of this step is to: • identify resource concerns and issues • Identify the key questions and issues affecting road-related management
The products of this step are: • A summary of key road-related issues, including their origin and basis, and • A description of the status of the current data
The following issues are addressed in this analysis and described in more detail in Step 4: • Private land access • Private property blocking federal land access • Access to special-use permit sites • Soil erosion, water quality, riparian issues • OHV Recreation Use • Motorized Trail and Vehicles route sharing • Dispersed camping and user created routes • Access to grazing allotments and improvements • Special Uses • Ecological effects to species and habitats • Mineral access • Cultural resources and Archaeological sites within the study area • Excessive roads in the study area • Border Patrol issues
The interdisciplinary team (Appendix C) met initially in January and February 2005 and again in August 2008 to identify EMA issues. A review of the questions in FS-643 titled Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System was also used as a supplement in order to identify any issues not previously made aware for this project.
26
Answers to the following questions helped the IDT to identify the most important road- related issues in the analysis area.
• What are the primary public issues and concerns related to roads and access? • What are the primary management concerns (internal issues) related to roads and access? • What are the primary legal constraints on roads and roads management? • What additional information will be needed to better understand and define the key issues? • What resources and skills are available to complete an effective analysis?
Road Maintenance Issues
Maintaining a route system and balancing the needs between resource protection and public wishes is a challenging task. This travel analysis helps to fulfill two major requirements of 36 CFR 212, subparts A and B:
1) Identify the minimum road system 2) Identify and subsequently designate a system of roads, motorized trails, and areas for motor vehicle use.
Annual congressionally appropriated road maintenance funding is approximately 9 percent of what is needed to accomplish proper maintenance for the current authorized road system on the Coronado National Forest, including this EMA. Current allocated budgets are insufficient to manage and maintain the road system on the Coronado and this EMA. There is a need to get more financially in balance with road maintenance funding versus road maintenance needs. The forest’s authorized road network will continue to degrade and have access impacts as well as environmental impacts. Decreasing Forest maintenance costs and increasing road maintenance funding should continue to be our goal. A strategy to reduce costs, balance resource needs and meet the access needs of the Coronado will have to be assessed and evaluated. Strategies that reduce the level of road maintenance costs include:
• Decrease road maintenance levels (e.g. move from ML3 to ML2). • Decrease road mileage by closing or decommissioning authorized system roads (abandonment or obliteration) • Transfer jurisdiction (ownership) or maintenance responsibilities to other maintenance entities (including private land owners and home owner associations) • Convert open and/or closed roads to motorized trails for widths less than 50 inches recognizing this will increase trail maintenance costs (class 1, 2, or 3 which is basically a minimally maintained, natural surfaced trail) • Combination of the above strategies
The Coronado National Forest Annual Maintenance Plan provides a list of roads that will receive maintenance during that fiscal year. Maintenance is prioritized and any known critical road safety need receives the highest priority. The Coronado NF has conducted 27 annual road condition surveys since 1999 to determine the maintenance and associated funding needed to maintain roads to the required safety standards and assigned maintenance levels. The condition surveys describe the features of the road (e.g. surfacing material, ditches, culverts, signs, etc.). Deferred and annual maintenance costs for those roads are then calculated using a regional standard cost guide.
On the Coronado NF, all Maintenance Level 2 roads are required to meet standards for route marker signing. The Highway Safety Act requires maintenance level 3-5 roads on the Coronado NF to meet the standards for directional, regulatory, and warning signs. There are areas on this EMA where the standards are not being met due to lack of funding. There are no Maintenance Level 5 roads on this EMA. Clearing for sight distance and safety is not occurring as often as needed due to limited funding. Therefore with limited funding, the focus must be on high-priority roads which are identified in the Annual Maintenance Plan and approved by the line officer. High priority roads are often maintenance level 3-5 roads, which cost more per mile to maintain than maintenance level 2 roads. Each mile of maintenance level 3-5 road which receives maintenance deprives multiple miles of maintenance level 2 roads from receiving maintenance. Conversely, a reduction in the number of miles of maintenance level 2 roads receiving maintenance makes a disproportionately small improvement in the ability to maintain maintenance level 3-5 roads. Most high road density areas are attributable to maintenance level 2 roads. In most cases user created routes which are unauthorized roads are contributing to the road density in the EMA and may need to be decommissioned in order to reduce the density.
With insufficient funding for road maintenance, it is expected that maintenance level 3-5 roads on the Coronado will degrade into lower maintenance levels over time. Since the forest can properly maintain only approximately *9 percent of the current authorized road system, it should be expected and planned that total mileage of maintenance for level 3-5 roads will decrease due to degradation of these assets and inability to maintain them in as-is condition. [* reference: Identifying the Minimum Sustainable Road System, FY 2006 DATA - Road Miles, Budget, and Deferred Maintenance Needs]
Table 3.1 Annual Deferred Maintenance Costs Operational Tumacacori EMA Regional Average Total Annual Cost Maintenance Level Existing Miles per Annual Unit Cost INFRA per Mile 5 0 $8,349 $0 4 8.82 $7,856 $69,290 3 33.41 $5,069 $169,355 2 253.49 $3,817 $967,571 1 1.35 $127 $171 Totals 304.48 $1,206,387 *Note: Annual Unit Cost per mile taken from R3 2006 averages
28
This economic assessment is based on regional averages for deferred maintenance road data since Coronado National Forest data was not statistically valid for the last few years. In addition, the Coronado’s road crew in the last few years has been involved in Border Patrol road work and off forest road maintenance and therefore cost data over an extended period of time is not available.
Although the initial remedy may be to close and decommission roads to provide a sustainable system, the table does not address the expense of closing and decommissioning. These costs would need to include both the planning cost of conducting the appropriate environmental analysis as well as the physical implementation cost of achieving the desired objective.
Shared road maintenance is occurring primarily on maintenance level 3-5 roads, but could be improved on key access roads. Currently on the Coronado NF there are road maintenance agreements with Pinal, Cochise and Pima Counties. Many of the Forest Service maintenance agreements are out of date and should be revised. Agreements with Santa Cruz County and other outside agencies need to be investigated in the future.
Legal access on or to authorized system roads is lacking in many locations. Resolving access problems often consumes funding otherwise used for road maintenance. Conversely, unequivocal lack of legal access with no viable solution is an opportunity to remove authorized road mileage from the Forest road system and thereby save maintenance funds for roads with legal access.
Border Patrol Issues Guidance regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection division’s (CBP) use of roads on the Coronado National Forest (CNF) is primarily contained in the National Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Homeland Security, signed March 31, 2006. This MOU emphasizes a cooperative position be taken by each department while emphasizing the importance of controlling illegal cross-border traffic.
It is recognized that CBP may be the only authorized user of certain roads on CNF which will not be recommended for Designation under the Travel Management Rule (TMR). These roads would likely be recommended for closure or decommissioning when they are no longer needed by the CBP. The intent of the CNF is to allow construction, reconstruction, relocation, maintenance and use of such roads by the CBP under special use permit or permits. Such permits should identify the agency responsible for all aspects of the use, liability and maintenance of those roads and indicate the management objective for these roads. Use of these roads shall be managed through signs and or closure gates.
Likewise, the CBP may be the primary user of a different subset of roads on the CNF which are maintained to a standard higher than otherwise warranted for use by any other user group but which would nonetheless be recommended for Designation under the TMR. The intent of the CNF is to allow the reconstruction and maintenance of these roads under special use permit in order to assign financial and legal responsibility to the appropriate agency.
29
The operational maintenance of these level 2 roads may give these roads the appearance of a maintenance level 3 passenger car road. Since these roads are potential smuggling routes and may be a concern for public safety, the use should be discouraged utilizing signing or other entrance treatments.
Step 4- Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks of the Existing Road System
The purpose of this step is to: • Assess the benefits, problems and risks of the current road system and whether the objectives of the Forest Plan are being met
The products of this step are: • A synthesis of the benefits, problems and risks of the current road system, • An assessment of the ability of the road system to meet management objectives
Roads analysis is a science-based process and the interdisciplinary team (Appendix C) used and interpreted relevant scientific literature to identify issues which may cause potential impacts. Any assumptions made during the analysis, and limitations of the information on which the analysis is based will be described.
Specific questions were used to assess benefits, problems, and risks. Benefits are the potential uses and socioeconomic gains provided by roads and related access. Problems are conditions for certain environmental, social, and economic attributes that managers deem to be unacceptable. Risks are likely future losses in environmental, social, and economic attributes if the road system remains unchanged. The questions were used as a checklist to scan the range of possible benefits, problems, and risks and to screen them for those relevant to roads in the area under consideration.
The relevant questions were then used to guide more in-depth assessment and link to the science base for each of the identified benefits, problems, and risks. These questions were not intended to be prescriptive, but were used to assist the interdisciplinary team in developing questions and approaches appropriate to each analysis area. Which questions are appropriate for a particular analysis area and which warrant deep or cursory treatment will depend on the particular area and the issues being addressed. Some question may need to be addressed at several scales. Addressing these and other road-related questions was done with maps, GIS, statistical summaries, or other information that contributed to understanding the benefits, needs, risks, and effects of the roads. These indicators did not answer questions directly but assisted in discerning and quantifying important interactions.
30 Lands
Public access to portions of the Tumacacori Mountains EMA has become increasingly restricted over the last several decades. The rapid growth of Pima and Santa Cruz County’s population, especially along the I-19 and Arivaca Road corridors, has lead to a much greater need for public access to the EMA as well as other public and state trust lands in the area. At the same time, the rapid growth leads to increased development of adjacent private lands adjacent to the EMA, resulting in more restricted public access (where most of the EMA’s legal public access needs are located). Numerous traditional routes into the EMA, where a legal right (written or unwritten title) of public access does not exist, have been blocked from public use by private landowners.
There are also many other important roads that provide physical access into the EMA that are currently open and used by public land users through the adjacent non-federal (private and state trust) land that do not have legal right-of-way (written or unwritten title). Therefore, because no legal right of public access exists for these roads, they may also be closed by a private landowner at any time and without notice.
In addition, Arizona State Trust lands are not "public lands" as are BLM and NFS lands. State Trust lands are managed for the benefit of trust beneficiaries. Trust management responsibilities include requiring a permit, lease, or right-of-way and charging a fee for use of trust lands including public access to NFS and other public lands as well as State Trust lands. Exceptions to this requirement are licensed hunters and fishers, actively pursuing game or fish (in-season) and certain archaeological activities permitted by the Arizona State Museum.
Public access issues often become controversial, particularly when dealing with differing opinions towards public access and appropriate uses of NFS and other public lands, and generate issues far more complex and controversial than in the past. The Coronado Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) provides direction to “ensure public access to various parts of the Forest on state, county, or permanent Forest Service roads” and “obtain necessary public access for all permanent roads and trails within the National Forest boundary”.
However, many landowners are very hesitant to grant right-of-way for perpetual public access across their private lands for a variety of reasons including: impacts from off-highway vehicle use and undocumented aliens, litter and vandalism, privacy issues, perceived potential liability (Arizona Revised Statute 33-1551 limits a private landowner’s liability in regards to recreational and educational access), fair market value of the easement, and in many cases, a desire for exclusive use and control of the adjacent NFS lands.
• How does the road system connect to public roads and provide primary access to communities?
The Tumacacori Mountains EMA is generally bounded on the west by State Highway 286 (Rural Minor Collector), the east by Interstate 19, on the north by the Arivaca Road (a Pima County Road that connects I-19 to State Highway 286), and on the south by International
31 Boundary with Mexico. State Highway 289 (Rural Minor Collector) provides access from Interstate 19 (I-19) across private and NFS lands into the EMA to Peña Blanca Lake (±10 miles) and the Ruby Road. The Ruby Road (Road 39- shared ownership with Pima and Santa Cruz County) is the major arterial and primary access road into and through the EMA that connects State Highway 289 to the Arivaca Rd. These roads connect to collector and other local roads within the Forest where traffic is dispersed for a variety of uses and can also make for pleasurable drives and loop drives.
Several other Pima and Santa Cruz County roads along with the system of roads under Forest Service jurisdiction provide the surrounding rural and larger nearby metropolitan communities, as well as a variety of public land users and industries, primary access to and through the EMA from the surrounding Interstates and State Highways. These roads also provide the sole or primary access to the numerous parcels of non-federal (private) land scattered within and adjoining the EMA.
It is also important to understand, that in addition to the numerous forest roads where a legal right (written or unwritten title) of public access may not exist across private land, there are also county roads essential to getting public land users from the surrounding Interstates and State Highways to the EMA and the forest’s transportation system (roads and trails) where a legal right of public access may not exist either. State-wide, an increasing numbers of county-maintained roads (where written title may or may not exist) have either been blocked or have had private landowners threaten to block, gate and lock them.
A single landowner, with a minimal amount of private land (5 acres or less), can challenge a road’s ownership status, close the road to public use, and block or control access to thousands of acres of public and State Trust lands. These roads were constructed by and/or maintained for decades by their respective counties at the public’s expense and long considered public roads by the public. Many have provided public access through and to private, State Trust, and Federal lands as far back as the late 1800s.
To further complicate the public access situation, it is also very difficult for public road agencies (local, county, and state) to assert prescriptive rights for a county-maintained road. Since territorial days, the Arizona Courts have consistently held that no public highway or road can be created by prescription and all public highways must be established in strict compliance with the provision of Arizona statute.
Because of limited budgets and staffing, Counties are becoming very reluctant to enter the legal arena to assert any ownership interest to closed roads or exercise their power of eminent domain to restore traditional access routes (even though they either constructed and/or maintained them for decades at the public expense). Especially if the public use is access to public lands and they can divest themselves of maintenance responsibilities.
Local politicians are also reluctant to engage public access issues because they perceive a majority of the public land users affected by blocked access are not their local constituents. Depending on the composition of a county’s Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the
32 constituents involved (on either side of the issue), a BOS may or may not be supportive in various locations through out their county.
Recent trends indicate the ownership of many more traditional access routes (both county and Forest Service) will be challenged, then blocked, gated, and locked from both administrative and public use.
• How does the road system connect large blocks of land in other ownership to public roads (ad hoc communities, subdivisions, inholdings, etc.)?
The Tumacacori Mountains EMA is located in both Pima and Santa Cruz Counties near the rapidly developing communities (incorporated and unincorporated) of Arivaca, Green Valley, Nogales, Rio Rico, Tubac, and Tucson, Arizona. As stated above, Ruby Road (Road 39-shared ownership with Pima and Santa Cruz County) is the major arterial and primary access road to and through the EMA that connects State Highway 289 to the Arivaca Rd (Pima County Rd 22).
The ±118,000-acre Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (federal land managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) adjoins the EMA on its western and northwestern side. The Tubac Presidio State Historic Park and the Tumacacori National Historical Park (±360 acres) are adjacent to the EMA on the eastern side. There are also large blocks of State Trust land (with smaller blocks of private lands intermingled) adjacent to northern side of the EMA.
A vast majority of the land adjoining the EMA on the eastern side is private land. In addition, there are numerous scattered parcels of private land of various shapes and sizes within the proclaimed boundaries of the Tumacacori Mountains EMA, resulting in a complex and intermingled landownership pattern.
Depending on the location of the private land, either a National Forest System Road (NFSR) or a non-system road (county, state, or private under special-use authorization) may be used (or constructed) for access to the private parcel. Unless otherwise required by an order, the use of an existing NFSR does not require a special-use authorization; however, any such use is subject to compliance with all Federal and State laws governing the road used (36 CFR 251.50(d)).
Where ingress and egress to private land is via an existing NFSR, which is open and available for general public use, the private landowner is permitted to use the road without a written authorization. The use of a NFSR for ingress and egress to private lands does not include the right to relocate, construct, reconstruct, or maintain the existing roadway, clear any vegetation, or perform any other ground disturbing activities.
In those cases where a landowner's ingress or egress to private land via NFSR requires surface disturbance or maintenance at a higher road maintenance level, or the use or construction of a road across NFS land not on the NFSR system or open to general pubic use, the landowner must apply for and receive a special-use or road-use authorization. The special-use or road-use authorization documents the occupancy and use authorized on NFS
33 lands or facilities and identifies the landowner's rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations (36 CFR 251.110(d)).
When access is tributary to or dependent on a NFSR, and traffic over these roads arising from the use of landowner's lands exceeds their safe capacity or will cause damage to the roadway, the landowner(s) may be required to obtain a special-use or road-use authorization to perform such reconstruction as necessary to bring the road to a safe and adequate standard to accommodate such traffic in addition to the Government's traffic.
When a private parcel has been split or subdivided into several smaller parcels, it is Forest policy to require the landowners to create an association or some type of consolidated organization to represent all of the landowner interests. This eliminates the need for the Forest to enter into road use or special-use authorization with each individual landowner or create multiple private access roads. Responsibilities for improvements and maintenance are determined through a commensurate share process between the parties.
When larger developments or subdivisions occur and inholding traffic is expected to exceed that generated by the users of the National Forest, agency policy is to pursue turning jurisdiction of the Forest road over to a public road authority such as the county or state. These roads would also be open and available to the traveling public on a regular and consistent basis.
It is Forest Service policy to provide access across NFS land to private land that is adequate to secure the owners thereof reasonable use and enjoyment of their land without unnecessarily reducing the management options of the Forest Service or damaging NFS lands or resources. Access needs to private inholdings are addressed on an individual basis as requests are received (application for special or road use authorization).
The application for special or road use authorization is then analyzed through the NEPA process to determine possible environmental effects and the level of reasonable access required. If access is being provided by a public road agency such as the county or state, then the Forest Service is not obligated to provide any additional access over NFS lands.
• How does the road system affect managing roads with shared ownership or with limited jurisdiction (Federal Revised Statute 2477, cost-share, prescriptive rights, FLPMA easements, FRTA easements, DOT easements)?
The amount of private land within or bordering the EMA combined with the rapid population growth in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties and the resulting complex and intermingled landownership pattern indicate there is a need to increase road management cooperation and refine road jurisdictions and maintenance responsibilities. Many roads on the EMA call for a higher level of maintenance and construction for the private lands they access.
Use and management of the National Forest often requires only access by high clearance vehicles (Maintenance Level 2), while access to private lands may necessitate a need for passenger car access (Maintenance Level 3 or higher). As stated previously several roads
34 traversing the EMA fall under the jurisdiction of State, County, or private individuals or organizations and are not NFSRs. When desirable, cooperative agreements should be established to share road improvement and maintenance responsibilities where all partners can benefit.
This analysis also recognizes that individuals or entities may have established valid outstanding rights (both known and unknown to the Forest Service at this time) to occupy and use National Forest lands and roads. These outstanding access rights were perfected on acquired land prior to Forest Service acquisition (a reservation in deeds, easements, or agreements made at the time of acquisition of the land) or granted by the United States prior to the establishment of the National Forest. (Revised Statute 2477 (commonly known as "RS 2477") was enacted by the United States Congress in 1866 to encourage the settlement of the Western United States by the development of a system of highways. It is a short law, and its entire text is one sentence: "the right-of-way for the construction of highways across public lands not otherwise reserved for public purposes is hereby granted." It granted to counties and states a right-of-way across federal land when a highway was built. The mechanism for recording rights-of-way, and the definition of "highway", remains murky to this day.) The Forest works closely with the holder of these outstanding rights to preserve their access rights while protecting the natural resources and ensuring the underlying or and adjoining NFS lands do not suffer unnecessary degradation as a result of any actions by the holder.
Although the holder may exercise those rights without obtaining a special use authorization, unless the document creating the rights provides for an additional authorization, such rights are limited to the rights existing at the time of acquisition, and the holder cannot enlarge or expand them without a special-use authorization. Valid outstanding rights are also subject to some federal regulation. Activities within a valid outstanding right-of-way, which may potentially affect the servient estate (NFS lands), are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068).
• How does the road system affect managing special-use permit sites (concessionaires, communications sites, utility corridors, and so on)?
Many of the roads in this analysis are also needed to access special-use authorizations permitting various types of activities within the EMA. In addition to natural gas and power lines, Mobile Radio Service, and an apiary, numerous commercial outfitters under permit who use the road system for various permitted activities and could be affected if and when roads are closed or decommissioned. Closure and decommissioning of any authorized and unauthorized roads will remain an important issue to special-use permit holders as well as private landowners and public land users.
In addition, as stated above, there are numerous county and forest roads to and through the EMA where a legal right (written or unwritten title) of public access may not exist across private land and may be closed or controlled by a private landowner at any time and without notice affecting the permit holder’s ability to access the permit site.
• What are people’s perceived needs and values for access?
35
As stated previously, there are many roads through private lands both within and adjoining the EMA that are currently open and relied on by the public where a legal right of public access (written or unwritten title) may or may not exist and may be closed at any time and without notice. Although it is a private landowner’s right and prerogative to block and control access across their private land were no legal right of public access exists, the public believes the Forest Service as well as other agencies (County, State, and Federal) also has a responsibility to provide reasonable public access to NFS and other public lands to best serve the interests of all public land users, not just a privileged few.
Public land users have become extremely frustrated with government agencies (County, State, and Federal) failure to restore public access where traditional access points or routes to public (BLM and NFS) lands have been blocked, gated, and locked by a private landowner. Many public land user and landowner conflicts as well as creation of wildcat (user-created) roads are due to attempts by public land users to access NFS lands via private, state trust, and other public (NFS) lands after a traditional access route has been blocked from public use by adjoining or adjacent private landowners.
There is nothing more frustrating to public land users than the inability to access NFS lands and other public lands via a traditional access route that has been blocked by an adjoining landowner, especially where they perceive the landowner has a private exclusive use of the public land. This is particularly true when the blocked road had been maintained for decades and/or built by a county at the public’s expense and they believe the landowner is benefiting economically by blocking and controlling access to NFS land.
As public land users multiply and squeeze through the remaining access points and routes, there is a “domino effect” of more locked gates and blocked access further restricting public access and limiting dispersed recreational opportunities. The public land essentially becomes National Forest "back yards" for the adjoining landowners and their guests, providing little benefit to the general public, while escalating the public’s perception of private exclusive use of those lands.
Recommendations are broken into the following three categories:
Existing Roads that provide access to special-use permit sites; connect blocks of non- federal (private, county, and state trust) lands to public roads; have shared ownership or with limited Forest Service jurisdiction; or connect to public roads and provide primary access to communities and the public:
Road Number Comment/Recommendation Road 39 Road 39 (Ruby Rd) connects non-federal (private and state trust) lands to State (Ruby Rd) Highway 289 to the Arivaca Rd (Pima County Rd 22); the Forest Service shares ownership and maintenance with Pima and Santa Cruz County. Road 39 is a major arterial and a primary access road to and through the EMA. Road 39 is a Pima County road from Arivaca Rd (Pima County Rd 22) to the Santa Cruz County line, a Santa Cruz County from the Pima County line to the proclaimed forest boundary, and a NFSR from the proclaimed forest boundary to State Highway 289.
36 Road Number Comment/Recommendation Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 115 Road 115 (Bear Valley Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-Federal (private) land to (Bear Valley Rd) Road 39 (Ruby Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 216 Road 216 (Tres Bellotas/Fraguita Rd) connects non-Federal (private) land to Road (Tres Bellotas/ 39 (Ruby Rd). The Forest Service shares ownership and maintenance with Pima Fraguita Rd) County. Road 39 is a Pima County road entitled Fraguita Rd from Arivaca Rd (Pima County Rd 22) to the proclaimed forest boundary and a NFSR entitled Tres Bellotas Rd from the proclaimed forest boundary to the non-federal (private) land on the international boundary with Mexico. Road 216 is a collector and primary access road into the EMA to the International Boundary with Mexico.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Note: A portion of the Road 216 (Tres Bellotas Rd) through non-Federal (private) land within the EMS was recently relocated and constructed to reduce impacts from public land users and border protection interdiction operations at the Jarillas Ranch Headquarters and improves ranch management options and safety. The relocated portion of NFSR 216 is now located on higher ground and less acceptable to wash-outs than the old alignment located along the wash reducing long-term maintenance costs.
Recommendation: adding the new alignment to NFSR 216 and removing the old alignment from NFSR 216.
Road 217 Road 217 (California Gulch Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-Federal (private) (California Gulch Rd) land near the international border with Mexico to Road 39 (Ruby Rd). Road 217 is loop road, a collector road, and primary access road into and through the Warsaw Canyon/California Gulch area.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 217-7.16R-1 Road 217-7.16R-1 connects non-Federal (private) land to Road 217 (California Gulch Rd).
Recommendation: add to forest road system (NFSR) as open authorized (OA) management level (ML) 2.
Road 217-7.16R-2 Connects non-Federal land to Road 217-7.16R-1 and Road 217 (California Gulch Rd).
Recommendation: add to the forest road system (NFSR) as open authorized (OA) management level (ML) 2.
Road 218 Road 218 (Meadow Hills Rd) is a NFSR that connects Road 4210 (Potrero Rd) to (Meadow Hills Rd) Road 4206 (Alamo Canyon Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
37 Road Number Comment/Recommendation Road 601 Road 601 (Coches/Antelope Rd) connects the Sasabe Rd (Pima County Road) (Coches/Antelope and the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to the Road 216 (Tres Bellotas Rd). Rd) Road 601 is a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service road entitled the Antelope Rd from the Sasabe Rd to the proclaimed forest boundary and a NFSR entitled the Coches Rd from the proclaimed forest boundary to the Road 216. Road 601 is a collector and primary access road into the EMA into the Fresnal Wash Area.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 616 Road 616 (Beatosa Rd) is a NFSR that connects the El Paso Natural Gas Line to (Beatosa Rd) Old Ruby Rd (Santa Cruz County Road).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 623 Road 623 (Pesquiera Rd) is a NFSR that connects the El Paso Natural Gas Line to (Pesquiera Rd) Road 616 (Beatosa Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 684 Road 684 (Sardina Canyon Rd) is a NFSR that is a major arterial and a primary (Sardina Canyon Rd) NFS access road into the EMA that provides permanent legal public and primary access from I-19 to the Sardina and Moyza Canyon areas. Road 684 is an Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) Road from I-19 to the proclaimed forest boundary maintained by both the AGFD and Forest Service. Road 684 is a NFSR within the proclaimed forest boundary maintained by the Forest Service.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4108 Road 4108 (Placerito Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-federal (private) land to (Placerito Rd) Road 216 (Tres Bellotas Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized unless 4108-0.32L-1 is added to the system (ML2).
Recommendation: If 4108-0.32L-1 is added to the system, then change the portion of Road 4108 to open authorized restricted use (OAR) for the portion of roadway from 4108-0.32L-1 to the non-federal (private) land and issuing a special-use authorization for that portion of roadway.
Road 4119 Road 4119 (San Lewis Wash Rd) connects Road 216 (Tres Bellotas Rd) to the (San Lewis Wash Rd) Arivaca-Sasabe Road (Pima County Road) across NFS, BLM, State Trust, and the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized
Road 4122 Road 4122 (Edwards Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-Federal (private) land to (Edwards Rd) Road 216 (Tres Bellotas Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4130 Road 4130 (Arivaca Lake Rd) connects non-Federal (state) land (Arivaca Lake is (Arivaca Lake Rd) state land managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department) to Road 39 (Ruby Rd).
38 Road Number Comment/Recommendation Road 4130 is an Arizona Game and Fish Department Road.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4131 Road 4131 (Chiminea Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-Federal (private) land to (Chiminea Rd) Road 39 (Ruby Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4151 Road 4151 (Pipeline Rd) is a NFSR that connects the El Paso Natural Gas Line to (Pipeline Rd) Road 4151-2.87L-1and Road 4149 (Wolf Canyon Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4151-2.87L-1 Road 4151-2.87L-1 connects Road 4151 (Pipeline Rd) to Road 4151-2.87L-3 (refer to Road 4151-2.87L-3 below).
Recommendation: add the portion of Road 4151-2.87L-1 from 4151 to Road 4151-2.87L-3 to the National Forest Road System. This portion of Road 4151- 2.87L-1 combined with Road 4151-2.87L-3 provides permanent legal access to the Peck Canyon Area.
Recommendation: decommissioning the portion of Road 4151-2.87L-1 from Road 4151-2.87L-3 to the proclaimed forest boundary.
Road 4151-2.87L-3 Road 4151-2.87L-3 connects Road 4151 (Pipeline Rd) and 4151-2.87L-1 to Via Iguana and Monsoon Ct (both are Santa Cruz County Roads) in the Rio Rico Subdivision.
Recommendation: add the entire length of Road 4151-2.87L-3 from Road 4151-2.87L-1 to Monsoon Ct to the National Forest Road System.
Note: This portion of Road 4151-2.87L-3 combined with Road 4151-2.87L-1 provides permanent legal access to the Peck Canyon Area.
Road 4157 Road 4157 (Yellow Jacket Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-Federal (private) land (Yellow Jacket Rd) to Road 39 (Ruby Rd and Road 4164 (Cañoncito Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4162 Road 4162 (Old Glory Mine Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-federal (private) land (Old Glory Mine Rd) to Road 217 (California Gulch Rd). Road 4162 creates a loop Old Glory Canyon between Road 217.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4163 Road 4163 (Holden Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-Federal (private) land to (Holden Rd) Road 217 (California Gulch Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
39 Road Number Comment/Recommendation Road 4170 Road 4170 (Grubstake Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-federal (private) land to (Grubstake Rd) Road 217 (California Gulch Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4173 Road 4173 (Hidden Tank Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-Federal (private) land (Hidden Tank Rd) to Road 217 (California Gulch Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4174 Road 4174 (Three Forks Rd) is a NFSR that connects non-Federal (private) land (Three Forks Rd) to Road 217 (California Gulch Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4191 Road 4191 (Wise Mesa Rd) connects the El Paso Natural Gas Line to a public (Wise Mesa Rd) road (Camino Ramanote Rd) in the Rio Rico Subdivision. The portion within the proclaimed forest boundary is a NFSR. The portion outside the National Forest is a Santa Cruz County Road entitled Camino Ramanote Rd.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4192 Road 4192 (Basin Tank Rd) is a NFSR that connects the El Paso Natural Gas Line (Basin Tank Rd) to a public road (Camino Aqua Fria).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4199 Road 4199 (Caralampi Rd) is a NFSR that connects the El Paso Natural Gas Line (Caralampi Rd) to a public road (Camino Caralampi Rd). The portion within the proclaimed forest boundary is a NFSR entitled Caralampi Rd. The portion outside the National Forest is a Santa Cruz County Road entitled Camino Ramanote.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4206 Road 4206 (Alamo Canyon Rd) is a NFSR that connects the El Paso Natural Gas (Alamo Canyon Rd) Line to the I-19 Frontage Road. Road 4206 is a primary access road into the Alamo Canyon Area and a NFSR from the I-19 Frontage Road to its termini.
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
Road 4210 Road 4210 (Potrero Rd) is a NFSR that connects the El Paso Natural Gas Line to (Potrero Rd) Road 218 (Meadow Hills Rd).
Recommendation: no change from open authorized.
40
Existing roads that provide private access from non-Federal lands to NFS lands that are not needed to provide the primary access to non-Federal lands or interest:
Road Number Comment/Recommendation
Road 217-11.82R-1 Road 217-11.82R-1 connects non-Federal land (Ruby Complex) to non-Federal land (patented Mining Claims) and Road 217 (California Gulch Rd). Access to the Ruby Complex is provided via Road 39 (Ruby Rd). Access to the patented Mining Claims is provided via Road 217 (California Gulch Rd).
Recommendation: decommission
Road 818 Public access through the non-Federal (private) land via 818 (Peck Canyon Rd) is (Peck Canyon Rd) blocked. Road 818 from the non-Federal to Road 4149 (Wolf Canyon Rd) is not needed for access to non-Federal (private) land or interests.
Recommendation: decommission
Road 4151-2.87L-2 Road 4151-2.87L-2 connects Road 4151-2.87L-1 to Doroteo Ct., a Santa Cruz County Road in the Rio Rico Subdivision. Public access to NFS lands via Road 4151-2.87L-2 through the non-Federal (private) land at the end of Doroteo Ct., is currently block and no longer needed once a portion of Road 4151-2.87L-1 and the entire length of Road 4151-2.87L-3 (legal access) are added to the National Forest Road System.
Recommendation: decommission
Road 4214 Public access through the non-Federal (private) land is blocked. Road 4214 from (Mariposa Loop Rd) the non-Federal land west to Road 4214-3.02L-1 is not needed for access to non- Federal land or interests. Road 4215 from the non-Federal to Road 4213 is not needed for access to non-Federal land or interests.
Recommendation: relocate and construct a road that connects Road 4214 (Mariposa Loop Rd) to Road 4215 (Ridge Rd) to bypass the non-Federal (private) land and decommission the portions Road 4214 (Mariposa Loop Rd) and Road 4215 (Ridge Rd) that connect to the non-federal (private) land.
Road 4215 Public access through the non-Federal land is blocked. Road 4215 connects Road (Ridge Rd) 4213 to 4214. Road 4214-3.02L-1 also connects Road 4213 to Road 4214. Road 4215 from the non-Federal to Road 4213 is not needed for access to non-Federal land or interests.
Recommendation: relocate and construct a road that connects Road 4214 (Mariposa Loop Rd) to Road 4215 (Ridge Rd) to bypass the non-Federal (private) land and decommission the portions Road 4214 (Mariposa Loop Rd) and Road 4215 (Ridge Rd) that connect to the non-federal (private) land.
41
Future Considerations:
The CNF’s current public access situation will continue to deteriorate, solutions will become quite expensive and complicated, while the use of NFS lands will increase. State and forest- wide, landowner will continue to challenge the ownership status of important roads long considered public roads (both forest and county), close them to public use, then block or control access to thousands of acres of public land, including roads into and through the Tumacacori EMA. Recent trends indicate many more traditional access routes (both county and Forest Service) will be blocked, gated, and locked.
The public access situation will be further complicated by the rapidly expanding developments on the eastern and northern side of the EMA. The continued loss of traditional forest access routes may require construction of new roads, relocation of portions of existing roads that have been blocked, or recommissioning of closed roads to meet both administrative and public access needs. New, relocated, and or reconstructed roads may also be needed for future activities not currently planned for. Therefore, access needs identified in the current or future Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LMRP) or in this analysis may not be fully met by the existing forest and EMA transportation system.
Soil, Water, Air, and Forestry
Guidelines for conducting a Roads Analysis suggest addressing 11 questions pertinent to soil and water resources:
• How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area? • How and where does the road system generate surface erosion? • How and where do road-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water quality? • How and where does the road system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, or herbicides to enter surface waters? • How and where is the road system ‘hydrologically connected’ to the stream system? • How do the connections affect water quality and quantity (such as delivery of sediments, elevated peak flows)? • What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? • What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road-derived pollutants? • How and where does the road system affect wetlands? • How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of floodplains; constraints on channel migration; and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment? • How does the road system affect riparian plant communities?
These questions are restated in the text below within the sections that provide the answers.
42
General Roads in the Tumacacori EMA include parts of Puertocito Wash Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 1505030402, Arivaca Creek (HUC 1505030401), Potrero Creek-Upper Santa Cruz (HUC 1505030103), Sopori Wash (HUC 1505030104), Josephine Creek-Upper Santa Cruz (HUC 1505030105), Rio El Sasabe Headwaters (HUC 1508020002), and Rio Altar Headwaters (HUC 1508020001) watersheds. Figure 4.1 shows the general location of these watersheds.
Figure 4.1 Watersheds of the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area
Roads affect soil, water, and air by accelerating erosion, diverting water, providing access for various polluting agents, and creating dust. The roads in these watersheds are having these affects, but have not been identified as causing significant negative effects on water quality at the sample points, or air quality at any monitoring location. However, local effects on soil, water (including riparian areas), and air may be important. Roads affect forestry resources
43 by providing access for management of fuels and forest products. Following is the background information about the area.
Large areas of this EMA are not roaded or are accessible only by maintenance level 2 roads. This is due in large part, to the steep nature of the central portion of the EMA. Only route 684 in the north and route 39 in the south cross the range from the Santa Cruz valley on the east. Unfortunately for water and riparian resources, both routes 684 and 39 are located in the channel or riparian area of important watercourses for part of their routes.
Soil
Table 4.1 displays the General Ecosystem Survey (GES) units found in each watershed as described below. Table 4.2 summarizes information about each GES unit. Figure 2 displays the general location of the GES units within the Tumacacori EMA.
Puertocito Wash Watershed is identified to contain GES Unit 490. Unit 490 is characterized as deep, very gravelly, and formed on conglomerate. Slopes are moderate (4% to 25%). In spite of its varied gentle to moderate slope, Unit 490 makes a poor location for roads because the soil erodes readily.
Arivaca Creek, Sopori Wash, Potrero Creek-Upper Santa Cruz River, and Rio Altar Headwaters Watersheds are identified to contain GES Units 475 and 490. Unit 475 is characterized as a shallow, very cobbly soil formed on granite. It is generally steep (greater than 60%) and consequently a poor location for roads. Unit 490 is deep, very gravelly, and formed on conglomerate. Slopes are moderate (4% to 25%). As mentioned above, Unit 490 is a poor location for roads because the soil erodes readily.
Josephine Canyon-Upper Santa Cruz River and Rio El Sasabe Headwaters Watersheds are identified to contain GES Units 475, 490, and 370. Units 475 and 490 are described above. Unit 370 is generally deep, gravelly soil formed on alluvium associated with large channels or valleys. The slopes are very gentle, less than 5%. Only a small portion of these watersheds have this soil type, located in Fresnal Canyon (Rio El Sasabe Headwaters WS), Peck Canyon, and Pena Blanca Canyon (both in Josephine Canyon-Upper Santa Cruz River WS). Unit 490 is poor locations for roads because the soil tends to erode readily.
Table 4.1. General Ecosystem Survey Units Found in Each Watershed
Fifth Code Watershed GES Units Arivaca Creek 475, 490 Josephine Canyon-Upper Santa Cruz River 370, 475, 490 Potrero Creek-Upper Santa Cruz River 370, 475, 490 Puertocito Wash 475, 490
44 Fifth Code Watershed GES Units Rio Altar Headwaters 475, 490 Rio El Sasabe Headwaters 370, 475, 490 Sopori Wash 475, 490
Figure 4.2. General Ecosystem Units of the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area
• How and where does the road system generate surface erosion?
The IDT recommends that the unauthorized roads listed in Table 4.2 which are in locations that are generally very steep and/or highly erodable and are not needed be decommissioned.
45
Table 4.2. Unauthorized Roads Located on Soils that are Generally Steep or Highly Erodable to be Decommissioned
Road to be Decommissioned Soil Situation 115-0.49R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 115-0.98R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-10.14L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-12.01L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-4.40L-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes
216-6.38R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-6.81R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-7.41L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-8.58R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 217-1.64R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 217-11.82R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 217-11.82R-2 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 217-4.93L-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 217-5.40R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 217-9.66R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 217-9.76R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 39-11.05L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 39-11.42R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 39-14.52L-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 39-17.05R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 39-2.72L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 39-7.61R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 39-7.83R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 39-7.93L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 39-9.38L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4115-8.87R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4115-9.79L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4116-1.39L-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4119-9.14L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4120-0.62R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes
46 Road to be Decommissioned Soil Situation 4125-0.39L-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4141-2.04R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4147-0.34R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4149-5.02R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4151-2.87L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4151-2.87L-2 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4167-1.39R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4168-3.21L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4172-0.48R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4173-0.30L-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4173-1.08R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4173-1.08R-3 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4185-0.40R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4186-0.61R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4191-3.42R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4192-1.26L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4195-0.28L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4195-0.52L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4198-2.90R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4199-2.61L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4200-1.12R-2 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4206-1.02L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4206-2.80L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-0.80L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-1.22L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-1.66L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-1.92L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-2.55L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-2.55L-2 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-2.55L-3 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-2.55L-4 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4877-1.45R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4888-2.39R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential
47 Road to be Decommissioned Soil Situation 601-10.38R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 601-7.17R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 601-8.41R-2 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 601-8.50R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 616-0.98L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 623-4.69L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 682-1.71R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 682-1.71R-2 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 682-1.71R-3 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 684-4.92L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 684-7.04L-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes
The IDT also recommends that the National Forest System Roads listed in Table 4.3 which are in locations that are generally steep or highly erodable and are not needed be decommissioned.
Table 4.3. National Forest System Roads Located on Soils that are Generally Steep or Highly Erodable to be Decommissioned
Road to be Decommissioned Soil Situation 4143 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4160 475 - Generally Steep Slopes
The IDT also recommended that the system roads listed in Table 4.4 in locations that are generally very steep and/or highly erodable should be designated Maintenance Level 1 and closed for at least one year because of potential resource damage.
Table 4.4. Roads Located on Soils that are Generally Steep or Highly Erodable to be Classified Maintenance Level 1
Road to be Changed to Maintenance Soil Situation Level 1
4135 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4148 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4149 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4160 475 - Generally Steep Slopes
48
The IDT also recommends that the unauthorized roads listed in Table 4.5 in locations that are highly erodable be classified and added to the system but restricted to permittees, Forest Service, or Border Patrol because it is needed for access to the EMA and the soil issues can be mitigated.
Table 4.5. Roads Recommended to be Added to the System, but with Restricted Access
Road to be Added to the System as Open but Soil Situation Restricted Access
115-0.98R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-13.44R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-13.44R-2 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 601-7.17R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4149-4198 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4159 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4168-1.90R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4173-1.08R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4173-1.08R-2 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4180 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4181 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4191-3.62R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4199-4210 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4200-0.47R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4200-1.12R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4203-0.69R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4206-1.08R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-1.66L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-1.92L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential
The IDT also recommends that unauthorized roads listed in Table 4.6 in locations that are highly erodable be classified and left open because they are needed for access to the EMA and the erosion issues can be mitigated.
49 Table 4.6. Roads Recommended to be Added to the System
Road to be Added to Soil Situation the System as OA 216-5.10R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 216-12.80L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 217-7.16R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 217-7.16R-2 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 222-0.23L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 223-4199 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 289-4.80R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 616-4.56R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4108-0.32L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential [4868-0.32L-1] 4145-1.42R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4145-1.42R-2 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4151-2.87L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4151-2.87L-3 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4168-4.90R-1 475 - Generally Steep Slopes 4204-0.53L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4206-2.80L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4206-2.80L-2 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4207-1.02L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4208-0.53R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4210-2.50R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4210-2.74R-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4210-2.74R-2 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-0.73L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential 4214-3.02L-1 490- Moderate to Severe Erosion Potential
*Note: road numbers in brackets are references to numbers used in previous reports.
The IDT also recommends that unauthorized roads 601-10.06L-1, 601-8.10R-1, and 601- 8.58L-1, located in GES unit 370 near Fresnal Canyon riparian area, be decommissioned because they are not needed.
50 Water
• What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? • What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road-derived pollutants?
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) assesses water quality for streams and natural channels throughout the State. Downstream water uses for the watersheds listed above include aquatic and wildlife warm water community species habitat, full body contact, partial body contact, fish consumption, and livestock watering, irrigation, and domestic drinking water supply. No changes in use or demand are projected. The 2008 report Arizona Department of Environmental Quality report (2006-2008 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona) indicates the Santa Cruz River from the Mexican Border north to the confluence with Sopori Wash to be impaired due to exceedances of the e.coli bacteria standards.
Nogales Wash is also reported to be impaired due to exceedances of the e.coli bacteria, chlorine, ammonia, and copper standards. Both Arivaca and Peña Blanca Lakes have also been found to have elevated levels of mercury in the fish tissue of certain species. There is no evidence that any roads in this EMA have caused conditions that affect chlorine, ammonia, copper, or mercury levels in water or fish.
Arivaca Cienega and Sycamore Canyon have been sampled and no exceedances were found. Neither of these waters has had enough sampling to be classified.
• How do the connections affect water quality and quantity (such as delivery of sediments, elevated peak flows)?
Roads could be associated with elevated bacteria if the source of bacteria can be traced to dispersed recreation. However, the source of bacteria pollution in the Santa Cruz River and Nogales has been documented to be deteriorated wastewater treatment infrastructure in Mexico and the under-designed Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Facility. No roads are recommended for decommissioning due to water quality issues.
• How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area? • How and where do road-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water quality? • How and where does the road system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, or herbicides to enter surface waters? • How and where is the road system ‘hydrologically connected’ to the stream system? • How and where does the road system affect wetlands? • How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of floodplains; constraints on channel migration; and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment? • How does the road system affect riparian plant communities?
51 Riparian areas are extremely important everywhere on the Coronado National Forest, and they occupy only about 1% of the Watersheds. Roads can alter riparian areas by physically occupying the area, diverting water, providing access to people and vehicles that in turn destroy riparian vegetation, and by generating erosion that degrades the site.
The IDT recommendation is that the unauthorized and system roads listed in Table 4.7 located in or near riparian areas or perennial watercourses should be decommissioned.
Table 4.7. Roads Located in Riparian Areas Recommended for Decommissioning
Road Recommended Riparian Area for Decommissioning 217-9.76R-1 California Gulch
223-0.47R-1 Pena Blanca
39-11.42R-1 California Gulch
4125-0.39L-1 Pena Blanca
216-6.38R-1 Peck Canyon
39-7.83R-1 California Gulch
4147-0.34R-1 Pena Blanca
4151-2.87L-1 Pena Blanca
601-10.06L-1 Fresnal
601-8.10R-1 Fresnal
601-8.58L-1 Fresnal
The IDT also recommends that unauthorized roads listed in Table 4.8 located in or near the riparian areas of California Gulch be classified and remain open because it the only routes that accesses some private lands. When the opportunities present themselves, the Forest Service should consider relocating roads out of riparian areas.
Table 4.8. Roads Recommended as Open Authorized
Roads Recommended as Riparian Area Open Authorized 217-7.16R-1 California Gulch 217-7.16R-2 California Gulch
52
The IDT also recommends that the system road listed in Table 4.9 located in or near the riparian area of Sycamore Canyon remain on the system and the unclassified road to Pena Blanca Lake Dam be classified and added to the system but both roads be restricted to permittees, Forest Service, or Border Patrol because it is needed for access to the EMA and the riparian issues can be mitigated.
Table 4.9. Roads Recommended to Have Restricted Access Only
Roads recommended with Riparian Area Restricted Access (OAR) 4181 Sycamore Canyon 4200-0.47R-1 Pena Blanca Lake Dam
Air None of the Tumacacori EMA watersheds are located in a Class I air quality area. Part of the Potrero Creek-Upper Santa Cruz River watershed is located in a non-attainment area for air quality. This non-attainment area would include Forest Roads 4208, 4210, and 4213. In general, dust from roads is an air pollutant and should be minimized where possible. No roads are proposed for closure for air quality purposes at this time.
Forestry The Tumacacori EMA watersheds have provided firewood-gathering areas for personal use fuelwood permit holders. Access to these areas by road is necessary. It is recommended that all roads leading to known forest product of fuels management areas be retained.
Reference 2008. 2006-2008 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona. http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/assess.html
Recreation
• Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for roaded/unroaded recreation opportunities? • Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning existing roads, or changing maintenance of existing roads causing significant changes in the quantity, quality or type of roaded/unroaded recreation opportunities? • What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbances caused by constructing, using and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, or type of roaded/unroaded recreation opportunities? • Who participates in roaded/unroaded recreation in the areas affected by road constructing, maintaining, or decommissioning?
53 • What are these participant's attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings and are alternative opportunities and locations available?
Recreation Uses and Opportunities
Recreational uses in this area include hiking, hunting, camping, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle use, fishing, target shooting, equestrian use, prospecting, rock collecting, bird watching and sight seeing. Developed camping is available at Pena Blanca Lake and Calabasas, off Ruby Road (NFSR 39). Dispersed recreational use is mostly by unorganized groups or individuals. Permitted uses include one recreation event permit (route 39), one outfitter/guide (all available roads), and one treasure trove permit (Peck Canyon Road). The Pajarita Wilderness lies in the central south portion of the EMA and there is adequate road access for visitors to that area.
Due to its proximity to Tucson, and with the population of the City of Tucson, Pima County, Santa Cruz County and Nogales continuing to grow, it is expected demands for all types of outdoor recreation will continue to increase. As of 2007 the population of Santa Cruz County was estimated at nearly 47,000 (Arizona Dept. of Commerce) with the most populated areas being Nogales and nearby communities. The Tumacacori EMA also receives recreation pressure from Nogales, Sonora, just across the international border. Unofficial estimates place the population of this city at over half a million people. Easter is an especially popular holiday for camping and picnicking.
The 2007 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey for the Coronado National Forest does not represent specific areas of the forest as the results are combined from survey points throughout the forest. It does, however give a general idea of the recreation interests of forest visitors as a whole. The following are percentages of survey respondents who reported participating in particular recreation activities: Complete survey results are available on-line at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum (National Visitor Use Monitoring Program).
Table 4.9 Activity participation on the Coronado National Forest (National Visitor Use Monitoring FY2007 data)
Activity % of visitors % who said it Average hours who participated was their spent in primary in this activitya primary activityb activityc Camping in developed sites 6.4 3.5 29.9 Primitive camping 3.1 0.7 22.7 Backpacking 0.9 0.1 73.9 Resort Use 0.5 0.0 30.0 Picnicking 12.8 3.3 3.4 Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc 65.9 4.5 2.8 Viewing natural features (scenery) 68.2 11.2 2.5 Visiting historic/prehistoric sites 8.5 0.6 2.4 Visiting a nature center 17.2 0.8 1.7
54 Activity % of visitors % who said it Average hours who participated was their spent in primary in this activitya primary activityb activityc Nature Study 15.7 0.0 Relaxing 45.9 5.3 7.7 Fishing 3.8 2.5 6.6 Hunting 3.2 3.1 12.4 OHV use 4.5 1.1 3.7 Driving for pleasure 23.7 5.9 2.8 Snowmobile travel 0.0 0.0 Motorized water travel 0.0 0.0 Other motorized activities 0.5 0.3 1.1 Hiking or walking 75.6 52.2 2.7 Horseback riding 0.1 0.0 2.5 Bicycling 1.9 1.1 4.6 Non-motorized water travel 0.5 0.0 Downhill skiing or snowboarding 0.0 0.0 X-C skiing, snow shoeing 0.0 0.0 Other non-motor activity (swim, etc.) 0.7 0.1 8.3 Gathering forest products mushrooms, 2.7 0.2 3.0 berries, firewood Motorized trail Activity 3.2 1.3 2.1 No Activity Reported 5.1 5.0
Alternate locations for outdoor recreation activities include the Santa Rita EMA to the northeast, which is closer to Tucson and receives high recreation use in places. The east side of the Santa Rita EMA is particularly popular for OHV use. The Huachuca EMA lies east of Nogales and provides similar recreation opportunities. The southwest corner of this EMA is popular for OHV use but the soils there are not resilient to that type of activity.
This EMA receives a high level of hunting use and lies completely within Game Management Unit 36B. (2009-10 Arizona Hunting and Trapping Regulations, Arizona Game and Fish Department, AGFD). Permit availability for the 2009-2010 general deer hunt, is as follows: any antlered deer – 10/30/09 to 10/29/09, 225 permits, 11/13/09 to 11/19/09, 225 permits; antlered whitetail deer – 10/23/09 to 10/29/09 – 825 permits, 11/06/09 to 11/12/09 – 825 permits, 11/27/09 to 12/03/09 – 775 permits, 12/11/09 to 12/31/09 – 40 permits (2,915 total permits for the general hunt). There are many other hunts including muzzleloader and archery deer, javelina, quail, dove and juniors’ only hunts. The tremendous influx of hunters in the fall creates a sudden increase in demand for motorized access to remote areas, and for dispersed camping locations that are accessed by NFS roads. If areas accessible by roads were fewer and hunters did not have the ability to adequately disperse, hunting pressure would be disproportionately distributed through the EMA. There are some unauthorized roads that have been submitted by the AGFD as important for hunting and dispersed camping access and they support the retention of most existing forest system roads.
55 Off-Highway Vehicle Management
The increasing popularity of off-highway vehicles (OHVs), particularly all terrain vehicles (ATVs), means places to ride and drive are more and more in demand. The Tumacacori EMA has not received as much impact from this type of use as compared to other areas of the Forest, such as the east side of the Santa Rita EMA, Redington Pass in the Santa Catalina EMA or Providencia Canyon in the Huachuca EMA. As the more popular parts of the Coronado NF continue to receive more recreation use and become more crowded, it is likely OHV use will spread to the Tumacacori area which is readily accessible from Tucson and Nogales and the growing communities in between. Locally, due to the growth of Tubac and Rio Rico, the Sopori Ranch development, and available State land surrounding the Tumacacori EMA, pressure for access to meet community recreation needs is increasing and development of illegal access points are becoming more prevalent.
The rough terrain of the Tumacacori EMA makes it unsuitable for the development and maintenance of high density road networks that would support high OHV use. The existing primitive routes lead to interesting destinations and provide challenging 4 X 4 experiences. Ruby Road, which bisects the south portion of the EMA, provides a scenic backcountry touring opportunity for people driving 2-wheel drives and passenger cars. The unroaded parts at the center of the EMA should be preserved for non-motorized uses as much as possible.
Roads classified as unauthorized currently provide more areas for motorists to ride or drive but many of these are dead-end routes and do not substantially enhance the motorized recreation experience. There have been many unauthorized roads developed through illegal use, especially near the border. These are difficult to close because they are regularly used by Border Patrol and many have been identified as high priority for Border Patrol use. Non- system roads that are classified as “unauthorized” in the transportation analysis may also have been formed through legal, permitted uses such as range improvement projects or fuel wood cutting, and in some cases the roads then became useful roads for forest access. Some “unauthorized” roads are historic roads that were never added to the road system. These non- system roads have been used as though they were part of the road system, some for many years. Many non-system roads in this EMA have been identified as highly desirable for continued recreation and hunter access.
The noise and dust from OHVs and other vehicles can disturb visitors such as hikers, hunters, bird watchers and campers. Currently, most noise impacts are experienced near Ruby Road and are as likely to be caused by border related activity as by recreation on most days. During some weekends and holidays, high-speed use of ATVs and frequency of traffic in general may detract from the experiences of people who seek quiet places to enjoy nature and escape the noise and bustle of the city. These noise impacts are most prevalent in association with Maintenance Level (ML) 3 roads, but may be experienced on ML 2 roads during high-use periods such as hunting season and certain holidays.
The improvement of roads is not always welcomed by OHV users who often prefer to have opportunities to drive on challenging jeep trails as opposed to better maintained 2-wheel drive roads. The upgrading and maintenance of currently primitive roads to a higher standard by CBP
56 will increase accessibility for more types of vehicles and could increase recreation activities in certain areas. For example, changing a road from a maintenance level 2 to maintenance level 3 could make it more accessible to vehicles pulling trailers and ATVs, thus introducing more of that type of activity to the area. It would also make the area more accessible to all types of vehicles and increase non-motorized as well as motorized uses. The more types of activities and the more visitors there are, the more likely there are to be conflicts. Drawing more recreation to the area by improving roads near the international border increases the likelihood of conflicts between visitors and law enforcement operations and has the potential to draw the public into areas where illegal border related activity is taking place
The Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness proposal, sponsored by Rep. Raul Grijalva and the Friends of the Tumacacori Highlands, could affect 84,400 acres on the Nogales Ranger District. The proposal abuts the Pajarita Wilderness and extends north through much of the Tumacacori EMA Roads Analysis area. The proposal affects many roads (FS roads 4141, 4145, 4132, 4128, 4133, 4143, 4186, 682, 115, 4189, 4191, 4198, 4149, and 4857) and allows for corridors so much of the road system can remain open as "cherry stems" or in corridors within the wilderness. If this area were to be designated wilderness with these cherry-stemmed roads the presence of vehicles on the roads could periodically detract from wilderness character and affect opportunities for solitude. Improvement of these roads or construction of new roads might affect the eligibility of this area for wilderness consideration and would certainly detract from wilderness character due to visual and noise impacts.
Dispersed Motorized Camping
The Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (pp. 27, 28) provides for motorized dispersed camping as follows: “Vehicles may pull off roads or trails up to 300 feet for parking or camping.” Along many roads, parking and camping spots are limited by terrain, vegetation and rockiness. Frequently used motorized dispersed campsites, where evidence of camping such as fire rings can be seen, are usually readily identifiable. Some dispersed campsites are occupied only during hunting season and may not be obvious at other times of the year. The demand for opportunities for motorized dispersed camping continues to grow. The forest road system is used to access these dispersed campsites. If the 300 foot dispersed camping corridor were to be eliminated on some roads the only way access with vehicles could be allowed to campsites is by the designation of spur roads.
Recommendations
While not officially Forest System roads, some non-system roads classified as unauthorized are currently being used by both the Forest Service and other agencies for administrative purposes and by the public. AGFD and Nogales Ranger District personnel have recommended that some of these be evaluated for addition to the forest road system based on their value for purposes such as hunter and general recreation access, contingent upon appropriate environmental and social analysis. Those recommended for addition to the forest roads system as open-authorized roads (open to the public) are listed in Table 4-10 below.
57 It is recommended that NFS roads 4141, 4145, 4132, 4128, 4133, 4143, 4186, 682, 115, 4189, 4191, 4198, 4149, and 4857 not be improved beyond what is necessary to prevent resource damage or address safety issues. Route 4160 has some recreational use, primarily for OHV activity and during hunting season. It also provides access to several old mining operations. This access is useful for monitoring. In addition, there are numerous hobby claims in the area. Just recently there was a fairly extensive exploration project in the area. It is also useful as a fire control line. It has, in the past, been used quite a bit by the US Border Patrol. Therefore there is no recommendation to change the status of 4160.
All unauthorized roads not identified in this report for designation as NFS roads are recommended to be off-limits to the public and should be blocked and rehabilitated unless they are identified elsewhere in the TAP as necessary for administrative or permitted use. New unauthorized roads should be closed as soon as possible after they are discovered. Identification of motorized routes to dispersed campsites within the 300 foot motorized dispersed camping corridor is not recommended due to the high incidence of illegal border activity in this EMA and the possibility of unintended public encounters with this activity if visitors are limited to camping only at identified locations. It is recommended the 300 foot corridor remain unchanged.
No new roads are recommended for recreation. No OHV trails are recommended. The Forest Plan should be amended to prohibit motorized use on trails unless they are designated motorized.
Roads leading to the Pajarita Wilderness boundary should be blocked before the boundary and signing should clearly indicate that motorized travel is prohibited beyond that point.
Table 4.10 Motorized transportation system recommendations per Recreation program
Road Number Recommended Comments Classification - Miles *OA ** ML1 ***D 216-12.80L-1 3.10 Provides only alternate route around private land. Re-route of 4119 for general recreation access. 217-7.16R-1 0.68 Existing bypass around riparian area for recreation, mining access. 217-7.16R-1 0.26 Existing bypass around riparian area for recreation, mining access. 222-0.23-1 0.19 High value for dispersed motorized camping and general recreation access. 289-4.80R-1 0.27 High value for dispersed motorized camping and general recreation access. 601-10.06-L1 0.13 High value for hunting and general recreation access. 616-4.56R-1 1.33 High value for dispersed motorized camping and general recreation access.
58 Road Number Recommended Comments Classification - Miles *OA ** ML1 ***D Recommended by AGFD. 684-7.04L-1 0.41 High value for 4 X 4 recreation, hunter access. Recommended by AGFD. 4128-1.55R1 0.65 0.62 Keep 0.65 mi as part of 4128. Stop at IRA boundary. Decommission 0.62 miles in IRA. 4135 1.56 Access blocked on private land. Not currently available for public road. Keep on system but change to ML 1. 4145-1.42R-1 0.84 High value for hunting, recreation access.
4145-1.42R-2 0.09 High value for system for hunting, recreation access 4151-2.87L-1 0.50 Add west portion to system as part of new Peck Canyon access. 4151-2.87L-3 0.56 Part of new Peck Canyon access 4155 0.25 Decommission. Not needed for recreation access because alternate routes are available. 4199-4210 2.61 Existing pipeline road. High value for recreation, hunter access. 4203-0.69R-1 0.26 High value for recreation, hunter access. Connects two canyons. Recommended by AGFD 4204-0.53L-1 1.03 Connects 4206 and 623. High value for system for recreation access. 4206-2.80-L 4206-2.80-L-1 0.88 Connects 4206 to 4210. High value for recreation access. 4206-2.80-L-2 0.73 Connects 4206 to 4210. High value for recreation access. 4207-1.02L-1 0.57 High value for recreation access. 4208-0.53R-1 0.59 Part of 4208 4210-2.47R-2 0.50 High value for hunter, recreation access. 4214-3.02L-1 0.67 High value for recreation access. Connects 4214 to 4213. 4868-0.32L-1 0.98 High value for recreation access. Recommended by AGFD.
* OA - Open Authorized, open to the public. ** ML 1 – Maintenance Level 1, Closed ***D - Decommission.
59
Range Management
• How does the road system affect access to range allotments?
There are currently seventeen grazing allotments within the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area (EMA). All seventeen of these are currently active. The Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area contains approximately 204,702 acres. Of these 204,702 acres approximately 161,094.70 acres are capable grazing acres which are 79% of the Tumacacori EMA.
The Tumacacori EMA supports a total of 63,259 AUM’s. The economic value of grazing activities on the Tumacacori EMA is approximately $651,567 which indirectly supports an estimated 75 in the county in addition to the jobs directly supported by the associated ranches.
There are approximately 368 water systems which consist of pipelines, storage tanks, dirt tanks, cement dams, windmills and solar pumps within the Tumacacori EMA. There are a total of 490 miles of fence line and 43 corrals within the Tumacacori EMA. All of these structural range improvements require routine maintenance and at times reconstruction. So access to these structural range improvements is important.
The following were identified as Range Management issues:
1. Maintain Access for Range & Wildlife Management: The primary need is for access to existing and planned range improvements for the purpose of construction and maintenance and for managing livestock distribution. In general the road network within the EMA is adequate for the purposes of range and wildlife management. Some of the roads need to be better maintained in order to administer livestock grazing activities and so structural range improvements can be maintained without incurring damage to vehicles or risking life and property.
2. Watershed Condition: Most of the roads in the EMA are Maintenance Level 1 & 2 roads. At times it is necessary to maintain or improve roads, outside of the normal road maintenance schedule, that access structural range improvement. Many of the Level 1 roads in this EMA receive limited maintenance and show signs of soil loss. There are a number of roads that follow drainage bottoms for part if not most of their length (i.e. Peck Canyon and Fresnal Wash). In these cases the drivability of the road can be limited following storm events. The presence of roads in these situations prevents the development and maintenance of riparian vegetation and results in higher sediments loads downstream.
A number of roads which are important for range administration and management are proposed to be removed from the travel management system and travel management maps. If the following roads are removed from the travel management system then it
60 is proposed to permit the use of these roads for access to range improvements by making them a part of the Term Grazing Permit for the individual allotments. The following list specifies which roads are necessary for allotment management activities:
4138 Connects system road 4138 to Range Improvement.
4168-1.90R-1 Connects system road 4168 to Range Improvement.
4168-4.90R-1 Connects system road 4168 to Range Improvement.
4180 Connects system road 4180 to Range Improvement.
4181 Connects system road 4181 to Range Improvement.
4191-3.62R-1 Connects system road 4191 to Range Improvement.
4206-1.08R-1 Connects system road 4206 to Range Improvement.
4210-2.74R-1 Connects system road 4210 to Range Improvements.
4210-2.74R-2 Connects system road 4210 to Range Improvements.
4214-0.73L-1 Connects system road 4214 to Range Improvements
Biology
Guidelines for conducting a Roads Analysis suggest considering these questions pertinent to biological resources:
• What ecological attributes, particularly those unique to the region, would be affected by the roading of current unroaded areas?
The ecological attributes that would be affected in this EMA include threatened, endangered and sensitive species habitats and unique riparian areas such as Sycamore Canyon.
• To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites?
The presence of roads increases the risk of spreading existing and new noxious weeds to the Forest and surrounding landscapes. The higher the assigned maintenance level and subsequent frequency of road maintenance the higher the chances for spread of many exotic (noxious) plants into new areas.
61
The roads in the Tumacacori EMA most likely to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds include through roads such as Forest Road (FR) 39A (Summit Motorway), roads near populated areas such as FR 4145, and roads that go to popular use areas such as FR 223. Because use of these roads is essential for administrative as well as public access it is not practical to close them.
• What are the potential effects of such introductions to plant and animal species and ecosystem function in the area?
Roads may increase the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. Vehicles driving from infested areas may bring weed seeds into non-infested areas. Maintenance of roads creates disturbance that may also facilitate the spread of weeds. Roads may also allow access to riparian areas and stock tanks where non-native aquatic species may be deliberately introduced.
• To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads contribute to the control of insects, diseases, and parasites?
The presence of roads allows access to the Forest for many types of treatment, including, mechanical, chemical and burning. It is important to have road access to many areas of the Forest in order to monitor Forest health and conduct treatment activities as needed. Higher maintenance level roads allow for easier and more frequent access to the Forest.
Major roads such as FR 4145 allow entry into the Forest to control insects, diseases and parasites. It is possible that almost any road may be used at some point in time to get equipment and personnel into areas of the Forest.
• How does the road system affect ecological disturbance regimes in the area?
Effects to ecological disturbance regimes may have occurred during the construction of the road system. Since no new construction of Maintenance Level 3, 4 or 5 roads are planned for the Tumacacori EMA by the Coronado National Forest there will be no new affects from road construction. Current effects to these regimes may occur due to the presence, use and/or maintenance of existing roads.
The most common disturbance regimes on the Coronado National Forest are fire and drought. These regimes are interrelated since drought often leads to increased incidences of fire. Although road access provides risk for human-caused fires on the Forest it also provides for a more rapid response for fire suppression activities. Even though it is acknowledged that road access in the Forest increases risk for human caused fire, this risk can be minimized through administrative means such as smoking and campfire restrictions and complete closures during high and extreme fire danger periods.
62 Roads that are heavily used like FR 39 A, FR 4145, and FR 223 might be the most contributory roads towards the risk of fire on the Forest. It is possible, however, that an individual wanting to commit arson might prefer to use a less-traveled road to avoid detection.
• What are the adverse effects of noise caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads?
Noise from developing, using and maintaining roads may affect people and wildlife within hearing distance. There is no specific data on the effects of noise from Forest roads on people.
Noise from cars, ATVs, and hunting, camping and mining activities may be heard along roads. The noisiest roads in the Tumacacori EMA are often the most-traveled roads, but noise may have the greatest impact along less-traveled roads. Wildlife tend to stay away from major roads so may be more-impacted by noise levels in remote areas.
• What are the direct affects of the road system on terrestrial species habitat?
Direct affects to terrestrial species habitat from the Coronado National Forest road system include: 1) loss of habitat due to conversion of native vegetation to a particular road surface (paved, gravel, dirt), 2) fragmentation of habitats due to road system development, 3) interruption in migratory patterns of wildlife to reach breeding habitat or winter range habitat, and 4) lack of habitat use by wildlife due to disturbance caused by use of the road system.
Lack of wildlife use in habitats along roads can also be correlated to the level of use a road receives over a period of time. Low use roads may tend to have wildlife using road- side habitats more frequently than roads with high traffic volume.
Major roads like paved Ruby Road (not in this analysis) have the most impact on wildlife by fragmenting habitat and creating a barrier that wildlife may avoid.
• How does the road system facilitate human activities that affect habitat?
Human activities that affect habitat and are facilitated by the existing road system include; 1) Off road vehicle travel, 2) Dispersed shooting or target practice, 3) Dispersed camping, 4) Large group special uses, 5) Forest Service commodity production (i.e. livestock, timber and mining).
Off-road vehicle travel on undesignated routes (i.e. cross country) is facilitated by existing roads, regardless of the maintenance level of the road. Off-road vehicle travel affects habitat through crushing and loss of vegetation as well as compaction and loss of soil and contribution of sediment to stream waters. Impacts to habitat can either be short term or long term. A short-term impact may occur, for example, when
63 an off-road vehicle makes one pass across a stream. The resulting disturbance of the stream sediment will settle in a few minutes. Long-term impacts, on the other hand, may occur when off-road vehicles make multiple passes across the stream over an extended period of time. This repeated activity may result in bank erosion and loss of vegetation and soils creating cumulative impacts that last for years. Recreational uses such as dispersed shooting, camping or large group events also impact wildlife habitat to varying degrees. For example, large group events occur periodically and over a short period of time. Most often, they occur over a weekend and result in trampling of vegetation. The effects of such an activity are likely to last only a short period of time, a few days or a week. In contrast, dispersed shooting areas receive continued use over a long period of time. Affects to wildlife habitat are seen in loss of vegetation and soil from target shooting. Areas void of vegetation are evident where target practice has occurred over an extended period of time. Loss of soil may also be evident from off-road activities associated with target shooting (i.e. placement of targets, separation from other shooters, etc.). Other affects include displacement of wildlife due to noise associated with the discharge of firearms.
Past Forest Service commodity production has resulted in large part to the existing road system and network present today. Human activities such as firewood cutting and livestock management affect wildlife to varying degrees. Wildlife forage, nesting, and thermal cover habitat are affected by these activities to varying degrees, depending on the degree of wood and forage extraction that occurs.
• How does the road system affect legal and illegal human activities (including trapping, hunting, poaching, harassment, road kill, or illegal kill levels)? What are the affects on wildlife species?
The existing road system being analyzed in this document influences both legal and illegal human activities. Legal activities such as hunting and trapping are facilitated by the existing road system. The road system facilitates hunting and trapping by making access to areas easier and faster, and also helps distribute hunters over a greater area. In addition, level 2 roads and above also facilitate access for sportsmen with disabilities. In contrast, the same benefits of roads for legal activities such as hunting and trapping also help facilitate some illegal activities such as poaching. Poachers benefit and find it easier to take wildlife in areas with a well-established road system. Poachers prefer road systems with loops or interconnected road networks and tend not to use "dead end" roads or roads with no secondary outlet.
Higher maintenance level roads, particularly roads that are paved, allow vehicles to travel at higher speeds. Higher speeds may result in more deaths and injuries to animals from direct hits by vehicles. The first 10 miles of FR 39 (State Highway 289) from Nogales is the only paved road in the Tumacacori EMA but is under the Jurisdiction of the State of Arizona.
64 Illegal motorized vehicle use off road has become a major problem that is possibly linked to road systems. New roads/trails are constantly being created on the Forest by illegal use of off-road vehicles.
The existing road system allows for the apprehension of drug smugglers and undocumented immigrants from Mexico by the Border Patrol (BP). The illegal creation or extension of roads by drug smugglers is also an issue. Route 222 (Calabasas Ridge) and other roads, have been extended to the border without NEPA. These roads are recommended to remain but should be gated and used for administrative use by Border Patrol (BP) and the USFS only. The Nogales Ranger District is working cooperatively with the BP concerning their needs for new roads.
• How does the road system directly affect unique communities or special features in the area?
Unique communities or special features for wildlife that may be affected by the road system include numerous riparian areas, raptor nesting sites and the Gooding Research Natural Area.
Riparian areas, and their associated plants and wildlife, may be affected by the road system several ways. Riparian areas with roads intersecting them may experience increased turbidity and sedimentation from vehicle driving through stream crossings. Riparian areas with roads along the edges may show increased erosion from crumbling banks or sedimentation from runoff. There may also be an increase in the amount of trash thrown from vehicles in these areas.
Many roads in the Tumacacori EMA cross riparian areas. The roads in the California Gulch area, FR 217 and its connecting roads, allow for motorized access to sensitive riparian areas inhabited by threatened, endangered and sensitive species.
Peregrine falcons have historically nested in the Tumacacori EMA. Access to the sites by roads may impact nesting by allowing disturbance of nest sites. Fortunately, nest sites are usually high on a cliff face preventing people from getting too close.
Research Natural Areas are special features on the Coronado that are set aside to provide and protect natural diversity in all its forms for non-manipulative research, observation and study. Close proximity of roads to these areas may cause disruption in the natural systems affecting research studies. On the other hand, roads facilitate access to these areas for researchers conducting studies that may ultimately result in improved management of these and other areas.
No roads enter the Gooding Research Natural Area. A short spur, FR 4181, does allow access to the trailhead and parking area. A bridge was built over the FR 39 crossing on Sycamore Creek and eliminated road impacts to the creek and allowed for regeneration of the riparian area.
65 • Do areas planned for road constructing, closure, or decommissioning have unique physical or biological characteristics, such as unique features and threatened or endangered species?
Most of the roads in the Tumacacori EMA pass through or near one or more of the habitats of federal endangered or listed species, Forest sensitive species, riparian areas or other unique biological or physical features. When plans for new road construction, closure or decommissioning are considered the unique biological or physical features will be evaluated more closely in the NEPA process.
• How and where does the road system facilitate the introduction of non-native aquatic species?
The road system in the Tumacacori EMA facilitates the introduction of non-native species by allowing access to riparian areas, lakes, and streams. The most common method of introduction is the dumping of unused live bait into lakes and stock tanks. Game fish and non-natives like bullfrogs have also been intentionally introduced into riparian areas accessed by roads. Any road that crosses or passes near a riparian area could be used for these purposes.
• How and where does the road system overlap with areas of exceptionally high aquatic diversity or productivity, or areas containing rare or unique aquatic species or species of interest?
The current road system overlaps with unique riparian areas in California Gulch. This drainage is home to several listed and/or sensitive plant and wildlife species.
Sycamore Canyon in the Pajarita Wilderness is another area of high aquatic diversity. It is protected from all but illegal motorized access by wilderness designation.
• What are the traditional uses of animal and plant species within the area of analysis?
Hunting, birding, wildlife viewing, collecting of edible and useful plant materials, firewood sales, and scientific research are some of the traditional uses of plant and animal species in the Tumacacori EMA.
• How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms?
The road system restricts the migration and movement of aquatic organisms anywhere it crosses a riparian area. Effects include physical barriers to movement, silting, destruction of riparian habitat and death or injury to individual aquatic organisms at road crossings.
• What aquatic species are affected and to what extent?
66 The aquatic species are fish (Sonora chub), frogs (Chiricahua and lowland leopard frogs), reptiles (garter snakes and Sonoran mud turtles), as well as many species of invertebrates.
Minerals
Objective The objective of the Minerals Program is to provide adequate access to mineral exploration, mining operations, small scale blue opal mining, and to areas popular for non-systematic placer mining and opal hunting by individuals for their personal use, sometimes referred to as “artesian” mining, while at the same time minimizing damage to natural resources in and around these areas. Adequate access may involve foot travel after closure of some non- system roads currently accessing mining areas.
Benefits Operators conducting mineral exploration, small scale lode operations (blue opal), and artesian placer activity, can continue to access Forest lands.
Issues Selected areas within the Tumacacori EMA will continue to be the subject of occasional mineral exploration programs searching for larger deposits of gold and copper. The area will also continue to be of interest for small scale mining of blue opal and for placer gold mining by individuals. These operations use existing Forest System roads or temporary access routes authorized under approved Plans of Operations. An exception is unauthorized treasure hunting or treasure troving being conducted under the guise of mineral exploration or mining. Searching for and recovering treasure or artifacts is not an activity that is provided for under the 1872 mining laws. Several user created roads in the Tumacacori Mountains are the result of such unauthorized activities [see list below].
Risks Although there are no ongoing mining operations in the EMA, there is limited exploration and intermittent mining activity within the area. Illegal excavations and development of expanded road networks by treasure trovers is likely to continue if the unauthorized roads remain open. Continued and increasing impact to the vegetation and water quality in the area may occur.
Effect of Tumacacori road system management proposals on locatable, leasable and salable minerals:
Locatable minerals – Locatable mineral activity has consisted of mineral exploration activity evaluating potential for larger scale mining operations and small scale artesian operations for placer gold and blue opal. Temporary or long term access to areas not served by existing open and authorized roads can be provided for under the
67 provisions of approved Plans of Operations to conduct mining activities. No adverse effect to locatable minerals is anticipated with the proposed changes to the roads within the Tumacacori EMA.
Leasable minerals – there are no known leasable minerals in the Tumacacori EMA, and hence no effect to leasable minerals with a change to the road system in the analysis area.
Salable minerals – there are no active salable mineral operations in the Tumacacori EMA and little to no demand for salable minerals. The only requests for salable mineral sales have been for small amounts of stream gravel. Road access to this kind of material is found in several places within the TAP area, so that selected road closure will still allow some access to this type of material. Also, stream gravel is available in sufficient quantities in other areas of the Nogales Ranger District.
Recommendations:
217-4.93L-1 is 0.24 miles of non-system access from route 217 to the inactive Sorrel Top mine. There is no justification for incorporating this feature as a forest road. This road is recommended for closure.
217-7.16R-1 and 217-7.16R-2 are non system routes providing access from route 217 into a sensitive reach of California Gulch. There is a patented mining claim on the far side of California Gulch which is not accessible by the existing road network or these non- system roads but this inaccessible area does not include any workings or signs of other activity. These roads are recommended for closure.
4125-0.39L-1 is a 0.55 mile user created road connecting route 4158 to the St. Christopher Mine and Gopher Spring. There has not been any significant mineral related activity at the St. Christopher Mine since before WW II. Unless there is interest in maintaining access to Gopher Spring, it is recommended that this unauthorized road be closed.
4145-1.42R-1 is a 0.84 miles long, non system road branching off of the Rock Corral Canyon road (4145) at the Forest boundary. While it may serve limited recreational functions, it provides access problematic areas where users have pushed the road beyond its previous length in order for quads to access unapproved mining activities.
Unless other reviewers have reasons for retaining this user created access route, it is recommended that it be decommissioned and reclaimed including blocking access. In the event that a mineral related Plan of Operations is submitted, the applicant can apply to reopen the route as a temporary access for use under the approved plan and agree to reclaim the road at the conclusion of the proposed project.
4147-0.34R-1 in Section 12, T22S, R12E provides 1.1 miles of user created access to areas of known treasure troving activities from route 4147 which does not have legal
68 access. Management of impacts on surface resources resulting from unauthorized mining and treasure troving activities in this area could be difficult. While route 4147 may be necessary for grazing management and should be left as is. 4147-0.34R-1 is recommended to be closed.
4160 connects route 39 (Ruby Road) with route 4161 providing access to the Brick Mine and an area of old mines and prospects identified as the Rubiana Group. The 1.11 mile road is passable by high clearance 4X4 vehicles but is not necessary for access to the Margarita Tank area which is served by route 4161 connecting across the two branches of loop road 217. It is recommended that route 4160 be either closed and abandoned or assigned a Maintenance Level 1 status.
4165 provides 0.73 miles of access from route 217 to a block of private land identified as the El Oro Mine in Section 13, T23S, R10E and should be retained as is.
Cultural Resources
• How does the road system affect access to paleontological, archaeological, and historical sites?
A review of Coronado National Forest records shows that over 100 archaeological and historical sites have been recorded on Forest lands in the Tumacacori EMA. Archaeological sites range chronologically from Archaic-period artifact scatters to 20th century mining, ranching, and Forest Service administrative sites. Prehistoric sites include habitations, artifact scatters, rock art, and defensive hilltop sites. The Forest’s GIS database shows that some 33 of the sites are either intersected by roads or immediately adjacent to them.
Direct Impacts to Heritage Resource Sites
A comparison of GIS databases for recorded archaeological sites and roads in the EMA indicates that some 33 sites are crossed by roads. It is clear that past road construction has to some extent damaged or disturbed a number of these sites. In the majority of cases, it appears that damage occurred during road construction, often in the decades before the National Historic Preservation Act mandated cultural resource surveys to identify effects of undertakings on Federal lands on cultural resource sites. In most cases, the damage was largely limited to construction activities many years ago and is no longer an ongoing concern. This is typically the case with arterial and collector roads. There are, however, a number of local roads where cultural materials are evident in the road bed and adjacent ditches and are subject to on-going disturbance, particularly from any road maintenance activities. Sites are more susceptible to damage when previously unbladed roads are subject to maintenance actions, and where maintenance activities extend beyond previously disturbed ground surfaces. Disturbance from vehicular traffic is negligible compared to disturbance by erosion and maintenance activities.
69 Of the 33 archaeological sites intersected by roads, eight are judged to be either subject to on-going damage from road maintenance or construction activities, or at risk of such damage. The majority of these sites are near the International Boundary where various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) activities in recent years, including the installation of vehicle barriers and surveillance towers, have led to an increase in road improvements and vehicular traffic. Border projects have resulted in roads being more intensively maintained or improved by widening. The likelihood of archaeological sites being disturbed by road maintenance and construction activities has increased. Because these roads are considered necessary for Homeland Security operations, decommissioning or obliteration is not presently a viable alternative. Instead, a program involving continued archaeological monitoring, to assure that impacts to known sites crossed by roads are minimized, and archaeological testing or data recovery of imperiled features should be pursued. The Coronado NF needs to be involved with DHS undertakings to assure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
Instances of existing system roads that have on-going cultural-resource concerns include:
• 601 in Fresnal Wash (crosses two Arch sites, AR03-05-02-398 and -621).
• 684 at Puerto Spring (crosses Arch site AR03-05-02-590).
• 4154 near Coches Well (crosses Arch site AR03-05-02-751).
• 4865 near Fresnal Wash (crosses Arch site AR03-05-02-415).
In each of these cases decommissioning is not a feasible alternative. Continued archaeological monitoring and archaeological testing or data recovery in conjunction with DHS undertakings is recommended.
Three previously unauthorized roads near the International Boundary cross archaeological sites and have been subject to greatly increased vehicular traffic in recent years, causing increased damage to the sites. These include:
• 601-7.17R-1 near Fresnal Wash (crosses Arch sites, AR03-05-02-21). This road has been recommended for OAR – Open Authorized and Restricted. This recommendation should result in less damage than Open Authorized, but the affected archaeological site should be monitored and protective or mitigative measures taken if adverse effects are incurred.
• 4173-1.08R-2 near California Gulch (crosses Arch. Site AR03-05-02-497). As with the preceding road, this road has been recommended for OAR. In this case, it is recommended that in addition to the OAR status, the last 0.1 mile of the road be decommissioned. This portion of the road did not exist before 2006 and was created during DHS Temporary Vehicle Barrier installation, causing damage to the archaeological site. Closing off the newly created extension would help protect the site.
70
• 4168-1.90R-1 in Tres Bellotas Canyon on the International Boundary (crosses Arch site AR03-05-02-737). This road was expanded during Temporary Vehicle Barrier installation, causing damage to an archaeological site on CNF land. For this reason, decommissioning is recommended however, if this recommendation cannot be adopted, archaeological testing or data recovery is recommended. This road is used heavily by the Border Patrol and is being recommended as a restricted access.
Access to Paleontological, Archaeological, and Historic Sites At a general level, the road system provides access to all of the sites in the area. Access provided by the road system in the area can affect paleontological, archaeological and historical sites both positively and negatively. The primary positive affect of road system is the access provided for authorized visitation and site maintenance of a small number of sites. Without road access, many sites would be rarely visited by either the public or Forest Service personnel. It would be much more difficult to monitor sites and ascertain whether any damage is occurring. On the other hand, road access exposes sites to damage by unauthorized artifact collectors and vandalism.
There are no known paleontological sites that rely on the current road system for access. Nor do any roads exist to provide access to historic or archaeological sites. A non-system road (223-0.47R-1) in Peña Blanca Canyon provides access to one site, the Peña Blanca Canyon Rock Art site (AR03-05-02-9). This access has had both negative and positive impacts. The site has been vandalized by spray paint at least twice. Most likely the vandals drove to the site rather than hiked in 1.7 miles from the nearest trailhead on a system road. Decommissioning this road will help protect this archaeological site.
• How does the road system affect cultural and traditional uses (such as plant gathering, and access to traditional and cultural sites) and American Indian treaty rights?
Access to Traditional-Use Areas As with heritage-resource sites, in a general sense, the road system provides access to all areas of traditional and cultural use. The one such designated area in the Tumacacori EMA is the Wild Chile Botanical Area located on the east side of the range near the colonial mission site of Tumacacori. The population of small red chiltepin peppers may have been established by O’odham people centuries ago and continues to experience traditional collecting by local residents. In this case, a non-system road (4145-1.42R-1) passes along the side of the botanical area. In recent years this road has been extended further into the area, allowing more vehicular access than previously. The road to the botanical area is important in providing continued access. However, the upper, western part of the road, beyond the botanical area is not required for access and could be leading to unwanted resource damage. Under the Minerals section of this report, this road is recommended for
71 decommissioning; from a Heritage-resource point of view, this recommendation is also preferred.
• How are roads that are historic sites affected by road management?
Roads That Are Historic Sites Only one road, the Ruby Road (State Highway 289) has been recognized as a historic site and assigned an archaeological site number (AR03-05-02-544). This early 20th-century road includes sections that have been rebuilt and paved, and unpaved portions that are closer to the original constructed condition. Routine maintenance and current use have no impact on the road as a historic site, but any reconstruction or major modification could affect the historic components of the road.
Cultural Recommendations
A number of cultural resource sites are crossed by roads in the Tumacacori EMA, and several of these have been affected by the recent increase in Department of Homeland Security activities related to securing the International Boundary. In the majority of these cases, system roads will remain open authorized. It is recommended that the Forest pursue means of mitigating adverse effects to the cultural resource sites.
Two previously non-system roads that were created during the 2006-2007 Temporary Vehicle Barrier installation are recommended for obliteration or decommissioning to protect cultural resource sites. These are 4173-1.08R-2 near California Gulch and an unnumbered road along the boundary immediately east of 216 and Tres Bellotas Canyon. 4173-1.08R-2 has been recommended to be Open Authorized and Restricted (OAR). For protection of cultural resources, excluding the easternmost 0.1 mile of this road is recommended. In the latter case, of the unnumbered spur of 216, it is recommended that the road not be added to the system.
Decommissioning of 223-0.47R-1 in Pena Blanca Canyon is also recommended.
In addition to the above questions, it is also pertinent to consider impacts the road system has had, continues to have, and could have in the future on heritage resource sites in the area.
Fire Protection & Safety
• How does the road system address the safety of road users? • How does the road system affect investigative or enforcement activities? • How does the road system affect fuels management? • How does the road system affect the capacity of the Forest Service and cooperators to suppress wildfires? • How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety?
72
Fire Suppression
The existing maintenance level 1, 2, and 3 system roads are sufficient for fire suppression needs on the Nogales Ranger District. From a prescribed fire and fuels perspective future fuels projects will utilize the recommended system roads as well.
In the Tumacacori EMA there are many roads that are extensions of system roads, two track roads to stock tanks, and other unauthorized roads that are proposed for decommissioning. These proposed decommissions will not have any significant effects on the fire or fuels program.
The largest Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) on the Nogales RD is along the west side of Nogales, AZ, in the southeast corner of the EMA. Much of this area is in Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 2. It is important to maintain access in this area to protect life and property from wildfire. Several of the system roads would be one-way-in/one-way-out roads that follow the ridge tops or canyon bottoms. There are several user created non- system roads which connect between the system roads. It would be beneficial to have roads that loop to provide better access and holding features for WUI protection from wildfire and to facilitate prescribed treatments. For this purpose it is recommend changing the designation of the following unauthorized roads to Open Authorized: 4207-1.02L-1, 4214- 3.02l-1, 4204-0.53l-1, 616-4.56R-1, and 4206-2.80L-2.
Within the Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) all or portions of roads 223-0.47R-1, 4191- 3.62R, 4198-2.90R-1, 4149-5.02R-1, 4145-1.42R-1, 682, and roads adjacent to the IRA including 4200-1.12R-1, 4200.0.47R-1, 4191-3.62R-1 and spur roads off of roads 682 and 4875 which are not numbered are proposed for decommission. This would not pose an issue with managing wildfires or prescribed burns. In this area fire would generally be allowed to play a more natural role in the ecosystem and the District would be less likely to apply full suppression tactics. Many of these roads are already so rough that we rarely use them anyway.
In the middle of the EMA near Bear Valley and Sycamore Canyon the following roads are recommended to be decommissioned: 115-0.98R1, 115-0.49R1, 39-7.61R1, 39-7.93L-1, 682-1.7R-1,4186-0.61R-1, 39-11.42R-1, and 39-11.84R-1. The closing of these roads will not have any significant impacts on fire suppression or fuels treatments in this area.
In the Tres Bellotas area the following roads are recommended open authorized: 216-12-80L- 1, 4168-1.90R-1, 4168-4.90R-1, and 216-13-44R-2. These roads are not necessarily needed for fire or fuels management, but could help to access these areas.
Near the Jarillas Ranch are there are several roads recommended to be decommissioned: 216- 6.81R-1, 216-7.41L-1, 487-1.45R-1, 4119-9.14L-1, 4116-1.39L-1, 4115-8.87R-1, and 4115- 9.79L-1. The closing of these roads will not have any significant impacts on fire suppression or fuels treatments in this area.
73
Step 5- Describing Opportunities and Minimum Road System
The purpose of this step is to: • Describe the minimum road system • Describe modifications to the existing road system that would achieve desirable or acceptable conditions
The Products of this step are: • A map of the current and proposed road system
The Minimum Road System 36 CFR 2.2.5 (b) a portion of the Travel Management Rule states: “…b) Road system—(1) Identification of road system. For each national forest, national grassland, experimental forest, and any other units of the National Forest System (Sec. 212.1), the responsible Official must identify the minimum road system (MRS) needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands. In determining the minimum road system, the responsible Official must incorporate a science-based travel analysis at the appropriate scale and, to the degree practicable, involve a broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens, other state and federal agencies, and tribal governments. The minimum system is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR part 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance.”
This step compares the current condition to a desired future condition to help identify the opportunities and need for change. This step provides the information to develop the Forest’s strategic intent for road management; that is, to balance the need for decommissioning or retaining unauthorized and authorized roads with the need to minimize risk to public safety and damage to natural resources. Before implementing any proposed actions the Forest will complete the NEPA process. During the NEPA process, however, roads may be added or deleted from the recommended system.
Another consideration in developing the minimum road system is maintenance. However, some maintenance level 2 roads only need routine maintenance every few years rather than annually. Creating a road system to match the available funds by simply closing roads will not result in a road system that meets the access needs for public or for administrative purposes.
74 The IDT analyzed the extent and current condition of roads on national forest system lands within the project area. The IDT recommended the minimum road system for this EMA using the direction in 36 CFR 212.5 (b). The recommendations and issues associated with the identified roads and motorized trails on this EMA are described in the table below.
75 Table 5.1 - Recommended Minimum Transportation System * Note: Route numbers in parenthesis are references to numbers used in previous reports and have now been corrected.
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
39 X Ruby Road - (25.82 mi long w/ 17.52 mi on FS) Non system road - recommend decommission (parking 39-2.72L-1 0.32 area will be part of 300 ft rule) 39-7.61R-1 0.19 Non system road - recommend decommission 39-7.83R-1 0.14 Non system road - recommend decommission Non system road - recommend decommission (parking 39-7.93L-1 0.80 area will be part of 300 ft rule) 39-9.38L-1 0.10 Non system road - recommend decommission 39-11.05L-1 0.66 Non system road - recommend decommission Non system road - recommend adding to system as 39-11.42R-1 1.39 OAR; ML2 39-14.52L-1 0.17 Non system road - recommend decommission 39-17.05R-1 0.36 Non system road - recommend decommission 39 A X Summit Motorway 39 B X White Rock CG Host Site
76 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
39 C X Pena Blanca Boat Ramp 39 D X Calabasas Campground 39 E X Red Rock Picnic Area 39 F X Atascosa Vista 115 X Bear Valley 115-0.49R-1 0.57 Non system road - recommend decommission Non system road - Recommend OAR; ML2 to 115-0.98R-1 0.85 0.64 Wilderness; decommission remainder 216 X Tres Bellotas - 216-4.40L-1 0.16 Non system road - recommend decommission 216-5.10R-1 Jarillas Ranch Reroute (Titled vested April 2009) 216-6.38R-1 0.13 Non system road - recommend decommission 216-6.81R-1 0.34 Non system road - recommend decommission 216-7.41L-1 0.79 Non system road - recommend decommission 216-8.58R-1 0.11 Non system road - recommend decommission 216-10.14L-1 0.22 Non system road - recommend decommission 216-12.01L-1 0.11 Non system road - recommend decommission
77 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
216-12.80L-1 3.10 Non system road - recommend OA; ML2 Non system road - recommend OAR; ML2 for use by 216-13.44R-1 1.73 Border Patrol Non system road - recommend OAR; ML2 for use by 216-13.44R-2 0.36 Border Patrol 217 X California Gulch 217-1.64R-1 0.13 Non system road - recommend decommission 217-4.93L-1 0.24 Non system road - recommend decommission 217-5.40R-1 0.04 Non system road - recommend decommission 217-7.16R-1 0.68 Non system - recommend as OA; ML2 217-7.16R-2 0.26 Non system - recommend as OA; ML2 217-9.66R-1 0.09 Non system road - recommend decommission 217-9.76R-1 0.08 Non system road - recommend decommission 217-11.82R-1 0.72 Non system road - recommend decommission 217-11.82R-2 0.08 Non system road - recommend decommission 218 X Meadow Hills 218-reroute 0.28 Proposed reroute away from subdivision
78 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
221 X Upper Walker Canyon 222 X Calabasas Ridge 222-0.23L-1 0.19 Non system - recommend as OA; ML2 223 X Lower Walker 223-0.47R-1 2.40 Non system road - recommend decommission 223-4199 0.81 Non system - recommend as OA; ML2 289 X State Hwy - State jurisdiction 289-4.80R-1 0.27 Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 289-6.38R-1 1.17 289-6.38R-2 0.10 601 X Coches - (14.25 mi long w/ 6.87 mi on FS) 601-7.17R-1 1.45 Non system road - recommend as OAR; ML2 601-7.17R-2 0.18 Non system road - recommend decommission 601-8.10R-1 0.31 Non system road - recommend decommission 601-8.41R-1 0.52 Non system road - recommend decommission 601-8.41R-2 0.11 Non system road - recommend decommission 601-8.50R-1 0.19 Non system road - recommend decommission 79 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
601-8.58L-1 0.11 Non system road - recommend decommission 601-10.06L-1 0.13 Non system road - recommend OA; ML2 601-10.38R-1 0.20 Non system road - recommend decommission 616 X Beatosa 616-0.98L-1 0.21 Non system road - recommend decommission Non system road - recommend OA; ML2 for use by 616-4.56R-1 1.33 Border Patrol; extension of Rd. 616 623 X Pesquiera 623-4.69L-1 0.61 Non system road - recommend decommission 682 X Midway Dam 682-1.71R-1 0.68 Non system road - recommend decommission 682-1.71R-2 0.11 Non system road - recommend decommission 682-1.71R-3 0.52 Non system road - recommend decommission 684 X Sardina Canyon - (18.4 mi long w/ 10.97 mi on FS) 684-4.92L-1 0.14 Non system road - recommend decommission 684-7.04L-1 0.41 Non system road - recommend decommission 810 X Upper Thumb Rock
80 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
818 X Peck Canyon - (4.1 mi long w/ 1.23 mi on FS) 4095 X Saddle Tank Placerito - 0.60 miles long. 4868 is a duplicate road # 4108 [4868] X in Santa Rita EMA that is decommissioned; Use 4108 4108-0.32L-1 Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 [4868- [4868-0.32L-1] 0.98 0.32L-1 was old number] 4112 X Yank Tank 4114 X Red Rock Tank 4115 X Castle Rock - (9.9 mi long w/ 2.63 mi on FS) 4115-8.87R-1 0.55 Non system road - recommend decommission 4115-9.79L-1 1.96 Non system road - recommend decommission 4116 X Arrieta - 4116-1.39L-1 0.36 Non system road - recommend decommission 4117 X Old Forester - (GPS'd to MP 0.33) 4118 X Corona - (GPS'd to MP 0.90) San Lewis Wash - (12.81 mi long w/ 4.92 mi on FS); 4119 X has been rerouted around the Jarillas Ranch 4119-9.14L-1 0.25 Non system road - recommend decommission 81 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4120 X Ajax - (0.22 mi off Forest) 4120-0.62R-1 0.38 Non system road - recommend decommission 4121 X Longshot 4122 X Edwards 4123 X Fraguita Peak 4124 X Side Pocket 4125 X Grape Vine 4125-0.39L-1 0.55 Non system road - recommend decommission 4126 X Frog Tank 4127 X Papalote - (13.4 mi long w/ 1.35 mi on FS) 4128 X Bear Grass - (9.75 mi long w/ 2.37 mi on FS) Non system road - recommend decommission 0.62 miles in IRA. Add 0.65 mi as OA ML2 as extension of 4128-1.55R-1 0.65 0.62 4128 4129 X Carrizo - (1.5 mi long w/ 1.18 mi on FS) 4130 X Arivaca Lake - (2.45 mi long w/ 0.85 mi on FS) 4130-1.04R-1 Off Forest - 0.66 miles 4130-1.06L-1 Off Forest - 0.49 miles 82 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4131 X Chiminea - ( 6.68 mi long w/ 1.72 mi on FS) 4132 X Cedar Dam - (3.21 mi long w/ 1.97 mi on FS) 4133 X East Fork 4134 X Apache Peak Cedar Canyon - (4.49 mi long w/ 1.56 mi on FS); 4135 1.56 Recommend as ML1 4136 X Sopori - (8.74 mi long w/ 3.9 mi on FS) 4137 X Lower Sardina 4138 X Sardina Well 4139 X Coyote Well 4141 X Anita Well 4141-2.04R-1 0.19 Non system road - recommend decommission Dicks Peak Tank - was 4855 but this is duplicate road number in Chiricahua EMA; recommend change 4142 (4855) X number to 4142 Jalisco Canyon; recommend decommission 0.28 mi in 4143 0.28 IRA; Blacksmith Tunnel - 4870 is duplicate road in Dragoon 4144 (4870) EMA. Changed this road number to 4144. 83 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4145 X Rock Corral - (4.9 mi long w/ 2.99 mi on FS) 4145-1.42R-1 0.84 Non system road - recommend as OA 4145-1.42R-2 0.09 Non system road - recommend as OA 4146 X Dry Tank 4147 X Tinaja Non system road - recommend decommission 1.10 mi 4147-0.34R-1 1.10 on FS Fresno- Recommend as ML1 last 800' of road; keep 4148 0.15 3.55 miles as OA Wolf Canyon; Recommend 1.12 mi as ML1 from Rd 4149 1.12 818 to Gas Pipeline; keep 4.12 miles as OA Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 for 4149-2.21R-1 0.73 sportsman access Non system road - recommend as OAR; ML2 as part of 4149-2.21R-2 0.36 the Murphy Allotment Term Grazing Permit 4149-5.02R-1 1.39 Non system road - recommend decommission 4149 A X Dutchman Gas Pipeline road- 2.57 miles recommend as OAR; 4149-4198 2.57 ML2
84 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4151 X Pipeline - (3.4 mi long w/ 1.86 mi on FS) Non system road; recommend 0.50 mi as OA; 4151-2.87L-1 0.50 0.45 recommend decommission 0.45 mi (partly off forest) 4151-2.87L-2 0.73 Non system road - recommend decommission 4151-2.87L-3 0.56 Non system road; recommend 0.56 mi as OA; ML2 4152 X Slick Rock 4153 X Cumero 4154 X Alamito 4155 0.25 Gil Water Tank - recommend decommission 4156 X Coches Canyon 4157 X Yellow Jacket - (8.12 mi long w/ 7.37 mi on FS) 4158 X Skunk; 2.15 miles is OA; 1.03 is ML1 4159 0.81 Palomas - Recommend as OAR; ML2 4160 X Brick Mine 4161 X Margarita Tank 4162 X Old Glory Mine 4163 X Holden - only 1.32 mi GPS'd
85 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4164 X Cañoncito El Oro Mine - 0.73 mi long; was route 4846 but this is a duplicate road number in Whetstone EMA - recommend 4165 (4846) X change number to 4165 4166 X Agua Cercada Tank 4167 X Sentinel Peak 4167-1.39R-1 0.42 Non system road - recommend decommission 4168 X Sierra Canyon - (6.6 mi long w/ 6.38 mi on FS) Non system road - recommend OAR; ML2 for restricted 4168-1.90R-1 1.95 use by Border Patrol 4168-3.21L-1 0.21 Non system road - recommend decommission 4168-4.90R-1 0.68 Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 4169 X Saucito Tank 4170 X Grubstake 4171 X Old Glory Spring 4172 X Oro Blanco 4172-0.48R-1 0.33 Non system road - recommend decommission 4173 X Hidden Tank 86 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4173-0.30L-1 0.31 Non system road - recommend decommission Non system road - decommission 0.28 mi; add 0.26 mi 4173-1.08R-1 0.26 0.28 OAR; ML2 for Border Patrol Non system road - recommend OAR; ML2 for restricted 4173-1.08R-2 0.44 use by Border Patrol 4173-1.08R-3 0.10 Non system road - recommend decommission 4174 X Three Forks - (0.64 mi long w/ 0.50 mi on FS) 4175 X Border Tank 4176 X Alto Shumaker 4177 X Cramer Mine 4178 X Ruby Peak 4179 X Bolsa Tank Tinaja Spring- Decommissioned Road; recommend 4180 2.93 change to OAR; ML2 for Border Patrol access Yanks Spring- decommissioned rd; recommend 4181 2.29 change to OAR; ML2 for Border Patrol access. 4182 X Alamo Canyon 4183 X Wood
87 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4185 X Cobre Mt. 4185-0.40R-1 0.07 Non system road - recommend decommission 4186 X Corral Nuevo 4186-0.61R-1 0.73 Non system road - recommend decommission 4187 X Oak Tank 4188 X Coyote Tank 4189 X Monument Tank 4191 X Wise Mesa - (6.81 mi long w/ 3.56 mi on FS) 4191-3.42R-1 0.10 Non system road - recommend decommission Non system road - recommend OAR; ML2 for restricted 4191-3.62R-1 0.43 use by Border Patrol 4192 X Basin Tank 4192-1.26L-1 0.63 Non system road - recommend decommission 4193 X Castle Tank - currently ML1 4194 Off Forest; 0.78 mi long 4195 X Castle Rock - only 0.97 mi GPS'd 4195-0.28L-1 0.34 Non system road - recommend decommission
88 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4195-0.52L-1 0.18 Non system road - recommend decommission 4196 X St. Patrick Mine 4197 X Morning Mine 4198 X Lost Tank Non system road - recommend decommission last 0.23 4198-2.90L-1 0.41 0.23 miles and adding 0.41 miles as OA; ML2 4199 X Caralampi - (7.61 mi long w/ 2.65 mi on FS) 4199-2.61L-1 0.76 Non system road - decommission portion on FS 4199-4210 5.23 Gas Pipeline road- recommend as OAR; ML2 4200 X Bellota Tank Non system road to Pena Blanca Dam; recommend as 4200-0.47R-1 0.62 OAR; ML2 under Special Uses to AZGFD Non system road - High priority for Border Patrol; 4200-1.12R-1 0.74 recommend as OAR; ML2 4200-1.12R-2 0.05 Non system road - decommission 4201 X Mud Tank 4202 X Calabasas Tank 4203 X Pajarito 89 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
Non system road - High priority for Border Patrol; 4203-0.69R-1 0.27 recommend as OAR; ML2 4204 X Lobo Tank 4204-0.53L-1 1.13 Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 4205 X Davis Tank 4206 X Alamo Canyon 4206-1.02L-1 0.31 Non system road - recommend decommission Non system road - recommend as OAR; ML2 w/ 4206-1.08R-1 0.69 restricted access Non system road - recommend as OA; ML 2 4206-2.80L-1 0.88 0.43 decommission at junction w/ 4206-2.80L-2 4206-2.80L-2 0.73 Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 4207 X Green Can Tank 4207-1.02L-1 0.58 Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 4208 X Little Alamo Tank Non system road - recommend as OA;ML2 continuation 4208-0.53R-1 0.59 of 4208 4210 X Potrero
90 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4210-2.50R-1 Non system road- hunters camp/within 300 ft of road 4210-2.74R-1 3.40 Non system road- recommend as OA; ML2 4210-2.74R-2 0.50 Non system road- recommend as OA; ML2 4213 X Trick Tank 4214 X Mariposa Loop Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 for use by 4214-0.73L-1 0.12 Border Patrol 4214-0.80L-1 0.30 Non system road - recommend decommission 4214-1.22L-1 0.24 Non system road - recommend decommission Non system road - recommend as OAR; ML3 for use by 4214-1.66L-1 0.22 Border Patrol Non system road - recommend as OAR; ML3 for use by 4214-1.92L-1 1.05 Border Patrol 4214-2.55L-1 0.49 Non system road - recommend decommission 4214-2.55L-2 0.13 Non system road - recommend decommission 4214-2.55L-3 0.08 Non system road - recommend decommission 4214-2.55L-4 0.01 Non system road - recommend decommission 4214-3.02L-1 0.67 Non system road - recommend as OA; ML2 91 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4215 X Ridge 4833 X Doodlebug - (1.92 mi long w/ 0.44 mi on FS) 4857 X Apache Well - (2.87 mi long w/ 2.52 mi on FS) 4864 X Cerro del Fresnal - 4865 X Cantina Reservoir Decommissioned road - there is a duplicate road 4866 number in D1; 4867 X Un-named [4868-0.32L-1] 4108-0.32L-1 See 4108-0.32L-1 4869 X Blue Wing Mine 4871 X Pipeline - 4872 X Un-named Un-named - was labeled 4854 previously, but is a 4874 (4854) X duplicate #. Use 4874 4875 X Un-named - (2.79 miles long with 0.03 mi on FS) 4876 X Un-named 4877 X Encinas Tank 92 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Tumacacori EMA
motorized Trail motorized Road Number - DESCRIPTION No Change No Restricted Use (Miles)
Existing OHV Trail Existing Open Authorized (Miles) Authorized Open
Convert to OHV to Trail Convert - Decommission (Miles) Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) OAR - Proposed New Construction New Proposed OA Convert to non to Convert Is located Within 100 Ft of Ft road100 Within located Is
4877-1.45R-1 0.22 Non system road - recommend decommission 4878 X Coches Spring 4883 0.40 Bluff Tank White Tank - 2.39 mi long; Duplicate road # in 4888 (4856) X Huachuca EMA - recommend change to 4888 4888-2.39R-1 (4856-2.39R-1) 0.37 Non system road - recommend decommission TOTALS 20.81 27.81 3.23 30.37 0.28 0.00 0.00
* Note: route numbers in parenthesis are references to numbers used in previous reports and have now been corrected.
93
Table 5.2 - Transportation Analysis Comparisons
Road Classifications Current Recommended Net Change in Roads from Status Change Existing (Mile) (Miles) (Miles) Open Authorized 295.72 291.59 -4.13 mi. (OA) Open Authorized Restricted 0 27.81 +27.81 mi. (OAR) Closed Authorized 1.35 4.58 +3.23 mi. (CA) ML1 Open Unauthorized 72.87 0 -72.87 mi. (OU) Roads listed as 5.98 0 N/A Decommissioned in INFRA Roads Identified for 0 30.37 +30.37 mi. Decommissioning OHV miles 0 0 0
Convert to Trail 0 0 0
New miles of proposed roads 0 0 0
Step 6- Reporting
The Purpose of this step is to report the key findings of the analysis.
The products of this step are: • A written report for this EMA and a Transportation Atlas showing existing routes and recommendations for the minimum road system.
Report This report is available to the public, if requested and will become part of the EMA file. A map depicting all recommendations is in Appendix F.
Key Findings and Recommendations The key findings and recommendations of this analysis are based on Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) discussion, specialist expertise, and public input.
The following is a list of roads that are recommended to be added to the system as Open Authorized (OA) roads. Approximately 75% of these recommendations are roads that lead to existing developed or dispersed campgrounds, Special Use Permittee facilities, or trail
94 head parking areas. The remaining roads are user created routes that are recommended for various reasons such as support for Homeland Security and the Border Patrol, hunting and other recreational uses suggested by Arizona Game and Fish.
OA - Open Road Number Authorized (Miles)
216-12.80L-1 3.10 217-7.16R-1 0.68 217-7.16R-2 0.26 222-0.23L-1 0.19 223-4199 0.81 289-4.80R-1 0.27 601-10.06L-1 0.13 616-4.56R-1 1.33 4108-0.32L-1 [4868-0.32L-1] 0.98 4128-1.55R-1 0.65 4145-1.42R-1 0.84 4145-1.42R-2 0.09 4149-2.21R-1 0.73 4151-2.87L-1 0.50 4151-2.87L-3 0.56 4168-4.90R-1 0.68 4198-2.90L-1 0.41 4204-0.53L-1 1.13 4206-2.80L-1 0.88 4206-2.80L-2 0.73 4207-1.02L-1 0.58 4208-0.53R-1 0.59 4210-2.74R-1 3.40 4210-2.74R-2 0.50 4214-0.73L-1 0.12 4214-3.02L-1 0.67 TOTALS 20.81 *Note: road numbers in brackets are references to numbers used in previous reports.
95 The following is a list of roads that are recommended to be added to the system as Open Authorized and Restricted (OAR) roads. The roads shall be restricted to the public and only government officials or Special Use Permittees will be allowed use.
OAR- Restricted Road Number Use (Miles)
39-11.42R-1 1.39 115-0.98R-1 0.85 216-13.44R-1 1.73 216-13.44R-2 0.36 289-6.38R-1 1.17 601-7.17R-1 1.45 4149-2.21R-2 0.36 4149-4198 2.57 4159 0.81 4168-1.90R-1 1.95 4173-1.08R-1 0.26 4173-1.08R-2 0.44 4180 2.93 4181 2.29 4191-3.62R-1 0.43 4199-4210 5.23 4200-0.47R-1 0.62 4200-1.12R-1 0.74 4203-0.69R-1 0.27 4206-1.08R-1 0.69 4214-1.66L-1 0.22 4214-1.92L-1 1.05 TOTALS 27.81
96 The following is a list of roads that are recommended to be added to the system as Maintenance Level 1 (ML1) roads.
Road Number Maintenance Level 1 (Miles) 4135 1.56 4148 0.15 4149 1.12 4883 0.40 TOTAL 3.23
The following is a list of roads that are recommended to be decommissioned. Highlighted roads are system roads that are recommended for decommissioning.
Decommission Decommission Road Number Road Number (Miles) (Miles)
39-2.72L-1 0.32 217-4.93L-1 0.24 39-7.61R-1 0.19 217-5.40R-1 0.04 39-7.83R-1 0.14 217-9.66R-1 0.09 39-7.93L-1 0.80 217-9.76R-1 0.08 39-9.38L-1 0.10 217-11.82R-1 0.72 39-11.05L-1 0.66 217-11.82R-2 0.08 39-14.52L-1 0.17 223-0.47R-1 2.40 39-17.05R-1 0.36 289-6.38R-2 0.10 115-0.49R-1 0.57 601-7.17R-2 0.18 115-0.98R-1 0.64 601-8.10R-1 0.31 216-4.40L-1 0.16 601-8.41R-1 0.52 216-6.38R-1 0.13 601-8.41R-2 0.11 216-6.81R-1 0.34 601-8.50R-1 0.19 216-7.41L-1 0.79 601-8.58L-1 0.11 216-8.58R-1 0.11 601-10.38R-1 0.20 216-10.14L-1 0.22 616-0.98L-1 0.21 216-12.01L-1 0.11 623-4.69L-1 0.61 217-1.64R-1 0.13 682-1.71R-1 0.68
97 Decommission Decommission Road Number Road Number (Miles) (Miles)
682-1.71R-2 0.11 4173-1.08R-3 0.10 682-1.71R-3 0.52 4185-0.40R-1 0.07 684-4.92L-1 0.14 4186-0.61R-1 0.73 684-7.04L-1 0.41 4191-3.42R-1 0.10 4115-8.87R-1 0.55 4192-1.26L-1 0.63 4115-9.79L-1 1.96 4195-0.28L-1 0.34 4116-1.39L-1 0.36 4195-0.52L-1 0.18 4119-9.14L-1 0.25 4198-2.90R-1 0.23 4120-0.62R-1 0.38 4199-2.61L-1 0.76 4125-0.39L-1 0.55 4200-1.12R-2 0.05 4128-1.55R-1 0.62 4206-1.02L-1 0.31 4141-2.04R-1 0.19 4206-2.80L-1 0.43 4143 0.28 4214-0.80L-1 0.30 4147-0.34R-1 1.10 4214-1.22L-1 0.24 4149-5.02R-1 1.39 4214-2.55L-1 0.49 4151-2.87L-1 0.45 4214-2.55L-2 0.13 4151-2.87L-2 0.73 4214-2.55L-3 0.08 4155 0.25 4214-2.55L-4 0.01 4167-1.39R-1 0.42 4877-1.45R-1 0.22 4888-2.39R-1 4168-3.21L-1 0.21 (4856-2.39R-1) 0.37 4172-0.48R-1 0.33 4173-0.30L-1 0.31 TOTALS 30.37 4173-1.08R-1 0.28
*Note: road numbers in brackets are references to numbers used in previous reports. Highlighted roads are National Forest System roads.
Approximately 0.28 miles of new construction is proposed along Forest road 218 in order to reroute around the proximity to private land.
98 APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS
Road Definitions (36 CFR 212.1)
Authorized Road - Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest system lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including state roads, county roads, privately owned roads, national forest system roads and other roads authorized by the Forest Service.
Unauthorized Road - Road on national forest system lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways and off- road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization.
Temporary Roads - Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization or emergency operation not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management.
Road Decommissioning - Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state or conversion to other non-road uses.
Road Reconstruction- Activities that result in improvement or realignment of an existing authorized road as defined below:
Road Improvement - Activity that results in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service level, expansion of its capacity or a change in its original design function.
Road Realignment - Activity that results in a new location of an existing road or portions of an existing road and treatment of the old roadway.
Access Rights: A privilege or right of a person or entity to pass over or use another person's or entity's travel way. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 5460.5 - Rights of Way Acquisition)
Arterial Road: An NFS road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with other arterial roads or public highways (7705 – DEFINITIONS).
Collector Road: An NFS road that serves smaller areas than an arterial road and that usually connects arterial roads to local roads or terminal facilities (FSM 7705 – DEFINITIONS).
Forest Road or Trail: A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the NFS that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration,
99 and utilization of the NFS and the use and development of its resources (36 CFR 212.1 – FSM 7705 – DEFINITIONS).
Local Road: An NFS road that connects a terminal facility with collector roads, arterial roads, or public highways and that usually serves a single purpose involving intermittent use (FSM 7705 – DEFINITIONS).
National Forest System Road: A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or local public road authority (FSM 7705 – DEFINITIONS – 36 CFR 212.1).
Public Road: A road under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public road authority and open to public travel (23 U.S.C. 101(a) – (FSM 7705 – DEFINITIONS)).
Private Road: A road under private ownership authorized by an easement granted to a private party or a road that provides access pursuant to a reserved or outstanding right (FSM 7705 – DEFINITIONS).
Route: A road or trail (FSM 7705 – DEFINITIONS).
100 APPENDIX B: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Federal agency compliance with pollution control is addressed through section 313 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 12580 (January 23, 1987), National Non-point Source Policy (December 12, 1984), USDA Non-point Source Water Quality Policy (December 5, 1986) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their guidance "Non-point Source Controls and Water Quality Standards" (August 19, 1987). In order to comply with State and local non-point pollution controls the Forest Service will apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) to all possible non-point sources which may result from management activities proposed in any future decision document. These BMPs are described in the Region 3 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook 2509.22.
Best Management Practices are the primary mechanism for achievement of water quality standards (EPA 1987). This appendix describes the Forest Service BMP process in detail and lists the key Soil and Water Conservation Practices that may be employed when in the implementation of a selected action is determined in a Record of Decision.
Best Management Practices include but are not limited to structural and non-structural controls, operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during, or after pollution producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water Quality Regulation). Usually, BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. BMPs are selected on the basis of site- specific conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political, economic, and technical feasibility.
BMP IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
In cooperation with the State, the Forest Service's primary strategy for the control of non- point source pollution is based on the implementation of preventative practices (i.e., BMPs). The BMPs for this project have been designed and selected to protect the identified beneficial uses of the watershed.
The Forest Service non-point source management system consists of the following steps:
1. BMP SELECTION AND DESIGN - Water quality goals are identified in the Forest Plan. These goals meet or exceed applicable legal requirements including State water quality regulations, the Clean Water Act, and the National Forest Management Act. Environmental assessments for projects are tiered to Forest Plans using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The appropriate BMPs are selected for each project by an interdisciplinary team. In each new location, there is flexibility to design different BMPs depending on local conditions and values and downstream beneficial uses of water. The BMP selection and design are dictated by the proposed
101 action, water quality objectives, soils, topography, geology, vegetation, and climate. Environmental impacts and water quality protection options are evaluated, and alternative mixes of practices considered. Final collections of practices are selected that not only protect water quality but meet other resource needs. The final sets of selected practices constitute the BMPs for the project.
2. BMP APPLICATION - The BMPs are translated into contract provisions, special use permit requirements, project plan specifications, and so forth. This ensures that the operator or person responsible for applying the BMP actually is required to do so. Site-specific BMP prescriptions are taken from plan-to-ground by a combination of project layout and resource specialists (e.g., hydrology, soils, etc.). This is when final adjustments to fit BMP prescriptions to the site are made.
3. BMP MONITORING - When an activity begins (e.g., road building, mining, timber harvesting, etc.), engineering representatives, resource specialists, and others ensure that BMPs are implemented according to plan. BMP implementation monitoring is done before, during, and after resource activity implementation. This monitoring answers the question: "Did we do what we said we would do?" Once BMPs have been implemented, further monitoring is done to evaluate if the BMPs are effective in meeting management objectives and protecting beneficial uses. If monitoring indicates that water quality standards are not being met or that beneficial uses are not being protected, corrective action will consider the following: o Is the BMP technically sound? Is it really best or is there a better practice which is technically sound and feasible to implement? o Was the BMP applied entirely as designed? Was it only partially implemented? Were personnel, equipment, funds, or training lacking which resulted in inadequate or incomplete implementation? o Do the parameters and criteria that constitute water quality standards adequately reflect human induced changes to water quality and beneficial uses?
4. FEEDBACK - Feedback on the results of BMP evaluation is both short- and long- term in nature. Where corrective action is needed, immediate response will be undertaken. This action may include modification of the BMP, modification of the activity, ceasing the activity, or possibly modification of the State water quality standard. Cumulative effects over the long-term may also lead to the need for possible corrective actions.
All roads will be maintained using Best Management Practices to reduce watershed impacts.
102 1. Use Best Management Practices with specific practices identified and implemented for specific sites. 2. Control sediment, particularly resulting from soil movement caused by roads.
Under both Alternative B and C, improved road miles through reconstruction and maintenance would be accomplished utilizing Best Management Practices to bring these miles to minimum Forest standards. Best management practices are a practice or a combination of practices that is determined by a State (or designated area-wide planning agency) after problem assessment, examination of alternative practices and appropriate public participation to be the most effective, practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with Federal and State water quality goals and standards. Non-point source pollutants are generally carried over, or through, the soil and ground cover via stream flow processes.
Soil and Water Conservation Practices in the form of Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented and monitored as directed in the Forest Plan. Through the use of BMPs the adverse effect of planned activities will be mitigated.
The following BMPs are applicable to all action alternatives:
Erosion Control Plan. Minimize erosion and sedimentation through effective planning prior to initiation of construction activities and through effective contract administration during construction.
Timing of Construction Activities. Schedule operations during periods when the probabilities for rain and runoff are low. Equipment shall not be operated when ground conditions are such that unacceptable soil compaction or displacement results. Erosion control work must be kept current when construction occurs outside of the normal operating season.
Road Slope Stabilization. Prevent on-site soil loss from exposed cut slopes, fill slopes, and spoil disposal areas. The level of stabilization effort needed must be determined on a case- by-case basis. Surface stabilization measures shall be periodically inspected, as necessary, to determine effectiveness. In some cases, additional work may be needed to ensure that the vegetative and/or mechanical surface stabilization measures continue to function as intended.
Dispersion of Subsurface Drainage from Cut and Fill Slopes. Minimize the possibilities of cut or fill slope failure and the subsequent production of sediment. Dispersal of collected water should be accomplished in an area capable of withstanding increased flows.
Control of Road Drainage. Minimize the erosive effects of concentrated water flows caused by road drainage features.
Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing Projects. Minimize erosion and sedimentation from road construction sites where final drainage structures have not been completed. Apply protective measures to all areas of disturbed,
103 erosion-prone, unprotected ground that is not to be further disturbed in the present year. When conditions permit operations outside of the Normal Operating Season, erosion control measures must be kept current with ground disturbance to the extent that the affected area can be rapidly "closed" if weather conditions deteriorate. Do not abandon areas for the winter with remedial measures incomplete.
Construction of Stable Embankments (Fills). Construct embankments with materials and methods which minimize the possibility of failure and subsequent water quality degradation.
Control of Side Cast Material. Minimize sediment production from side cast material during road construction, reconstruction, or maintenance. Side casting is not an acceptable construction alternative in areas where it will adversely affect water quality. Prior to commencing construction or maintenance activities, waste areas should be located where excess material can be deposited and stabilized.
Servicing and Refueling of Equipment. Prevent pollutants such as fuels, lubricants, bitumens, raw sewage, wash water, and other harmful materials from being discharged into or near rivers, streams, and impoundments, or into natural or man-made channels leading thereto. Selecting service and refueling areas well away from wet areas and surface water, and by using berms around such sites to contain spills. Spill prevention, containment, and countermeasures (SPCC) plans are required if the volume of fuel exceeds 660 gallons in a single container or if total storage at a site exceeds 1320 gallons. Any SPCC needs to be reviewed and certified by a registered professional engineer.
Controlling In-Channel Excavation. Minimize sedimentation and turbidity resulting from excavation for in-channel structures, so as to comply with state and Federal water quality standards.
Disposal of Right-of-Way and Roadside Debris. Construction debris and other newly generated roadside slash developed along roads near streams shall not be deposited in stream channels (including ephemeral and intermittent).
Maintenance of Roads. Maintain roads in a manner that provides for water quality protection by minimizing rutting, failures, side casting, and blockage of drainage facilities (all of which can cause sedimentation and erosion).
Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials. Minimize sediment production and erosion from road surface materials to comply with state and Federal water quality standards. Road surface treatments are prescribed based on traffic levels, road design standards, soils, and geology.
Decommissioning of Roads. Reduce sediment generated from unneeded roads, roads that run in streambeds and roads that are located in streamside zones by closing them to vehicle use and restoring them to productivity.
104
APPENDIX C – INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
Supervisor’s Office Curiel, Eli Engineering Ahern, Richard Minerals Gillespie, William Cultural Resources White Laura Recreation Lefevre, Bob Hydrology McKay, George Lands Merritt, Mark Engineering (GPS/GIS) Bennett Duane Special Uses
District Office D2 - Nogales Sebesta, Deborah Wildlife Biology Coleman, James Fire Prevention Officer Brown, Kendall Range Management Lockwood Sean Range Management Lyman Shane Fire Management Officer
105 APPENDIX D – INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM DISCUSSION NOTES
The notes in this section are included in an effort to provide a brief summary of why the TAP recommendations for changes to the road system were made. They do not replace the discussion in under Step 4 of the TAP document. While discussing the recommendations, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed comments that were collected during public meetings and from letters and e-mails submitted by many interest groups, individuals and other agencies. These comments were used to identify issues that needed to be weighed, along with many other factors, in the formation of the recommendations.
The TAP is a living document and therefore will be updated regularly. Line officers and IDTs will continue to consult the TAP as they are planning future projects. Since the TAP contains only recommendations, future projects will continue to receive public input that pertains to the Forest transportation system and may recommend decisions which are not consistent with the initial recommendations of the TAP. Modifications to the TAP’s recommendations as a result of final decisions will be incorporated, after the appropriate NEPA procedures have been completed.
106
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES Needed for admin- fire access. CBP Medium priority. Keep OA (DR) 8/15/08 TEAM SAID DECOMMISSION. 11/13-OAR NEEDED 39-11.42R-1 Y Y N L L L L L M L M H OAR ONLY FOR BP USE. High priority for CBP. Popular hunter camp. IDT recommends add - OA. Number on the ground but not numbered on maps. Rough and overgrown. (DR - close to public) 8/15/08 KEEP TO PARKING AREA. CLOSE M- REMAINDER. WITHIN 300' CORRIDOR. 39-2.72L-1 Y Y N L L L L L M M H H D NO NEED TO ADD. AGFD says needed for dispersed camping. Popular hunter camp. IDT recommends 39-7.83R-1 Y Y N L L L L L L L H L D adding to system. 8/15/08 mtg - CLOSE
107
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES AGFD says needed for dispersed camping. Popular hunter camp. IDT recommends adding to system. 8/15/08 KEEP TO PARKING AREA. CLOSE TO REMAINDER. WITHIN 300 CORRIDOR. NO NEED TO 39-7.93L-1 Y Y N L L L L L L L H L D ADD. DECOMMISSION M- OAR 8/15/08 LEAVE OPEN TO WILDERNESS. 115-0.98-R-1 N L M L L L H H /D OA/R .85 MILES. BP & PERMITTEE USE. IDT recommend OA because it provides only alternate route around private land. High cultural site density. USED FOR RE-ROUTE 216-12.80L-1 Y Y N L L L L L H L H H OA OF 4119. CE. 11/13 OA/R FOR BP. ALSO NEEDED FOR 216-13.44R-1 H M M L M M L M OAR FIRE ACCESS 11/13 OA/R FOR BP. ALSO NEEDED FOR 216-13.44-R2 H M M L M M L M OAR FIRE ACCESS
108
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES Goes to patented mining claim. FS built road to bypass riparian area. Never given a number. Crosses California Gulch. 8/15/08 217-7.16R-1 Y Y N H L H L M M L L M OA ADD/OA. Goes to patented mining claim. FS built road to bypass riparian area. Never given a number. Crosses California Gulch. Add portion up to private land to system. 8/15/08 217-7.16R-2 Y Y N H L H L M M L L M OA DISTRICT SAID ADD/OA. M- M- CCC camp, dispersed camping. Popular 221 Y N N M L H L M H L H M N/C area. CBP - High priority. 222 Y N L M L L L M L M H N/C CBP- High priority IDT says change to OA with 300' corridor for M- dispersed camping. 8/15/08 DISTRICT SAID 222-0.23L-1 Y Y N L L L L L L L H L OA ADD/OA.
109
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES M- IDT recommends add for dispersed camping. 222-0.44L-1 Y N L L L L L L L H L OA OA with 300' rule High use on holidays. Up to 800 vehicles Easter. (Shane) Historic rock structures 223 Y N N M M L M H H M H M N/C (CCC) IDT Recommend add for dispersed camping? 289-4.80R-1 Y Y N H H L H L L M H L OA 8/15/08 ADD/OA. 289-6.38R-1 M M M M L M L H OAR 11/13 BP ROAD. OA/R 601-7.17-R-1 L L L L L M L H OAR 8/15/08 ADD/OA/R. BORDER PATROL 601-10.06-L1 L L L L L M M M OA 11/13 GOES TO CHOCHEZ TANK. OA. TAP - CU. CBP high priority. AGFD says need for hunter/dispersed rec camping. Loop opportunity for OHVs. IDT recommends add 616-4.56R-1 Y Y N M L L M L L L H M OA OA.
110
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES TAP - CU. Established road on quad map. Good 4x4 opportunity. AGFD wants to keep. M- Good access to this area. IDT recommends 684-7.04L-1 Y Y N L M L L L M M H L OA keep unless it becomes wilderness. OA CBP HIGH PRIORITY. AGFD WANTS IT. M- OA? 0.58 mi. NOT IN IDT NOTES. 11/13 OA 4108-0.32L-1 L L M M M M H M OA FOR BP, REC. Goes through arch site. CBP - MED 4116 Y Y N L M L M M H M M M N/C PRIORITY Disagree with slope issue. Not GPS'd to end. 4118 Y T N N/C End at GPS end. 4125 Y Y N L L L L M M M M M N/C CBP - med priority. 4126 N/C OK - no change OAR 4128-1.55-R1 L L L L L M M M /D 11/13/2008 EXT OF 4128. OA TO IRA.
111
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES TAP says OC. Not on forest. Connects to 4130-1.06L-1 road that goes to dam. Within Grijalva's wilderness proposal but not FS revised poposal. Access questionable. 4132 Y N N L L L L M M L L L N/C CBP - med priority. 4133 Y Y N N/C Part in proposed wilderness. Bear grass tank? 4134 Y Y N L M L L L M M L L N/C 11/13 OA KEEP There is erosion on road. Access blocked on private land. Only access to that area is off I-19. Keep on system as ML 1 due to legal access issues in area. 8/15/08 NO NOTES M- ABOUT CHANGING STATUS. WILL 4135 Y N N L M-H L H L M M M L ML1 CHANGE TO ML1. 11/13 ML 1 OK. Unauthorized road continues to Amole tank and now pushed beyond the tank. Need to 4138 N/C locate.
112
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES M- L- L- 0.28 mi in IRA and proposed wilderness. 4143 Y/N N Y M L L L H M L M M D CLOSE LAST 0.28 mi.
Part in proposed wilderness. In Chiltepin special area. Last 1/4 mile not drivable. No 4145 Y N N L H L L M H H M L N/C change. Needed for access to Chiltepin area. 8/15/08 RECOMMEND ADD/OA. 11/13 MINE 4145-1.42R-1 L M M M L M M M L OA CLAIM, HUNTING ACCESS. 8/15/08 RECOMMEND ADD/OA. 11/13 MINE 4145-1.42R-2 L M M M L M M M L OA CLAIM, HUNTING ACCESS. Recommend closing north end where soil/erosion issues are occurring. Re-evaluate if designated wilderness. CLOSURE AREADY M- DONE FOR MINE MITIGATION, BUT IN 4148 Y Y N L M L L M H H M M ML1 WRONG PLACE. WILL BE FIXED.
113
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES Close connection between 818 and jct with pipeline. Keep from pipeline to jct 4151 and the rest into Peck Can. Have alternate access to Peck. End of this road is partly in proposed wilderness. Can no longer go past 4149 ML1 well. 9/29/08 ADD AS OA/R. 2.61 mi. NOT IN 4149-4198 OAR IDT NOTES 11/13 OA/R OK West portion part of new Peck Canyon 4151-2.87L-1 N N L L L M L L L H H D Access along with 4151-2.87-3. D - .75 MI 9/29/08 Was new Peck Canyon access in IDT notes but changed due to new GPS info. Alt Peck Can access is now 0.56 mi of 1451- 4151-2.87L-3 N N L L L M L L L H H OA 2.87-3 and all of 1451-2.87L-4.
114
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES 9/29/08 Permanent legal access to Peck Canyon. Recommend add to system. This needs to be made a system road, as well as west part of 4151-2.87L-1. New Peck Can 4151-2.87L-4 N N L L L M L L L H H OA access. OFF FOREST 4155 D 11/13 DECOM. BP CAN USE 601 LOOP. TAP says CA level 1. Not closed on ground. Doesn't go all the way through. Need for range access, recreation, hunter access. Recommend open (IDT). 9/29/08 KEEP 2.35 Mi ML2. THE REST IS ML1. DON'T PUT IN 4158 N/C PROPOSED ACTION. Cannot drive past first 1/4 mi. Keep open for admin use only. Disagree with riparian issue. 4159 OAR DISCORAGE USE. OA/R
115
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES M- M- M- L- Part access to private land, mining activity. 4162 Y Y N L M H L L H H M L N/C Loop opportunity for recreation. M- M- 4167 Y Y N L M M M L H H L L N/C Road does not enter riparian area. 4168-1.90R-1 L M M M M M M H OAR BP/PERMITTEE USE 11/13 - OA/R 8/15/08 DISTRICT SAID ADD/OA. 4168-4.90R-1 L M M M M M M H OAR BP/PERMITTEE 11/13 - OA/R M- M- TAP - OA, Needed for maintenance of range 4173 Y Y N L L H M H H H L H N/C exclosure fence. CBP - high priority. 9/29/08 WILL NEED PART OF THIS ROAD IN ORDER TO GET TO ROAD BELOW. 0.26 OAR mi OA/R. 11/13 KEEP FOR BP. SONORA 4173-1.08-R1 EAST M M H M H M L /D CHUB, CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG. 8/15/08 DISTRICT SAID KEEP FOR BP. 4173-1.08-R2 WEST D 0.44 mi OA/R. 11/13 DECOMMISSION.
116
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES INFRA - ML1. Recommend admin only for CBP access. OA/R 11/13 BP AND 4180 Y Y N L L L L L L M L H OAR PERMITTEE ALSO. INFRA - ML1. Recommend admin only for 4181 Y Y N L L H L M L M L H OAR CBP access. OA/R M- 11/13 GOES TO CONCRETE DAM. OA/R 4191-3.62R-1 L M M M M H M L OAR FOR BP AND PERMITTEE. 9/29/08 ADD AS OA/R. 2.61 mi. NOT IN IDT NOTES. PUBLIC IS USING PARTS. 4199-4210 OAR 11/13 OA. 8/15/08 ACCESS TO PENA BLANCA DAM. 4200-0.47R-1 L M M M H M L H OAR OA/R. CBP HIGH PRIORITY. OA/R 11/13 - KEEP 4200-1.12R-1 L L M L M L M H OAR IT OA/R
117
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES TAP - CU. High value for AGFD, CBP. Loop M- OHV opportunity. Connects two canyons. 4203-0.69R-1 Y N N L L L L L L L H H OAR Fireline. IDT recommends add OAR. 8/15/08 ADD/OA. 11/13 CONNECTS 4206 & 4204-0.53L-1 L L L L L L H H OA 623. KEEP FOR PUBLIC USE.
8/15/08 ADD OA/R .69 MI 11/13 CONNECTS 4206-1.08R-1 H M M M L M M M OAR 4207 & 4206. PERMITTEE ACCESS. OA/ 8/15/08 ADD/OA. WHY? 11/13 CONNECT 4206-2.80L-1 M L M L L M M H D 4206 TO 4210. BP AND REC USE. 8/15/08 ADD/OA. WHY? 11/13 CONNECT 4206-2.80L-2 M L M L L M M H OA 4206 TO 4210. BP AND REC USE. TAP - CU. Recreation value. Good M- opportunity for OHV. Used by CBP. IDT 4207-1.02L-1 Y Y N M L L L L L L H H OA recommends add OA.
118
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES 8/15/08 ADD/OA. CONTINUATION OF 4208. 4208-0.53R-1 M L M M L M M H OA 11/13 IMPORTANT FOR BP/RECREATION. 11/13 WITHIN 300 FT CORRIDOR, 4210-2.50R-1 HUNTERS CAMP. DON'T NEED TO ADD. 8/15/08 ADD/OA . GOES TO LOBO TANK. 4210-2.74R-1 M L M M L M M H OA 11/13 BP& PERMITTEE
8/15/08 ADD/OA. GOES TOWARDS PUNK 4210-2.74R-2 M L M M L M M H OA TANK. 11/13 BP & PERMITTEE, HUNTERS 4214-0.73L-1 M L M M L M M H OA 8/15/08 ADD/OA . WHY NOT CBP? RIGHT ON BORDER CHECK BP MAP. 11/13 OA/R. NEW ROAD 4214-1.92L-1 OAR FOR BORDER. NEPA. M- 8/15/08 ADD/OA . 11/13 CONNECTS 4214 4214-3.02L-1 M L L L L L L H H OA TO 4213. BP, RECREATION ACCESS.
119
TUMACACORI EMA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ID TEAM DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP Recommendation TAP
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
ROAD IDENTIFICATION Does ROS allow use?MV forest? on all Route In roadless area? conflicts? use for Potential impacts? watershed for soil/ Potential wildlife for impacts?Potential impacts? for vegetation Potential impacts? for riparian Potential impacts? resources for cultural Potential Known safety issues? Recreation value? Administrative value? DISCUSSION NOTES (4363) EXISTS ON GROUND, WAS IN SYSTEM BUT NUMBERED INCORRECTLY. 4363 (4833) Y Y N N M L L L L L L N/C SHOULD BE 4833. CBP MED PRIORITY. OA/R? 0.58 mi. 4856- 2.39R-1 ON ORIGINAL TAP MAP. 11/13 4888-2.39R- D QUAD TRACK. DECOMMISSION.
120
APPENDIX E – FSM 7700
121 APPENDIX F –FOREST TRANSPORTATION ATLAS
122