DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan Submitted September 15, 2014 via Electronic Mail and Fed Ex On Behalf of: Archaeology Southwest Center for Biological Diversity Sierra Club The Wilderness Society WildEarth Guardians Table of Contents II. Federal Regulation of Travel Management ...................................................................................... 4 III. Impacts from Year Round Motorized Use Must be Analyzed .................................................... 5 IV. The Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative .................................................................................. 6 V. Desired Conditions for Travel Management .................................................................................... 6 VI. Purpose and Need Statements ........................................................................................................ 7 VII. Baseline Determination................................................................................................................... 8 A. The Forest Service cannot arbitrarily reclassify roads as “open to motor vehicle use” in the baseline. .................................................................................................................................................. 10 B. Classification of all closed or decommissioned routes as “open to motor vehicle use” leads to mischaracterization of the impacts of the considered alternatives. ......................................................... 11 C. Failure to distinguish between official system routes and other routes is in violation of the Standard Consultation Protocol for Travel Management Route Designation Developed Pursuant to Stipulation IV.A. of the Region 3 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities. .............................................................................................. 13 D. Failure to distinguish between official system routes and other routes present on the ground prevents environmental impacts from being fully disclosed or discussed within the DEIS. .................. 13 VIII. Discarding the Travel Analysis Process Report is Arbitrary and Capricious ......................... 15 IX. Route Evaluation Tree .................................................................................................................. 18 X. Alternative Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 19 A. “CBD” Alternative .......................................................................................................................... 19 B. Need for Additional Alternatives .................................................................................................... 20 XI. Permit Zones .................................................................................................................................. 21 XII. Cross-Country “OHV Areas” ...................................................................................................... 23 XIII. Motorized Big Game Retrieval .................................................................................................... 25 XIV. Motorized Dispersed Camping ................................................................................................ 27 XV. Designation of Unauthorized Routes ........................................................................................... 28 XVI. Enforcement .............................................................................................................................. 29 XVII. Transportation Facilities - Maintenance ................................................................................. 31 XVIII. User Conflict and Recreation Opportunities .......................................................................... 32 XIX. Wildlife and Plant Impacts....................................................................................................... 34 A. Riparian Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 34 2 Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan – 09/15/2014 B. Road Density ................................................................................................................................... 35 C. Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................... 36 XX. Wilderness Areas .......................................................................................................................... 42 XXI. Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................................. 45 A. Legal Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 45 B. Verde Wild and Scenic River .......................................................................................................... 46 C. Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River ............................................................................................... 47 D. Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................................... 47 XXII. Inventoried Roadless Areas (“IRAs”) ..................................................................................... 48 XXIII. Special Management Areas ...................................................................................................... 51 XXIV. Water/Hydrological Resources ................................................................................................ 51 XXV. Visual Resources ....................................................................................................................... 51 XXVI. Heritage Resources ................................................................................................................... 52 XXVII. Noxious/Invasive Weeds ....................................................................................................... 55 XXVIII. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 55 A. The Analysis Does Not Comply with NEPA .................................................................................. 55 B. Cumulative Effects are Not Adequately Analyzed ......................................................................... 56 C. The Air Quality Specialist Report appears to be rather outdated .................................................... 58 D. The Information Used in the Analysis is Inconsistent .................................................................... 58 E. Health and Wildlife Impacts Are Not Adequately Analyzed nor Addressed.................................. 59 F. None of the Alternatives Complies with the TNF LRMP ............................................................... 62 XXIX. Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 63 XXX. Specific Routes/Areas Recommendations ............................................................................... 63 XXXI. Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 69 A. Payson RD OHV Project................................................................................................................. 69 B. Illegal Activities .............................................................................................................................. 70 XXXII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 70 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 72 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 74 3 Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan – 09/15/2014 I. Introduction Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) for the Tonto National Forest’s (“TNF”) ongoing travel management planning process. We appreciate the TNF’s commitment to ensuring public input throughout this process. The following comments are submitted on behalf of all members of our collective organizations who care deeply about our National Forests and are concerned about management of motorized vehicles on these forests. The following organizations endorse and support these comments: For the past thirty years, Archaeology Southwest, a non-profit organization based in Tucson, has been dedicated to exploring and protecting the places of the past. Archaeology Southwest has practiced a holistic, conservation-based approach that we call Preservation Archaeology. By exploring what makes a place special, sharing this knowledge in innovative ways, and enacting flexible site protection strategies, we foster meaningful connections to the past and respectfully safeguard irreplaceable cultural resources. The Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit public service
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan
    Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan Submitted September 15, 2014 via Electronic Mail and Certified Mail #7014-0150-0001-2587-0812 On Behalf of: Archaeology Southwest Center for Biological Diversity Sierra Club The Wilderness Society WildEarth Guardians Table of Contents II. Federal Regulation of Travel Management .................................................................................. 4 III. Impacts from Year Round Motorized Use Must be Analyzed .................................................. 5 IV. The Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative .............................................................................. 6 V. Desired Conditions for Travel Management ................................................................................. 6 VI. Purpose and Need Statements ................................................................................................... 7 VII. Baseline Determination .............................................................................................................. 8 A. The Forest Service cannot arbitrarily reclassify roads as “open to motor vehicle use” in the baseline. ............................................................................................................................................ 10 B. Classification of all closed or decommissioned routes as “open to motor vehicle use” leads to mischaracterization of the impacts of the considered alternatives. ...................................................... 11 C. Failure
    [Show full text]
  • Gila National Forest Fact Sheet
    CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because life is good. GILA NATIONAL FOREST The Gila National Forest occupies 3.3 million acres in southwestern New Mexico and is home to the Mexican spotted owl, Mexican gray wolf, Gila chub, southwestern willow flycatcher, loach minnow, and spikedace. The forest also encompasses the San Francisco, Gila, and Mimbres Rivers, and the scenic Burros Mountains. In the 1920s, conservation pioneer Aldo Leopold persuaded the Forest Service to set aside more than half a million acres of the Gila River’s headwaters as wilderness. This wild land became the nation’s first designated wilderness Photo © Robin Silver — the Gila Wilderness Area — in 1924. The Gila National Forest is home to threatened Mexican spotted owls and many other imperiled species. n establishing the Gila Wilderness Area, the Gila The Gila National Forest’s plan by the numbers: National Forest set a precedent for protection Iof our public lands. Sadly, it appears that • 114,000: number of acres of land open to safeguarding the Gila for the enjoyment of future continued destruction; generations is no longer management’s top priority. • 4,764: number of miles of proposed motorized On September 11, 2009, the Gila National Forest roads and trails in the Gila National Forest, equal to released its travel-management plan, one of the worst the distance from Hawaii to the North Pole; plans developed for southwestern forests. Pressure • $7 million: road maintenance backlog accumulated from vocal off-road vehicle users has overwhelmed the by the Gila National Forest; Forest Service, which has lost sight of its duty to protect • less than 3 percent: proportion of forest visitors this land for future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • LIGHTNING FIRES in SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS T
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. LIGHTNING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS t . I I LIGHT~ING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS (l) by Jack S. Barrows Department of Forest and Wood Sciences College of Forestry and Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 (1) Research performed for Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station under cooperative agreement 16-568 CA with Rocky Mountain For­ est and Range Experiment Station. Final Report May 1978 n LIB RARY COPY. ROCKY MT. FO i-< t:S'f :.. R.l.N~ EX?f.lt!M SN T ST.A.1101'1 . - ... Acknowledgementd r This research of lightning fires in Sop thwestern forests has been ? erformed with the assistan~e and cooperation of many individuals and agencies. The idea for the research was suggested by Dr. Donald M. Fuquay and Robert G. Baughman of the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory. The Fire Management Staff of U. S. Forest Service Region Three provided fire data, maps, rep~rts and briefings on fire p~enomena. Special thanks are expressed to James F. Mann for his continuing assistance in these a ctivities. Several members of national forest staffs assisted in correcting fire report errors. At CSU Joel Hart was the principal graduate 'research assistant in organizing the data, writing computer programs and handling the extensive computer operations. The initial checking of fire data tapes and com­ puter programming was performed by research technician Russell Lewis. Graduate Research Assistant Rick Yancik and Research Associate Lee Bal- ::.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln National Forest
    Chapter 1: Introduction In Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3 Bruce Vander Lee, Ruth Smith, and Joanna Bate The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We summarized existing regional-scale biological and ecological assessment information from Arizona and New Mexico for use in the development of Forest Plans for the eleven National Forests in USDA Forest Service Region 3 (Region 3). Under the current Planning Rule, Forest Plans are to be strategic documents focusing on ecological, economic, and social sustainability. In addition, Region 3 has identified restoration of the functionality of fire-adapted systems as a central priority to address forest health issues. Assessments were selected for inclusion in this report based on (1) relevance to Forest Planning needs with emphasis on the need to address ecosystem diversity and ecological sustainability, (2) suitability to address restoration of Region 3’s major vegetation systems, and (3) suitability to address ecological conditions at regional scales. We identified five assessments that addressed the distribution and current condition of ecological and biological diversity within Region 3. We summarized each of these assessments to highlight important ecological resources that exist on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico: • Extent and distribution of potential natural vegetation types in Arizona and New Mexico • Distribution and condition of low-elevation grasslands in Arizona • Distribution of stream reaches with native fish occurrences in Arizona • Species richness and conservation status attributes for all species on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico • Identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation from Ecoregional Assessments from Arizona and New Mexico Analyses of available assessments were completed across all management jurisdictions for Arizona and New Mexico, providing a regional context to illustrate the biological and ecological importance of National Forests in Region 3.
    [Show full text]
  • State No. Description Size in Cm Date Location
    Maps State No. Description Size in cm Date Location National Forests in Alabama. Washington: ALABAMA AL-1 49x28 1989 Map Case US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Bankhead National Forest (Bankhead and Alabama AL-2 66x59 1981 Map Case Blackwater Districts). Washington: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Side A : Coronado National Forest (Nogales A: 67x72 ARIZONA AZ-1 1984 Map Case Ranger District). Washington: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. B: 67x63 Side B : Coronado National Forest (Sierra Vista Ranger District). Side A : Coconino National Forest (North A:69x88 Arizona AZ-2 1976 Map Case Half). Washington: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. B:69x92 Side B : Coconino National Forest (South Half). Side A : Coronado National Forest (Sierra A:67x72 Arizona AZ-3 1976 Map Case Vista Ranger District. Washington: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. B:67x72 Side B : Coronado National Forest (Nogales Ranger District). Prescott National Forest. Washington: US Arizona AZ-4 28x28 1992 Map Case Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Kaibab National Forest (North Unit). Arizona AZ-5 68x97 1967 Map Case Washington: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Prescott National Forest- Granite Mountain Arizona AZ-6 67x48.5 1993 Map Case Wilderness. Washington: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Side A : Prescott National Forest (East Half). A:111x75 Arizona AZ-7 1993 Map Case Washington: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. B:111x75 Side B : Prescott National Forest (West Half). Arizona AZ-8 Superstition Wilderness: Tonto National 55.5x78.5 1994 Map Case Forest. Washington: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Arizona AZ-9 Kaibab National Forest, Gila and Salt River 80x96 1994 Map Case Meridian.
    [Show full text]
  • A Path Through the Wilderness: the Story of Forest Road
    A Path Through the Wilderness: The Story of Forest Road 150 Gila National Forest Erin Knolles Assistant Forest Archeologist March 2016 1 National Forest System Road 150 [commonly referred to as Forest Road (FR) 150], begins within the confines of the Gila National Forest and stretches north about 55 miles from NM 35 near Mimbres past Beaverhead Work Center to NM 163 north of the Gila National Forest boundary. FR 150 is the main road accessing this area of the Gila National Forest. Its location between two Wilderness Areas, Aldo Leopold and the Gila, makes it an important corridor for public access, as well as, administrative access for the Gila National Forest. Forest Road 150: The Name and a Brief History FR150 has been known by several names. The road was first called the North Star Road by the residents of Grant County and the U.S. Military when it was constructed in the 1870s.1 Today, the route is still called the North Star Road and used interchangeably with FR 150. Through most of the 20th century, FR 150 was under New Mexico state jurisdiction and named New Mexico (NM) 61.2 Of interest is that topographical maps dating to at least 1980, list the road as both NM 61 and FR 150.3 This is interesting because, today, it is common practice not to give roads Forest Service names unless they are under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. In addition, the 1974 Gila National Forest Map refers to the route as FR 150.4 There is still some question when the North Star Road and NM 61 became known as FR 150.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Gila USFS Grazing Allotments
    July 17, 2019 Steve Best, Forest Supervisor Margaret Everson Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the P.O. Box 640 Authority of the Director 30 S. Chiricahua Dr. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Springerville, AZ 85938 1849 C Street, N.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Adam Mendonca, Forest Supervisor Gila National Forest David Bernhardt 3005 E. Camino del Bosque Secretary of the Interior Silver City, NM 88061-8201 U.S. Department of the Interior [email protected] 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Amy Lueders [email protected] Regional Director [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region Vicki Christiansen, Chief 500 Gold Avenue S.W. U.S. Forest Service Albuquerque, NM 87102 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20250-1111 [email protected] Sent via electronic and certified mail RE: Sixty-day Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of Endangered Species Act Consultation Requirements Regarding the Impacts of Domestic Livestock Grazing on Streamside and Aquatic Species and their Critical Habitat on National Forest Lands Within the Upper Gila River Watershed Dear Secretary Bernhardt, Chief Christiansen, Acting Director Everson, Regional Director Lueders, and Forest Supervisors Best and Mendonda: On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”), this letter provides the U.S. Forest Service (“USFS”) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) with Notice, pursuant to section 11(g) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), that the Center intends the sue the agencies for not meeting their obligations under the ESA in relation to USFS’s authorizations of domestic livestock grazing within the Upper Gila River Watershed on the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Allium Gooddingii) Was Selected As One of the Top 20 Species in the Region for Development of Conservation Documents
    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Goodding’s Onion Conservation Assessment and Strategy and the Goodding’s Onion Cooperative Agreement were developed through the mutual efforts of personnel from the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The principal Forest Service participants were Terry Myers, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests; Mima Parra-Falk, Coronado National Forest; Margaret Kirkeminde, Gila National Forest; Linda Barker, Lincoln National Forest; Heather Hollis, Southwestern Region Regional Office; and Teresa Prendusi, formerly of the Southwestern Region Regional Office. The principal Fish and Wildlife Service participants were Angela Brooks, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office and Charlie McDonald, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office. Peter Warren of the Arizona Nature Conservancy was helpful during the early stages of strategy development through his in-depth knowledge of Goodding’s onion. Numerous individuals listed in Appendix 3 were helpful in document review and editing. ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................ ii CONTENTS ........................................................... iii PART I ) GOODDING’S ONION CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT .............1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................2 II. REVIEW OF SPECIAL STATUS DESIGNATIONS AND PROTECTIONS . 3 III. NOMENCLATURE AND MORPHOLOGY ...........................5 IV. DISTRIBUTION .................................................6 V. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY .......................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Region New Mexico Congressional Briefing
    United States Department of Agriculture 2018 Southwestern Region New Mexico Congressional Briefing Photo: West Fork Gila National Forest Carson National Forest • Cibola National Forest & National Grasslands Gila National Forest • Lincoln National Forest • Santa Fe National Forest Forest Service Southwestern Region April 2018 Message from the Regional Forester We designed this briefing packet to be your quick reference guide to the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service. Organized by forest and by program area, the most up-to-date information is at your fingertips. This is intended as one tool to bolster our working relationships, as we continue to engage with you on a variety of issues that are of interest to your constituents. Under the direction of Secretary Sonny Perdue, the Forest Service was, for the first time, named in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s priorities: to foster productive and sustainable use of our National Forest System Lands. Our agency strategic plan is in alignment with the department’s priorities, and our Southwestern Region (also known as Region 3) priorities, the R3’s 3Rs, are in concert with both. Our first priority is Restoration at the landscape scale, to provide livelihoods and valued products. The second is Recreation, sustaining the connection to nature for health and economic vitality. The third is Relationships, both externally with those we serve, and internally with our workforce. It is through our relationships with tribes, stakeholders, partners, other agencies, and the public that we are able to restore landscapes and provide for sustainable recreation opportunitites. We also value our internal relationships and are actively taking steps to provide a safe, rewarding and resilient workplace for all Forest Service employees.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest: an Evaluation of Population and Habitat Trends Version 3.0 2010
    Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest: an evaluation of population and habitat trends Version 3.0 2010 Isolated aspen stand. Photo by Heather McRae. Pygmy nuthatch. Photo by the Smithsonian Inst. Pumpkin Fire, Kaibab National Forest Mule deer. Photo by Bill Noble Red-naped sapsucker. Photo by the Smithsonian Inst. Northern Goshawk © Tom Munson Tree encroachment, Kaibab National Forest Prepared by: Valerie Stein Foster¹, Bill Noble², Kristin Bratland¹, and Roger Joos³ ¹Wildlife Biologist, Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office ²Forest Biologist, Kaibab National Forest, Supervisor’s Office ³Wildlife Biologist, Kaibab National Forest, Williams Ranger District Table of Contents 1. MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4 Regulatory Background ...................................................................................................... 8 Management Indicator Species Population Estimates ...................................................... 10 SPECIES ACCOUNTS ................................................................................................ 18 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ...................................................................................... 18 Cinnamon Teal .......................................................................................................... 21 Northern Goshawk ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ranching Report 2014 Final
    Changes in Public Lands Ranching in Gila Bioregion: Opportunities and Challenges for Federal Lands Policy Introduction The farm and livestock industry in the Gila and Apache National Forests of southeast Arizona and southwest New Mexico faces monumental challenges. Historic drought conditions, large-scale wildfire, agricultural economics and demand for recreation property are converging to undermine the viability of traditional ranching in the area in undeniable ways. The two national forests also form the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area designated to sustain a population of reintroduced Mexican gray wolves. The current status and trajectory of the livestock industry has profound implications for the recovery of the Mexican gray wolf because the 4.2 million acres of the Apache and Gila National Forests is overlaid with 215 unique national forest grazing allotments.1 Conflicts between ranching and wolf recovery rank high on the list of challenges facing the region’s land and wildlife managers. Caught in the middle is the Mexican gray wolf, reintroduced into the wild in 1998 in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in east-central Arizona. The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus bailey) is the rarest, smallest, southernmost and most genetically distinct subspecies of the North American gray wolf. Historically, the Mexican gray wolf was found throughout mountainous regions from central Mexico in the south, northward into Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and west Texas. Although the recovery effort has been plagued by challenges, there are now roughly 83 Mexican gray wolves in the wild with five breeding pairs. One outcome of the challenging times for traditional ranching is unprecedented change in the socioeconomic composition of public lands ranchers.
    [Show full text]
  • SOPA) 01/01/2009 to 03/31/2009 Los Padres National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2009 to 03/31/2009 Los Padres National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) 01/01/2009 Page 1 of 24 Los Padres National Forest Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) Geothermal Leasing - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2008 02/2009 Peter Gaulke Programmatic Environmental Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 703-605-4796 Impact Statement 06/13/2008 [email protected] EIS Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 10/2008 Description: The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service are preparing a joint Programmatic Environmental Impac Statement to analyze the leasing of BLM and USFS administered lands with moderate to high potential for geothermal resources in 11 western states. Web Link: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide.html Location: UNIT - Clearwater National Forest All Units, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest All Units, Bitterroot National Forest All Units, Lewis And Clark National Forest All Units, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest All Units, San Juan National Forest All Units, White River National Forest All Units, Carson National Forest All Units, Cibola National
    [Show full text]