United States Department of Agriculture Cibola National Forest Forest Service Magdalena Ranger District Travel Analysis Process For Magdalena Ranger District Travel Management June 2010 Cibola National Forest 2113 Osuna RD NE Phone:505-346-3900 Albuquerque, NM 87113 Fax: 505-346-3901 Travel Analysis Process For Magdalena Ranger District Travel Management Cibola National Forest 2113 Osuna RD NE Phone: 505-346-3900 Albuquerque, NM 87113 Fax: 505-346-3901 Travel Analysis Process For Magdalena Ranger District Travel Management Magdalena Ranger District - TAP Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………….........5 Project Introduction…………………………………………………………………….....7 Summary of Issues………………………………………………………………...............5 Summary of Recommendations Responding to Issues…………………………………....5 Analysis Performed…………………………………………………………………...…..6 Key Results and Findings……………………………………………...………………….7 How the Report Will be Used………………………………………………………….....7 Chapter 1 – STEP 1: SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS Project Area and Objectives……………………………………………………………..11 Roles of Specialists………………………………………………………………………11 Process Plan……………………………………………………………………………...12 Analysis Plan…………………………………………………………………………….12 Information Needs…………………………………………………………………….....13 Chapter 2 – STEP 2: DESCRIBING THE SITUATION Existing Road and Motorized Trial System……………………………………………...14 Existing Direction for Roads, Trails, and Areas…………………………………………14 New Mexico State OHV/ATV Laws…………………………………………………….17 Road Maintenance Levels………………………………………………………………..17 Chapter 3 – STEP 3: IDENTIFYING ISSUES Resource Concerns……………………………………………………………………….19 The Issues………………………………………………………………………………...20 Chapter 4 – STEP 4: ASSESSING RISKS, BENEFITS, AND PROBLEMS The Analysis Process…………………………………………………………………….22 Assessment Criteria……………………………………………………………………...22 Scoring and Rating………………………………………………………………………36 Statistical Distribution of Risk and Benefit Assessment………………………………...40 Recommendations for Roads…………………………………………………………....48 Guidelines for Mitigating Risks………………………………………………………....50 Chapter 5 – STEP 5: DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND THE MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM Actions that Would Implement the Minimum Road System…………………………....53 Actions that Respond to the Issues………………………………………………………54 Chapter 6 – STEP 6: REPORTING Key Findings of the Analysis………………………………………………………...….57 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Road Summary of Miles by Maintenance Level for the Minimum Road System…...…7 Table 2: 1985 Cibola National Forest Plan Management Area for Magdalena Ranger District…9 Table 3: Interdisciplinary Team…………………………………………………………………12 Table 4: Magdalena Range District Inventoried Roadless Areas……………………………….16 Table 5: Magdalena Ranger District Previous Travel Management Decisions…………………16 Table 6: Road Summary of Miles by Maintenance Level for the Analysis Area……………….18 Magdalena Ranger District - TAP Page 2 Table 7: Resource Categories for Roads………………………………………………………..23 Table 8: Point range for the overall score for a Risk…………….…………………………...…37 Table 9: Point range for the overall score for a Benefit………………………………………...37 Table 10: Example of the Risk scoring system for a road…..…………………………………..37 Table 11: Example of the Benefit scoring system for a road………………………………...…40 Table 12A: Roads Risk/Benefit Matrix and Recommendations for ML1 to ML 3 Roads – Bear, Datil, and Magdalena Mountains………………………………………..…...41 Table 12B: Roads Risk/Benefit and Recommendations for ML1 to ML3 Roads – San Mateo Mountains………………………………………………………………………..…41 Table 13A: Roads Risk/Benefit and Recommendations for ML1 Roads – Bear, Datil, and Magdalena Mountains…………………………………….………42 Table 13B: Roads Risk/Benefit and Recommendations for ML1 Roads - San Mateo Mountains………………………………………………………………43 Table 14A: Roads Risk/Benefit and Recommendations for ML2 Roads – Bear, Datil, and Magdalena Mountains…………………………………………….44 Table 14B: Roads Risk/Benefit and Recommendations of ML2 Roads – San Mateo Mountains………………………………………………………………44 Table 15A: Road Risk/Benefit and Recommendations for ML3 Roads – Bear, Datil, and Magdalena Mountains…………………………………………….45 Table 15B: Roads Risk/Benefit and Recommendations of ML3 Roads – San Mateo Mountains………………………………………………………………46 Table 16A: Risk/Benefit and Recommendations for Decommissioned and Unauthorized Roads – Bear, Datil, and Magdalena Mountains…………………………………...47 Table 16B: Risk/Benefit and Recommendations for Decommissioned and Unauthorized Roads – San Mateo Mountains……………………………………………………..47 Table 17: Recommendations for Risk/Benefit Categories for Roads…………………………..48 Magdalena Ranger District - TAP Page 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Existing System Roads Risk and Benefit Assessment Additional Roads Analyzed for Inclusion in the Minimum Road System APPENDIX B: Ecological, Social and Economic Considerations APPENDIX C: Public Involvement and Collaboration APPENDIX D: List of Right-of-Way Needs APPENDIX E: Glossary APPENDIX F: Magdalena Ranger District Vicinity Map APPENDIX G: Maps APPENDIX H: Forest Wide Travel Analysis Process – Economic Analysis APPENDIX I: Summary of the Travel Analysis Process Magdalena Ranger District - TAP Page 4 Executive Summary The Travel Analysis Process (TAP) is intended to identify opportunities for the 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. The TAP is tailored to local situations and landscape/site conditions as identified by forest staffs and coupled with public input. The outcome of the TAP is a set of recommendations for the forest transportation system. A thorough Travel Analysis supports subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, allowing individual projects to be more site-specific and focused, while still addressing cumulative impacts. 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 (TAP). Summary of Issues Issues were identified using previous public involvement and internal Forest Service input. A full list with details of the Public involvement and collaboration are listed in Appendix C. Issues include: • Environmental impacts from cross-country motor vehicle travel and unauthorized routes • Need to reduce impacts to wildlife habitat, soils, and cultural resources • Insufficient resources for maintenance of the existing system roads • Need to obtain rights-of-way and access • Continued use of unauthorized and decommissioned roads • Increased risk of human-caused fire • Need for access to forest product gathering areas • Trespass onto private lands from National Forest System lands • Recreation user conflicts • Need for access to private lands for landowners Summary of Recommended Actions Responding to Issues • Improve route number signage on roads and clearly sign National Forest System land boundaries to enhance compliance and enforcement. • Rehabilitate areas damaged by cross-country travel and increase efforts to discourage travel on decommissioned and user created roads. • Reduce the number and use of roads in occupied habitat for species-of-concern and species-of- interest. Magdalena Ranger District - TAP Page 5 • Use seasonal restrictions, administrative use restrictions, and reroute roads to reduce impacts to wildlife habitat, soils and cultural resources and decrease maintenance costs. • Develop partnerships with various State, County and local groups to defray maintenance costs. • Emphasize right-of-way acquisition with out-year program planning and current year projects. • Expand public outreach through information and interpretation to improve understanding of resource damage from improper use of off-road and trail driving. • Provide accurate information to users for more informed decisions when choosing routes to travel. Analysis Performed An Interdisciplinary team (IDT) used a risk-benefit assessment to rank roads on risks (wildlife disturbance, impacts on cultural resources, etc) and benefits (access to facilities, recreational opportunities for OHV users, etc.). The categories chosen to rank risk-benefit were based on the generic issue questions from publication FS-643 “Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System” as identified in Appendix B and by criteria set by the members of the IDT (Chapter 4 – Step 4) for evaluating the risk or benefit of each road on their specialty. Key Results and Finding Through the travel analysis process, the IDT ranked routes based on their risks to natural and cultural resource and their benefit to recreation use, forest product access, agency and permittee access, vegetation management, and emergency (primarily fire management and suppression) access. • 54 percent of roads in the current system have been assessed to have a greater risk than benefit, and should be considered for decommissioning, closure, conversion to a trail, restricted to administrative use, or mitigated to reduce resource risk. • 48 percent of the current system are roads with high to medium benefits and should be considered for additional maintenance to mitigate resource risk, or used only for administrative needs. • There are 19.6 miles of additional roads (currently not on the system) that have been assessed as being needed to meet administrative, resource