Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of Agriculture

Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

MB-R3-01-13 Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests August 2019

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html" \o "Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027 and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Cooperating Agencies: Arizona Game and Fish Department Eastern Arizona Counties

Responsible Official: M Stephen Best, Forest Supervisor 30 South Chiricahua Drive, P.O. Box 640 Springerville, AZ 85938

For Information Contact: Tim Gilloon, Environmental Coordinator 30 South Chiricahua Drive, P.O. Box 640 Springerville, AZ 85938 Tel: (928)-333-6333 Email: [email protected]

Jennie O’Connor Card, Team Leader Tel: (406) 522-2537 Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The Forest Service is preparing a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS) for the Apache-Sitgreaves Public Motorized Travel Management Plan. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests propose to designate which routes (roads and trails) and areas on Federal lands administered by the Forests are open to motorized travel. This proposed action will bring the Forests into compliance with the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, subpart B) to provide for a system of National Forest System roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas designed for motor vehicle use. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action. The proposed action prohibits cross-country travel and motor vehicle use off the designated system. This proposed action designates use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes for the purposes of dispersed camping and/or retrieval of a legally harvested elk.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the agency’s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided before the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments enables a reviewer to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest i

Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Summary Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to comply with the Travel Management Rule (TMR) by providing a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212) and for that system to reduce impacts to biological, physical, and cultural resources in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. At 36 CFR 261.13, national forests are required to prohibit motor vehicle use off the system of designated roads, trails, and areas, and motor vehicle use that is not in accordance with the designations.

There is a need for a transportation system for public use, Forest Service administration, and resource protection, while recognizing historic and current uses of the Apache-Sitgreaves. Specifically, there is a need for:

(1) identifying the system of roads that would be open to motor vehicle use; (2) identifying the system of motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in width; and (3) designating the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of big game by an individual who has legally killed the animal. There is a need to counter adverse effects to resources from continued use of some roads and motorized trails, as well as cross-country travel. Some detrimental effects from motorized use of the Apache-Sitgreaves include increased sediment deposits in streams, which degrade water quality and fish habitat; the spread of invasive plants; disturbances to a variety of plant and wildlife species; and the continued risk of damaging cultural resource sites. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action This Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS) analyzed three alternatives in detail: Alternative 1 – No Action; Alternative 2 – Proposed Action; and Alternative 3. In addition, this RDEIS considered eight alternatives that were eliminated from detailed studies. These alternatives are: (1) Increase Motorized Big Game Retrieval; (2) Motorized Transportation System Determined Solely based on Annual Funding for Road Maintenance; (3) Minimum Road System Based Solely on Travel Analysis Process Recommendations; (4) Increase Transportation System to Approximately 7,000 Miles; (5) Additional Roads within the Blue Range Primitive Area; (6) Additional Roads within Natural Landscape Areas; (7) Existing Road System with No Cross-country Travel; and, (8) Designating Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping Corridors.

Alternative 1 – No Action proposes no change to the existing motorized system and is only being analyzed to provide a baseline for the action alternatives. The forest plan and other written direction (e.g., closure orders) would continue to guide motor vehicle use on the Apache- Sitgreaves. The TMR would not be implemented. Motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping would continue forestwide except where motorized restrictions exist. Approximately 1.6 million acres of National Forest System lands are currently open to cross- country motorized travel. This has been in place since the Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (forest plan) was approved in 1987, and continues under the revised forest plan of 2015 (USDA Forest Service 2015c). The revised forest plan prohibits

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest iii Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

motorized cross-country travel in designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, research natural areas, recommended research natural areas, natural landscapes, energy corridors, wildlife quiet areas, and the Blue Range Primitive Area. It is important to note that failure to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system would not be compliant with the Travel Management Rule

The proposed action (alternative 2) would designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized use as well as limited motorized access for dispersed camping and limited motorized access for big game retrieval. This proposed action would bring the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests into compliance with the TMR (36 CFR 212, subpart B) to provide for a system of National Forest System roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas designed for motor vehicle use. The road system would have 15 percent fewer open roads and 68 percent more motorized trails than the current system. That would result in 2,889 miles of NFS roads open to public motorized travel, including 2,144 miles of roads that are open to both highway legal and off- highway vehicles. Also, this would result in 202 miles of motorized trails, with 20 miles open to all vehicles and 182 miles open to vehicles less than 50 inches wide.

The proposed action would designate 300 feet from on one or both sides of around 35 percent of the designated open roads (1,027 miles) for the sole purpose of accessing dispersed camping locations with motor vehicles. Where compliant with the Forest Plan, motorized big game retrieval would be allowed within a 1-mile distance off the designated road and motorized trail system (1.2 million acres) for elk. Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in other parts of the Forests because it not consistent with the Forest Plan. Both the camping corridors and motorized big game retrieval corridors are measured from the centerline of the road. No other species could be retrieved using motor vehicles. There would be one motorized use area designated (17 acres). All other motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited.

Alternative 3 includes minimal miles of corridors for limited motorized access to dispersed camping locations, eliminates motorized access for big game retrieval, and closes roads for resource protection.

This alternative would result in a system of 2,201 miles of NFS roads designated for motor vehicle use, and 127 miles of NFS motorized trails. No motorized areas are included in this alternative. Additionally, this alternative also designates motorized access for dispersed camping (camping corridors) along 79 miles of open roads. Similar to alternative 2, corridors may only be designated on one side of the road or may not be continuous to address resource concerns and to be fully consistent with the revised forest plan. There would be no motorized off-road game retrieval in this alternative. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping and Big Game Retrieval The majority of visitors to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests would not be negatively impacted by implementation of the proposed action because (a) forest access is only slightly reduced, (b) the large majority of the National Forest System lands (outside of Wilderness) is still within a half mile of a designated route, (c) all primary destinations used by Forests visitors including trailheads, campsites, picnic areas, and developed day use areas would still be accessible by designated routes, and (d) less than a quarter of all visitors to the Forests depend on high-clearance Forest Service roads for access (USDA Forest Service 2009).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest iv Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Those visitors that depend on the high-clearance roads for access to pursue motorized recreation opportunities, hunting and game retrieval, and those who prefer to drive to isolated parts of the Forests to ‘get away from it all’ would be most affected by the proposed action. Specifically, those that prefer to or have traditionally hunted and retrieved game through off-road travel would be restricted to certain areas under this alternative. Likewise, those that prefer or have traditionally driven along the many secondary and tertiary high clearance vehicle roads in the high elevation forests and meadows for shooting, camping, hunting, or for just the pleasure of driving and exploration would be limited by this alternative to staying only on the designated routes.

Alternative 3 would have the effect of only slightly decreasing motorized access throughout the Forests, but effectively decreasing motorized access in a number of areas that are already somewhat isolated from motorized use. Motorized access to dispersed camp site locations is a major concern to the approximately 3.5 percent of the Forests visitors that use the Forests in this way (USDA Forest Service 2014). Under this alternative it is estimated that approximately 1 percent of existing regularly used dispersed campsites would be accessible to motor vehicles. In other words, approximately 99 percent of those inventoried campsites would no longer be accessible using a motor vehicle. These dispersed campsites could still be used for dispersed camping, but cannot be accessed using a motor vehicle.

Wildlife Alternative 2 would decrease open roads in terrestrial habitats by 473 miles; this decrease would reduce probability of direct mortality from collisions with vehicles, adverse modification of animal behavior, a reduction in habitat quality and a reduction in habitat quantity. There would be a beneficial effect relative to the existing condition. Similarly, the amount of species habitat that is open to cross country travel is greatly reduced in alternative 2. This decrease would reduce the current level of animal behavior modification, and would increase habitat quality and quantity. These beneficial effects are greater for alternative 3, which decreases open roads in terrestrial habitats by 1,156 miles and eliminates cross country travel for motorized big game retrieval.

Although both alternatives have positive effects, roads directly contribute to the modification of animal behavior, mortality from collisions with vehicles, alteration of terrestrial habitat, and increased contact and exploitation by humans. Roads directly adjacent to habitat can also alter the terrestrial habitat, result in the loss of habitat and function and connectivity.

Fisheries For all aquatic species (except Apache trout and Gila chub) the total open road miles would be decreased for alternatives 2 and 3, and would result in a reduction to the current levels of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; by primarily reducing the levels of fine sediments currently being added to streams and aquatic habitats. For the Apache trout and Gila chub, the increases in open road miles would directly and indirectly contribute additional fine sediments to these species habitats.

For alternative 2, road stream-crossings would be opened for all of the aquatic species, resulting in direct and/or indirect impacts. For the Gila chub, Gila trout, and spikedace, they would not be impacted by alternative 3, as they have no road-stream crossings added. For the remaining species, alternative 3 would add open road-stream crossings, although they are substantially less than what is proposed for alternative 2. These additional stream-road crossings would add to the

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest v Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

current level of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts by increasing the levels of fine sediments currently being added to streams and aquatic habitats, and increase the risk and opportunity to introduce nonnative species.

As alternative 3 does not include any MBGR; for all of the area where cross-country travel would no longer occur conditions would improve from this action, reducing the current level of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to all species.

Soil and Water Overall, both action alternatives provide for some level of resource benefit by reducing acres available to motorized travel and off road travel, including motorized dispersed recreation and motorized big game retrieval, across the Forests. In addition, both alternatives reduce acres, miles and number of stream crossings associated with motorized routes open to the public, which reduces the relative risk of impacts to soil, riparian/wetlands and water quality. It is recognized that there are, and would continue to be, localized direct and indirect negative impacts to these resources as a result of all the alternatives.

Cultural Resources In comparing alternatives 2 and 3 to the existing condition, there would be a slight increase in the number of cultural resources potentially impacted by opening new roads, motorized trails, camping corridors, with the smallest increase occurring with alternative 3. The numbers of sites at risk of being damaged by motorized use of roads, trails, and camping corridors would increase between 14 and 4.7 percent, respectively.

Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the number of cultural resources potentially impacted by restricting off road use to dispersed camping corridors, motorized use areas, and motorized big game retrieval. The numbers of sites at risk from damages caused by dispersed camping would be reduced by 91 and 99.6 percent, respectively. For alternative 2, sites in high site density areas would need to be mitigated to meet Appendix I the Southwestern Region’s programmatic agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officers.

The numbers of sites at risk from any damages caused by unrestricted uses of motorized areas would be reduced from 7,369 to zero for alternative 2 because no sites are located within the 17- acre motorized area. The numbers of sites at risk from any damages caused from motorized big game retrieval would be reduced by 9.7 percent. In alternative 2, 90.3 percent of the known sites are located within 1 mile of any given road that would have a designated corridor. In alternative 3, no motorized big game retrieval would be designated. As such, outside any road, motorized trail, camping corridors, or dispersed camping corridor, all cultural resources would be protected from what are likely minimal impacts.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest vi Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Preferred Alternative The Council on Environmental Quality defines the agency’s preferred alternative as: “the alternative which the agency believes will fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors” (CEQ 40 FAQs). The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action. This was selected as the preferred alternative because it is consistent with the Travel Management Rule, meets the purpose and need for action, and balances the public input with protecting natural and cultural resources on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest vii Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table of Contents Summary ...... iii Purpose and Need for Action ...... iii Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... iii Summary of Environmental Consequences ...... iv Preferred Alternative ...... vii Table of Contents ...... viii Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 5 Proposed Action ...... 5 Decision Framework...... 6 Public Involvement ...... 6 Tribal Consultation ...... 8 Issues ...... 9 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... 11 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 11 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 21 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 24 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 29 Introduction ...... 29 Effects to Transportation System ...... 31 Effects to Recreation, Designated Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 39 Effects to Scenery ...... 83 Effects to Socioeconomics...... 99 Effects to Wildlife and Rare Plants ...... 127 Effects to Soils, Riparian, and Water Resources ...... 165 Effects to Watershed ...... 184 Effects to Fisheries ...... 201 Effects to Air Quality ...... 238 Effects to Cultural Resources ...... 253 Effects to Areas of Tribal Interest ...... 287 Effects to Vegetation ...... 293 Effects to Noxious Weeds ...... 311 Law Enforcement ...... 318 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity...... 318 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 319 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 320 Required Disclosures ...... 320 Preparers and Contributors ...... 325 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 325 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 326 Tribes ...... 326 Glossary ...... 327 References ...... 330

List of Tables

Table 1. National Forest System routes open to the public under alternative 1 ...... 12

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest viii Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 2. National Forest System routes open to the public under alternative 2 ...... 13 Table 3. Successful hunts in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests by year and harvest unit ... 16 Table 4. Number of elk hunting permits issued per year that are likely to be used in the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests ...... 16 Table 5. National Forest System routes open to the public under alternative 3 ...... 18 Table 6. Crosswalk between 2010 and 2019 action alternatives ...... 19 Table 7. Comparison of elements between all alternatives ...... 24 Table 8. Summary of environmental consequences by alternative ...... 25 Table 9. Transportation system resource indicators and measures for the existing condition ...... 32 Table 10. Annual maintenance cost per mile by road operational maintenance level (ML) or motorized trail ...... 33 Table 11. Existing open road mileage on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests as of January 2018 ...... 34 Table 12. Transportation system resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 35 Table 13. Transportation system resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct and indirect effects ...... 36 Table 14. Transportation system resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 direct and indirect effects ...... 37 Table 15. Summary comparison of environmental effects to transportation infrastructure ...... 37 Table 16. Comparison of transportation system changes by alternative ...... 38 Table 17. Participation and change in participation in outdoor recreation activities, 2000-2007 (Cordell 2008) ...... 40 Table 18. Non-motorized trails by condition class ...... 47 Table 19. Areas with motorized recreation opportunities near the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests...... 50 Table 20. Eligible wild and scenic rivers of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests by river classification ...... 56 Table 21. Suitable wild and scenic rivers of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests by river classification ...... 57 Table 22. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests inventoried roadless areas ...... 58 Table 23. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition ...... 58 Table 24. Miles of routes and acres of camping corridors in non-motorized uses recreation opportunity spectrum areas ...... 61 Table 25. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 63 Table 26. Miles of routes and percent change in Inventoried Roadless Areas for alternative 2 .... 64 Table 27. Miles of roads with camping corridors in non-motorized uses recreation opportunity spectrum areas designated ...... 67 Table 28. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct and indirect effects ...... 69 Table 29. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 cumulative effects ...... 72 Table 30. Miles of routes and percent change in Inventoried Roadless Areas for alternative 3 .... 73 Table 31. Miles of roads with camping corridors in non-motorized uses recreation opportunity spectrum areas ...... 76 Table 32. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 direct and indirect effects ...... 78 Table 33. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 cumulative effects ...... 81 Table 34. Summary comparison of environmental effects to Recreation, Designated Areas, and Wild and Scenic River resources ...... 82 Table 35. Summary comparison of environmental effects to scenic resources ...... 83 Table 36. Scenic integrity resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 91 Table 37. Miles of unauthorized route added to the open road system in alternative 2 and scenic integrity objective ...... 93 Table 38. Scenic integrity resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 ...... 95

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest ix Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 39. Miles of unauthorized route added to the open road system in alternative 3 and scenic integrity objective ...... 96 Table 40. Scenic integrity resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 ...... 97 Table 41. Employment by industry in Apache County, 2016* ...... 108 Table 42. Percentage of employment and income from travel and tourism, Apache County and United States, 2016* ...... 109 Table 43. Percentage of households receiving earnings by source, Navajo County and United States, 2016* ...... 110 Table 44. Employment by industry, Navajo County and United States, 2016* ...... 110 Table 45. Percentage of employment in travel and tourism industries by county region and United States, 2016 ...... 114 Table 46. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests activity participation, 2014 ...... 117 Table 47. Economic and social resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 121 Table 48. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct and indirect effects ...... 124 Table 49. Economics and social resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 ...... 127 Table 50. Miles of open roads and motorized trails, and acres open to cross-country travel currently within potential natural vegetation types in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ...... 128 Table 51. Common and scientific name of federally listed species in the project area and their designated or proposed critical habitat ...... 129 Table 52. Common and scientific name of Regional Forester’s sensitive species that could occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, their habitat association, and PNVT type. Federally listed species are listed in table 51...... 130 Table 53. Migratory birds representing potential natural vegetation types ...... 134 Table 54. Alternative 1 - Acres open to cross-country travel and miles of open roads and motorized trails within habitats for threatened and endangered species ...... 135 Table 55. Change by species in the number of open route miles for alternative 2 as compared to alternative 1 ...... 135 Table 56. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 and MBGR (alternative 2) within each species habitat. These are impacts associated with the proposed action...... 136 Table 57. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and acres of DCCs in alternative 2 within suitable or occupied habitat. These are considered impacts associated with DCCs. 136 Table 58. Number of route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and alternative 3 within suitable or occupied habitat ...... 137 Table 59. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 and MBGR (alternative 3) within suitable or occupied habitat ...... 137 Table 60. Species habitat acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and DCCs acres for alternative 3 ...... 137 Table 61. Total number of Miles of Routes, Acres of Dispersed Camping, and Acres of Motorized Big Game Retrieval within suitable Mexican grey wolf habitat...... 139 Table 62. Total number of route miles open in occupied and designated critical habitat ...... 140 Table 63. Acres of occupied and designated New Mexico meadow jumping mouse within camping corridors and MBGR by alternative ...... 140 Table 64. Alternative 2 with proposed route changes within Mexican spotted owl PACs and proposed mitigation ...... 142 Table 65. Alternative 3, with new proposed routes changes within Mexican spotted owl PACs and proposed mitigation ...... 144 Table 66. Acres of Mexican spotted owl occupied habitat affected by camping corridors and MBGR by alternative ...... 146 Table 67. Potential natural vegetation types, with Regional Forester sensitive species per alternative and measure ...... 150

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest x Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 68. Miles of open routes by alternative in important bird areas ...... 155 Table 69. Miles of newly proposed routes by alternative in important bird areas ...... 155 Table 70. Overlap in acres of allowed cross-country travel for dispersed camping and important bird areas by alternative ...... 156 Table 71. Overlap in acres of allowed cross-country travel for big game retrieval and important bird areas by alternative ...... 156 Table 72. Summary comparison of environmental effects to terrestrial wildlife species and rare plants ...... 160 Table 73. Preliminary determinations for threatened and endangered species and their associated habitat for alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 161 Table 74. Preliminary determinations for Regional Forester sensitive species (RFSS) and migratory birds for alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 161 Table 75. Summary comparison of environmental effects to soil and riparian/wetland resources ...... 165 Table 76. Summary comparison of environmental effects to water quality ...... 166 Table 77. Summary of soil conditions on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ...... 169 Table 78. Summary of erosion hazard on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ...... 169 Table 79. RMAP riparian units’ acreage across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ...... 170 Table 80. Impaired and not attaining streams in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ...... 171 Table 81. Impaired and not attaining lakes and reservoirs in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ...... 171 Table 82. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 177 Table 83. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 ...... 180 Table 84. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 ...... 183 Table 85. Summary comparison of direct and indirect effects to watershed resources ...... 185 Table 86. Direct and indirect effects indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 188 Table 87. Watershed condition direct and indirect effects alternative 2 ...... 188 Table 88. Watershed cumulative effects measures and indicators for alternative 2 ...... 192 Table 89. Watershed direct and indirect effects indicators and measures, alternative 3 ...... 193 Table 90. Watershed cumulative effects indicators and measures, alternative 3 ...... 196 Table 91. Summary comparison of cumulative environmental effects to watershed resources .. 200 Table 92. Fisheries resource indicators and measures for the existing condition ...... 203 Table 93. Common and scientific names of federally listed and sensitive aquatic species in the project area and their designated or proposed critical habitat ...... 205 Table 94. Indicators and measures for alternative 1 (existing condition) by species ...... 208 Table 95. Numbers of route miles for alternative 1 within each action area for each species ..... 208 Table 96. Numbers of route crossings for alternative 1 by species ...... 209 Table 97. Acres open to cross-country travel for alternative 1, by species...... 210 Table 98. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 210 Table 99. Change by species in open route miles for alternative 2 compared to alternative 1 .... 215 Table 100. Changes in the numbers of route miles in alternative 2 compared to the existing condition (alternative 1) within the species action area ...... 215 Table 101. Number of route crossings for the existing condition (alternative 1) and changes to the number of open route crossings for alternative 2 ...... 217 Table 102. Numbers of route crossings for the existing condition (alternative 1) and changes for alternative 2 within each species action area ...... 218 Table 103. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 and MBGR (alternative 2 – elk only) within each species habitat ...... 219 Table 104. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 and MBGR acres allowed in alternative 2 within each species action area ...... 219

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest xi Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 105. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and acres of DCCs in alternative 2 within species’ habitats ...... 221 Table 106. Acres open to cross-country travel for alternative 1, and acres of DCCs in alternative 2 within each species action area ...... 221 Table 107. Numbers of open route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and for alternative 2 for each species being analyzed ...... 226 Table 108. Numbers of currently open road-stream crossings for the existing condition (alternative 1) and changes (i.e., number of opened road-stream crossings) for alternative 2 ...... 227 Table 109. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and MBGR in alternative 2 ...... 227 Table 110. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and DCCs within alternative 2 . 228 Table 111. Fisheries resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 ...... 228 Table 112. Number of route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and alternative 3 (direct impacts) ...... 229 Table 113. Numbers of route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and for alternative 3 (indirect impacts) ...... 230 Table 114. Numbers of route crossings for the existing condition (alternative 1) and the number open under alternative 3 (indirect impacts) ...... 231 Table 115. Aquatic species action area acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and acres within DCCs for alternative 3 ...... 232 Table 116. Total numbers of open route miles for alternatives 1 and 3 for each species ...... 234 Table 117. Numbers of route crossings for alternative 1 and changes (number of opened route crossings) for alternative 3 ...... 235 Table 118. For each species acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and acres of DCCs in alternative 3...... 236 Table 119. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 ...... 236 Table 120. Determination of effects for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species for alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 237 Table 121. Summary and ranking of air impacts ...... 239 Table 122. Federal criteria pollutant standards ...... 240 Table 123. Air quality index summary, 2013–17 ...... 241 Table 124. Sources of visibility reducing compounds in the Mt. Baldy Wilderness Area Class I Airshed ...... 243 Table 125. Change in road density for alternative 2 ...... 245 Table 126. Change in road density for alternative 3 ...... 248 Table 127. Summary comparison of environmental effects to known cultural resources ...... 255 Table 128. Resource indicators and measures for the current condition – cultural resources ..... 260 Table 129. Types and frequencies of site impacts currently documented in Schroeder et al. (2010) and the Apache-Sitgreaves NRM database ...... 262 Table 130. Site density by game management unit per square mile ...... 272 Table 131. Direct and indirect effects to sites from motorized and other uses from Schroeder and others’ 2010 study with recent observations from the last 8 years (in italics) or activities that contribute to cumulative effects to cultural resources (identified with an asterick) ...... 273 Table 132. Estimated acreage/percentage of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest open for motorized use under alternative 1 ...... 276 Table 133. National Forest System routes open to the public, administrative use only, and motorized trails under alternative 1 ...... 277 Table 134. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 278 Table 135. Comparison between the numbers of potentially impacted cultural resources, differences between the no-action alternative and alternative 2 ...... 279

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest xii Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 136. Alternative 2 changes to forest road system and sites within the APE ...... 281 Table 137. Comparison between the numbers of potentially at risk cultural resources, differences between the no action alternative and alternative 3 ...... 283 Table 138. Alternative 3 changes to forest road system and sites within the APE ...... 284 Table 139. Land Area, in Acres, of the Forested Major Potential Natural Vegetation Types in Relation to the Overall Acreage of the Forests (USDA Forest Service 2015) ...... 294 Table 140. Acres of dispersed camping corridors by potential natural vegetation type ...... 302 Table 141. Acres of motorized travel off-road by potential natural vegetation type ...... 303 Table 142. Acres of motorized big-game retrieval by potential natural vegetation type ...... 304 Table 143. Noxious and invasive weeds species that are currently of management concern on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, including their approximate infestation size, and management goals (USDA Forest Service 2008b) ...... 312 Table 144. Estimation of infested acres and number of non-native invasive species broken down by potential natural vegetation type (USDA Forest Service 2015) ...... 314 Table 145. Categories analyzed for direct and indirect effects ...... 315 Table 146. Adverse effects that cannot be avoided for alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 319 Table 147. Interdisciplinary team members ...... 325

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map ...... xv Figure 2. Ranger districts in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ...... xvi Figure 3. Game management unit map ...... 17 Figure 4. Recreation activities, primary versus participation visits (USDA Forest Service 2014) 42 Figure 5. Recreation opportunity spectrum designations on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache Forest Area ...... 45 Figure 6. Recreation opportunity spectrum designations on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Sitgreaves Forest Area ...... 46 Figure 7. Dirt bike in a high-elevation meadow ...... 49 Figure 8. Dispersed camping with recreational vehicles ...... 52 Figure 9. Recreation activities on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ...... 85 Figure 10. Impacts from off-road motorized use ...... 88 Figure 11. Scenic integrity objective acres in grouped open and closed vegetation types ...... 89 Figure 12. Percentage of roads in assigned scenic integrity objectives with open and closed vegetation types for alternative 2 ...... 92 Figure 13. Miles of roads in assigned scenic integrity objectives with open and closed vegetation types for alternative 3 ...... 95 Figure 14. Median age by county, 2016...... 100 Figure 15. Educational attainment by county, 2016 ...... 100 Figure 16. Percent population change 2010 to 2016 ...... 101 Figure 17. Population by race, percent total, analysis area, 2016 ...... 102 Figure 18. Hispanic population, percent of total population by county, 2016 ...... 102 Figure 19. Individuals and families in poverty, 2016 ...... 103 Figure 20. Employment by industry, 2001–2016 ...... 112 Figure 21. Income by industry, 2001–2016 ...... 113 Figure 22. Purpose of visit by visitors who agreed to be interviewed, 2014 ...... 115 Figure 23. Portion of visitors by state of origin to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, 2014 ...... 116 Figure 24. Counties with the 15 most commonly reported zip codes of forest visitors, 2014 ..... 116 Figure 25. Distribution of expenditures by activity for alternative 1 ...... 120

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest xiii Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 26. Distribution of expenditures by activity for alternative 2 ...... 122 Figure 27. Distribution of expenditures by activity for alternative 3 ...... 125 Figure 28. Photograph of Camp Lawton, an African-American CCC camp located on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. Photo credit: National Archives...... 259 Figure 29. A photo of two looter’s pits dug in a Mogollon habitation site on the Lakeside Ranger District. This site gets hit often because of its accessibility by vehicle. The bone on the right is not human, but looters will disrespectfully discard human remains next to their pits as they dig them up...... 265 Figure 30. Example of vandalism within the cabin pictured in figure 41 ...... 267 Figure 31. Photograph of a vandalized historic cabin located along a ML1 road that is not identified as closed or physically closed and is accessible by motor vehicle. This road is recommended to be changed to an open ML2 road under alternative 2 because the road goes to a single, dispersed campsite located less than 300 feet southeast of this site. Continued use of this access road could result in continued vandalism and eventual total loss...... 268 Figure 32. Photo of ruts within a site boundary. The access road through the site (ML2) is less than 30 feet away, as seen at the upper right of the photo...... 269 Figure 33. Photograph of an ATV play zone located adjacent to the Water Canyon Road (ML3) on the Springerville Ranger District. If cultural resources were present at this location, they would have been adversely affected by off-road use within 30 feet from the edge of the road...... 269 Figure 34. Example of a pinyon-juniper grassland that had not been treated for over 60 years until just before this photo was taken in 2016. Sites located in this treatment area were in excellent condition and had very little human-caused disturbance except in areas where there were existing roads. Tribes have expressed concern that when these types of areas are opened, if left unchecked, cultural resource sites and other resources could be adversely affected by off-road use...... 288

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest xiv Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 1. Vicinity map

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests xv Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 2. Ranger districts in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests xvi Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (the Apache-Sitgreaves or the Forests) are located in east central Arizona (Figure 1), ranging in elevation from approximately 3,500 feet near Clifton to more than 11,400 feet on Mt. Baldy. There are 2,110,196 acres within the current national forests’ boundaries, which span portions of Coconino, Navajo, Apache, and Greenlee Counties, and are administratively divided into five ranger districts (Figure 2): Alpine, Black Mesa, Clifton, Lakeside, and Springerville. Motor vehicles are used to access the Apache-Sitgreaves for both motorized and non-motorized activities including sightseeing, camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, and horseback riding, as well as permitted uses, such as firewood cutting, range allotments and administrative uses. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisor’s Office in Springerville, Arizona. Background To comply with the Travel Management Rule (TMR), the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests propose to provide a system of National Forest System (NFS) roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use. This road and motorized trail system would provide access to the Forests while protecting physical, biological, and cultural resources.

Travel management planning for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests began in 2005, and included extensive public involvement from 2005 to 2008. Over 20,000 comments were received during this time period, and were considered into the environmental impact statement (EIS). A draft EIS was released for public comments in October 2010, and approximately 200 comments were received. Shortly after the comment period ended, the Wallow Fire burned through the Forests and this project was put on hold. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are now preparing a revised draft EIS (RDEIS) that incorporates the previous public comments and changed conditions to meet the original purpose and need, and to comply with the TMR.

Travel Management Rule On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations governing off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and other motor vehicle uses on all national forests and grasslands. The TMR amended regulations in 36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Parts 212, 251(b) and 261(a). These three regulations—36 CFR, Parts 212, 251(b), and 261(a)—are referred to collectively as the TMR throughout this document. The TMR was developed in response to the substantial increase in use of OHVs on NFS lands and related damage to forest resources caused by unmanaged OHV use during the past 30 years. The regulations implement Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 regarding off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands.

The TMR provides for a system of NFS roads, trails, and areas on NFS lands designated for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(a)). After the roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use not in accordance with these designations is prohibited, including motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas (36 CFR 261.13). Once the record of decision is signed, forests must display motorized roads, trails, and areas on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 1 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Definitions (36 CFR 212.1)

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.

Trail – A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail.

Forest or system road or trail – A road or trail wholly or partially within or adjacent to and serving NFS lands that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the NFS, and the use and development of its resources.

Unauthorized road – A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail, or a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas.

Area – A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller (in most cases, much smaller) than a ranger district.

Regulation 36 CFR 212.51(a) states that roads, motorized trails, and areas shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year by the responsible official, provided that the following vehicles and uses are exempted from these designations: (1) aircraft; (2) watercraft; (3) over-snow vehicles; (4) limited administrative use by the Forest Service; (5) use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; (6) authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; (7) law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and (8) motor vehicle use specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations. Exemption 8 includes (but is not limited to) uses under Forest Service written authorizations (i.e., permits) and includes uses such as access for range improvements, firewood cutting, gathering forest products (e.g., seedlings, rocks, pinecones), ceremonial gathering by tribes, outfitter and guide services, maintenance of utility corridors (e.g., power lines, pipelines), administrative use by other Federal or State agencies, and special use permits.

The TMR provides general criteria for designating roads, trails, and areas for motorized use as well as specific criteria for designating trails, areas, and roads in 36 CFR 212.55. Section 212.55(b) outlines the minimization criteria that must be considered when designated trails and areas. These criteria (listed below) were used throughout the analysis of these alternatives for each resource area.

(b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing:

(1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;

(2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;

(3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and

(4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 2 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

In addition to designating roads, trails and areas, the TMR allows for the designation of motorized access for dispersed camping and big game retrieval. Regulation 36 CFR 212.51(b) states: “In designating routes, the responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal.”

The responsible official may incorporate previous administrative decisions regarding travel management made under other authorities, including designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle use, in designating NFS roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(b)). Therefore, only changes to the existing system will be analyzed in this document.

Changed Conditions and Relevant New Information The staff of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests carefully reviewed the previous draft EIS to determine if a supplement or revision was required, based on Council of Environmental Quality direction on supplementing EISs. Section 1502.9(a) states: “If a draft statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate a revised draft of the appropriate portion. The agency shall make every effort to disclose and discuss at appropriate points in the draft statement all major points of view on the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action” (40 CFR, Part 1502). Section 1502.9(c)(1) states that agencies “shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if:

(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or

(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.”

If the project meets the criteria in Section 1502.9, a supplemental or revised EIS must be prepared for an old EIS so that the agency has the best possible information to make any necessary substantive changes in its record of decision.

The significant new information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the proposed action include the following.

• Revised Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (the forest plan) implemented in October 2015 (USDA Forest Service 2015c) • Revised Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List in 2013 • Project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decisions impacting roads • Updated existing conditions based on new LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data for the Forests • Change in baseline conditions as a result of the 2011 Wallow Fire, including wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat, cultural resources, and vegetation conditions • Development and update of the Watershed Condition Framework • Changes to federally listed species and proposed or designated critical habitat occurring in the Forests

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 3 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• In 2012, the U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service published a revised recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl, a species that occurs in the Forests • Update to the Clean Water Rule: Definition of the “Waters of the United States” in 40 CFR 230.3 published on June 29, 2015, in the Federal Register (80 FR 37054). The final rule became effective on August 28, 2015. EPA – provides protection to intermittent and ephemeral streams. • Changes in cultural resources inventory and reporting requirements as defined in the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests Alternative Identification Methods for Undertakings (2012) and additional cultural resource surveys • New information on the dispersed camping sites and use, provided by Arizona Game and Fish Department • Changes in technology and use of motorized vehicles across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Based on these changes and the resulting changes to the action alternatives, we are preparing an RDEIS to analyze public motorized travel on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. These changed conditions have been incorporated into the existing conditions and environmental analysis for each resource considered in this project.

Forest Plan Management Direction The revised Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests was implemented on October 25, 2015 (USDA Forest Service 2015c), replacing the former forest plan. The revised forest plan identifies the suitability of areas in the Forests for motorized vehicle use and other recreational activities. Suitability describes the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices (uses) to a particular area of land. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined uses. Suitability statements may include motorized travel; these statements should be based on existing plans, law, regulation, executive orders, and Forest Service directives (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 20, Section 15). Chapter 4 of the revised forest plan (pages 137 to 139) describes suitability determinations for motorized travel. Table 10 in Chapter 4 (pages 138 to 139) of the forest plan describes the suitability of each management area for a newly designated motorized area, road, trails less than 50 inches, and trails over 50 inches. The management areas found to be not suitable for any newly designated motorized travel are: wildlife quiet areas, natural landscapes, recommended research natural areas, research natural areas, primitive area, recommended wilderness, and wilderness areas.

Overall, the revised forest plan provides the framework to guide future changes to the transportation system. In addition to determining suitability for each management area, the forest plan developed desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines for motorized opportunities across the Forests (forest plan, pages 75 to 78). Additional standards and guidelines are found within other forestwide direction and management area direction sections of the forest plan. The desired conditions for motorized opportunities are as follows.

• A maintained road and motorized trail system is in place and provides for safety and access for the use (e.g., recreation, minerals, vegetation treatment, fire protection) of the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. • Users have opportunities for motorized access and travel on a system of designated NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, and motorized areas.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 4 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• The transportation system provides a variety of recreation opportunities including varying degrees of difficulty, from OHV trails to paved scenic byways, while limiting resource and/or user conflicts. • NFS roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas are easily identified on the ground (e.g., well-marked). • The road and trail system is accessible from local communities, State, county, and local public roads and trails. • Loop trails exist for motorized trail users. • Tread Lightly!® principles are commonly practiced. • The location and design of roads and trails does not impede wildlife and fish movement. All alternatives considered in detail (see Chapter 2) are designed to be consistent with the revised forest plan. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to comply with the TMR by providing a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212) and for that system to reduce impacts to biological, physical, and cultural resources in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. At 36 CFR 261.13, national forests are required to prohibit motor vehicle use off the system of designated roads, trails, and areas, and motor vehicle use that is not in accordance with the designations.

(1) identifying the system of roads that would be open to motor vehicle use; (2) identifying the system of motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in width; and (3) designating the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of big game by an individual who has legally killed the animal. There is a need to counter adverse effects to resources from continued use of some roads and motorized trails, as well as cross-country travel. Some detrimental effects from motorized use of the Apache-Sitgreaves include increased sediment deposits in streams, which degrade water quality and fish habitat; the spread of invasive plants; disturbances to a variety of plant and wildlife species; and the continued risk of damaging cultural resource sites. Proposed Action The revised proposed action would designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized use as well as limited motorized access for dispersed camping and limited motorized access for big game retrieval. This proposed action would bring the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests into compliance with the TMR (36 CFR 212, subpart B) to provide for a system of NFS roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas designed for motor vehicle use. The road system would have 15 percent fewer open roads and 68 percent more motorized trails than the current system. That would result in 2,889 miles of NFS roads open to public motorized travel, including 2,144 miles of roads that are open to both

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 5 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References highway legal and off-highway vehicles. Also, this would result in 202 miles of motorized trails, with 20 miles open to all vehicles and 182 miles open to vehicles less than 50 inches wide.

The proposed action would designate 300 feet on one or both sides of around 35 percent of the designated open roads (1,027 miles) for the sole purpose of accessing dispersed camping locations with motor vehicles. Where compliant with the Forest Plan, motorized big game retrieval would be allowed within a 1-mile distance off the designated road and motorized trail system (1.2 million acres) for elk. Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in other parts of the Forests because it not consistent with the Forest Plan. Both the camping corridors and motorized big game retrieval corridors are measured from the centerline of the road. No other species would be retrieved using motor vehicles. There would be one motorized use area designated (17 acres). All other cross- country travel would be prohibited. See Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action for more details on the actions being proposed. Decision Framework Given the purpose and need, the responsible official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences to make the following decisions:

• What changes to the existing transportation system would be necessary to comply with the TMR? These may include adding or removing NFS roads and trails authorized for motorized travel, and adding unauthorized roads and trails to the designated motorized system; • Whether to provide motorized access for dispersed camping within corridors along specified routes; • Whether to designate areas for motor vehicle use, and if so, under what conditions; and, • Whether to provide motorized access for big game retrieval within specified distances of certain designated routes. After the record of decision is signed, an MVUM that displays the new designated transportation system. Public Involvement

Project-specific Public Involvement This project was listed on the Forests’ schedule of proposed actions beginning in 2005. Local citizens; State, county, local, and Tribal governments; and other Federal agencies were invited to collaborate with the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. From 2005 to 2008, the Apache-Sitgreaves hosted and participated in 31 public meetings and workshops related to motorized travel management and the travel analysis process (TAP) across the Forests and in local communities. The following local groups participated in workshops and provided specific input: the Town of Eagar, White Mountain Conservation League, White Mountain Open Trails Association, Apache County All-terrain Vehicle (ATV) Roughriders, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, and Citizens for Multiple Land Use and Access. This preliminary, pre-NEPA analysis public input was used to develop the initial proposed action.

On October 10, 2007, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for motorized travel on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (72 FR 57514–57517) was published in the Federal Register. On October 31, 2007, a corrected notice of intent (72 FR 61607) was published in the

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 6 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Federal Register correcting the miles of road on the transportation system and the availability of maps to the general public.

Staff of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests conducted five public meetings in November 2007, in the communities of Lakeside, Eagar, Clifton, Heber-Overgaard, and Alpine to present the proposed action. Public comment indicated the proposed action did not provide adequate motorized opportunities and access for dispersed camping. After consideration of the input received during those meetings, the forest supervisor modified the proposed action and included more miles of corridor for dispersed camping, increased the acres of the areas designated for motorized use, and slightly increased the miles of motorized trails.

A new notice of intent was published in the Federal Register on February 29, 2008 (73 FR 11088- 11091), requesting public comment on the modified proposed action. Additional public meetings were held in March 2008, in the communities of Show Low, Springerville, Clifton, Safford, Heber- Overgaard, and Alpine. Coordination with local governments has occurred since this period.

We received over 20,000 comments during the scoping periods between 2005 and 2008. Categories of interest included motorized access for dispersed camping, big game retrieval, and other motorized uses; impacts to wildlife, soil and water and air, cultural resources, specially designated areas and scenery or visuals, economics; potential conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses; noise; public safety; availability of recreation opportunities; and impacts to permitted activities such as easements, special forest products, and grazing. These comments were incorporated into alternatives B through E of the draft EIS of 2010. The proposed action was modified again after the 2008 comment period to respond to internal and external comments received. This alternative would result in a system of 2,673 miles of NFS roads designated for motor vehicle use and 268 miles of NFS trails designated for vehicles 50 inches or less in width.

In October 2010, the Forest Service released a draft EIS and notice of availability for the DEIS. The notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2010 (75 FR 209-66756). A legal notice appeared in the White Mountain Independent (the newspaper of record) on the same day. A letter notifying interested parties of the opportunity to comment on the DEIS was mailed to approximately 580 agencies, individuals, and organizations. An additional 17 letters were mailed to Tribal governments and cultural organizations. And, a news release and newspaper flyer were distributed to inform the public of the comment period. Six public meetings were held during this comment period in Lakeside, Alpine, Black Mesa, Clifton, and Springerville.

We received approximately 200 comment letters, which have been incorporated into this RDEIS. All letters received are available in the project record. Common themes of these comments included: the number and location of roads proposed for closure; authorized versus unauthorized roads and their current use; and concerns about open roads causing resource damage. A full summary of these comments and the Forest Service response can be found in appendix A.

The project was put on hold after the Wallow Fire, until planning resumed in the fall of 2016. A final notice of intent was published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2017 (82 FR 189-45800), informing the public that the Forests would be revising the Environmental Impact Statement for the Public Motorized Travel Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. One comment was received from Arizona Game and Fish Department in response to this notice of intent; comments were not solicited. To comply with the NEPA, the comment period for the RDEIS will be a minimum of 45 days, allowing the public to review issues and revised alternatives.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 7 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Objection Regulations Section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 included a provision establishing a pre- decisional objection process (36 CFR 218) for projects and activities implementing land management plans in lieu of the post-decisional appeal process (36 CFR 215) used by the agency since 1993. Although this project was originally subject to the appeal process, it is now subject to the Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process (objection process) as identified in 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B because the transition period has passed.

Individuals and entities (non-governmental organizations, businesses, partnerships, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes) who have submitted timely, specific written comments regarding a proposed project or activity during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection (36 CFR 218.5). For this project, this includes the two scoping periods, in 2005 and 2008, and two notice and comment periods, in 2010 and 2019.

Written comments are those submitted to the responsible official during a designated opportunity for public participation provided for a proposed project. Specific written comments should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider. Tribal Consultation The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests consulted with nine Tribes and Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation that use the Forests for traditional, cultural, or spiritual activities, during the RDEIS process. The tribes consulted are: Fort McDowell Yavapai-Nation, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni.

Tribes were informed about travel management in October 2007, as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. In July 2008, we sent a follow-up consultation letter regarding the modified proposed action, and we held consultation meetings with three Tribes. During this time the Forests held consultation meetings and solicited comments from the tribes. Since the NEPA process was reinitiated in 2017 the Forests has engaged with the Tribes about travel management during formal and informal meetings as well as field trips.

Issues raised included roads that cross borders into reservation lands, the tribes’ ability to continue to gather forest projects and conduct traditional ceremonies, access for tribal members to important places, and reducing impacts to prehistoric sites by motorized travel. When developing the proposed action the responsible official took a hard look at the border roads and made recommendations. The travel management plan is designed to eliminate cross-country travel over most of the forest thereby reducing impacts to prehistoric sites.

Certain activities and vehicles are exempted (36 CFR 212.51 (a)) from the actions proposed under the Travel Management Rule including motor vehicle use specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations. This exemption includes uses, such as access for range improvements, firewood cutting, gathering forest products, ceremonial gathering by tribes, outfitter and guide services, maintenance of utility corridors, administrative use by other Federal or state agencies, and special use permit events. Tribal consultation with federally recognized tribal governments is documented in the RDEIS and will continue to be conducted according to Forest Service policy.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 8 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

The responsible official sent a letter prior to release of the RDEIS to the 9 Tribes and one chapter informing them of the RDEIS for travel management and the upcoming comment period. The letter also expressed the responsible official’s desire to meet with the tribes and encourage their engagement as we move forward. Issues Issues highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action or alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade- offs for the decision-maker and public to understand. We identified issues through scoping. Significant issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action, that may involve potentially significant effects, and that could be meaningfully and reasonably evaluated and addressed within the scope of this proposal. We developed alternatives around those significant issues involving unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (40 CFR 1500.2(e)).

We analyzed all comments to identify issues, which are defined as cause-effect relationships directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. The issues defined as within the scope of the project, and directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposal, were used to develop the range of action alternatives. Issues 1, 2, and 3 drove alternative development. Issue 4 was identified based on comments.

Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping Concern: Limiting motorized access for dispersed camping may increase interactions between campers and diminish the quality of experience. Designating routes and corridors for camping may eliminate favorite spots that have been used for decades.

Response: All alternatives provide open roads to access dispersed camping to varying degrees. Alternative 2 (proposed action) provides more miles of motorized access to dispersed camping and roads that access identified dispersed camping, compared to alternative 3. Alternative 2 was designed to provide access to as many existing dispersed camping spots as possible.

Units of Measure for Each Alternative • Percentage of inventoried dispersed campsites within drivable areas (cross country areas or dispersed camping corridors where motorized vehicles are allowed) • Percentage of areas near roads outside of designated areas (Wilderness and Primitive Areas)

Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game Retrieval Concern: Changing the motorized big game retrieval policy to a fixed distance corridor may result in hunters being unable to collect a downed animal in a timely manner.

Response: Alternative 1 continues the existing condition. Alternative 2 designates motorized access for big game retrieval 1 mile from any road or trail open to motorized use. Management areas and other locations where cross-country travel is prohibited in the 2015 Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015c) or by Forest Order, approximately 40 percent of the Forests, are proposed to be excluded from motorized big game retrieval. Alternative 3 does not designate any motorized access for big game retrieval. Alternative 2 only designates access for elk, to remain consistent with

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 9 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

TMR implementation on other national forests in the Southwestern Region (Arizona and New Mexico).

Units of Measure for Each Alternative • Miles of motorized big game retrieval corridors • Percentage of off-road elk retrieval vehicle trips affected by travel management restrictions • Hunter satisfaction

Issue 3: Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use Concern: Adding roads and camping corridors to the transportation system will adversely impact terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species, soil and water, and cultural resources.

Response: Alternative 3 was developed to remove roads causing resource damage, provide motorized access with minimal miles of road with camping corridors, and eliminate motorized access for big game retrieval. Each resource area has a number of resource indicators and measures to compare the impacts by alternatives. A few are listed below with additional ones found in Chapter 3. More details of each of these can be found in the corresponding section of chapter 3.

Units of Measure for Each Alternative • Acres of unrestricted cross-country travel • Miles of open roads and motorized trails within wildlife habitat • Number of stream crossings on perennial streams, intermittent streams and ephemeral channels, and impaired waterbodies • Acres of disturbance from motorized routes within riparian areas including wetlands and wet meadows • Acres of potential disturbance from motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed recreation, and motorized routes in areas having unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil condition classes • Number of cultural resources (sites) potentially impacted within the area of potential effect

Issue 4: Economics: Loss of Revenues and Jobs Concern: Restrictions on motorized access (a change from the current condition) could negatively impact local and state economies from a loss of local, tourist, and hunter-generated revenues.

Response: The social and economic impacts the project would have on the region are analyzed in chapter 3.

Unit of Measure: Direction and magnitude of change and consideration of different sectors affected, including jobs and income.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 10 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action The interdisciplinary team, including the responsible official, followed the Forest Service Handbook (1909.15) for developing and considering alternatives. Alternatives were developed to meet the purpose and need and to respond to public issues. These alternatives are intended to bring the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests into compliance with the TMR (36 CFR 212, subpart B) to provide for a system of NFS roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas designated for motor vehicle use. Alternatives Considered in Detail The Forest Service developed three alternatives, including the no-action and proposed action alternatives, in response to issues the public raised (see Chapter 1, Issues section). Under all alternatives, the following laws and policies would remain in place, regardless of the alternative selected.

• Motorized use on NFS roads and NFS trails is subject to Arizona State law. • In accordance with 36 CFR 261.12, on NFS roads and trails the following is prohibited: (c) damaging and leaving in a damaged condition any such road, trail, or segment thereof. • In accordance with 36 CFR 261.15, use of vehicles off roads (h), it is prohibited to operate any vehicle off NFS, State, or county roads in a manner which damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources. • The provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA: PL 96-487) that require the Forest Service to allow access to private in-holdings will continue to apply. • As provided for in the TMR, none of the alternatives preclude the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests from closing roads, trails, or areas to motorized use through emergency closure orders. • Counties, Tribes, states, private companies and citizens may have been granted rights of access, or in some cases have been assigned jurisdiction over some roads on NFS lands. Rights that have been legally established will continue to be recognized. • On NFS roads, roadside parking adjacent to the designated routes would continue to be allowed per Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7716.1(1). The designation includes parking a motor vehicle on the side of the road when it is safe to do so without causing damage to NFS resources or facilities, unless prohibited by state law, traffic sign, or order pursuant to (36 CFR 261.54). • Where off-road motorized big game retrieval is proposed, it would be authorized in accordance with the annual hunting regulations for elk published by the Arizona Department of Game and Fish. Motorized retrieval of other game animals would not be allowed. No motorized big game retrieval would be allowed in wilderness or primitive areas. This EIS only includes National Forest System roads; it does not include roads under other jurisdiction, including private, country and state roads. Also, this EIS does not change or restrict where non-motorized activities may take place, including dispersed camping opportunities. This project does not change the management or restriction of non-motorized methods of travel in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, such as hiking, biking, or horseback riding.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 11 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 1 - No Action The NEPA regulations require that a no-action alternative be included as a baseline, continuing with the present course of action for comparison to all action alternatives. This alternative proposes no change to the existing motorized system. The forest plan and other written direction (e.g., closure orders) would continue to guide motor vehicle use on the Apache-Sitgreaves. It is important to note that failure to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system would not be compliant with the TMR. Maps displaying open roads and motorized trails under this alternative are found in appendix C.

Motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping would continue forestwide except where motorized restrictions exist. No changes to the existing transportation system would be made. There are 3,421 miles of open NFS roads1, including 2,650 miles of maintenance level 2 roads (see table 1). Maintenance level 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles (FSH 7709.59, Chapter 60, 62.32). These maintenance level 2 roads, combined with the 63 miles of motorized trails, are the routes open to non-street legal vehicles.

Table 1. National Forest System routes open to the public under alternative 1 NFS Routes Open to the Public Miles Total roads open to the public 3,421 Maintenance level 2 roads1 2,650 Maintenance level 3 roads2 683 Maintenance level 4 roads3 88 Motorized trails open to vehicles less than 50 inches 63 1 Maintenance level 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. (FSH 7709.59, Chapter 60, 62.32) 2 Maintenance level 3 roads are open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. 3 Maintenance level 4 roads provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. (FSH 7709.59, Chapter 60, 62.32)

Approximately 1.6 million acres of NFS land are currently open to cross-country motorized travel. This has been in place since the Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (forest plan) was approved in 1987, and continues under the revised forest plan of 2015 (USDA Forest Service 2015c). The revised forest plan prohibits motorized cross-country travel in designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, research natural areas, recommended research natural areas, natural landscapes, energy corridors, wildlife quiet areas, and the Blue Range Primitive Area. Existing motorized prohibitions and seasonal closures would remain in place.

Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action Alternative 2 designates 2,889 miles of NFS roads, 202 miles of motorized trails, and one motorized area (17 acres in the Black Mesa Ranger District), as shown in table 2, and described in the following sections. This alternative also designates limited motorized access for dispersed camping (camping corridors) along 1,027 miles of road and motorized trails, and limited motorized corridors for big game retrieval along 2,693 miles of roads and motorized trails. After the record of decision is signed for this project, the TMR would require all motorized vehicles to remain on these designated

1 Data was frozen on August 3, 2017 to allow the interdisciplinary team to complete the analysis. Any changes made to Forest Service databases are not reflected in this EIS.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 12 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References routes and area, and no other cross-county travel would be permitted. Motorized vehicles would be permitted only on the routes and areas designated by the selected alternative.

Table 2. National Forest System routes open to the public under alternative 22 Routes Miles Total roads open to the public 2,889 Maintenance level 2 roads 2,144 Maintenance level 3 roads 657 Maintenance level 4 roads 88 Currently closed roads opened to the public 152 Currently open roads closed to the public 553 Unauthorized roads added to the system and open to the public 19 Motorized trails 202 Open to vehicles less than 50 inches 162 Open to all vehicles 20 Special designation* 20 Unauthorized trails added to the system and open to the public 81 Miles of dispersed camping corridors 1,027 Miles of big game (Elk) retrieval corridors 2,693 * This special designation includes all off-highway vehicles, including utility terrain vehicles and side-by-sides; the width would be 68 inches.

Proposed Action Development This alternative was developed through public dialogue starting in 2005, and updated to remain consistent with law, regulation, and policy, and to address the changed conditions. The proposed public motorized travel system that resulted from this process addresses the purpose and need by providing motorized access to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests while protecting resources. Maps displaying open roads and motorized trails under this alternative are found in appendix C.

The modified proposed action from the 2010 DEIS and Travel Analysis Report for Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests (Bielecki 2008) were used as the foundation to develop this alternative. When the planning process resumed in 2016, the proposed action was reviewed and passed through three screens. First, resource specialists reviewed the proposed action from 2010 to evaluate if changes were needed to match what was happening on the ground and the changed conditions (see the Changed Condition section of chapter 1). This review included specialists from the ranger districts, supervisor’s office, and cooperating agencies.

Second, the interdisciplinary team conducted a preliminary effects analysis to determine if there were any unacceptable environmental effects and to ensure that the project was meeting the specific criteria for designating trails, areas, and roads contained in 36 CFR 212.55 (see Travel Management

2 Data errors on 13 road segments were identified after the alternatives were prepared and analyzed. These data errors resulted in opening an additional 1.07 miles of road, closing 3.34 miles of road, and correcting the jurisdiction of 1.96 miles of road. Roads were opened to access shipping pens and corrals, trailheads, and gravel pits; and to provide continuous travel. Roads were closed to match previous NEPA decisions, remove inaccessible roads, and remove dead ends. These changes have all been incorporated into the story map and will be corrected in the final environmental impact statement. No resource concerns were identified by the interdisciplinary team, and the effects analysis in Chapter 3 is not impacted by these changes.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 13 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Rule in chapter 1 for criteria). Based on this review, the motorized areas were reduced from five (459 acres) proposed in 2010 to only one (17 acres) in the current proposed action. Also, the team made changes to the trail system to ensure that effects to soil, watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and other forest resources, including cultural resources, were minimized. The trail system was also reviewed to minimize conflicts between recreational uses and motor vehicle classes. Only two roads, NFS Roads 169 and 504, have motorized mixed use. See appendix B for reason codes for why proposals were not carried forward and why roads were eliminated from the proposed action. These reason codes were developed to meet the changed conditions and criteria of the TMR.

Lastly, the interdisciplinary team reviewed the resulting proposed action to ensure the road- and trail- specific comments submitted as part of the 2010 notice and comment period were considered and incorporated into the proposed action as appropriate (see appendix A for more details).

Designated Roads and Trails The proposed transportation system results from opening roads currently closed to the public (152 miles), closing roads currently open to the public (553 miles), and adding unauthorized routes to the system (19 miles of road and 81 miles of trails). Unauthorized roads and trails are routes that are not created, recognized, or managed as part of the designated, authorized transportation system. When unauthorized routes are added to the transportation system, they would be maintained according to the designated maintenance level as described in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 7709.59, Chapter 60, 62.32). Similarly, roads that are opened would be maintained to the designated level, which is most often maintenance level 2.

When a road is closed, the maintenance level is changed to maintenance level 1. Maintenance level 1 roads are placed in storage between intermittent uses, and the period of storage must exceed 1 year (FSH 7709.59, Chapter 60, 62.32). Some roads are open only for individual permitted special use, private property access, or administrative use, and are considered maintenance level 2 administrative. These roads are not available for public use.

Three types of motorized trails are designated under this alternative. First, motorized trails open to vehicles less than 50 inches wide, which includes primarily all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles, are designated. Second, motorized trails for all vehicles are designated for all off-highway and street legal vehicles. Lastly, motorized trails with a special designation are open to all off-highway vehicles, including utility terrain vehicles and side-by-sides; the trail width would be 68 inches. This special designation only applies to the Maverick Trail in the Lakeside Ranger District. All these trails are maintained following Forest Service standards found in Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 – Trails Management Handbook, Chapter 4 – Trail Operation and Maintenance.

Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping and Big Game Retrieval In addition to these designated routes, this alternative designates 300-foot corridors along 1,027 miles of road (35 percent of roads open for public use) for the sole purpose of motorized dispersed camping per 36 CFR 212.51(b). The corridors are measured from the centerline of the road. Vehicles may pull off the road to access dispersed camping sites. Vehicles may not drive within the corridors, and cross-country travel is not permitted within the corridors. Corridors may be designated on one or both sides of the road and may not be continuous to address resource concerns and to be fully consistent with the revised forest plan.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 14 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Lastly, this alternative designates 1-mile-wide corridors along either side of 2,693 miles of roads and motorized trails (87 percent of routes open for public use) for the sole purpose of retrieving a downed big game animal per 36 CFR 212.51(b). The corridors are measured from the centerline of the road. These corridors are along NFS roads and trails open to motor vehicles and on NFS lands adjacent to open roads managed by other State and Federal agencies except where motorized restrictions exist. Corridors may be designated on one or both sides of the road or trail and may not be continuous to address resource concerns and to be fully consistent with the revised forest plan.

Due to restrictions in law, regulation, or policy, motorized access for big game retrieval is not designated in the following areas:

• designated and recommended wilderness areas; • Blue Range Primitive Area; • areas closed to motorized use by Forest Order; and • Forest plan management areas unsuitable for motorized use (research natural areas, recommended research natural areas, natural landscapes, and wildlife quiet areas). These corridors can only be used by an individual who has legally taken an elk, according to the regulations established by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Details on these regulations can be found here: https://www.azgfd.com/Hunting/. The following section provides a summary of elk hunting on the forest, which corresponds to where these corridors would be located.

Summary of Elk Hunting on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Elk (Cervus canadensis) are widely distributed migratory generalists that use a broad range of habitat types on a seasonal basis. Mountain meadows, ponderosa pine woodlands, spruce-fir forests, and other high-elevation habitat between 7,000 and 10,500 feet constitute the elk’s principal summer range. Elk tend to stay on summer range as long as possible, arriving early and remaining until forced down by deep snow. Their winter range, usually pinyon-juniper habitat between 5,500 and 6,500 feet elevation, is more limited in extent and may only compose 10 percent of the animal’s total habitat. The preferred foods of elk are grasses, sedges, and other plants such as aster, goosefoot, bear grass, erigonums, lupines, and other mountain plants (Hoffmeister 1986). Elk may favor browse items such as serviceberry; mountain mahogany; sagebrush; rabbitbrush; acorns; and leaves of oaks, snowberry, aspen, and willows at various times of the year.

Elk are considered common, permanent residents, and are known to occur throughout the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. Information the Arizona Game and Fish Department provided indicates that about 1,757,396 acres of elk summer range and 1,228,615 acres of winter range occur in the Forests. Arizona Game and Fish Department manages the state’s elk population through annual hunting permits issued for each game management unit (GMU). GMUs that are wholly or partially located within the Apache-Sitgreaves are Units 01, 03A, 03B, 03C, 04A, 04B, and 27 (see table 3 and Figure 3) Less than 1 percent of GMU 28 is located in the Forests.

According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, approximately 9,000 elk are successfully hunted each year in the State of Arizona, and this harvest level is expected to continue into the future. Table 3 shows the successful hunt data for the Forests over the past 5 years by harvest unit. Over the past 10 years, an average of approximately 1,805 elk have been harvested on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests each year.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 15 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 3. Successful hunts in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests by year and harvest unit3 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Game % Elk GMU On GMU On GMU On GMU On GMU On Management GMU Acres Harvest on Total Forest Total Forest Total Forest Total Forest Total Forest Unit (GMU) Forest 1 540,290 85% 583 496 672 571 634 539 659 560 745 633 3A/3C 849,369 85% 474 403 471 400 380 323 522 444 374 318 3B 370,490 85% 248 211 150 128 205 174 214 182 249 212 4A 482,206 80% 342 274 402 322 340 272 310 248 333 266 4B 853,943 75% 140 105 151 113 149 112 103 77 150 113 27 865,741 98% 468 459 593 581 592 580 515 505 633 620 Totals 3,962,039 n/a 2,255 1,946 2,439 2,115 2,300 2,000 2,323 2,016 2,484 2,162

Table 4. Number of elk hunting permits issued per year that are likely to be used in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

GMU 2012 Permits 2013 Permits 2014 Permits 2015 Permits 2016 Permits 1 1,113 1,428 1,319 1,148 1400 3A/3C 446 939 939 897 1055 3B 210 514 489 493 580 4A 432 905 588 604 740 4B 144 439 375 323 405 27 892 1,265 1,362 1,147 1356 Totals 3,236 5,490 5,072 4,610 5536

3 The number of successful hunts was determined by adjusting GMU hunts to reflect the percentage that would likely be used on the Forests based on the percentage of the GMU that overlaps with NFS lands

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 16 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 3. Game management unit map

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 17 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

The Arizona Game and Fish Department monitor the population of elk and issue permits based on habitat and elk-livestock competition. Since the mid-1980s, elk populations were on an upward trend and at a strong sustainable population. Permits are issued based on the ideal population rates, habitat conditions, and harvest rates every year. The current situation is expected to continue. Table 4 summarizes the number of permits issued; these numbers have been adjusted to reflect the percentage that are likely used in the Forests, based on the percentage of the GMU that overlaps with NFS lands.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed to address Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping, Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game Retrieval, and Issue 3: Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use. This alternative includes minimal miles of corridors to access dispersed camping locations, eliminates motorized access for big game retrieval, and closes roads for resource protection. Similar to alternative 2, alternative 3 addresses the purpose and need by providing motorized access to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests while protecting resources. Maps displaying open roads and motorized trails under this alternative are found in appendix C.

This alternative would result in a system of 2,201 miles of NFS roads designated for motor vehicle use, and 127 miles of NFS motorized trails (see table 5). No motorized areas are included in this alternative. Additionally, this alternative also designates limited motorized access for dispersed camping (camping corridors) along 79 miles of open roads. Similar to alternative 2, corridors may only be designated on one side of the road or may not be continuous to address resource concerns and to be fully consistent with the revised forest plan. There would be no motorized off-road game retrieval in this alternative.

Table 5. National Forest System routes open to the public under alternative 34 NFS Routes Open to the Public Miles Total roads open to the public 2,201 Maintenance level 2 roads 1,461 Maintenance level 3 roads 652 Maintenance level 4 roads 88 Currently closed roads opened to the public 70 Currently open roads closed to the public 1,236 Unauthorized roads added to the system and open to the public 29 Motorized trails 127 Open to vehicles less than 50 inches 20 Open to all vehicles 83 Special designation* 24 Unauthorized trails added to the system and open to the public 29

4 Data errors on 11 road segments were identified after the alternatives were prepared and analyzed. These data errors resulted in opening an additional 1.07 miles of road and closing 3.43 miles of road. Roads were opened to access shipping pens and corrals, trailheads, and gravel pits; and to provide continuous travel. Roads were closed to match previous NEPA decisions, remove inaccessible roads, remove dead ends, and address cultural resource concerns. These changes have all been incorporated into the story map and will be corrected in the final environmental impact statement. No resource concerns were identified by the interdisciplinary team, and the effects analysis in Chapter 3 is not impacted by these changes.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 18 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

NFS Routes Open to the Public Miles Miles of dispersed camping corridors 79 Miles of big game (elk) retrieval corridors 0 * This special designation includes all off-highway vehicles, including utility terrain vehicles and side-by-sides.

The designation of roads and trails, as well as dispersed camping corridors would be subject to the same requirements for maintenance and prohibitions as described under alternative 2. The miles of unauthorized roads increases in this alternative due to the increased use of camping spurs, rather than dispersed camping corridors, to access dispersed camping sites. Camping spurs are short roads that are used to access dispersed campsites. After the record of decision is signed for this project, the TMR would require all motorized vehicles to remain on these designated routes and area, and no OHV or other cross-county travel would be permitted. Motorized vehicles would be permitted only on the routes and areas designated by the selected alternative.

Alternative Cross Walk Previously, the Forest Service developed five action alternatives. The action alternatives and analysis in the 2010 DEIS served as the foundation for this RDEIS. None of the 2010 alternatives were consistent with the revised forest plan, since the alternatives were developed under the 1987 Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The following table is an alternative crosswalk between the 2010 DEIS and this RDEIS.

Table 6. Crosswalk between 2010 and 2019 action alternatives Issues 2019 Alternative 2010 Alternative Changes in Revised Draft EIS Addressed Alternative 1 – Alternative A – n/a The existing condition was updated using new No-action No-action LiDAR data and changes in the INFRA database alternative alternative (Forest Service database of record for transportation system). Alternative 2 – Alternative B – n/a Alternative B was used as the foundation to develop Proposed action Proposed action alternative 2. The proposed action was modified in response to public comments and changed conditions. Alternative 2 – Alternative D Issues 1, 2 Alternative D reduced mileage of designated roads, Proposed action and 3 but remained very similar to the proposed action. Alternative D increased motorized trails by 93 percent to 302 miles. All motorized trails that are not causing resource damage and that were requested by the Forest Service or public (202 miles) are included in alternative 2. Alternative 3 Alternative E Issues 1, 2 Alternative E addressed impacts to resources from and 3 motorized use by removing motorized access for big game retrieval and minimizing camping corridors. Alternative 3 takes the same approach; it was updated to address the changed conditions and additional resource concerns associated with the resulting transportation system.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 19 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Issues 2019 Alternative 2010 Alternative Changes in Revised Draft EIS Addressed Increased Alternative C Issues 1 and Alternative C closely resembled the existing Transportation 2 transportation system while removing cross-country System travel and designating motorized access for dispersed camping and big game retrieval to be consistent with the TMR. This approach does not address the known resource concerns, and does not meet the minimization criteria set forth in the TMR. See the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study section for more details.

Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA define a mitigation as a measure that avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, or compensates for impacts to the physical environment resulting from Federal actions (40 CFR 1508.20). Mitigations are actions the Forest Service would take as part of implementing the record of decision to lessen any potential damage to natural or cultural resources. The mitigation measures listed here apply to all of the action alternatives.

In addition to mitigation measures per 36 CFR 212.52, the responsible official may issue temporary closures pursuant to 36 CFR part 261, subpart B, without advance public notice to provide short-term resource protection or to protect public health and safety or based on a “determination of considerable adverse effects.” The responsible official shall provide public notice of the closure pursuant to 36 CFR 261.51, including reasons for the closure and the estimated duration of the closure, as soon as practicable following the closure.

The responsible official may also consider changes to the travel management system where adverse effects cannot be mitigated and meet changing conditions (36 CFR 212.54). Any permanent changes to the travel system would be subject to NEPA analysis, and subsequent decisions would be reflected in the MVUM and Travel Management Order.

Cultural Resources Where Forest Service specialists identify substantial impacts to cultural resource sites from route designation or designation of corridors for motorized access to camping, the responsible official may apply one or more of the following mitigation measures:

• Designated routes could be re-routed, reconstructed, plated to protect sites, or undergo another kind of physical mitigation. Sites would be plated with adequate fill to protect them and meet structural loading. These activities would be subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, and may require separate NEPA analysis. • Other protection measures effective at minimizing impacts from motorized use to cultural resources include: using physical barriers such as boulders, vegetation, logs, or fencing; signage; closure orders; monitoring; patrolling; public education; and data recovery. • The corridor or portions of the corridor would not be designated for motorized access to dispersed camping. Alternatively, other kinds of physical mitigation such as placement of fencing or barriers would be constructed to exclude sites from effects associated with designating the corridor. For traditional cultural uses and properties:

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 20 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• If motorized access to traditional cultural properties is reduced because of designation, the responsible official could grant special use or other authorizations to tribal members. • Where traditional cultural properties have the potential to be physically impacted by routes, fixed-distance corridors, or areas, mitigation would consist of not designating them or using other kinds of mitigation to reduce adverse effects. In some cases, consultation with traditional communities may result in other mitigation measures that would avoid or not adversely affect traditional cultural properties. The Standard Consultation Protocol for Travel Management Route Designation (identified as appendix I) in the Programmatic Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officers of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, and developed by the USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region allows for “phased” surveys of the travel routes and dispersed camping corridors. This EIS and record of decision would follow all legal requirements including appropriate measures per the programmatic agreement.

Other Resources • All wildlife quiet areas would be signed as closed to motor vehicle use at the wildlife quiet area border. • A seasonal closure (March 1 to August 31) is required on NFS Roads 8855, 8855-T1, 416, 68S, 68T, and 8758, along with motorized trails 8758ATV, 2751ATV, 88SATV, and 64EATV to protect Mexican spotted owls during the breeding and nesting season. • Project managers would make every effort to fell trees to close roads outside of the bird nesting season (March through August). • Stream crossings on roads and trails being opened and/or added to the National Forest System would be assessed and brought up to appropriate standards consistent with their uses (e.g., hardening a crossing, rerouting, adding culverts or drainage structures) through implementation. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study The NEPA requires Federal agencies to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this planning process, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm.

Nine alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration. Five of these alternatives are discussed in the 2010 DEIS and are not repeated here. These are: Original Proposed Action; An Alternative that Increases the Transportation System Approximately 7,000 Miles; An Alternative that Bases the Motorized Transportation System Solely on Annual Funding for Road Maintenance; An Alternative that Uses the Minimum Road System Based Solely on TAP Recommendations; and, An Alternative that Adds Roads to the Blue Range Primitive Area. Four additional alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration following the 2010 comment period and those are described below.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 21 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Increase Motorized Big Game Retrieval This alternative would provide motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) for elk, bear, and deer off open motorized routes (roads and trails) in areas that allow motorized travel under the forest plan. The 2010 DEIS considered in detail allowing MBGR for three commonly hunted species—elk, deer, and bear—in alternatives B, C, and D. The 2010 DEIS analysis and comments discussed the need to allow hunters to travel off-road to retrieve big game (primarily elk, though some commented on the need to include bear and deer), which is preferable to prevent spoilage and provide for a satisfactory hunting experience. Some commented that this allowance can disrupt their hunting experience. Other commenters expressed concern about the environmental damage that can occur during hunting season from off-road motorized vehicle use.

Based on the TMR regulations (36 CFR 212.51 (b) and 212.55), it is important to consider “limited use” based on the need, compatibility, environmental effects, appropriate amount, and compliance when specifying MBGR allowances (see Travel Management Rule section of chapter 1 for details). Examining the numbers and weights of the three species in the units that cover the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests shows that the greatest need lies with elk.

Elk weigh the most, with the average bull weighing 800 pounds, whereas bear are about half the size at 350 pounds, and deer a little less than half again at 200 pounds (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2017). It no doubt takes more trips to harvest an elk, though many still pack one out in one trip. Spoilage of meat is not as much a problem for deer as it is for elk because deer are often light enough to carry, once they have been field dressed. When examining the numbers, elk harvests range from 128 to 633 by unit over the past 5 years, deer next with 14 to 511, and then bear at 0 to 43. While bear weigh more than deer, the numbers and time of year do not show the same demand for MBGR, compared to elk. Based on the need, speed with which one can harvest an animal based on weight, demand, and number harvested, the greatest need for MBGR rests with elk; this is proposed in alternative 2.

As shown in chapter 3, when looking at environmental effects, less motorized retrieval begets fewer effects. Cross-country travel can create ruts, damage vegetation, kill small animals, and damage archaeological sites or features. Though not always, the more cross-country travel allowed, the chances for effects increase. Effects to other hunters can also occur when a motorized vehicle disrupts a hunt. While most hunters acknowledge motorized travel on roads when hiking into a quiet area off road, a hunt can be disrupted by an off-road vehicle passing by. These effects need to be considered when determining how much, how far, and where MBGR should be allowed.

The proposal to allow motorized access for big game retrieval for elk and no other species is based on practical considerations. Based on need and demand consideration for MBGR for bear and deer, as discussed above, this alternative was considered, but eliminated from detailed consideration. Also, this alternative is not carried forward to minimize effects laid out in the specific criteria listed in 36 CFR 212.55.

Additional Roads within Natural Landscape Areas After this planning process was re-initiated in 2016, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests received several comments focused on the limitations of designating new roads, dispersed camping corridors, and big game retrieval corridors within natural landscapes. An alternative was proposed to designate new roads and trails, and increase opportunities for dispersed camping and big game retrieval corridors within these areas.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 22 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Natural landscapes are a management area within the forest plan. These areas are “generally undeveloped areas that are natural appearing and provide primitive and semiprimitive recreation opportunities. Management activities are allowed, but are primarily focused on ecosystem restoration. This management area includes most of the inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) that were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. IRAs are managed to protect and conserve their roadless character” (page 121, forest plan). Approximately 79 percent (317,697 acres) of natural landscapes overlap with IRAs. The forest plan also defines suitability for new designated motorized areas, roads, and motorized trails for each management area (page 138). Natural landscapes are not considered suitable for new designated motorized areas, roads or motorized trails.

The action alternatives do not designate any new areas, roads, or trails for motorized use, nor do they designate any big game retrieval corridors within natural landscapes. Limited dispersed camping corridors are proposed along some roads within the natural landscape, but outside designated IRAs. Additional designations would not be consistent with the forest plan. Therefore, this alternative was considered, but eliminated from detailed study.

Existing Road System with No Cross-country Travel Comments received throughout the planning process suggested we consider an alternative that would adopt the existing condition, while eliminating cross-country travel and designating dispersed camping and big game retrieval corridors. This would allow the current road system to continue, while complying with 36 CFR 212.

Continuing with the existing road system without review does not meet the intent of the TMR; 36 CFR 212.55 describes the criteria for designating roads, trails, and areas. See the Travel Management Rule section of chapter 1 for details on the criteria.

These criteria were applied to the existing system of roads, trails, and areas through a thorough review. This review resulted in changes to the existing system, as explained in Travel Management Rule section. Therefore, this alternative was considered, but eliminated from detailed study because it is not consistent with the TMR (36 CFR 212).

Designating Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping Corridors Throughout the planning process, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests received requests to expand the motorized access to dispersed camping. Most recently, one commenter requested that the Forests consider an alternative that provides for a 300-foot motorized access to dispersed camping corridor along all open roads where the use is lawful.

The TMR states in 36 CFR 212.51(b) that “the responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain forest roads or trails where motor vehicle use is allowed, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping . . . .” The Forest Service Manual on Travel Management (FSM 7700-2009-2, Chapter 7710) states that this authority “should be used sparingly to avoid undermining the purposes of the TMR and to promote consistency in its implementation.”

The responsible official and interdisciplinary team reviewed an inventory of known dispersed camping sites compiled by the Forest Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department to determine where motorized access should be proposed. Although the inventory is not complete, it provides information on where dispersed camping occurs throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. When considering where to provide dispersed camping corridors, the team considered consistency

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 23 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References with the forest plan, known or potential natural and cultural resource damage, topography, and existing use. Then, the overall proposal was reviewed to ensure the action alternatives were meeting the law, regulation, and policy set forth in both the TMR and Forest Service Manual direction.

Including 300-foot dispersed camping corridors along all open roads where the use is lawful would not be consistent with Forest Service policy, nor with the purpose and need for action. Specifically, this approach would not “counter detrimental effects to resources from continued use of some roads and motorized trails, as well as cross-country travel.” Therefore, this alternative was considered, but was eliminated from detailed analysis. Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 7. Comparison of elements between all alternatives

Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – Action Proposed No-action Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative Action

Total roads open to the public 3,421 miles 2,889 miles 2,201 miles Maintenance level 2 roads 2,650 miles 2,144 miles 1,461 miles Maintenance level 3 roads 683 miles 657 miles 652 miles Maintenance level 4 roads 88 miles 88 miles 88 miles Currently closed roads opened to the public 0 miles 152 miles 70 miles Currently open roads closed to the public 0 miles 553 miles 1,263 miles Unauthorized roads added to the system and 0 miles 19 miles 29 miles open to the public Total motorized trails 63 miles 202 miles 127 miles Open to vehicles less than 50 inches 63 miles 162 miles 20 miles Open to all vehicles 0 miles 20 miles 83 miles Special designation* 0 miles 20 miles 24 miles Unauthorized trails added to the system and 0 miles 81 miles 29 miles open to the public Miles of dispersed camping corridors 0 miles 1,027 miles 79 miles Miles of big game (elk) retrieval corridors 0 miles 2,693 miles 0 miles Designated areas for motor vehicle use (number) 0 areas 1 area 0 areas Area open for cross-country travel (acres) 1,625,363 acres 17 acres 0 acres

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 24 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 8. Summary of environmental consequences by alternative Issue Measure Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative Action Issue 1: Restricting Miles of motorized dispersed 0 miles 1,027 miles 79 miles Motorized Access for camping corridors Dispersed Camping Issue 1: Restricting Percent of inventoried High level of access; No 50 percent of inventoried 1 percent of inventoried Motorized Access for dispersed campsites within change dispersed campsites within dispersed campsites within Dispersed Camping drivable areas drivable areas (areas legally drivable areas accessible to motor vehicles) Issue 1: Restricting Percentage of area near open 84.5 percent accessible within 81 percent accessible within 68 percent accessible within Motorized Access for road outside of half mile of existing road half mile of existing road half mile of existing road Dispersed Camping congressionally designated areas Another 13.8 percent Another 16 percent accessible Another 23 percent accessible accessible within half to 1 mile within half to 1 mile of existing within a half to 1 mile of of existing road road existing road Issue 2: Restricting Miles of motorized big game 0 miles 2,693 miles 0 miles Motorized Big Game retrieval corridors Retrieval Issue 2: Restricting Percentage of off-road elk High level of access; No Slight reduction Decreased Access Motorized Big Game retrieval vehicle trips affected change Retrieval by travel management restrictions Issue 2: Restricting Hunter satisfaction Decreased; Provides few Increased hunter satisfaction; Increased and decreased Motorized Big Game areas that are isolated from Provides more areas that are hunter satisfaction; Provides Retrieval motor vehicle use isolated from motor vehicle more areas that are isolated use from motor vehicle use Issue 3: Impacts to Acres of unrestricted cross- 1,625,363 acres 17 acres 0 acres Resources from Motorized country travel Use

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 25 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Issue Measure Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative Action Issue 3: Impacts to Miles of open roads and Currently there are This alternative designates This alternative would result in Resources from Motorized motorized trails within wildlife 3,484 miles of open roads and 3,011 miles of open roads and a system of 2,328 miles of Use habitat motorized trails on the motorized trails on the open roads and motorized Forests. No changes to the Forests. This alternative trails on the Forests. No existing transportation system includes one 17-acre area motorized areas are included would be made. There would designated for motorized use in this alternative. This still be the higher probability on the Black Mesa Ranger decrease in open roads in of direct mortality from District. This decrease in open terrestrial habitats would collisions with vehicles, roads in terrestrial habitats reduce probability of direct modification of animal would reduce probability of mortality from collisions with behavior, a reduction in direct mortality from collisions vehicles, adverse modification habitat quality and a reduction with vehicles, adverse of animal behavior, a in habitat quantity. modification of animal reduction in habitat quality behavior, a reduction in and a reduction in habitat habitat quality and a reduction quantity. Overall positive in habitat quantity. There effects on habitat quality and would be a beneficial effect quantity when compared to relative to the existing the existing condition. condition. Issue 3: Impacts to Number of stream crossings 201 stream crossings 189 stream crossings 135 stream crossings Resources from Motorized on perennial streams Use Issue 3: Impacts to Number of stream crossing 2,435 stream crossings 1,817 stream crossings 1,448 stream crossings Resources from Motorized on intermittent streams and Use ephemeral channels Issue 3: Impacts to Number of impaired 1 stream 1 stream 1 stream Resources from Motorized waterbodies Use Issue 3: Impacts to Acres of disturbance from 149 acres of disturbance from 127 acres of disturbance from 57 acres of disturbance from Resources from Motorized motorized routes within motorized routes; 33,177 motorized routes; 916 acres motorized routes; 137 acres Use riparian areas including acres of disturbance from off of disturbance from off road of disturbance from off road wetlands and wet meadows road motorized travel for motorized travel for dispersed motorized travel for dispersed dispersed camping; and camping; and 16,899 acres of camping; and 0 acres of 33,177 acres of disturbance disturbance from off road disturbance from off road from off road travel for travel for motorized big game travel for motorized big game motorized big game retrieval retrieval retrieval

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 26 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Issue Measure Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative Action Issue 3: Impacts to Acres of potential disturbance 143 acres of potential 134 acres of potential 107 acres of potential Resources from Motorized from motorized big game disturbance from motorized disturbance from motorized disturbance from motorized Use retrieval, motorized dispersed routes; 224,257 acres of routes; 1,010 acres of routes; 249 acres of potential recreation and motorized potential disturbance from off potential disturbance from off disturbance from off road areas in areas having road motorized travel for road motorized travel for motorized travel for dispersed unsatisfactory or inherently dispersed camping; and dispersed camping; and camping; and 0 acres of unstable soil condition 224,257 acres of potential 59,357 acres of potential potential disturbance from off classes disturbance from off road disturbance from off road road travel for motorized big travel for motorized big game travel for motorized big game game retrieval retrieval retrieval Issue 3: Impacts to Number of cultural resources 12,748 sites, historic road or 8,431 sites, historic road or 156 sites, historic road or Resources from Motorized (sites) potentially impacted railroad segments potentially railroad segments potentially railroad segments potentially Use within Area of Potential Effect impacted impacted impacted Issue 4: Economics: Loss Direction & Magnitude of 1.2 direct jobs and 1.7 total 0.2 direct jobs and 0.3 total 0.1 direct jobs and 0.1 total of Revenues and Jobs change in Direct and Total jobs lost jobs lost jobs lost Jobs. Issue 4: Economics: Loss Direction & Magnitude of $34,270 in direct labor income $6,424 in direct labor income $2,166 in direct labor income of Revenues and Jobs change in Direct and Total and $57,380 in total labor and $10,783 in total labor and $3,647 in total labor Income. income lost income lost income lost Issue 4: Economics: Loss Qualitative Assessment Moderate beneficial effect to Minor adverse effect to quality Moderate adverse effect to of Revenues and Jobs quality of life for people who of life for people who value quality of life for people who value cross-country OHV & cross-country OHV and value cross-country OHV and MBGR opportunities. MBGR opportunities; minor MBGR opportunities. beneficial effect on diversity of Moderate adverse effect to OHV recreation opportunity. Moderate beneficial effect to quality of life for people who quality of life for people who value natural resource Minor beneficial effect to value natural resource conditions. quality of life for people who conditions. value natural resource conditions. Issue 4: Economics: Loss Change in economic benefits- No Effect on Employment and No Effect - Negligible Change Same as effects from of Revenues and Jobs jobs, income & subsistence Income due to change in in the Employment and Alternative 2 management. No change to Income. Slight benefit for subsistence resource trends. subsistence resources.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 27

Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area, and the effects of implementing each alternative on those environments. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparing alternatives as described in chapter 2. In developing the environmental analyses that follow, the best available science was considered and documented in the project record. This analysis is tiered to the Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and associated environmental impact statement and record of decision (USDA Forest Service 2015a, b, and c). The predicted environmental consequences are dependent on the application of forest plan standards and guidelines, mitigation measures (see Chapter 2, Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives) and best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce impacts (see appendix D).

Effect of Each Alternative by Resource The following resources were analyzed for anticipated effects from implementing each alternative: the Forests’ transportation system, recreation and special areas, scenery, socio-economics, forest vegetation, soils and watershed, air quality, wildlife and rare plants, fisheries, and cultural resources. Specialist reports containing further documentation of the analyses and resulting effects can be found in the project record located at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisor’s Office in Springerville, Arizona.

This RDEIS looks at effects on a forestwide scale rather than describing the site-specific effect at each road or trail. The analysis does not list every road and trail and predict the effects at that particular site. Specialists, however, sometimes used individual sites as examples.

The analysis in this chapter focuses on effects of only the proposed changes to the current designated system, not effects to the whole designated system. The TMR does not require the Forest Service to reconsider any previous administrative decisions that allow, restrict, or prohibit motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(b)).

Analysis Assumptions and Framework Unauthorized roads and trails are routes that are not, recognized, or managed as part of the authorized transportation system. These routes are sometimes referred to as “ways,” “non-system,” “unauthorized,” or “user-created.” Many of these routes are older timber, range, or mining roads that are no longer needed for their intended purpose; other routes have been created by off-road or trail recreation use.

Some of these unauthorized routes and trails have and continue to cause natural or cultural resource damage, while others have provided recreational opportunities without causing such damage. In some areas, this resource damage has led to Forest Order closures.5 Upon conclusion of the travel management process, all unauthorized roads and trails on the landscape that are not incorporated into the selected alternative will be eliminated through landscape rehabilitation.

Landscape rehabilitation is a term used to remove routes from the landscape and return them to a natural state. A suite of methods can be used to accomplish this task. One method is to allow the landscape to

5 If resource damage occurs after motor vehicle routes are designated on the MVUM, law enforcement and line officers have the ability to close an area. This authority will not change with this project.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 29 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

return to a natural state on its own. Other options include a range of activities from blocking the entrance, scattering boughs on the roadbed, scarifying, seeding, and water barring, removing fills and culverts, reestablishing drainage-ways, pulling back shoulders, and re-contouring the slopes for full obliteration. Any ground-disturbing activities may require further NEPA analysis to evaluate effects and implement.

No motor vehicle use will be allowed on unauthorized routes that are not adopted as part of the transportation system; therefore, motor vehicle use on these routes would be considered illegal after the record of decision is signed. Any new unauthorized road or trail created after the signing of this record of decision will also be considered illegal use. While recognizing that illegal off-road motor vehicle use may occur in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests into the future, the analysis in this chapter does not include illegal use for the following reasons. First, a full inventory of unauthorized routes and trails in the Forests does not exist to provide a baseline for potential future illegal use. An inventory would require a considerable amount of time and funding because the entire land base would need to be surveyed. Second, numerous possibilities exist for potential future illegal use. Given the number of possibilities, a likely scenario could not be characterized and analyzed for each alternative. And, last, based on current regulations, it is illegal to operate any vehicle off National Forest System, State, or county roads in a manner that damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, cultural, or vegetative resources, and this will remain unchanged.

For these reasons, the analysis in chapter 3 assumes all motor vehicle use would only occur on the designated motorized routes (trails and roads) and areas as directed by the MVUM. The first MVUM is scheduled to be distributed in spring 2021, and after that, all motor vehicle use will be required to occur only on designated motorized routes and areas, as required by the TMR (36 CFR 212).

Several other assumptions were made regarding motor vehicle use across the Forests for analysis purposes. These following assumptions allow all resource specialists to analyze the impacts and effects of each alternative consistently. Additional assumptions may have been made by each resource area. Those assumptions are discussed in the individual specialist reports, located in the administrative record.

• No NEPA analysis is necessary to continue use of the existing Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest motorized transportation system as currently managed under the no-action alternative. However, it should be noted that this alternative is not consistent with the forest plan or Travel Management Rule. This alternative is being analyzed to provide a baseline for the action alternatives. • All NFS roads meet and are maintained to the maintenance level listed in the existing condition. These roads are designed to minimize resource damage. ♦ Maintenance level 1 roads are closed and are expected to revegetate during the time they are in closed status. These roads are not used by motorized vehicles. ♦ Approximately 20 to 25 percent of maintenance level 2 roads are maintained every year; each route is planned to be maintained on a 5 year cycle. ♦ Maintenance level 3 and 4 NFS roads receive some level of maintenance every year (such as grading or culvert cleaning). • Temporary roads, trails, and areas built to support emergency operations or that are temporarily authorized in association with contracts, permits, or leases are not intended for public use, including motor vehicle use. Any proposal to add these temporary roads to the NFS road system would require a NEPA analysis, as well as National Historic Preservation Act clearance.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 30 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• Direct motorized access to public infrastructure features, such as campgrounds, trailheads, water tanks, parking lots, is permissible if they are within 500 feet of a National Forest System road. • All proposed trail construction would be field-verified for road and stream crossings, presence of cultural resources, and presence of traditional cultural properties before implementation. • Best management practices, mitigation measures, and design features would be applied effectively and would accomplish the necessary and desired outcome. This includes the current version of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Best Management Practices for Road Maintenance (see appendix D). • Funding and law enforcement would be available to implement this project. • No new motorized trail construction would take place until funding is secured. Funding sources include appropriated funds, grant opportunities, and volunteer and partnership organizations’ in-kind support. Effects to Transportation System More information is available in the project record including the full transportation analysis file, as part of the Transportation Infrastructure Report and the Motorized Mixed Use Report.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Almost all national forest visitors travel at some point on NFS roads. NFS roads are an integral part of the transportation system for rural counties. Forest roads provide access for recreation, research, fish and wildlife habitat management, grazing, resource extraction, fire protection, insect and disease control, and private land use, among others. Although NFS roads (Maintenance Levels 2–5) are generally open and available for public use, that use is at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7731 states that through authorities delegated by the Secretary, the Forest Service may restrict or control traffic to meet specific management direction (USDA Forest Service 2001a).

Roads are located, designed, constructed and/or reconstructed, and managed commensurate with the potential use, the resource served, and the maintenance level. Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for a sepcific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with road management objectives (RMOs). RMOs document the intended purpose of an individual road in providing access to implement a land and resource management plan, as well as NEPA decisions about applicable standards for the road. RMOs contain design criteria, operation criteria, and maintenance criteria. (FSM 7709.59.11).

Road Network Access to the communities and the travel ways that lead to NFS lands begins with highly developed state highways. Numerous county roads branch off from the state highway system. Many of these routes have existed since the area was first settled. Some lead directly to the Forests. The county-managed routes are designed to accommodate passenger cars, but they are not always paved or graveled.

The transportation system is accessed from the south by State Highway 260 from Payson, State Highway 60 from Globe, and U.S. Highway 191 from Clifton. Access is provided from the north by State Highway 377 from Holbrook, State Highway 277 from Snowflake, U.S. Highway 60 from Vernon, and State Route

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 31 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

260, and U.S. 180/191 from Eagar. U.S. Highway 180 also provides access to the Forests from New Mexico.

Historically, the roads on the Forests were created mostly for commodity access, primarily mining, timber, and livestock production. Some were routes that connected small communities. While roads still continue to provide access for vegetation management, livestock management, and mine extraction, the majority of use today comes from public recreation and forest products extraction.

Roads that exist on NFS lands may fall under several jurisdictions. Most are under Forest Service jurisdiction. These are called NFS roads, and are considered necessary for the administration, use, and management of public lands. Counties, states, and private citizens have received rights-of-way or in some cases obtained jurisdiction over some of the roads on NFS lands. To keep track of the jurisdictional responsibilities, the Forests maintain a National Resource Management (NRM) database inventory of all roads that cross the Forests and their jurisdiction and maintenance responsibilities. Rights that have been previously established continue to be recognized under the Travel Management Rule planning.

Resource Indicators and Measures

Table 9. Transportation system resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Road Maintenance Change in Maintenance Costs* Maintenance cost in $USD. $6.84 million Open Road Miles Changes in Open Road Miles Number of miles available for 3,484 travel * Includes maintenance level 2, 3 and 4 level roads

Road and Trail Maintenance NFS roads are planned, designed, and constructed for different methods of travel. These methods require different levels of maintenance, which is determined by the road maintenance plan, the road management objectives, and road design components, for each specific road. Roads have an objective maintenance level, which indicates the long-term planned maintenance strategy for that road, and an operational maintenance level, which is the current physical condition of the road. Operational and objective maintenance levels may or may not be the same for a given road.

Annual maintenance involves the regular, cyclical maintenance required to keep a road functioning in accordance with the assigned maintenance level to prevent resource damage and ensure public safety. The unit costs associated with Operational Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads are substantially greater than that of Operational Maintenance Level 2 roads. Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads generally receive higher traffic volumes at higher speeds, and therefore, need maintenance more frequently. These roads have also received more investment in the way of drainage structures and features, cattle guards, and signing. In addition, Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads typically have some form of aggregate or bituminous surfacing that requires surface replacements, or pavement preservation treatments, or both. The associated unit cost includes amortized costs for replacing these features, including surface replacement and bituminous treatments based on the feature’s life cycle. The majority of the road maintenance budget focuses on the Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads. Operational Maintenance Level 2 roads are maintained for high- clearance vehicles, such as pick-up trucks. They receive lighter traffic volumes, typically are not surfaced, have more grade dip drainage structures than culverts, and few to no cattle guards. Motorized trails, regardless if they are for vehicles under 50 inches or all vehicles, require the same maintenance as

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 32 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Maintenance Level 2 roads. Maintenance costs were developed using local rates for contract and force account maintenance.

The Forests’ annual roads maintenance budget has averaged $1.41 million the last 5 years. This budget includes the forest budget covers all costs associated with roads, including salaries and all activities associated with planning, maintaining, and construction NF system roads, including portions of the staff officer, forest engineer, roads manager and forest support positions (contracting officer, front lines, purchasing agent, resource specialists, etc.). Of the $1.41 million, approximately $1.06 million, or 75 percent, goes to the ground and 25 percent to overhead.

With this budget, the Forests are completing basic custodial maintenance (grading the road surface, maintaining ditch lines, replacing warning and regulatory signs, roadside brushing, etc.). Maintaining miles of roads does not necessarily mean they are always fully maintained (e.g., resurfacing, bituminous surface treatments, etc.)

Other funds are collected through commercial road use permits, vegetation extraction contracts, and work associated with cost-share agreements with the counties. These funds, in-kind maintenance, or both, offset the additional wear on roads from the associated activities. They do not supplement the normal maintenance required without the additional road use activities.

The Forests’ annual trails maintenance budget is insufficient to maintain the non-motorized trails. The motorized trails have been funded by the Arizona State OHV sticker fund grants for construction and continued maintenance.

Even though current funding levels may not support fully maintaining all NFS roads, the economic comparison of alternatives assumes all designated NFS roads would be fully maintained fully. These unit costs were applied to the mileages in each alternative to calculate the estimated total costs needed to maintain those NFS roads. The average road maintenance costs per mile are shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Annual maintenance cost per mile by road operational maintenance level (ML) or motorized trail Maintenance Item All ML2 ML3 ML4 Motorized Trails ML 3-5 and motorized Trails Condition Survey, performed every 5 $20 $20 $20 $20 years. Cost listed is total/ 5 Surface Maintenance, ML 2 performed as needed for resource $90 $45 $1,350 $2,250 protection, average 1 time every 10 years Total Cost/ 10. Motorized trail performed as needed for resource protection, average 1 time every 5 years, Total cost / 5. ML3 use average of 3 times annually, ML4 use average of 5 times annually Drainage Structures Maintenance, ML 2 performed as needed for $48 $24 $400 $400 resource protection, average 1 time every 10 years Total Cost/ 10. Motorized trail performed as needed for resource protection, average 1 time every 5 years, Total cost / 5 Ditch Cleaning, ML 2 performed as needed for resource $80 $40 $800 $2,000 protection, average 1 time every 10 years Total Cost/ 10. Motorized trail performed as needed for resource protection, average 1 time every 5 years, Total cost / 5. ML 3 use average of 3 times annually, ML 4 use average of 5 times annually, total cost x 3 or 5

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 33 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Maintenance Item All ML2 ML3 ML4 Motorized Trails Warning & Regulatory Sign Maintenance, ML 2 performed as $30 $15 $300 $300 needed for resource protection, average 1 time every 10 years Total Cost/ 10. Motorized trail performed as needed for resource protection, average 1 time every 5 years, Total cost / 5. ML 3 and 4, 1 time annually Roadside Brushing, ML 2 and motorized trail performed as $100 $50 $500 $500 needed for resource protection, average 1 time every 10 years. ML 3 and 4, 1 time annually Spot material and/ or mobile rock trimmer for ML 2s and $140 $140 -- -- Motorized Trails Surface Material Replacement, required based on use, but -- -- $4,000 $5,000 average every 8 years for ML 4 and every 10 years for ML 3 Total Cost Per Mile $508 $334 $7,370 $10,470

Open Road Miles In the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, there are currently 3,421 miles of open NFS roads and 63 miles of NFS motorized trails (table 11).

This system reflects current ground conditions to the best of our available knowledge, how the Forests have been managing the road system, and how the public has been using the road system. The existing system is made up of roads that are open to highway-legal vehicles and roads that are open to all motorized vehicles. Roads open to highway legal vehicles are National Forest System roads open to use by the public with standard passenger cars, (maintenance levels 3, 4 & 5). This includes roads with access restricted on a seasonal basis and roads closed during extreme weather conditions or for emergencies, but which are otherwise open for general public use (FSM 7705). Roads that are open to all motorized vehicles are for use by high clearance vehicles, maintenance level 2, and passenger car traffic is not a consideration in design or maintenance.

Table 11. Existing open road mileage on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests as of January 2018 Resource Miles Roads Open only to Highway Legal Vehicles 771 Maintenance Level 5 0 0 Maintenance Level 4 88 88 Maintenance Level 3 683 683 Roads Open to All Motorized Vehicles 2,650 (maintenance level 2) Trails Open to Motorized Vehicles 63 Total 3,484

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 34 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action By not making any changes to the existing NFS roads and motorized trails, no additional costs would be incurred associated with implementation. The impacts associated with repairing resource damage associated with unmanaged motorized use can be anticipated, but not quantified.

Annual maintenance costs for the maintaining the current road system would remain the same. Costs of annual road maintenance for all open roads would total an estimated $6.84 million. Road maintenance budgets would remain insufficient, and deferred road maintenance would continue to grow (see Table 16 for more details on cost).

The cost of annual motorized trail maintenance activities would total an estimated $32,000. Trail maintenance is anticipated to continue to be funded through grants and volunteers, and would not impact the trails budget.

Table 12. Transportation system resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Road Costs Change in Maintenance Costs Maintenance cost in $USD. $6.84 million. Miles of Roads Changes in Open Road Miles Number of miles available for travel 3,484

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Road Costs There would be a net decrease in total miles of open roads of 531 miles (15.5 percent). Compared to the baseline (alternative 1), cost for annual maintenance of NFS roads under alternative 2 would decrease by $360,290 (-5.3 percent). This would help decrease the growing deferred maintenance backlog. See table 16, comparison of changes by alternatives.

Changes to the Forests’ transportation road system would have associated implementation costs, as well as increased long-term maintenance. The proposed addition of unauthorized routes as either ML2 roads or motorized trails has been reviewed and meets the requirements for the proposed maintenance level or motorized trail. Accounting for route identification signing, and Forests’ transportation data updates, an estimated implementation cost of $500 per mile would be associated with the addition of 19 miles of unauthorized routes. For this alternative, that would result in an implementation estimated cost of $9,500. All other proposed changes of 705 miles would have an implementation cost of $25 per mile to account for the Forests’ transportation data updates. For this alternative, that would result in an implementation estimated cost of $17,625. The total implementation cost for this alternative is $27,125.

The cost of annual motorized trail maintenance activities would total an estimated $82,000. Even with the 220.6 percent increase over alternative 1, trail maintenance is anticipated to continue to be funded through grants and volunteers, and would not impact the trails budget.

Open Road Miles The net decrease in total miles of open roads by 15.5 percent could pose a safety concern due to an increase in traffic on the Maintenance Level 2 roads, but it is not anticipated in the foreseeable future. The

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 35 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

traffic counting program would be continued to monitor Maintenance Level 2–4 roads to ensure the current design and warning and regulatory signing is adequate for any increase in traffic.

Table 13. Transportation system resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct and indirect effects Alternative 2 Resource Resource Indicator Measure Direct and Element Indirect Effects Road Costs Change in Maintenance Costs Maintenance cost in $USD. $6.48 Million Miles of Roads Changes in Open Road Miles Number of miles available for travel 2,889

Cumulative Effects Site-specific NEPA projects have changed the transportation data have been updated in the NRM data base and GIS, and are reflected in the alternative 1 existing condition.

There would be no cumulative effects for this alternative. Current NEPA projects are using the existing conditions and referring to these alternatives to ensure there are no conflicts between their proposals and this one. Future NEPA projects will use the transportation system finalized in this project as the starting point for any required transportation planning. If there are any proposed changes for the system that affect this final signed NEPA decision, they will be identified and go through the NEPA process, including public input.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Road Costs There would be a net decrease in total miles of open roads of 1,220 miles (-35.7 percent). Compared to the baseline (alternative 1), cost for annual maintenance of NFS roads under alternative 3 would decrease by $625,596 (-9.1 percent). This would help decrease the growing deferred maintenance backlog. See table 16, comparison of changes by alternatives.

Changes to the Forests’ transportation road system would have associated implementation costs, as well as a long-term maintenance responsibility. Accounting for route identification signing, and Forests’ transportation data updates, an estimated implementation cost of $500 per mile would be associated with the addition of 29 miles of unauthorized routes. For this alternative, that would result in an implementation estimated cost of $14,500. All other proposed changes, totaling 1,306 miles, would have an implementation cost of $25 per mile to account for the Forests’ transportation data updates. For this alternative, that would result in an implementation estimated cost of $32,650. The total approximated implementation cost for this alternative is $47,150.

The proposed addition of unauthorized routes as either Maintenance Level 2 roads or motorized trails have been reviewed and meet the requirements for a Maintenance Level 2 road, or motorized trail, or both. The net decrease in total miles of open roads by 37.5 percent could pose a safety concern due to an increase in traffic on the Maintenance Level 2 roads, but the extent is unknown. This decrease, as in alternative 2, is primarily from Maintenance Level 2s that have minimal traffic. The traffic counting program would be continued to monitor Maintenance Level 3–5 roads to ensure the current design is adequate and add the greater used Maintenance Level 2 roads to monitor that increase in motorized use.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 36 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Open Road Miles With the substantial decrease in miles of roads open to the public, and only 79 miles of roads with camping corridors, compared to 1,027 miles with camping corridors in alternative 2, this alternative poses the highest safety risk. The safety risk comes from higher concentrations of vehicles traveling on the remaining open roads with dispersed camping occurring within 30 feet of the road (or vehicle length) and parking for other recreational opportunities right on the road.

Table 14. Transportation system resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 direct and indirect effects Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 3 Element Direct and Indirect Effects Road Costs Change in Maintenance Costs Maintenance cost in $USD. $6.2 Million Miles of Roads Changes in Open Road Miles Number of miles available for travel 2,201

Cumulative Effects Site-specific NEPA projects have changed the transportation data have been updated in the NRM data base and GIS, and are reflected in the alternative 1 existing condition.

Summary of Environmental Effects The summaries in table 15 and table 16 compare the alternatives and the changes to maintenance costs, with respect to the changes in the open road system.

Table 15. Summary comparison of environmental effects to transportation infrastructure Resource Element Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Road Costs Change in Maintenance Costs N/A -$360,000 -$640,000 Miles of Roads Changes in Open Road Miles N/A -594 -1,283

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 37 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 16. Comparison of transportation system changes by alternative Operational Maintenance Annual Alternative 1, Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 3, Level maintenance Existing annual cost ($) Miles annual Miles annual cost ($) per Condition maintenance Maintenance mile Miles cost ($) cost ($) 2 $334 2,650 $885,100 2,144 $716,430 1,461 $487,974 3 $7,370 683 $5,033,710 657 $4,842,090 652 $4,805,240 4 $10,470 88 $921,360 88 $921,360 88 $921,360 Totals 3,421 $6,840,170 2,889 $6,479,880 2,201 $6,214,574 Change from alternative 1, -531 -$360,290 -1,220 -$625,596 Percent change from -15.5% -5.3% -35.7% -9.1% alternative 1

Motorized Trails Allowed Annual Alternative 1, Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 3, Vehicles maintenance Existing annual cost ($) Miles annual Miles annual cost ($) per Condition maintenance Maintenance mile Miles cost ($) cost ($) < 50" Vehicles $508 63 $32,004 162 $82,296 83 $42,164 All vehicles $508 0 20 20 Special Designation $508 0 20 24 Totals 63 $32,004 202 $82,296 127 $42,164 Change from alternative 1, 139 $50,292 64 $10,160 Percent change from 220.6% 157.1% 101.6% 31.7% alternative 1

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 38 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Effects to Recreation, Designated Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers More information is available in the project record including the full recreation analysis file, as part of the Recreation, Designated Areas, and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers Report.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

General Recreation Trends During the last several decades, the number of people participating in outdoor activities has been increasing. Between 2000 and 2007, the number of people participating in outdoor activities throughout the nation increased by 4.4 percent (Cordell 2008). The trend of visitor use of nature-based public lands, however, is less clear. Inconsistent count methods across time, at different scales, and not accounting for a large increase in visitors entering from adjoining private or other public lands are among some of the reasons that different studies may illustrate differing results.

Though there is a clear pattern of growth in nature-based recreation and the use of public lands after World War II, things become less clear in the last 3 decades. There was a long-term growth trend in use of public lands between the 1960s and 1980s. Beginning in the 1990s, most data show this growth slowed or leveled out in the 1990s, with peak visitation to nature-based public areas being estimated as occurring in 2000, and then decreasing through 2006 (Cordell et al. 2008b). Data from 2007 show that reported visits increased yet again up to levels observed in 2001 (Cordell et al. 2008b).

Where the science is the least clear is in the area of how nature-based recreation has changed in the last 10 years. Nature-based recreation is a subsector of non-motorized recreation, which includes viewing wildlife and birds, primitive camping, backpacking, and visiting wilderness and primitive areas (Cordell 2008). These types of activities are the least compatible with motorized recreational activities. The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment found that nature-based recreation activities have increased since 1994 (Cordell et al. 2008b). Other studies show that while total visitation for nature-based recreation may have been even or slightly increased overall during the last two decades, per capita nature- based recreation actually declined since 1987 (Pergams and Zaradic 2008). Thus, though nature-based recreation may have the same or an increased total number of people involved, the total percentage of people participating in nature-based recreation may have decreased by as much as 25 percent between 1981 and 2007 (Pergams and Zaradic 2008). These two studies appear to have contradictory conclusions about trends in nature-based recreation in the last decade. It is important to realize, however, that the studies include different research methods (the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment is based on survey data and the Pergams study uses National Park Service visitation data) and both express their results differently (total number of persons versus per capita numbers).

Overall, the data on recreation trends tell us that the total amount of outdoor recreation has increased through 2007, but that nature-based recreational activities may have actually decreased when looking at a per capita basis. These data illustrate two distinct, yet opposite trends that are occurring at the national scale. There is no comparable data source to determine whether these trends are occurring at the local scale of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 39 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 17. Participation and change in participation in outdoor recreation activities, 2000-2007 (Cordell 2008) Activity Total participants Percentage change in (millions), 2007 participants, 2000–2007 Viewing or photographing flowers and trees 118.4 25.8 Viewing or photographing natural scenery 145.5 14.1 Driving off-road 44.2 18.6 Viewing or photographing other wildlife 114.8 21.3 Viewing or photographing birds 81.1 19.3 Kayaking 12.5 63.1 Visiting water (other than ocean beach) 55.5 1.6 Backpacking 22.1 –0.6 Snowboarding 11.3 7.3 Rock climbing 8.7 –5.5 Visiting nature centers, etc. 127.4 5.0 Big-game hunting 20.2 12.8 Mountain climbing 11.8 –12.5 Visiting ocean beach 96.0 10.5 Sightseeing 113.2 4.1 Visiting wilderness 70.6 3.0

While the statistics may present seemingly contradictory conclusions, it is clear that public lands visitation is continuing to increase, but the activities people are choosing to participate in on public lands is changing from what was observed in past decades. Viewing, studying, and photographing nature, and in particular wildlife, have grown strongly since 1994 (Cordell et al. 2008b). Other activities such as walking, family gathering outdoors, gathering mushrooms and berries, kayaking, or visiting water also increased in the total number of people participating between 2000 and 2007 (Cordell et al. 2009). Driving off-road also increased during the 2000 to 2007 period. According to various survey-based studies, the growth in off-road driving is only behind the growth in photographing nature and kayaking. Total participation in other activities has clearly decreased, such as mountain climbing and rock climbing. Mountain biking, backpacking, visiting historic sites, and downhill skiing have decreased in the percentage of participants as well (Cordell et al. 2009).

From 1982 to 2000–2001, driving motor vehicles off-road became one of the fastest growing categories of outdoor activity in the country (Cordell et al. 2009). The percentage of people age 16 and older who said they participated in off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation increased from 17.5 percent in 1999–2000 to a peak of 23.2 percent in fall 2002 through summer 2003 (Cordell et al. 2008a). After this peak, the percentage of the population participating in OHV recreation decreased somewhat to 19.2 percent in 2005–2007. The gain in annual OHV days from 2001 to 2007 represents a 42 percent increase overall. While the national OHV participation rate appears to have peaked in 2003, the amount of OHV activity per participant has continued to increase, slightly overwhelming the trend of decreasing participants (Cordell et al. 2008a).

American Indians had a higher participation rate (27 percent) than any other racial or ethnic group between 1999 and 2007. This is important information for the analysis of recreation as Native American populations are represented at a much higher percentage in eastern Arizona than in other parts of the country. In addition, out of all regions in the country, the West had the highest OHV participation rate (28

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 40 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

percent). This was especially true for young people under the age of 30, females, and Hispanics, all of which showed much higher OHV participation rates in the West than in other regions of the country (Cordell et al. 2008a).

Recreation trends on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Recreational use of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests has grown rapidly during the last two decades, commensurate with the growth of the population in the Southwest. Data collected from 2014 shows that the Apache-Sitgreaves hosts under 1 million visitors per year (USDA Forest Service 2014, p. 9). More than half of these visits are to developed parts of the Forests, such as campgrounds, or highly developed day-use sites such as Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area, Big Lake Recreation Area, or Rim Lakes Recreation Area (USDA Forest Service 2014 p. 9). Visitors to these sites only depend on access via main roads. None of these visits would be affected by changes made by this project.

Other forest visitors use less developed forest areas to pursue a wide variety of activities, including camping, backpacking, picnicking, viewing wildlife and natural features, viewing historic or archaeological sites, nature study, relaxing, fishing, hunting, OHV use, driving for pleasure, snowmobile travel, motorized and non-motorized water travel, other motorized activities, hiking or walking, horseback riding, bicycling, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, gathering forest products, and motorized trail use. Of all of these activities, hiking or walking and viewing scenery were measured as the two dominant activities on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Nearly 60 percent of the people who visit the Forests report participating in recreational activities that are not dependent on motor vehicle use beyond access via main roads, including viewing scenery, hiking, viewing wildlife, and relaxing (USDA Forest Service 2014, p. 20). Motorized recreation, however, is also a regular activity, with estimates of between 10 and 25 percent of users participating in this type of use (USDA Forest Service 2014, p. 21; ASU 2005). The broad variety of other activities that are neither non-motorized nor motorized likely depend on motor vehicle use for access to pursue one or more activities for recreational purposes.

For most visitors, the use of a motor vehicle is an integral part of their time spent on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. Access to and within the Forests will likely largely define the location, experience, and opportunities for visitors; and almost all activities one could pursue on a national forest involve driving on forest roads. Whether it is to access a trailhead or developed recreation area, collect firewood, or for the pleasure of driving in and of itself, motor vehicle use has a major influence on where and how the public uses National Forest System land. Different uses, however, vary in their dependence on forest roads and differ in the type of route being used. For example, OHV use depends not only on major roads to access trailheads, but can include the use of many unmaintained routes, trails, and often open country where there is no established route. In fact, studies show that common OHV users’ preferences include less-populated routes with challenging terrain (Albritton and Stein 2007; Snyder et al. 2008), which also means that these routes are the less maintained level 2 roads or motorized trails and off- road use.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 41 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 4. Recreation activities, primary versus participation visits (USDA Forest Service 2014)

As a result of the different types of uses on the Forests, demand for motor vehicle use can be categorized between the uses that almost entirely depend on main forest routes (maintenance levels 3, 4, 5) and those activities that are more likely to depend on back country (less maintained level 2 routes and motorized trails). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that activities including fishing, camping, hiking, viewing natural features or historic and prehistoric sites, and other common recreational activities would primarily depend on major forest roads for access to trailheads, water play access sites, campgrounds, campsites, and other developed and undeveloped recreational opportunities. It is assumed that OHV use primarily depends on less maintained roads and official trails, but also uses main forest roads to access these areas. Activities such as driving for pleasure, relaxing, hunting, firewood collection, and others are not as easy to categorize as they are highly dependent on an individual’s preferences and are assumed to generally use both main forest routes and back-country routes.

Recreation Setting – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests manage for a multitude of recreational experiences by designating areas according to the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS). The ROS addresses the

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 42 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

appropriateness and frequency/duration of sound and sights of humans within the forest by speaking to the probability or prevalence of sound and sights of human influence in discretely defined settings. ROS classifications are based on the magnitude and nature of this human influence. The ROS classifies the Forests into the following areas:

Primitive (P) – Characterized by an essentially unmodified environment, where [non-motorized] trails may be present but structures are rare, and where the probability of isolation from the sights and sounds of people is high.

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) – Characterized by few and/or subtle modifications by people, and with a high probability of isolation from the sights and sounds of people.

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) – Characterized by moderately dominant alterations by people, with strong evidence of primitive roads or trails.

Roaded Natural (RN) – Characterized by a predominantly natural environment with evidence of moderate permanent resource use. Evidence of sights and sounds of people is moderate, but in harmony with the natural environment. Opportunity exists for both social interaction and moderate isolation from sights and sounds of people.

Rural (R) – Characterized by an area in which the sights and sounds of people are prevalent and the landscape has been considerably altered by the works of people.

Urban (U) – Characterized by a natural setting dominated by people-made structures and the sights and sounds of people predominate.

Surveys on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests show that dispersed visitors who do not prefer motorized-based recreation strongly prefer the seemingly undisturbed natural areas inaccessible to vehicles (Lee and Pierskalla 1996; Hancock 2007, p. 33; Andereck 2001). As the density of motor vehicles increase in an area, these visitors’ enjoyment of an area decreases (Benhan 2001). Visitors that participate in motorized recreation feel differently. Motorized trail users are significantly more likely to feel access for motorized activities is more important than do non-motorized users; however, both types of users support non-motorized trails and access at similar levels (Andereck et al. 2001). All of these studies generally support the point that road access benefits some people while negatively affecting others.

The purpose of the recreation opportunity spectrum is to identify different parts of the Forests to facilitate different recreational experiences. Since non-motorized users experience a decrease in recreational benefits due to the sights and sounds of other humans than motorized users, road access is one of the factors that would result in conflict with providing a non-motorized recreation experience.

The rise in motorized activity during the past two decades represents a rapid change in one factor affecting forest recreation settings—the prevalence of motorized activities and the evidence of such activities—that threatens to diminish user expectations for, and enjoyment of, more primitive setting attributes in some areas of the Forests. The continued rise in motorized activity in the more primitive settings threatens to disrupt and displace, or at least to diminish, the experiences sought by many forest users.

Presently, visitors in most areas experience encounter rates well within thresholds for the respective ROS objectives for a given area. Popular forest areas for both motorized and non-motorized activity, such as near communities, have seen increasing conflict between motorized and non-motorized users. Studies

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 43 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

have shown that for some non-motorized users, just the idea of motorized use near campsites or trails can be disturbing (Bury and Fillmore 1974). Research on the subject suggests that while non-motorized users may experience reduced satisfaction by increased motorized activity in their favorite forest use area; motorized users tend not to notice their effect on others (Fillmore and Bury 1978).

Many motorized users are attracted by opportunities for solitude, challenge, and risk on the Forests just as many non-motorized users are. Presently, there are ample opportunities across the Forests for such setting attributes for all users. However, the proliferation of motorized use has diminished solitude opportunities for non-motorized users in some areas. For example, there are numerous accounts of hunters who favor quiet stalking, or “still” hunting techniques being disrupted by the arrival of motorized vehicles in areas the hunter had accessed on foot or by horseback. These accounts are supported by a 2005 Arizona Game and Fish Department study that found 54 percent of survey participants identified “OHV disruption” as a barrier to participation in hunting (AZGFD 2005).

The ROS represents management objectives and not actual user experiences. Based on the increase in motorized use during the past several decades, opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive non- motorized experiences have decreased, whereas the opportunities for semi-primitive motorized opportunities have increased at their expense. The proliferation of unauthorized routes has introduced the sights and sounds of motor vehicle use in areas that previously provided seemingly undisturbed natural settings. As a result, the ability to meet management objectives in primitive and semi-primitive non- motorized areas has substantially decreased outside of wilderness in most areas of the forest, especially in the last decade.

ROS zones for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are shown in figure 5 and figure 6, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Maps, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 44 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 5. Recreation opportunity spectrum designations on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache Forest Area

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 45 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 6. Recreation opportunity spectrum designations on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Sitgreaves Forest Area

Non-motorized Uses The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are primarily visited for non-motorized activities, such as hiking, fishing, viewing wildlife, or viewing natural features. This is clearly illustrated in the survey data collected on the Forests (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Comparing National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data6 from all north central and eastern Arizona national forests, it appears that the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests serve a particular niche—heavily used by non-local (originating from over 100 miles from the Forests) visitors for non-motorized recreational purposes. The highest amount of use is non-motorized recreational use, which may be negatively impacted by motorized uses. The most regular use by visitors is hiking and walking, which was reported by 59 percent of respondents as an activity they participate in (USDA Forest Service 2014). It is likely for this reason that the large majority of developed trails on the Forests are for hiking use, but there are also hundreds of miles of trails specifically designed and maintained for horseback riding, mountain biking, and cross-country skiing. Table 18 shows the existing trails for non-motorized use per district. Most of these trails are developed to be clear of vegetation with a smooth trail tread, but are not paved or surfaced with gravel or asphalt.

6 Although NVUM data may not be completely accurate for estimating visitor participation in different activities as previously discussed, it is much more accurate and the only data consistently collected with the same protocol for comparing between national forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 46 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 18. Non-motorized trails by condition class Trail Condition Class Sum of Miles TC1 – Minimally Developed 24 TC2 – Moderately Developed 587 TC3 – Developed 552 TC4 – Highly Developed 284 TC5 – Fully Developed 5 Grand Total 1,452

Motorized Uses Comprehensive data describing type, locations, and intensity of motorized use on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests does not exist; however, several existing sources of information, define motorized use sufficiently to characterize effects generally across the Forests and for each major vegetation type.

• Estimated site visits totaled about 744,000 in 2014. A “site visit” is defined as “the entry of one person onto a national forest site or area to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time.” One site visit can include multiple site visits and multiple activities. • Nearly half of all visitors (42.2 percent) listed “driving for pleasure” as an activity they participated in on the Forests. Those listing “driving for pleasure” as the main activity (5.3 percent) said they spent 3.8 hours per visit doing so (USDA Forest Service 2014). • Of the total site visits, 9.0 percent identified motorized-based recreation as an activity they participated in. This includes “motorized trail activity” (5.0 percent for 15 hours per visit) or “OHV Use” (4.0 percent for 3.2 hours per visit). A combined 1.2 percent of visitors surveyed stated that these were the “main activities” during their visit (USDA Forest Service 2014). • In addition to the site visits involving motorized recreation from the NVUM data, it is likely there is additional use from communities adjacent to or within the national forest that was not captured in the NVUM data. This would increase the percentage of those identifying motorized-based recreation as an activity they participated in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests to 14.6 percent. We think visits from this additional 5.6 percent occur primarily adjacent to communities and diminishes rapidly as distance from the communities increases. Most recreational activities on the Forests are dependent on motorized vehicles for access to the site of the activity, but in general, most forest visitors stay on the main roads. For example “Hiking/Walking,” the most popular of all activities inventoried by far (59 percent total participation, 19.6 percent as main activity), is often dependent on vehicular access to trailheads via forest roads. We assume that most of the nearly 1 million visits captured in the NVUM survey used vehicles, including OHVs, across National Forest System roads to gain access to their chosen activity site; however, only 21.6 percent of those surveys reported using “Forest Roads” (USDA Forest Service 2014). In other words, this means that the large majority of forest users primarily use main roads to pursue activities such as hiking and walking. Far fewer users use high-clearance forest roads.

Cold weather and snow discourages motorized use in the higher elevations typically from November until March, except for snowmobile use and for late season hunter access in areas that are still accessible. Lower elevation areas receive motorized use year-round. Most of the cross-country motorized use on the Forests occurs during the spring and summer in the higher elevations during antler gathering season in the spring and as the temperature increases in the desert surrounding the Phoenix metropolitan area and recreationalists from that area make the 2- to 3-hour trip northeast to enjoy the cool pine forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 47 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Visitors to the Forests use motorized vehicles for many reasons including access to engage in various popular activities. Several popular activities that account for most of the motorized use of the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests are listed below:

Driving For Pleasure/Viewing Scenery The large majority (over 70 percent) of motorized use on the Forests comes from those who drive for pleasure (USDA Forest Service 2014, AHRRC 1990). Each year, many people enjoy the beauty of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, driving many miles of scenic and challenging roads, including not only the many paved and gravel roads suitable for passenger cars, but the rougher back roads, too. However, less than a quarter of all visitors said they use NFS roads. Instead, they reported staying on the main roads and scenic byways (28 percent), such as the Coronado Trail, a scenic byway that connects Morenci to Alpine, which is very scenic with spectacular overlook views. These people are seeking solitude and relief from stressful city life, and peaceful forest settings viewed from their vehicles provide this relief.

Many users drive the forest roads watching for wildlife, and some are seeking interesting archaeological sites, but many are simply driving for the experience of seeing wild forest lands, perhaps with an occasional glimpse of a distant spectacular landform, canyon, or mountain. Most people stay on the roads, but a minority of users prefers to view features on the landscape up-close and rather than leaving their vehicles at established roads and walking to see things, they drive cross-country to the feature.

OHV Use In past decades, there were fewer forest users and the vehicle types used to access the Forests were less numerous and of much less ability than today’s specialized motorized equipment. Today, many people own specialized ATVs or UTVs, motorcycles, and other vehicles that can be driven or ridden across nearly any terrain found in the Forests.

Today, many individuals and families come to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests with their trailers and trucks loaded with ATVs for the sole purpose of riding in the Forests, enjoying the challenge of riding rough trails and country, and seeing new areas — “relaxing” in the Forests. Surveys show that the large majority of ATV users prefer to ride on existing, well-defined roads; not off-road (USDA Forest Service 1999a). However, it is clear that although ATV/UTV riders are satisfied riding on maintenance level 2 roads, there is also a desire for designated and maintained trails specifically for ATV/UTV use on National Forest System land (Flood 2006, USDA Forest Service 1999a).

These same surveys, however, also show that most users are generally unfamiliar with ATV rules and requirements on the Apache-Sitgreaves (USDA Forest Service 1999a). As a result, ATV use on the Forests often results in impacts, such as rutting and loss of vegetation, noise affecting other users and property owners, or impacts to wildlife.

This change in the amount of motorized recreation and resulting impacts is not just reflected in surveys, but forest users themselves have regularly pointed this out during interviews, which is reflected through the Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values Report:

“It used to be all you would ever see is a few motorcycles and jeeps out on the trails, but now things have changed. Now, you have everything under the sun out there trying to drive on trails they should or shouldn’t be on. The Forest Service trying to manage those impacts is hard. The technology has changed so much and I am not sure the Forest Service has kept up with what the impacts of that are.”

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 48 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

The largest impacts and most recreation conflict are observed adjacent to communities where landowners and their children frequently ride on the adjacent Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Given that “it isn’t breaking the law” because of the “open unless posted closed” policy that is currently in place; this use still results in substantial and long-term impacts where ATV use forms permanent trails and motocross tracks, often with “constructed features” such as jumps and banked turns that are very visible on the otherwise natural-appearing landscape.

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests includes high-clearance roads used by OHVs, but in general, the Forests lack many areas specifically designed or designated for off-road OHV use or for trail riding. Regardless, the Apache-Sitgreaves still provides for a variety of OHV activities including:

OHV Trail riding – This type of riding includes riding on unsurfaced trails that provide interconnections and loops. It is most popular with off-road motorcycle users, but is also desirable to some ATV users. In general, dirt bike users strongly depend on the presence of single-track trails for a satisfactory motorized recreation experience. This does not extend to ATV/UTV users who are generally content with driving on high-clearance NFS roads (USDA Forest Service 1999a).

Figure 7. Dirt bike in a high-elevation meadow

Other trail users, such as ATV/UTV users, are less concerned about the trail form, but are more concerned with having places to ride near their campsite or home (Lord 2007). Communities such as Pinetop, Lakeside, Alpine, Greer, and others, where ATV and other motorized users often live adjacent to or near the Forests, frequently are areas where people seek opportunities to ride and drive. Given the Forests’ “open unless posted closed” policy, new tracks are created off-road in areas adjacent to existing routes, and trail systems are formed and expanded. Sometimes trail systems are local in nature, mostly around communities, but sometimes they extend far beyond the community.

Jeeping – Jeeping includes driving 4x4 vehicles over very rough roads, trails, or canyons. Jeeping is focused on the technical mechanical challenge of being able to accomplish vehicle travel of very rough terrain, of which few vehicles are capable. This activity also includes some of the same qualities of trail riding. Due to the limited maintenance on many routes on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, many of the maintenance level 2 roads throughout the Forests provide jeeping opportunities.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 49 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Hill climbs – This activity includes climbing extremely steep terrain in ATVs or 4x4 vehicles. This activity is pursued both for the thrill of the climb, as well as the technical accomplishment.

Observed Trails – Observed trails include highly technical dirt bike riding where riders compete against each other, based on their technique as they ride over very difficult terrain on steep slopes. Trail bikes need to be much lighter weight than other dirt bikes, and as a result, they carry less gas and are not involved in long-range trail riding. There are no regular events known in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Motocross tracks and Mudbogs – Motocross tracks and mudbogs include focused, competitive, off-road vehicle use of such intensity that occurs within such a limited area that it often results in complete loss of vegetation and resource damage. Motocross tracks are often created by users in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Mudbogging appears to occur on a much smaller scale and is more spontaneous because it depends on the formation of big mud holes on the Forests during monsoon season. In general, these activities are not allowed on the Forests due to their propensity for causing resource damage, and because they include a very high potential for causing injury, especially in areas that are not professionally designed.

Tot lots – These include open areas where children ride ATVs and dirt bikes near popular dispersed camping areas. Areas around popular camping sites are often used for this purpose. It is not uncommon for the same places used as motocross tracks to be used as tot lots.

In addition to the aforementioned opportunities and uses on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, the surrounding public lands including the Gila National Forest, Coconino National Forest, Tonto National Forest, BLM lands, and private lands include additional opportunities. Many of these surrounding areas provide for specifically designated OHV areas and routes as shown in table 19.

Table 19. Areas with motorized recreation opportunities near the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. These generally include only those areas designated for OHV use that include opportunities for riding commensurate with several hours to several days of use. Approximate Motorized Vehicle Land Area Type/Description driving distance Opportunity Ownership from the Forests Cinder Hills OHV Approximately 13,500 acres are available for Coconino Within 3 hours Area (Flagstaff) all types of motorized vehicles. This area National Forest encompasses ponderosa pine forest and is open all seasons, with occasional snow in the winter. Verde Trails Many miles of OHV trails and 51 miles of Prescott Within 3 hours dual-use roads. A trail is defined as a way for National Forest foot, stock, or trail vehicle traffic. A dual-use road can be used by both full-sized vehicles and OHVs. Hayfield Draw OHV A multi-use OHV area with a "tot lot" for Prescott Within 3 hours Area beginners, a motocross track, 40 acres of National Forest open riding and over 120 miles of trails with the longest trail over 50 miles long. No camping.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 50 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Approximate Motorized Vehicle Land Area Type/Description driving distance Opportunity Ownership from the Forests Great Western Trail A planned 800-mile primitive route that is Various Within 3 hours (GWT) about 50 percent complete. GWT traverses rugged country on the Tonto, Prescott, and Kaibab National Forests, as well as BLM lands on the Arizona Strip. Some segments require vehicles to be highway-licensed/legal. Alto Pit OHV Area A 400-acre site that includes a 13-acre cross- Prescott Within 3 hours country area open to ATVs and trail bikes, National Forest 8 miles of designated trails for ATVs and trail bikes, and a beginner's course for vehicles under 90cc. Bumble Bee – 28-mile dirt road for ATV/UTV, 4x4s, or dirt Prescott Within 3 hours Mayor OHV Area bikes through pine forest and chaparral. National Forest Route connects to historic mines and developed campsites. Mescal Mountains Good for beginners and allows for all types of BLM and Town 2 to 4 hours OHV Area (Kearny) off highway vehicles. Elevation ranges from of Kearny 2,000 to 2,400 feet. Site includes a staging area, picnic and camping areas, and restrooms. Hualapai Mountain Hundreds of miles of trails suitable for ATV Mojave County 2 to 4 hours OHV Trailhead travel in forested and desert landscapes. The facility is a fee area that offers cabins, camping, and a staging area. Arizona Strip More than 5,000 miles of dirt roads. Road Arizona Strip 2 to 4 hours conditions range from well-maintained graded BLM Field roads, to high clearance two-tracks, to Office challenging routes that require 4-wheel drive vehicles. Camping available. Log Corral Canyon 20 miles of technical ATV/UTV trail. Tonto National 2 to 4 hours Forest Agua Caliente Trail 25 miles primitive road in desert landscape Lower Sonoran 2 to 4 hours for all OHV vehicle types. Camping available. BLM Field Office Rolls OHV Area 27,000-acre area for OHV motorized trail use Tonto National 2 to 4 hours on unmaintained roads and trails in desert Forest landscape. Contains a portion of the Great Western Trail. Reno Pass 15 miles of steep, rocky ATV trail in desert Tonto National 2 to 4 hours terrain. Camping available. Forest Four Peaks OHV Area with over 100 miles of unmaintained Tonto National 2 to 4 hours Area trails in desert scrub landscape. Camping Forest allowed. Bulldog Canyon Area open by permit to 11 miles of technical Tonto National 2 to 4 hours 4x4 wheel drive roads. Forest

These areas are generally designed or designated for specific OHV motorized recreation. Areas such as the Reno Pass, Rolls OHV Area, Log Canyon Corral, Hayfield Draw OHV Area, Bumble Bee/Mayer OHV Area, and the Arizona Strip are designed for general ATV/UTV and 4x4 vehicle use with challenging trails and enough terrain or mileage to provide for at least a full day experience. These sites range from highly signed and managed recreation sites, to fenced areas where motorized use has

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 51 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

displaced other potential uses and vegetation. These sites also allow for ATV use, enduro (long-distance) bikes or trials bikes use where riders find them desirable. In general, they are the most accommodating to all OHV uses. Areas such as Hualapai Mountain OHV Trailhead, Long Draw and Alto Pit OHV Area are specifically designed to provide areas for OHV use with camping facilities to provide for more of a family-based experience that involved OHV riding.

Dispersed Camping In the context of this analysis, dispersed camping is defined as camping on the Forests via motorized vehicle, outside of a developed campground. Most dispersed camping done on the Forests is via motorized vehicle. Dispersed camping is very popular across the Forests with use levels varying by season for specific elevations or vegetation types.

Forests in the Southwestern Region receive some of the highest dispersed camping use in the Nation (English 2009), likely due to the open vegetation and year-round sun. From simple car-camping with tents, to overnight camping with larger vehicles such as motor homes or recreational vehicles, camping outside of developed campgrounds in areas without amenities is desirable for many people, and the demand for this type of motor-based recreational use appears to be growing, compared to camping in developed campgrounds. This type of camping experience is sought in many places, including along roads in remote locations, near lakes, creeks and rivers, or in quiet and secluded parts of the Forests.

Figure 8. Dispersed camping with recreational vehicles

During winter, lower-elevation areas of the Forests are popular for dispersed camping when the high country is snowed in and temperatures are relatively balmy. During summer, thousands of people come to the Forests each weekend, seeking relaxation and relief from the heat of the southern half of the state. Much of this use occurs on weekends, and particularly on holiday weekends. Predictably, areas easily accessed by major roads, in the higher elevations, receive some of the highest dispersed camping use. Both U.S. Interstate 40 and Interstate 17 connect with state highways that bisect the Forests. Every ranger district on the Forests is associated with a community.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 52 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Some areas, such as Heber-Overgaard, Greer, Alpine and Pinetop-Lakeside, and others have become destinations for longer camping vacations for Valley residents (Phoenix and surrounding areas), especially when temperatures and gas prices are high and people are seeking climatic relief relatively close to home.

With the Forests’ current “open unless posted closed” policy on cross-country travel with motorized vehicles, recent population increases in the state have resulted in gradual increases in roads and damage to the land and other resources, as dispersed campsites and areas are expanded and new ones are established. Many dispersed campsites are located in prime camping areas with good views, near water, or in shaded forest areas. Many of the sites have been used for a long time, since they were established generations ago, and they are repeatedly used by succeeding generations of campers. With overall increases in use, and with some sites losing their attractiveness due to overuse, lack of maintenance, loss of vegetation and cover, etc., new sites are sought in other areas, with new roads are established to reach the new camping areas. At the same time, older areas are expanded. Several existing sources of information, including results of the NVUM (USDA Forest Service 2014) define dispersed use sufficiently to characterize effects generally across the Forests and for each major vegetation type (PNVT) as follows:

• Almost 4 percent of visitors to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests participated in dispersed camping (USDA Forest Service 2014) • Approximately 39 to 56 percent of Arizona off-highway vehicle users surveyed participate in camping (Virden et al. 1991) • Mean length of stay in the Forests for all staying at least a night away from home = 47 hours • The consistently highest use period for dispersed camping is the 13 weeks from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Memorial Day, July 4th, and Labor Day are by far the highest use weekends of the year. We have no definitive data for the proportion of use for the different weekends, but for purposes of this analysis, we assume that the top three weekends have twice the use of the other 10 weekends of the summer camping season. • Dispersed camping during the hunting seasons (spring turkey and bear; late summer to early winter for most big game; fall and winter for game birds and small game) is more dispersed than the typical summer camp pattern with more use occurring closer to favorite hunt areas and farther from the main access highways and other hunting camps.

Hunting It is estimated that roughly 100,000 hunters use the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests each year for hunting all types of game from quail to bear (USDA Forest Service 2014). In general, most hunting occurs in the fall when the majority of elk and deer hunts are permitted. Generally, these hunts result in motorized use after Labor Day. As motorized use from the summer recreation season dies down, hunter traffic increases in concert with firewood cutters, resulting in regular traffic in October and November on many of the less used high-clearance (level 2) forest roads (Burbridge and Neff 1978).

Expanded hunting seasons for various wildlife species and weapon types, coupled with more advanced and powerful all-terrain and off-road vehicles, have resulted in increased motorized access to areas previously receiving little or no traffic. Increasing elk numbers across the region have resulted in focus on prime hunting opportunities in the area, with high value placed on being drawn each year for both state residents and people from out of state. In recent years, game managers seeking to optimize elk and other hunters’ experiences have offered more seasons to hunt across more times in the year. For example, early season archery, which often precedes the local rifle hunt season, has become more popular recently. In the spring, turkey hunters comb the backwoods in their trucks and ATVs, searching for the elusive bird.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 53 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Today, high clearance all-wheel-drive vehicles, four-wheel-drive ATVs, and other specialty vehicles allow easy access to even the most rugged and remote areas of the Forests during every period of the year, including during hunting seasons, and offer access over every type of road in nearly every weather condition. Resultant damage to roads and surrounding land has increased in recent years, as more specialized equipment and methods are used for this recreational activity across most of the Forests’ area.

In areas where the majority of the traffic is normally during hunting season, a typical route scenario might be a road, created by repeated passage with a vehicle, with no formal engineering or construction and little or no maintenance that becomes deep, rocky and rough, and so a new track is started adjacent to the old one, until that new track, too, cuts deep, and so another new one is started nearby. The sequence is predictable and it occurs throughout much of the Forests with varying effects across different soil types and terrain features. Too often the result is wide sections of road that are sometimes three, four, or more vehicles in width, with increased damage to soil and vegetation.

Road damage occurs in other popular hunting areas of the Forests, as well and in other important forest areas. The often low-standard, poorly maintained roads are driven throughout much of the year, including during wet weather when rutting and damage occur. Even main forest roads used during hunting season, originally constructed to a high standard and maintained for near year-round use, but now degraded due to reduced maintenance and increasing hunting use, are sometimes beyond reclamation; the original investment in the road is lost, and increasing impacts to the environment are the result.

Motorized retrieval of big game (elk, deer) following a successful hunt is a longstanding tradition on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. It is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of successful elk hunters on the Forests drive to their kill (Burbridge and Neff 1978). The open nature of the vegetation and the generally gentle topography, along with the present policy for cross-country motorized travel, encourage motorized retrieval. Most hunters take advantage of motorized retrieval unless topography makes it too difficult. Some hunters go to extremes in their retrieval efforts using ever more powerful and flexible high- clearance machines, often with cable winches, to retrieve animals from very rugged terrain; sometimes incurring considerable rutting and damage to vegetation in the process. Generally, though, damage done to forest resources during big game retrieval is a minor component to the general use of the Forests for motorized cross-country travel.

Antler Gathering A relatively new use in the last decade, antler, or “shed” gathering, has become popular with many people. This activity occurs primarily in the spring when deer and elk shed their antlers, and usually just after snowmelt or spring thaw when forest roads and surrounding grounds are often saturated with water.

People seeking valuable antler sheds for profit comb National Forest System lands as they “grid-search” areas for elk and deer sheds that can pay as much as $15 per pound on commercial markets. Frequently, the resulting impacts may be relatively light, as skilled and conscientious shed hunters act responsibly by hunting using their vehicle only during dry periods, when the impacts may just be the flattening of vegetation, which will probably grow back next season. But, often, the muddy roads and surrounding lands are damaged by wheel ruts from the irresponsible use of ATVs and trucks of people searching for antlers, ruining the roads, and causing long-term damage to lands and resources. Even when the ground is not wet; the repeated passage of vehicles back and forth across the landscape compacts soil and damages young plants.

We have no data on the extent of motorized traffic caused by shed hunters, but we know that it is an increasingly popular activity.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 54 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Rock Climbing Traditional climbing and sport climbing use has increased greatly in recent years as the area population has increased, and has been expanding out from original popular climbing areas adjacent to urban centers, to more remote areas. Today, numerous climbing guides are available that lead local people and people from all over the world to all types of climbing areas in the Forests, including popular, high-use areas that are reached by relatively high standard roads, to the newer, more remote and challenging climbing sites that are in backcountry areas. While often these uses of forest roads to access climbing areas occur during fair weather when roads aren’t damaged, high amounts of regular use in undeveloped areas lead to impacts over time. Frequently, new roads are started to approach new climbing areas, and as word spreads about the areas, motorized use increases and the resultant impacts to roads and resources occur as well.

We have no data to quantify the amount of motorized traffic caused by rock climbers, but the effects of such traffic are evident near popular rock climbing sites.

Special Events/Group Events While large groups have used the Forests for years, today these groups are larger and more numerous than before. They also use the Forests for much more varied purposes. Today, the Forests are used for weddings, archery shoots, Medieval reenactments, family gatherings and reunions, motorcycle races, motorcycle trials, mountain bike races, running events, church groups, field dog trials, bicycle racing, etc. While some of these events are motorized and some are not, participants nearly always come by motorized vehicle, and thus, impact areas across the Forests where the events are permitted by expanding existing parking areas in remote locations, creating new routes and “two track” roads in areas where events are held. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests have worked to provide appropriate locations for large groups across the Forests, but without adequate resources to properly manage the areas, they often become over-used, with resource damage occurring.

Designated Areas (Wilderness and Primitive Area), Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers There are no designated wild and scenic rivers on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. However, the Forests have 23 eligible rivers and 2 suitable rivers, which reflects the importance of water and its presence on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers are considered special areas by the Forest Service. Approximately 339 miles of 23 rivers are eligible to be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (table 20). There are 172 miles classified as wild, 66 miles classified as scenic, and 101 miles classified as recreational. These rivers are located in all ranger districts except Lakeside. Eligible rivers are managed to retain their river values (water quality, free flow, and outstandingly remarkable values), along with their classification to the extent practicable, until a suitability determination has been made whether to recommend their inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Suitable rivers on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests include portions of the Blue River and KP Creek (Table 21). These rivers were found to be suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System through a separate environmental analysis (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Similarly, suitable rivers are managed to maintain river values (water quality, free flow, and outstandingly remarkable values), along with their classification to the extent practicable, until congressional action is taken. One-half-mile-wide corridors, one-quarter mile on each side of eligible and suitable rivers, are managed to protect the identified river values. A “river corridor” is defined as the geographically area generally encompassed within one-quarter mile on either side of the river studied for eligibility or suitability that contains the river and its outstanding remarkable values (ORV).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 55 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 20. Eligible wild and scenic rivers of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests by river classification Wild Scenic Recreational Total Outstandingly Remarkable River Name (miles) (miles) (miles) Miles Values Bear Wallow Creek 3.7 – 0.9 4.6 Scenery, Recreation, Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation Black River 18.3 0.5 – 18.8 Scenery, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Campbell Blue Creek 4.1 – 8.0 12.1 Scenery, Recreation, Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation Coal Creek 9.6 0.6 7.7 17.9 Recreation, Fish, Wildlife, and Historic Dix Creek – 3.3 – 3.3 Scenery, Recreation, Fish, and Wildlife Eagle Creek – – 19.5 19.5 Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation East Clear Creek – 21.2 – 21.2 Scenery and Fish (Coconino) East Eagle Creek 7.5 3.5 3.5 14.5 Recreation and Fish East Fork Black River 3.3 1.2 8.2 12.7 Scenery, Recreation, Fish, Wildlife and Historic East Fork Little Colorado – 9.3 – 9.3 Scenery, Recreation, Fish, River Wildlife and Vegetation Fish Creek – 9.9 0.6 10.5 Scenery, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Little Blue Creek 18.4 – – 18.4 Scenery and Recreation Leonard Canyon – – 23.6 23.6 Fish (Coconino) North Fork East Fork Black 12.7 1.0 – 13.7 Scenery, Fish and Wildlife River Pigeon Creek 4.8 – 10.3 15.1 Prehistoric San Francisco River 9.0 – 15.0 24.0 Scenery, Recreation, Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation Sardine Creek 8.9 – – 8.9 Scenery South Fork Little Colorado – 7.3 – 7.3 Scenery River Turkey Creek 9.1 – – 9.1 Recreation, Wildlife, Prehistoric West Fork Black River 8.6 3.0 11.6 Scenery, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife West Fork Little Colorado 6.4 – 1.7 8.1 Scenery, Recreation and River Wildlife Willow Creek 18.9 – -– 18.9 Wildlife and Vegetation Woods Canyon – Chevelon 28.4 5.3 2.4 36.1 Wildlife, Vegetation, Scenery Creek and Fish Total Miles 171.7 66.1 101.4 339.2

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 56 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 21. Suitable wild and scenic rivers of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests by river classification Wild Scenic Recreational Total River Name Outstandingly Remarkable Values (miles) (miles) (miles) Miles Blue River 23.3 4.2 – 27.5 Scenery, Recreation, Fish, Wildlife, Historic, Prehistoric, and Vegetation KP Creek 11.3 – – 11.3 Scenery, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Total Miles 34.6 4.2 0.0 38.8

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are home to three designated wilderness areas: Mount Baldy Wilderness, located on the Springerville Ranger District, and Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas, located on the Alpine Ranger District. Wilderness areas are managed and their values protected according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577). Wilderness areas provide opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Motorized equipment and mechanical transport are prohibited in all wilderness areas.

The Forest Service considers the primitive area a special area. This management area consists of the Blue Range Primitive Area along with the presidential recommended additions to the area (199,502 acres). The only remaining primitive area in the National Forest System, the Blue Range Primitive Area, is located in the Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts. It was administratively designated by the Forest Service (L-20 regulations) as a primitive area on June 21, 1933, to preserve its wilderness qualities. The Blue Range Primitive Area is managed as wilderness, with one exception: the area is open to mineral prospecting and mineral development.

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) were authorized by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 36 CFR Part 294. The “inventoried” part of the name comes from the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation forests conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, described above. Nine roadless characteristics are identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless characteristics are resources or features that are often present in or characterize roadless areas: • High quality of undisturbed soil, water, and air; • Sources of public drinking water; • Diversity of plant and animal communities; • Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; • Primitive, semiprimitive non-motorized, and semiprimitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; • Reference landscapes; • Natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; • Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and • Other locally identified unique characteristics. The Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule prohibits road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest, except under certain circumstances, in inventoried roadless areas because they have the greatest likelihood of altering and fragmenting landscapes, resulting in immediate long-term loss of roadless area values. Roads and motorized trails can be present within IRAs. The Roadless Rule does not prohibit travel on existing roads or motorized trails.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 57 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

There are 17 IRAs in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (table 22). These areas total approximately 322,000 acres. In general, these lands include rough, broken terrain with steep-sided canyons, and are located in low population areas. The Forests’ IRAs are the result of Forest Service rulemaking and environmental analysis (USDA Forest Service 2000) conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s. IRAs overlay a variety of management areas that are identified in the revised forest plan.

Table 22. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests inventoried roadless areas Inventoried Roadless Area Acres Ranger District Leonard Canyon 3,069 Black Mesa Chevelon Canyon 5,569 Black Mesa Escudilla Mountain 885 Alpine Mother Hubbard 2,177 Alpine Campbell Blue 7,003 Alpine Nolan 6,780 Alpine Centerfire 13,130 Alpine Bear Wallow 878 Alpine Black River Canyon 11,813 Alpine Hot Air 31,703 Clifton Salt House 21,842 Clifton Painted Bluffs 43,105 Clifton Lower San Francisco 59,308 Clifton Pipestem 34,592 Clifton Hells Hole 15,512 Clifton Mitchell Peak 35,392 Clifton Sunset 28,946 Clifton Pipestem/Lower San Francisco 152 Clifton Total Acres 321,856

Resource Indicators and Measures The following table summarizes the existing condition resource measures and indicators.

Table 23. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Resource Resource Resource Element Resource Indicator Element Indicator Forest Access Recreational Percentage of area near open 69.8% of forest accessible within opportunities road outside of ½ mile of existing road. Access congressionally designated 16.8% of forest accessible within areas. 0.5 to 1 mile of existing road. 8.1% of forest accessible within 1 to 2 miles of existing road 5.3% of forest accessible with 2 or more miles of existing road

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 58 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Resource Resource Element Resource Indicator Element Indicator Forest Access Impacts to Miles of routes and 37.28 miles of motorized routes Inventoried percentage of change to within designated non-motorized Roadless Areas motorized routes occurring areas and Eligible Wild within Inventoried Roadless, 83.95 miles of motorized routes and Scenic Rivers and Eligible Wild, Scenic within the eligible and suitable River corridors (WSR). wild and scenic river corridors Forest Access Hunter Access Percentage of off-road elk No restrictions on off-road travel retrieval vehicle trips affected High level of Access by travel management restrictions. Motorized Motorized Miles of motorized trail No restrictions on off-road travel Recreation recreation opportunities 63 miles of motorized trails Opportunities availability Motorized Dispersed Percent of inventoried No restrictions on off-road travel Recreation Camping access dispersed campsites within High level of Access Opportunities drivable areas Motorized Hunter experience Hunter satisfaction Provides few areas that are Recreation isolated from motor vehicle use Opportunities User Conflict Non-motorized Miles of road and trail within No restrictions on off-road travel Recreation primitive and semi-primitive 109 miles of motorized routes in experience non-motorized areas. Primitive and Semi-primitive Areas User Conflict Motorized Motorized and non-motorized No restrictions on off-road travel Recreation user conflict experience

Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects Percentage of area near roads outside of Designated Areas (Wilderness and Primitive Areas)

Under this alternative, approximately 69.8 percent of the Forests would be accessible to within 0.5 mile of an existing National Forest System road outside of Wilderness and Primitive Area. An additional 16.8 percent of the Forests is between 0.5 to 1 mile from system roads outside Wilderness, 8.1 percent of the Forest is between 1 to 2 miles, and 5.3 percent of the Forests is more than 2 miles from a system road outside of Wilderness.

Under current conditions, the ability to get away from roads is rather limited outside of designated Wilderness. Given that unrestricted off-road travel is allowed on most parts of the Forests and there are likely several more hundred miles of routes that have not been inventoried, even areas that are more than 0.5 mile from a road may still be within the sights and sounds of motor vehicles.

Miles of routes and percentage of change to motorized routes occurring within Inventoried Roadless Areas and Eligible Wild, and Scenic River Corridors Under alternative1, inventoried roadless areas would continue to offer non-motorized settings. This alternative would allow for 37.28 miles of motorized routes within IRAs. In addition to these routes, cross

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 59 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

country travel of motor vehicles within the IRAs is not restricted. As such, the roadless characters, such as undisturbed soil and water and habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land, may be impacted by continued cross country travel. The impacts to these roadless characters are discussed throughout this chapter in the applicable resource areas. Under this alternative, there would be no changes to the roadless character of the IRAs.

This alternative would also allow for 83.95 miles of motorized routes within the river corridors for the eligible and suitable wild and scenic river segments. In addition to these routes, cross country travel of motor vehicles within the wild and scenic river corridors is prohibited. As such, the river values (water quality, free flow and outstandingly remarkable values) may be impacted by continued cross country travel. Under this alternative, there would be no changes to the outstandingly remarkable values to the eligible and suitable wild and scenic river corridors. Water quality and free flow is addressed Watershed Specialist Report and the Effects to Watershed section of this environmental impact statement. Similarly, the impacts to the other outstandingly remarkable values are discussed throughout the chapter in the applicable resource areas.

Percentage of off-road elk retrieval vehicle trips affected by travel management restrictions This alternative would not add any restrictions on off-road vehicle use for retrieval of elk or any other species of hunted animal. Access for motorized retrieval of big game would be unaffected.

Motorized Recreation Opportunities Miles of motorized trail opportunities Under the current alternative, no motorized trails would be closed to motor vehicle use. This would mean that 63 miles of motorized trails would remain open specifically to be used for OHV motorized recreation. Motorized recreational opportunities on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests would likely meet demand since current management would allow for unrestricted motorized use across most of the Forests.

Percent of inventoried dispersed campsites within drivable areas This alternative would not add any restrictions on off-road vehicle use for dispersed camping. Thus, off- road vehicle use or vehicle use on closed roads for access to dispersed campsites would remain unchanged.

Hunter satisfaction Hunting is many things: a recreation activity, an important sociocultural element in the lives of many people, a means of obtaining food for some people, and the primary means used by wildlife management agencies for controlling game populations. Most measures indicate that hunting participation peaked between 1980 and 1985, and has gradually declined thereafter (Brown et al. 2000). Recent information from the Arizona Game and Fish shows that applications for big game hunting permits have fallen 22 percent since 2006, despite state efforts to expand and improve hunting opportunities (Holden 2011).

Although this decline is likely due to a number of reasons, a 2005 hunter needs assessment by the Arizona Game and Fish Department Hunter and Shooting Recruitment and Retention Team found that approximately 54 percent of respondents cited OHV disruption and 51 percent of respondents cited overcrowding as barriers to hunting (AZGFD 2005).

This alternative would exacerbate these problems of OHV disruption and perceived ‘crowding’ by continuing to allow unrestricted motor vehicle use across most of the Forests. This alternative would

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 60 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

continue to allow hunters high levels of access to the Forests and allow the ability to retrieve downed game, both of which have been cited as important elements in hunter satisfaction (AZGFD 2005, Responsive Management 2006). Yet it would result in growing negative impacts to hunter satisfaction by providing big game hunters with few areas that are isolated from motor vehicle use, and thus, would limit their ability to achieve those elements that are most important for hunter satisfaction, including the ability to enjoy undisrupted nature and the ability to experience solitude (Hammitt et al. 1990, Responsive Management 2006). In addition, there are studies that show decreasing vehicle access in some circumstances has also had the effect of increasing hunter success (Gratson and Whitman 2000), which is also an important component of hunter satisfaction.

User Conflict Miles of roads and trails, and acres of camping corridors within primitive and semi-primitive non- motorized areas Less than 6 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests outside of wilderness is classified as primitive, which is characterized by an essentially unmodified environment, where [non-motorized] trails may be present but where the probability of isolation from the sights and sounds of people is high. Approximately 27 percent of the Forests outside of Wilderness areas is classified as semi-primitive non- motorized, which is characterized by few and/or subtle modifications by people, and with a high probability of isolation from the sights and sounds of people.

Despite including such a small area of the Forests, an estimated 109.48 miles of roads in these areas are managed for non-motorized purposes. Approximately 0.19 mile of motorized trail also occurs in primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized areas (see table 24).

In addition to the known roads and trails occurring in these areas, due to the current ‘open unless closed’ policy on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, these areas may be used for off-road motorized use for purposes of car camping, hunting, game retrieval or for other reasons.

Table 24. Miles of routes and acres of camping corridors in non-motorized uses recreation opportunity spectrum areas Primitive Semi-primitive non-motorized Miles of road 3.69 105.879 Miles of motorized trails 0 0.19

Due to the current condition of over 109 miles of motorized routes in primitive and semi-primitive non- motorized areas and the likely growth of this number over the next several years due to continued off- road vehicle travel, this alternative is not meeting forest plan objectives. In other words, management objectives to maintain a recreational experience isolated from the sights and sounds of people (including motorized use) are not occurring in these areas. Furthermore, due to the expected proliferation of routes over time, this alternative would move conditions away from meeting this management objective.

Level of motorized and non-motorized user conflict This alternative would result in the highest amount of conflict between motorized and non-motorized users. Complaints from landowners, hikers, horseback riders, and even other motorized users about motorized use is a common occurrence, even when this motorized use is in compliance with current rules.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 61 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Because the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are used more for non-motorized recreational purposes, and the large majority of the Forests is open to motorized use; it is not surprising that conflict between motorized and non-motorized users is common (USDA Forest Service 2011). Furthermore, this level of conflict is likely to grow as unrestricted motorized use continues and increases across most parts of the Forests, and as non-motorized nature-based recreation activities continue to grow.

The large majority of research on the social impacts of OHV use shows that the impacts between motorized users and other recreationists (including other motorized uses) are asymmetric; meaning that motorized users affect other recreationists more than they are affected by other recreationists, and often, this leads to displacement of non-motorized recreationists (Adams and McCool 2009, Stokowski and LaPointe 2000, McCay and Moeller 1976, Lynn and Brown 2003). This impact is not only a direct result of motorized use, such as noise and dust, but also from the indirect impacts of reduced vegetation, clearly altered natural areas from human activities, and reduced opportunities to view wildlife.

Due to these impacts, over the past three decades, as motorized use has grown, non-motorized recreationists have been ‘losing’ traditionally used areas (Adams and McCool 2009). Since it is clear that the large majority of users on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests pursue non-motorized activities and that the Forests are used for non-motorized activities, this alternative would likely continue to result in the greatest amount of user conflict.

In addition to conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreation on the Forests, much of the conflict from motorized use is a result of motorized use on the Forests adjacent to private land where people live. It is not uncommon for the children of private residences to use the National Forest System lands adjacent to their homes for motorized recreation.

Not only would this alternative continue to result in conflict between non-motorized and motorized users and landowners, but it would affect others with deeper ties to the Forests. For example, in interviews with Tribal members, it has become apparent that the current policy of motorized use on the Forests provides a great extent of access, but this access is resulting in impacts that conflict with the needs of some Native American tribes:

“(Site name) is very sacred to us, but most everyone agrees that the road to that place is a problem because it is taking too many people into it. The place is getting torn up. It is a place that our elders like to go to, but I think we agree that the road should be closed even if it means they cannot get to it because of the damage being done. We want the place protected even if it means some people cannot get there. Without the road it will mean some of our people cannot get there, but it is important to us.

This comment indicates that for this particular site, tribal needs for access are subordinate to the larger goal of site protection” (Russell and Adams-Russell 2006).

Based on this information, alternative 1 would continue to result in a high level of user conflict, especially between those who prefer motorized recreation experiences and those who prefer non-motorized recreational experiences or those who are tied to special areas that are negatively affected by access. Over time, this conflict would increase as the trend of motorized use and the proliferation of motorized routes increases across the Forests.

Resource Indicators and Measures The following table summarizes the resource measures and indicators for alternative 1.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 62 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 25. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Element Resource Measure Alternative 1 Indicator Direct and Indirect Effects Forest Access Recreational Percentage of area near open 69.8% accessible within opportunities road outside of 0.5 mile of existing road. Access congressionally designated 16.8% accessible within 0.5 areas. to 1 mile of existing road. 8.1% accessible within 1 to 2 miles of existing road 5.3% accessible with 2 or more miles of existing roads Forest Access Impacts to Miles of routes and 37.28 miles of motorized Inventoried percentage of change to routes within non-motorized Roadless Areas motorized routes occurring areas and Eligible Wild within Inventoried Roadless, 83.95 miles of motorized and Scenic and Eligible Wild, Scenic routes within the eligibale Rivers River corridors (WSR). and suitable wild and scenic river buffers Forest Access Hunter Access Percentage of off-road elk High level of Access retrieval vehicle trips affected No change by travel management restrictions. Motorized Recreation Motorized Miles of motorized trail No motorized trails would be Opportunities recreation opportunities closed. availability 63 miles of motorized trails Motorized Recreation Dispersed Percent of inventoried High level of Access Opportunities Camping access dispersed campsites within No change drivable areas Motorized Recreation Hunter Hunter satisfaction Decreased Opportunities experience Provides few areas that are isolated from motor vehicle use User Conflict Non-motorized Miles of road and trail within 109 miles of motorized Recreation primitive and semi-primitive routes in Primitive and Semi- experience non-motorized areas. primitive Areas User Conflict Motorized Motorized and non-motorized No change Recreation user conflict experience

Effects from Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of this alternative would not negatively impact the majority of visitors to the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests because (a) forest access is only slightly reduced, (b) the large majority of the Forests (outside of Wilderness) is still within 0.5 mile of a designated route, (c) all primary destinations used by visitors including trailheads, campsites, picnic areas, and developed day use areas would still be accessible by National Forest System routes, and (d) less than a quarter of all visitors to the Forests depend on high-clearance National Forest System roads for access (USDA Forest Service 2009).

Those visitors that depend on high-clearance roads for access to pursue motorized recreation opportunities, hunting and game retrieval, and those who prefer to drive to isolated parts of the Forests to “get away from it all” would be most affected by this alternative. Specifically, those that prefer to or have traditionally hunted and retrieved game through off-road travel would be restricted to certain areas.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 63 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Likewise, those that prefer or have traditionally driven along the many high-clearance vehicle roads in the high-elevation forests and meadows for shooting, camping, hunting, or for just the pleasure of driving and exploration would be limited to staying only on the designated routes.

This alternative would not add any additional motorized use in inventoried roadless areas or eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers.

Percentage of area near roads outside of Designated Wilderness Areas (Wilderness and Primitive Areas) Under alternative 2, approximately 67.1 percent of the Forests would be accessible to within 0.5 mile of a road outside of Wilderness. An additional 18.6 percent of the Forests is between 0.5 to 1 mile from roads outside Wilderness, 9.1 percent of the Forest is between 1 to 2 miles, and 5.2 percent of the Forests is more than 2 miles from a road outside of Wilderness.

This alternative would have the effect of only slightly decreasing motorized access throughout the Forests, but effectively decreasing motorized access in a number of areas that are already somewhat isolated from motorized use.

Miles of routes and percentage of change to motorized routes occurring within Inventoried Roadless Areas and Eligible Wild and Scenic River Corridors Under alternative 2, inventoried roadless areas would continue to offer non-motorized settings. This alternative would allow for 35.55 miles of motorized routes within IRAs; this is a decrease in almost 5 percent from alternative 1 (see Table 26). There would be no effects to the roadless characteristics of the IRAs.

Table 26. Miles of routes and percent change in Inventoried Roadless Areas for alternative 2 Inventoried Roadless Area Alternative 2 Miles Percent Change from Alternative 1 Bear Wallow 0.16 0.00% Black River Canyon 1.56 -6.26% Campbell Blue 0.05 0.00% Centerfire 0.09 0.00% Chevelon Canyon 0.04 -76.91% Hells Hole 1.85 0.00% Hot Air 2.19 0.00% Leonard Canyon 0.13 -72.58% Lower San Francisco 15.56 -2.76% Mitchell Peak 1.63 -19.90% Nolan 0.04 0.00% Painted Bluffs 3.74 -7.54% Pipestem 3.68 -0.13% Salt House 1.57 0.00% Sunset 3.26 -0.01% Total 35.55 -4.64%

This alternative would also allow for 80.55 miles of motorized routes within the eligible and suitable wild and scenic river corridors. This represents a slight decrease of motorized access within the Eligible Wild

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 64 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

and Scenic River corridor. There would be no effects to the outstandingly remarkable values of the eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers under alternative 2. Water quality and free flow is addressed Watershed Specialist Report and the Effects to Watershed section of this environmental impact statement.

The prohibition on cross-country travel and the reduction of where people can drive would likely improve the roadless characteristics and river values. Prohibition would reduce the encroachment of sight and sound, improving the solitude characteristic, and the roadless characteristic of undisturbed soil.

Percentage of off-road elk retrieval vehicle trips affected by travel management restrictions Under this alternative, Game Management Units (GMUs) 1, 27, 28, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, and 4B would be available for off-road vehicle travel for elk retrieval (designates 1-mile-wide corridors). This would result in an estimated slight reduction from 654 off-road vehicle trips each year elk retrieval, in addition to restricting off-road vehicle travel to retrieve deer or other large game species including bighorn sheep, pronghorn, bear, or lion.

Although dated, a 1978 study on the Forests discussed that while hunters may support vehicle closures, virtually all elk hunters and many deer hunters expressed concern over retrieving their game without vehicle access. The study points out that this is likely a characteristic of Arizona hunters more than in other areas (Burbridge and Neff 1978). Thus, this change would be change for many deer that have traditionally retrieved their kill using off-road vehicle travel.

Miles of motorized trail opportunities Alternative 2 would affect motorized trail opportunities. There are different types of motorized trails, and visitors who prefer these different types would be affected differently under this alternative:

• Opportunity for single track – This alternative would designate 162 miles of motorized trails open to vehicles less than 50 inches wide, which includes primarily all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles. • Opportunity for ATV riding – In this alternative, over 2,000 miles of maintenance level 2 roads would be designated as open to all vehicles, which would allow for ATV use. In some areas, many of the maintenance level 2 roads would be closed, and the main roads would be designated for all vehicles, thus, greatly reducing the interconnectivity of roads that can be used by non- street legal ATVs. This alternative would also include the 20-mile Maverick motorized trail, which provides motorized recreation opportunity adjacent to the community of Lakeside. Many of the unauthorized routes used by ATVs and full-sized vehicles adjacent to other communities such as Alpine, Greer, Pinetop, and Springerville would not be designated.

• Opportunity for 4x4 driving – Due to the limited maintenance on many routes on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, many of the maintenance level 2 roads throughout the Forests provide for jeeping opportunities. Access of ATV users lacking highway-legal vehicles or ATV users with no license would be even more restricted, because they would not be able to legally drive on routes designated as “open to highway legal vehicles only.” As a result, these ATV users would have very few opportunities for interconnected riding opportunities more than 10 miles in length in these areas.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 65 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References vehicles to designated routes only has limited impact on consumer welfare. As long as motorized recreation users have options (such as driving on designated forest roads instead of preferred unauthorized trails), users are much less affected than they would be compared to the complete loss of access for this type of use (Jakus et al. 2010).

Lastly, alternative 2 may affect all of the Forests’ motorized users by concentrating all motorized use onto designated routes. Increased traffic and additional restriction on motorized use are known to be perceived as negative by OHV users and would reduce their satisfaction (USDA Forest Service 1999a, Flood 2006, Hallo et al. 2009).

Percent of inventoried dispersed campsites within drivable areas Motorized access to dispersed campsite locations is a major concern to approximately 3.5 percent of the Forests’ visitors (USDA Forest Service 2014). Under alternative 2, it is estimated that approximately 50 percent of existing regularly used dispersed campsites would be accessible to motor vehicles.

The 300-foot-wide corridors designated along both sides of 1,027 miles of designated road for the sole purpose of motorized access to dispersed camping would accommodate some of the displaced motorized dispersed camping, as evidence shows that most motorized dispersed camping occurs along the Forests’ roads. Others would find places to car camp on designated roads without designated corridors by parking alongside the road within 30 feet of open roads. Others may choose to park and walk in to a campsite.

This alternative would also result in a concentration of motorized dispersed camping in the most desirable areas designated with dispersed campsites (areas with good scenic views, areas near water, and areas near popular trailheads). This could affect the Forests’ visitors who camp by decreasing their satisfaction with camping due to crowding, increased traffic, and camping in areas that show more signs of human-caused change (e.g., loss of vegetative cover, litter, cut trees).

Hunter satisfaction Not all hunters have the same preferences, and this alternative would benefit the experience of some hunters, while decreasing the satisfaction of other hunters. By restricting motor vehicle use to designated routes and limiting off-road motorized big game retrieval to elk only in Game Management Units 1, 27, 28, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, and 4B , hunters that depend on or prefer to hunt with ATVs would likely be less satisfied. Many other hunters, however, may have an improved hunt experience due to less OHV disruption, a greater ability to get away from other hunters, and an increased likelihood of a successful hunt.

Sources show that the number of people who want to participate in big game hunting in Arizona and throughout the country is decreasing (Holden 2011, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce 2006, Brown et al. 2000). Though there is no causal evidence to explain why, several studies show that overcrowding, OHV disruption, and lack of adequate access likely play an important part in this decline (AZGFD 2005, Responsive Management 2006).

Alternative 2 would decrease motorized use in several areas of the Forests, including off-road travel associated with big game retrieval (elk). This alternative would designate 1-mile corridors along either side of 2,693 miles of roads and motorized trail (87 percent of routes open for public use). This would have the effect of creating many areas of the Forests that are closed to motor vehicle use for hunting, which have been established and supported by hunters in the past (Burbridge and Neff 1978). There is also evidence to suggest that decreasing motorized access would also decrease the perceived “problem” of crowding, by decreasing the hunter-to-prey ratio away from roads (Gratson and Whitman 2000) and by

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 66 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

decreasing the likelihood of OHV disruption. In other words, this alternative would be most successful in managing the behaviors of other hunters that result in user conflict. According to a hunter satisfaction study of deer hunters in Tennessee, “Management of other hunters is also important to hunter satisfaction and efficient wildlife management. Crowding and inappropriate behavior of other hunters detracted considerably from the overall satisfaction of hunters…” (Hammitt et al. 1990).

Lack of adequate access to reach desired hunting areas and to retrieve prey is also important to hunter satisfaction. This alternative would decrease the ability of hunters to access isolated parts of the Forests where game thrive, and would limit their ability to retrieve downed game for meat. While studies show that most hunters participate in hunting for recreation, approximately 25 percent of hunters participate for meat (Duda et al. 1995). For these hunters, reduced access from this alternative would result in an impact and decrease their satisfaction.

Lastly, this alternative may result in crowding to some hunters that choose to hunt near designated routes or those hunters with a very strong preference for motorized game retrieval. Alternative 2 would concentrate motorized use on a fewer number of roads. Many hunters who cannot physically travel far from roads or who choose to stay near designated roads due to restrictions on motorized game retrieval would likely be crowded by higher levels of vehicular traffic on the roads and by other hunters in the same area. This would limit hunter satisfaction for these hunters.

Miles of roads and trails within primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized areas In alternative 2, many miles of roads that currently exist in areas to be managed for a primitive, isolated experience would be closed.

Table 27. Miles of roads with camping corridors in non-motorized uses recreation opportunity spectrum areas designated Primitive Semi-primitive non-motorized Miles of road 3.99 83.22 Miles of motorized trails 0 14.6

This alternative would designate approximately 87.21 miles of motorized routes in primitive and semi- primitive non-motorized areas. This may result in some impacts to the values of solitude and the absence of the evidence of human activity in these areas, but this is estimated to be a decrease from current motorized routes in primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized areas.

Implementation of alternative 2 would increase the diversity of recreation settings generally across the Forests. The reduction of road densities and designation of motorized dispersed camping corridors across the Forests would result in more opportunities to find solitude, challenge and risk, natural quiet, and the absence of the evidence of human activity; setting attributes generally associated with more primitive settings and with non-motorized recreation activities. This would help move conditions toward forest plan objectives for recreation opportunity spectrum.

Level of motorized and non-motorized user conflict This alternative would likely decrease user conflict to the greatest extent between motorized users and non-motorized recreationists, adjacent landowners, and other Forests traditional users. Due to the scarcity of designated single-track trails and scarcity of designated motorized trails in areas currently heavily used for motorized recreation, this alternative may increase conflict among motorized recreationists. Studies have shown that managerial actions can have a very strong impact on managing perceived and actual

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 67 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

conflict between users, and thus, enhance visitors’ recreational experiences (Reichhart and Arnberger 2010). By designating routes and areas for motorized use; impacts from noise, dust, and potential safety concerns are more predictable, and thus, result in less actual and perceived conflict between motorized and non-motorized users (Hunt et al. 2009, Koontz 2005, Frost and McCool 1988, Fillmore and Bury 1978, Bury and Fillmore 1974).

Studies show that motorized recreation is an established use of the public lands and is a well-entrenched stakeholder interest able to promote and protect use and access (Wilson 2008). Some argue that route and area designation is basically an exercise of categorization of different uses into different areas. Some argue that this would not decrease conflict, but would simply move the conflict from the locations where people recreate to the newspapers, public forums, and courtrooms (Wilson 2008, Yankoviak 2005). While that may be true, it still supports findings that route designation would likely reduce perceived and actual conflict in the setting of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Because the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are used more for non-motorized recreational purposes and a large portion of the Forests is open to motorized use, it is not surprising that conflict between motorized and non-motorized users is common (USDA Forest Service 2011). Furthermore, this level of conflict is likely to grow as unrestricted motorized use continues and increases across most parts of the Forests and as non-motorized nature-based recreation activities continue to grow.

The large majority of research on the social impacts of OHV use shows that the impacts between motorized users and other recreationists (including other motorized uses) are asymmetric; meaning that motorized users affect other recreationists more than they are affected by other recreationists and often this leads to displacement of non-motorized recreationists (Adams and McCool 2009, Stokowski and LaPointe 2000; McCay and Moeller 1976, Lynn and Brown 2003). This impact is not only a result of the direct results of motorized use such as noise and dust, but also from the indirect impacts of reduced vegetation, clearly altered natural areas from human activities, and reduced opportunities to view wildlife.

Because of these impacts, over the past three decades as motorized use has grown, non-motorized recreationists have been “losing” traditionally used areas (Adams and McCool 2009). Since it is clear that the majority of users on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests pursue non-motorized activities and that the Apache-Sitgreaves is used for non-motorized activities that may be negatively affected by motorized use more than any other nearby national forests (table 19), this alternative would likely decrease conflict to a great extent between motorized and non-motorized users.

In addition to conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreation on the Forests, much of the conflict from motorized use is a result of motorized use on the Forests adjacent to private land where people live. Establishing a designated system of roads, trails, and areas while restricting motor vehicle use outside of these areas is expected to decrease these conflicts.

This alternative would also reduce conflict resulting from motorized access and impacts to sensitive cultural sites that are important to Native Americans and others. For example, in interviews with Tribal members, it has become apparent that the current policy of motorized use on the Forests provides a great extent of access, but this access is resulting in impacts that conflict with the needs of some Native American tribes:

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 68 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

people cannot get there. Without the road it will mean some of our people cannot get there, but it is important to us.

This comment indicates that for this particular site, tribal needs for access are subordinate to the larger goal of site protection.” (Russell and Adams-Russell 2006).

Motorized access to and impacts from motorized use on sites of cultural significance was one of the “minimization criteria” considered during the route designation process. Conflict from impacts to areas with cultural importance, such as that expressed above, would decrease under alternative 2.

Resource Indicators and Measures The following table summarizes the resource measures and indicators for alternative 2 direct and indirect effects.

Table 28. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct and indirect effects Resource Alternative 2 Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct and Indirect Effects Forest Access Recreational Percentage of area near 67.1% accessible within 0.5 opportunities open road outside of mile of existing road. Access congressionally designated 18.6% accessible within 0.5 to areas. 1 mile of existing road. 9.1% accessible within 1 to 2 miles of existing road 5.2% accessible within 2 or more miles of existing road Forest Access Impacts to Miles of routes and 37.59 miles of motorized routes Inventoried percentage of change to within designated non- Roadless Areas and motorized routes occurring motorized areas Wild and Scenic within Inventoried Roadless, 80.55 miles of motorized routes Rivers and Eligible Wild, Scenic within the eligible and suitable River corridors (WSR). wild and scenic river corridors Forest Access Hunter Access Percentage of off-road elk Slight reduction retrieval vehicle trips affected by travel management restrictions. Motorized Motorized recreation Miles of motorized trail 162 miles of motorized trails Recreation availability opportunities (less than 50 inches wide) Opportunities 2,000 miles of maintenance level 2 roads 20 miles of the Maverick Trail Motorized Dispersed Camping Percent of inventoried 50% of inventoried campsites Recreation access dispersed campsites within are within the 300 feet Opportunities drivable areas camping corridors Motorized Hunter experience Hunter satisfaction Increased hunter satisfaction Recreation Provides more areas that are Opportunities isolated from motor vehicle use User Conflict Non-motorized Miles of road and trail within 87.21 miles of motorized routes Recreation primitive and semi-primitive in primitive and semi-primitive experience non-motorized areas. areas User Conflict Motorized Motorized and non- Decreased conflict Recreation motorized user conflict experience

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 69 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Cumulative Effects

Forest Access Cumulative effects on forest access consider past, present, and future activities in eastern Arizona region leading to the present and within the next decade. Forest access via motor vehicles has been slowly decreasing over the past several years as a result of increasing areas being put under administrative closures, and as a result of increased development of adjacent private lands, which prevent access to other land ownerships and reduce access to natural areas.

Forest closures, especially closures for motor vehicle use have been increasing on public lands over the last several years. On the Apache Sitgreaves National Forests, a number of motor vehicle closures have been put in place for various reasons.

Other adjacent forests and public lands have also put into place new rules restricting off-road vehicle use, such as:

• Coconino National Forest signed a Record of Decision on Travel Management Plan September 28, 2011, and began implementation of the new rules May 1, 2012. • The Tonto National Forest in 2016 released its draft Record of Decision in compliance with the Final Travel Management Rule. The Tonto National Forest proposed action includes off-road motorized big game retrieval for elk and deer, but only in the forested portion of the forest and would restrict off- road motorized use and designate a proportion of existing roads and trails. • The Gila National Forest in 2014 released the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management. The forest began a phased implementation in 2016 and 2017. • The Bureau of Land Management is also undergoing travel management planning. Each field office is completing a comprehensive travel and transportation management program to comply with executive orders and Federal regulations requiring designation of routes by mode of travel and conditions of travel. Implementation of alternative 2 would result in additional closures on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. These closures would incorporate the existing motorized closures that have occurred in previous years on the Forests, except for emergency closures such as those completed under the Wallow fire. Motor vehicle restrictions and closures on the Tonto, Gila, and Coconino National Forests would cumulatively add to those that would occur under this alternative resulting in a decrease in access to public lands via motor vehicles throughout north central and eastern Arizona.

The development of private lands adjacent to national forests has been and will continue to result in decreasing access to National Forest System land and to natural areas that have since been developed. This decrease in access through and in private lands will contribute cumulatively with the reduced decrease in access to motorized use on public lands. In some situations, the cumulative magnitude of decrease in motorized access may become a factor in reducing the viability of public lands for certain traditional activities, such as hunting. This decreasing access to natural areas was one of the issues identified in a 2005 report in which lack of access was identified as a barrier to hunting (AZGFD 2005).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 70 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorized Recreation Opportunities Cumulative effects to motorized recreation opportunities are based on other activities that would limit motorized recreation opportunities in other areas of north central and eastern Arizona over the next 10 years. The primary effects of alternative 2 on motorized recreation opportunities would be to limit these opportunities and result in less user satisfaction as a result of crowding and an inability to “get away from it all.” Similar efforts to restrict off-road vehicle use and designation of a route and trail system on adjacent public lands including the Coconino National Forest, the Gila National Forest, the Tonto National Forest, and the BLM have recently occurred or are likely to occur in the next several years. This would result in a cumulative effect of increasing the concentration of forest visitors, and thus, crowding along designated routes and areas. The more public lands that apply these restrictions, the greater the magnitude of crowding along these designated routes and areas.

In most situations, this cumulative impact would result in a decrease in satisfaction for those preferring motorized recreation opportunities. Specifically, single-track trail riders that have previously used portions of the ranger districts in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, would likely have a large decrease in satisfaction. This is due to recent travel management decisions on the Tonto National Forest and Gila National Forest, leaving little opportunity for motorized trail opportunities that allow for single- track trails of adequate length with acceptable levels of other riders.

This alternative would also likely result in a decrease in satisfaction among those who have traditionally car camped on the Forests. Similar efforts to restrict off-road vehicle use and designation of routes and dispersed camping corridors on adjacent public lands including the Tonto National Forest, the Gila National Forest, the Coconino National Forest, and portions of the BLM in addition to large-scale fire closures will limit opportunities to car camp and concentrate those who car camp into smaller and potentially less desirable areas. This would negatively impact the experience of most people who have traditionally used their car to access favorite camping locations as the attributes of solitude and scenic attractiveness of their surroundings would likely be compromised.

Hunter Satisfaction In the case of hunter satisfaction, in most cases hunter satisfaction would increase as a result of the motorized use restrictions and this may be added to by similar restrictions on adjacent public lands. A small number of hunters who are unwilling or unable to hunt away from roads would be cumulatively impacted by similar management actions on other public lands. While less than Alternative 1, under this alternative opportunity would be available to retrieve game where it is not available on other nearby non- National Forest System lands.

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers Under this alternative, there is a slight positive effect that would be anticipated. There would be no change from the current condition of roads in close proximity of eligible Wild and Scenic rivers. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effect to Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

User Conflict Recreation of non-motorized and motorized use is expected to grow during the next 10 years as a function of population growth and due to the increasing trend of OHV use and nature-based recreation. This would increase recreation pressure and make it more likely for motorized and non-motorized users to be competing for the same areas.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 71 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

In addition, recreation pressure may increase in certain areas due to the diminishing amount of private land open to public use and continuing development along national forest boundaries. For example, the 2000 Renewable Resources Planning Act reported that “the proportion of privately owned forest land open to the public and free of charge has declined from 29 percent in 1979 to 23 percent in 1989, and 15 percent in 1996” (USDA Forest Service 2001). This would have the effect of adding recreation pressure from motorized and non-motorized uses on Federal lands, which are surrounded by recently developed areas. In addition, it would also result in more landowners adjacent to National Forest System lands that could be impacted by motor vehicle use.

Furthermore, surrounding national forests including the Coconino, Gila, and Tonto have implemented travel management restrictions throughout these forests.

Based on these potential changes, certain types of motorized use (specifically dispersed camping) and non-motorized use are expected to increase on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests over the next 10 years. This may result in increased user conflict among motorized users because of overcrowding due to the cumulative restrictions across the region. This overcrowding as a result of the cumulative effects of the aforementioned loss of access and restrictions would affect those most that are most restricted by this alternative – dispersed car campers, single-track riders, and ATV riders that prefer certain areas of the Forests. Overcrowding on routes and areas designated for these uses would likely increase conflict among motorized users.

These same changes would cumulatively increase the amount of non-motorized opportunities in areas with primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized characteristics across the north central and eastern Arizona region. Since over the next 10-year period, every national forest and surrounding public lands including Bureau of Land Management lands would have published maps showing where motorized use is allowed, the likelihood of conflict between those seeking motorized recreation experiences and those seeking non-motorized recreation experiences would be minimized.

Other studies have found that education is a key component to managing user conflict between motorized and non-motorized users, but only in conjunction with motor vehicle restrictions (Frost and McCool 1988). The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests implementation plan should include installing forest kiosks with information on rules (including for motorized use) and recreation opportunities as well as efforts to place route markers on all forest roads (to be designated or not designated) is also expected to cumulatively contribute to a decrease in user conflict between forest visitors.

Resource Indicators and Measures The following table summarizes the resource measures and indicators for alternative 2 cumulative effects.

Table 29. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 cumulative effects Resource Alternative 2 Resource Indicator Measure Element Cumulative Effects Forest Recreational Percentage of area near open road Decreased Access Access opportunities Access outside of congressionally Impacts to Specially designated areas. Designated Areas Hunter Change to motorized routes Access occurring within Inventoried Roadless, and Eligible Wild, Scenic River corridors (WSR). Change to off-road elk retrieval vehicle trips affected by travel management restrictions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 72 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Alternative 2 Resource Indicator Measure Element Cumulative Effects Motorized Motorized recreation Change of motorized trail Decreased Recreation availability opportunities Opportunities Opportunities Dispersed Camping Change of inventoried dispersed access campsites within drivable areas Hunter experience Change in Hunter satisfaction User Conflict Non-motorized Change of road and trail within Possible Increase Recreation experience primitive and semi-primitive non- Motorized Recreation motorized areas. experience Change in motorized and non- motorized User conflict

Effects from Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects Percentage of area near roads outside of Designated Areas (Wilderness and Primitive Areas) Under this alternative, approximately 56.2 percent of the Forests would be accessible to within 0.5 mile of a road outside of Wilderness. An additional 23.1 percent of the Forests is between 0.5 to 1 mile from roads outside Wilderness, 13.7 percent of the Forest is between 1 to 2 miles, and 0.8 percent of the Forests is more than 2 miles from a road outside of Wilderness.

This alternative would have the positive effect of only slightly decrease motorized access throughout the Forests, but effectively decrease motorized access in a number of areas that are already somewhat isolated from motorized use.

Miles of routes and percentage of change to motorized routes occurring within Inventoried Roadless Areas and Eligible Wild and Scenic River Corridors Under alternative 3, inventoried roadless areas would continue to offer non-motorized settings. This alternative would allow for 19.93 miles of motorized routes within IRAs; this is a decrease in nearly 50 percent (see Table 30). There would be no changes to the roadless characteristics of the IRAs in this alternative.

Table 30. Miles of routes and percent change in Inventoried Roadless Areas for alternative 3 Inventoried Roadless Area Alternative 3 Miles Percent Change from Alternative 1 Bear Wallow 0.16 0.00% Black River Canyon 1.47 -12.27% Campbell Blue 0.04 -15.74% Centerfire 0.09 0.00% Chevelon Canyon 0.00 -433.01% Hells Hole 0.18 -90.07% Hot Air 1.21 -45.00% Leonard Canyon 0.00 -364.76% Lower San Francisco 7.06 -57.45% Mitchell Peak 1.60 -26.41% Nolan 0.04 0.00% Painted Bluffs 1.25 -74.83%

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 73 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Inventoried Roadless Area Alternative 3 Miles Percent Change from Alternative 1 Pipestem 3.68 -0.13% Salt House 0.57 -64.03% Sunset 2.58 -20.93% Total 19.93 -48.81%

This alternative would also allow for 56.8 miles of motorized routes within the buffer areas of wild and scenic river corridors. This represents a slight decrease of motorized access within the Eligible Wild and Scenic River corridor. And, there would be no effects to the outstandingly remarkable values of the eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers. Water quality and free flow is addressed Watershed Specialist Report and the Effects to Watershed section of this environmental impact statement.

The prohibition on cross-country travel and the reduction of where people can drive would likely improve the roadless characteristics and river values. Prohibition would reduce the encroachment of sight and sound overall improving the solitude characteristic and improve the roadless characteristic of undisturbed soil.

Percentage of off-road elk retrieval vehicle trips affected by travel management restrictions Under this alternative, no off-road vehicle use for retrieval of elk would be allowed. This alternative would also eliminate off-road vehicle travel to retrieve deer, or other large game species including bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and bear.

Although dated, a 1978 study on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests discussed that while hunters may support vehicle closures, virtually all elk hunters and many deer hunters expressed concern over retrieving their game without vehicle access (Burbridge and Neff 1978). Both the authors of this report as well as communications from current Arizona Game and Fish Department field officers point out that restriction on game retrieval would impact deer hunters to a much lesser degree than elk (Sieg 2011). Thus, this alternative would create a considerable inconvenience to big game hunters on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests.

Miles of motorized trail opportunities This alternative would slightly affect motorized trail opportunities. There are different types of motorized trails and those who prefer these different types would be affected differently under this alternative:

• Opportunity for single track – This alternative would not designate any additional motorized trail opportunities. Under this alternative 20 miles of existing motorized trails would remain open for vehicles less than 50 inches wide. • Opportunity for ATV riding – In this alternative over 1,461 miles of maintenance level 2 roads would be designated as open to all vehicles, which would allow for ATV use. This alternative also includes 83 miles of motorized trails open to all and 24 miles of special designation (this special designation includes all off-highway vehicles; street legal vehicles are not permitted on this trail). • Opportunity for 4x4 driving – Due to the limited maintenance on many routes on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, many of the maintenance level 2 roads throughout the Forests provide for jeeping opportunities.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 74 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorcycle riders that prefer to ride on single-track trails would have 20 miles of interconnected single- track trail, which would not meet the minimum number of miles needed for a satisfactory recreation day- use or overnight experience (approximately 30 miles for day use and 60 miles for overnight), based on surveys of riders in Colorado (Crimmins 1999).

For ATV users lacking highway-legal vehicles or without a license, access would be even more restricted because they would not be able to legally drive on routes designated as “open to highway legal vehicles only.” As a result, they would have very few opportunities for interconnected riding opportunities more than 10 miles in length in these areas.

The magnitude of this effect differs based on user expectations and preferences. However, a study that looked at motor vehicle use restrictions put into place in Utah found that limiting the use of motorized vehicles to designated routes only has limited impact on consumer welfare. As long as motorized recreation users have options (such as driving on designated forest roads instead of preferred unauthorized trails), users are much less affected than they would be compared to the complete loss of access for this type of use (Jakus et al. 2010).

Lastly, alternative 3 may affect all motorized users by concentrating all motorized use onto designated routes. Increased traffic and additional restriction on motorized use are known to be perceived as negative by OHV users and would reduce the satisfaction of these motorized users (USDA Forest Service 1999a, Flood 2006, Hallo et al. 2009).

Percent of inventoried dispersed campsites within drivable areas Motorized access to dispersed campsite locations is a major concern to the approximately 3.5 percent of the Forests’ visitors (USDA Forest Service 2014). Under alternative 3, it is estimated that approximately 1 percent of existing regularly used dispersed campsites would be accessible to motor vehicles. In other words, approximately 99 percent of those inventoried campsites would no longer be accessible using a motor vehicle.

The remaining 99 percent of dispersed campsites could still be used for dispersed camping, but cannot be accessed using a motor vehicle. The 300-foot-wide corridors designated along both sides of 79 miles of designated road (4 percent of roads open for public use) for the sole purpose of motorized access to dispersed camping would accommodate some of the displaced motorized dispersed camping as evidence shows that most motorized dispersed camping occurs along roads. Others would find places to car camp on designated roads without designated corridors by parking alongside the road—within 30 feet of open roads. Others may choose to park and walk in to a campsite.

The proposed strategy for access to dispersed campsites is more limited than in alternative 2. Similar, however to Alternative 2, the 79 miles of designated road “camping corridors” in this alternative represents a departure from the present “open access anywhere” (exception being where closure orders prohibit camping cross-country travel) policy reflected in alternative 1, and would restrict camping at many popular sites throughout the Forests. There would likely be ample space for continuing present dispersed camping practices in settings that are desirable for most campers; but there would also likely to be some unhappiness and inconvenience to people who can now drive to camp anywhere their vehicle can travel.

This alternative would also result in a concentration of motorized dispersed camping along roadsides. This could affect campers by decreasing their satisfaction due to crowding, increased traffic, and camping in areas that show more signs of human-caused change (e.g., loss of vegetative cover, litter, cut trees).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 75 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Hunter Satisfaction Not all hunters have the same preferences, and this alternative would benefit the experience of some hunters, while decreasing the satisfaction of other hunters. By restricting motor vehicle use to designated routes and limiting all off-road motorized big game retrieval, hunters who depend on or prefer to hunt with ATVs would likely be less satisfied. Many other hunters, however, may have an improved hunt experience with less OHV disruption, a greater ability to get away from other hunters, and an increased likelihood of a successful hunt.

Sources show that the number of people who want to participate in big game hunting in Arizona and throughout the country is decreasing (Holden 2011, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau 2006, Brown et al. 2000). Though there is no causal evidence to explain why, several studies show that overcrowding, OHV disruption, and lack of adequate access likely play an important role in this decline (AZGFD 2005, Responsive Management 2006).

Alternative 3 would decrease motorized use in several areas of the Forests, including all off-road travel associated with big game retrieval (elk). This alternative would not designate any big game retrieval corridors. Evidence suggests that decreasing motorized access would also decrease the perceived “problem” of crowding, by decreasing the hunter-to-prey ratio away from roads (Gratson and Whitman 2000), and by decreasing the likelihood of OHV disruption. In other words, this alternative would be most successful at managing the behaviors of other hunters that result in user conflict. According to a hunter satisfaction study of deer hunters in Tennessee, “Management of other hunters is also important to hunter satisfaction and efficient wildlife management. Crowding and inappropriate behavior of other hunters detracted considerably from the overall satisfaction of hunters…” (Hammitt et al. 1990).

Lack of adequate access to reach desired hunting areas and to retrieve prey is also important to hunter satisfaction. This alternative would dramatically decrease the ability of hunters to access isolated parts of the Forests where game thrive, and would limit their ability to retrieve downed game for meat. While studies show that most hunters participate in hunting for recreation, approximately 25 percent of hunters participate for meat (Duda et al. 1995). For these hunters, reduced access from this alternative would result in an impact and decrease their satisfaction.

Lastly, this alternative may result in crowding for some hunters who choose to hunt near designated routes. Alternative 3 would have the effect of concentrating motorized use on fewer roads. Many hunters who cannot physically travel far from roads or who choose to stay near designated roads due to restrictions on motorized game retrieval would likely be crowded by higher levels of vehicular traffic on the roads and by other hunters in the same area. This would limit satisfaction for these hunters

Miles of roads and trails within primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized areas In alternative 3, many roads that currently exist in areas to be managed for a primitive, isolated experience would be closed.

Table 31. Miles of roads with camping corridors in non-motorized uses recreation opportunity spectrum areas Primitive Semi-primitive non-motorized Miles of road 0.32 51.71 Miles of motorized trails 0 4.03

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 76 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

This alternative would designate approximately 52 miles of motorized routes in primitive and semi- primitive non-motorized areas. This may result in some impacts to the values of solitude and the absence of the evidence of human activity in these areas.

Implementation of alternative 3 would generally increase the diversity of recreation settings across the Forests. The reduction of road densities and designation of motorized dispersed camping corridors would result in more opportunities to find solitude, challenge and risk, natural quiet, and the absence of the evidence of human activity; setting attributes generally associated with more primitive settings and with non-motorized recreation activities. This would help move conditions toward forest plan objectives for recreation opportunity spectrum.

Level of motorized and non-motorized user conflict This alternative would likely decrease user conflict between motorized users and non-motorized recreationists, adjacent landowners, and other traditional users. Due to the scarcity of designated motorized trails in areas currently heavily used for motorized recreation, this alternative may increase conflict among motorized recreationists in these areas. Studies show that managerial actions can have a strong impact on managing perceived and actual conflict between users, and thus, enhance visitors’ recreational experiences (Reichhart and Arnberger 2010). By designating routes and areas for motorized use; impacts from noise, dust, and potential safety concerns are more predictable, and thus, result in less actual and perceived conflict between motorized and non-motorized users (Hunt et al. 2009, Koontz 2005, Frost and McCool 1988, Fillmore and Bury 1978, Bury and Fillmore 1974).

Other studies show that motorized recreation is an established use of the public lands and is a well- entrenched stakeholder interest able to promote and protect use and access (Wilson 2008). Some argue that route and area designation is basically an exercise of categorization of different uses into different areas. Some argue that this would not decrease conflict, but would simply move this conflict from the locations where people recreate to the newspapers, public forums, and courtrooms (Wilson 2008, Yankoviak 2005). While that may be true, it still supports findings that route designation would likely reduce perceived and actual conflict in the setting of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Because the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are used more for non-motorized recreational purposes and the majority of the Forests is open to motorized use, it is not surprising that conflict between motorized and non-motorized users is common (USDA Forest Service 2011). Furthermore, this level of conflict would be likely to grow as unrestricted motorized use continues and increases across most parts of the Forests and as non-motorized nature-based recreation activities continue to grow.

The majority of research on the social impacts of OHV use shows that the impacts between motorized users and other recreationists (including other motorized uses) are asymmetric; meaning that motorized users affect other recreationists more than they are affected by other recreationists, and often this leads to displacement of non-motorized recreationists (Adams and McCool 2009, Stokowski and LaPointe 2000, McCay and Moeller 1976, Lynn and Brown 2003). This impact is not only a result of the direct results of motorized use such as noise and dust, but also from the indirect impacts of reduced vegetation, clearly altered natural areas from human activities, and reduced opportunities to view wildlife.

Because of these impacts, over the past three decades as motorized use has grown, non-motorized recreationists have been “losing” traditionally used areas (Adams and McCool 2009). Since it is clear that the majority of visitors to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests pursue non-motorized activities and that the Forests are used for non-motorized activities that may be negatively affected, this alternative would likely decrease conflict between motorized and non-motorized users.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 77 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

In addition to conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreation on the Forests, much of the conflict from motorized use is a result of motorized use on the Forests adjacent to private land where people live. Establishing a designated system of roads, trails, and areas while restricting motor vehicle use outside of these areas is expected to decrease these conflicts.

Resource Indicators and Measures The following table summarizes the resource measures and indicators for alternative 3 direct and indirect effects.

Table 32. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 direct and indirect effects Resource Alternative 3 Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct/Indirect Effects Forest Access Recreational Percentage of area near open 56.2% accessible within opportunities Access road outside of congressionally 0.5 mile of existing road. designated areas. 23.1% accessible within 0.5 to 1 mile of existing road. 13.7% accessible within 1 to 2 miles of existing road 7% accessible within 2 or more miles of existing road Forest Access Impacts to Miles of routes and percentage 20.80 miles of motorized Inventoried of change to motorized routes routes within designated non- Roadless Areas and occurring within Inventoried motorized areas Eligible Wild and Roadless, and Eligible Wild, 63.86 miles of motorized Scenic Rivers Scenic River corridors (WSR). routes within eligible and suitable wild and scenic river corridors Forest Access Hunter Access Percentage of off-road elk Decreased Access retrieval vehicle trips affected by travel management restrictions. Motorized Motorized recreation Miles of motorized trail 20 Miles of Motorized trails Recreation availability opportunities (less than 50 inches wide) Opportunities 1,461 miles of high clearance level 2 roads Motorized Dispersed Camping Percent of inventoried 1% of inventoried dispersed Recreation access dispersed campsites within campsites within drivable Opportunities drivable areas areas Motorized Hunter experience Hunter satisfaction Increased and Decreased Recreation Hunter satisfaction Opportunities Provides more areas that are isolated from motor vehicle use User Conflict Non-motorized Miles of designated road and 52 miles of motorized routes Recreation trail within primitive and semi- in Primitive and Semi- experience primitive non-motorized primitive Areas designated areas. User Conflict Motorized Motorized and non-motorized Decreased conflict Recreation user conflict experience

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 78 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Cumulative Effects

Forest Access Cumulative effects on forest access consider past, present, and future activities in the north central and eastern Arizona region leading to the present and within the next decade. Forest access via motor vehicles has been slowly decreasing over the past several years as a result of increasing areas being put under administrative closures and as a result of increased development of adjacent private lands, which prevent access to other land ownerships and reduce access to natural areas.

Other adjacent forests and public lands have also put into place new rules restricting off-road vehicle use, such as:

• Coconino National Forest signed a Record of Decision on Travel Management Plan September 28, 2011, and began implementation of the new rules May 1, 2012. • The Tonto National Forest in 2016 released its draft Record of Decision in compliance with the Final Travel Management Rule. The Tonto National Forest proposed action includes off-road motorized big game retrieval for elk and deer, but only in the forested portion of the forest and would restrict off- road motorized use and designate a proportion of existing roads and trails. • The Gila National Forest in 2014 released the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management. The forest began a phased implementation in 2016 and 2017. • The Bureau of Land Management is also undergoing travel management planning. Each field office is completing a comprehensive travel and transportation management program to comply with executive orders and Federal regulations requiring designation of routes by mode of travel and conditions of travel. Implementation of alternative 3 would result in additional closures on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. These closures would incorporate the existing motorized closures that have occurred in previous years on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, except for emergency closures such as those completed under the Wallow Fire. Motor vehicle restrictions and closures on the Coconino, Gila, and Tonto National Forests would cumulatively add to those that would occur under this alternative, resulting in a cumulative decrease in access in public lands via motor vehicles throughout north central and eastern Arizona.

In addition to a decrease in public lands accessible by motor vehicle, the 2000 Renewable Resources Planning Act reported that “the proportion of privately owned forest land open to the public and free of charge has declined from 29 percent in 1979 to 23 percent in 1989, and 15 percent in 1996” (USDA Forest Service 2001). The development of private lands adjacent to national forests has and will continue to result in decreasing access to National Forest System land and to natural areas that have since been developed. This decrease in access through and in private lands would contribute cumulatively with the reduced decrease in access to motorized use on public lands. This would primarily affect those forest users who depend on motorized use for access on high-clearance roads.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 79 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

National Forest, and the BLM have recently occurred or are likely to occur in the next several years. This would result in a cumulative effect of increasing the concentration of forest visitors, and thus, crowding along designated routes and areas. The more public lands that apply these restrictions, the greater the magnitude of crowding along these designated routes and areas.

In most situations, this cumulative impact would result in a decrease in satisfaction from those that prefer motorized recreation opportunities. Specifically, single-track trail riders that have previously used portions of the ranger districts on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, would likely have a large decrease in satisfaction. This is due to recent travel management decisions on the Tonto National Forest and Gila National Forest, leaving little opportunity for motorized trail opportunities that allow for single- track trails of adequate length with acceptable levels of other riders.

Alternative 3 would also likely result in decreased satisfaction among those who have traditionally car camped on the Forests. Similar efforts to restrict off-road vehicle use and designation of routes and dispersed camping corridors on adjacent public lands including the Tonto National Forest, the Gila National Forest, the Coconino National Forest, and portions of the BLM in addition to large-scale fire closures would limit opportunities to car camp and concentrate those campers into smaller and potentially less desirable areas. This would negatively impact the experience of most people who have traditionally used their car to access favorite camping locations, as the solitude and scenic attractiveness of their surroundings would likely be compromised.

Hunter Satisfaction In most cases, hunter satisfaction due to a potential increase in success rates would increase as a result of the motorized use restrictions, and this may be added to by similar restrictions on adjacent public lands. A small number of hunters unwilling or unable to hunt away from roads would be cumulatively impacted by similar management actions on other public lands. As on other nearby non-National Forest System lands no off-road game retrieval would be allowed thus that opportunity would no longer available to hunters.

User Conflict Non-motorized and motorized recreational use is expected to grow during the next 10 years as a function of population growth and due to the increasing trend of OHV use and nature-based recreation. This would increase recreation pressure and make it more likely for motorized and non-motorized users to be competing for the same areas.

In addition, recreation pressure may increase in certain areas due to the diminishing amount of private land open to public use and continuing development along national forest boundaries. For example, the 2000 Renewable Resources Planning Act reported that “the proportion of privately owned forest land open to the public and free of charge has declined from 29 percent in 1979 to 23 percent in 1989, and 15 percent in 1996” (USDA Forest Service 2001). More landowners adjacent to the Forests could be impacted by motor vehicle use.

Furthermore, surrounding national forests including the Coconino, Gila, and Tonto have implemented travel management restrictions throughout these forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 80 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Large wildfires such as the 2010 Shultz Fire and 2011 Wallow Fire would have the effect of restricting all recreational uses in some areas for up to 5 years. This would again, likely displace motorized and non- motorized recreational activities to surrounding National Forest System lands, such as the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests.

Based on these potential changes, certain types of motorized use (specifically dispersed camping) and non-motorized use are expected to increase on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests over the next 5 years. This may result in increased user conflict among motorized users from overcrowding due to the cumulative restrictions across the region. This overcrowding as a result of the cumulative effects of the aforementioned loss of access and restrictions would affect those visitors most restricted by this alternative – dispersed car campers, single-track riders, and ATV riders that prefer certain areas of the Forests. Overcrowding on routes and areas designated for these uses would likely increase user conflict among motorized users.

Other studies have found that education is a key component to managing user conflict between motorized and non-motorized users, but only in conjunction with motor vehicle restrictions (Frost and McCool 1988). The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests implementation plan would include forest kiosks with information on rules (including for motorized use) and recreation opportunities, as well as efforts to place route markers on all forest roads (to be designated or not designated) is also expected to cumulatively contribute to a decrease in user conflict.

Resource Indicators and Measures The following table summarizes the resource measures and indicators for alternative 3 cumulative effects.

Table 33. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 cumulative effects Alternative 3 Resource Resource Indicator Measure Cumulative Element Effects Forest Access Recreational opportunities Access Impacts to Change of area near open road Decreased Access Specially outside of congressionally Designated designated areas. Areas Hunter Change to motorized routes Access occurring within Inventoried Roadless, and Eligible Wild, Scenic River corridors (WSR). Change of off-road elk retrieval vehicle trips affected by travel management restrictions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 81 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 3 Resource Resource Indicator Measure Cumulative Element Effects Motorized Motorized recreation availability Change of motorized trail Decreased Recreation Dispersed Camping access Hunter opportunities Change of Opportunities Opportunities experience inventoried dispersed campsites within drivable areas Change in Hunter satisfaction

Summary of Environmental Effects Table 34. Summary comparison of environmental effects to Recreation, Designated Areas, and Wild and Scenic River resources Resource Indicator/ Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Element Measure Forest Access Recreational 69.8 % accessible 67.1 % accessible 56.2% accessible opportunities within ½ mile of within ½ mile of within ½ mile of Access existing road. existing road. existing road. 16.8% accessible 18.6 % accessible 23.1% accessible within ½ to 1 mile of within ½ to 1 mile of within ½ to 1 mile of existing road. existing road. existing road. 8.1% accessible 9.1% accessible 13.7% accessible within 1 to 2 miles of within 1 to 2 miles of within 1 to 2 miles of existing road existing road existing road 5.3% accessible 5.2% accessible 7% accessible within within 2 or more miles within 2 or more miles 2 or more miles of of existing road of existing road existing road Forest Access Impacts to 37.28 miles of 37.59 miles of 20.08 miles of Inventoried motorized routes motorized routes motorized routes Roadless Areas within designated within designated within designated and Eligible Wild non-motorized areas non-motorized areas non-motorized areas and Scenic 83.95 miles of 80.55 miles of 63.86 miles of Rivers motorized routes motorized routes motorized routes within the e wild and within the wild and within the wild and scenic river corridors scenic river corridors scenic river corridors Forest Access Hunter Access High level of Access Slight Reduction Decreased Access No change Motorized Motorized No motorized trails 162 Miles of 20 Miles of Motorized Recreation recreation would be closed. Motorized trails (less trails (less than 50 Opportunities availability 63 miles of motorized than 50 inches wide) inches wide) trails 2000 miles of high 1461 miles of high clearance level 2 clearance level 2 roads roads 20 miles of the Maverick Trail Motorized Dispersed High level of Access 50% of inventoried 1% of inventoried Recreation Camping access No change dispersed campsites dispersed campsites Opportunities within drivable areas within drivable areas Motorized Hunter Decreased Increased Hunter Increased and Recreation experience Provides few areas satisfaction Decreased Hunter Opportunities that are isolated from Provides more areas satisfaction motor vehicle use that are isolated from Provides more areas motor vehicle use that are isolated from motor vehicle use

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 82 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Indicator/ Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Element Measure User Conflict Non-motorized 109 miles of 87.21 miles of 52 miles of motorized Recreation motorized routes in motorized routes in routes in Primitive and experience Primitive and Semi- Primitive and Semi- Semi-primitive Areas primitive Areas primitive Areas User Conflict Motorized No change Decreased conflict Decreased conflict Recreation experience

Effects to Scenery More information is available in the project record including the full recreation analysis file, as part of the Scenic Resources Report.

Summary of Environmental Effects Under alternative 1, all routes not currently in an area covered by an administrative Closure Order would remain open and off-road travel would continue to be allowed. Continuation of motorized cross-country travel has the greatest effects on scenic integrity, the scenic importance of a landscape based on human perceptions of the scenic beauty, and scenic attractiveness, the degree of intactness of landscape character (USDA Forest Service 2000).

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in a beneficial effect by decreasing unnatural linear disturbances that would impact scenic integrity when visible from high-use recreation areas, primary transportation routes, and scenic overlooks. The closure of thousands of miles of roads, unauthorized routes, and prohibition of cross-country travel outside of designated areas and restrictions on motorized big game retrieval would result in improved viewsheds across the Forests.

Table 35. Summary comparison of environmental effects to scenic resources Resource Indicator/ Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Element Measure Scenic Deviations to the 1,235 miles of roads with greatest 1,099 miles of 841 miles of roads Integrity landscape/Miles deviation to the landscape in open roads with with deviation to of Roads in Open vegetation. deviation to the the landscape in Vegetation No change to existing motorized landscape in open open vegetation. system. Off-road travel would vegetation. remain open and continue to cause deviations to the landscape. Scenic Deviations to the No miles of unauthorized routes 100 miles of 58 miles of Integrity landscape/Miles would contrast with surrounding unauthorized unauthorized of Unauthorized landscape without rehabilitation. routes would routes would Routes No change to existing motorized contrast with the contrast with the system. Off-road travel would surrounding surrounding remain open and continue to landscape without landscape without cause deviations to the landscape. rehabilitation. rehabilitation.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 83 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Indicator/ Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Element Measure Scenic Deviations to the No miles of Dispersed Camping 1,027 miles of 79 miles of Integrity landscape/Miles Corridors would be designated dispersed camping dispersed of Dispersed across the Forests and dispersed corridors would be camping corridors Camping camping would continue without designated across would be Corridors concentration. the Forests, designated across No change to existing motorized causing a deviation the Forests, system. Off-road travel would to the landscape. causing a slight remain open and continue to deviation to the cause deviations to the landscape. landscape. Scenic Deviations to the No miles of motorized access for 2,693 miles of No miles of Integrity landscape/Miles big game retrieval would be motorized access motorized access of Motorized designated across the Forests and for big game (elk) for big game (elk) Access for Big cross-country travel would retrieval would be retrieval would be Game Retrieval continue without concentration. designated across designated across No change to existing motorized the Forests, the Forests, system. Off-road travel would causing deviation causing no remain open and continue to to the landscape. deviation to the cause deviations to the landscape. landscape.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Natural-appearing forests offer scenes valued as recreational settings and backdrops to nearby communities. Such settings contribute to the well-being of many individuals in today’s complex and fast- paced society. Conservation of the naturally established scenic character of these settings is the primary goal of visual/scenery management on all national forests. Scenic attractiveness is particularly important to those who enjoy the views from forest roads, trails, and viewpoints. Scenery also contributes indirectly to local quality of life, tourism and economic vitality, and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ scenic heritage. According to the 2014 National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests report, the two dominant activities are fishing and hiking/walking. The top six activities identified are shown in figure 9.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 84 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 9. Recreation activities on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are a recreation destination for local residents, and regional and national travelers. The Forests represent a component of the local community’s scenic identity and image, contributing to its “sense of place,” as well as contributing to the visitor experience associated with tourism. In addition, private landowners with property within or adjacent to the Forests view the surrounding landscape and are likely to consider it important to their quality of life. The approximate 2.1-million-acre Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are one of six national forests in Arizona. It contains some of the most scenic landscapes in the state, ranging from semi-desert grasslands to high-elevation spruce-fir forests. The Apache-Sitgreaves contain a portion of the largest ponderosa pine forest in the world and the most extensive montane and subalpine grasslands in Arizona. People are drawn to the Forests for their diversity, including settings that provide: open spaces, remoteness, tranquility, inspiring scenery, and both an escape from the desert heat in the summer at higher elevations or along riparian areas or pockets of warmth in the southern vicinity during the winter. With elevations ranging from 3,500 to over 11,400 feet, the scenery is diverse with views and scenes containing over 30 lakes and reservoirs and more than 1,000 miles of rivers and perennial streams, more than any other Arizona national forest.

Visual impacts from unmanaged OHV use include user-created unauthorized roads and trails, which often create linear alterations on the landscape and have the potential to be viewed by visitors looking from other locations or traveling on the route itself. Unauthorized roads and trails, when viewed from another location, have the potential to create negative visual impacts by introducing non-characteristic linear features on a non-linear landscape, with color contrasts from exposed soils on the routes and high-use areas, as well as texture changes from trampled or destroyed understory vegetation.

Depending on topography, vegetative screening, and context of viewer, these features may or may not be noticeable. The duration of view depends on the context of the viewer. For example, one traveling at high speeds on an interstate will likely have lesser duration of view than one traveling on a slow speed forest road. One hiking or walking on trails will have a longer duration of view than one riding a bike or horse. And, those at stationary viewpoints have the longest duration of view. Additionally, the extent to which a

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 85 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

natural landscape can be altered before a perceivable reduction to visual quality is dependent on how close the observer is in regards to the alteration. The farther the observer is from the alteration, the less likely they are to notice it (depending on scale of the alteration).

Forest landscapes have been altered by both human activities and natural processes. Notable impacts from human activities are the result of past logging and associated road building. The majority of the existing transportation system in the landscape characterized by ponderosa pine was developed for timber harvesting. After harvesting-related activities were complete, few of these roads were effectively closed or decommissioned. Early transportation systems outside of the ponderosa pine community are a result of settlement patterns and ranching. Transportation planning in recent years can be linked with tourism and recreation use.

Off-road Motorized Use Based on current management, approximately 1.6 million acres are open to motorized off-road travel, depending on the time of year. Much of this area is topographically inaccessible from motor vehicle use. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests has also specifically designated 63 miles of off-road motorized use. Outside of the designated area, off-road motorized use is most common in open, generally flat terrain, such as meadows, grasslands, and sparsely vegetated pinyon-juniper or ponderosa pine woodlands. Many of these areas include portions of land that are rated high or very high for scenic integrity. Since meadows, grasslands, and open pinyon-juniper vegetation types are relatively open landscapes with emphasis on middle-ground and background viewscapes, they are also very susceptible to decreases in visual quality from off-road use.

Motorized Dispersed Camping: Many recreationists enjoy driving vehicles off of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests roads to participate in dispersed camping. In addition to using the many forest system high-clearance roads, visitors use existing unauthorized routes and create new routes to find areas to camp. These recreation access points are often delineated by a short route off a main road and an open, cleared area with an established fire ring. Apache-Sitgreaves land managers have noticed a trend for dispersed camping relative to seasonal use. In the warmer summer months, there is increased dispersed camping in higher elevations, as visitors seek the cool weather. Conversely, during cooler times of year (winter and shoulder seasons) dispersed motorized recreation is more popular in the warmer, lower elevations. Additionally, during hunting seasons, there is a trend for use of large motorized dispersed hunt camps across the Forests, but especially in ponderosa pine forest types.

Motorized Game Retrieval: Many hunters in Arizona are accustomed to driving vehicles to scout for animals, access favorite hunting areas, and retrieve downed game animals. Hunters use existing and unauthorized routes, as well as drive cross country to engage in these activities.

Based on existing policy of allowing motorized cross-country travel, approximately 1.6 million acres of the Forests are available for off-road travel for motorized big game retrieval, depending on the time of year. It is estimated that there are an average of approximately 654 off-road motor vehicle trips per year across the Forests for retrieving legally killed elk. The majority of this occurs in Game Management Units 1, 27, 28, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, and 4B. Scenery impacts from motorized big game retrieval in these game management units are most likely to occur in open areas, such as meadows and grasslands, where elk are common and soil compaction from vehicular use would result in scenery impacts. Hunting units are made up of transition area ponderosa pine and grassland, grasslands, and high-elevation lakes, all of which are susceptible to scenery impacts from off-road travel for motorized big game retrieval. Areas that receive more regular off-road travel for motorized big game retrieval and other uses are the most likely to experience a long-term (more than 1 year) reduction in scenery integrity.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 86 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Designation of Unauthorized Roads: The designation of unauthorized roads may result in scenery impacts depending on the location and visibility of the route from nearby viewpoints.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives Existing roads and trails have created linear alterations in the landscape that compose the existing condition against which changes to the transportation system are compared. Non-characteristic line quality created by motorized cross-country travel and the establishment of unauthorized routes is the greatest impact to the scenery resources from the proposed alternatives. Unauthorized routes can create changes to a natural-appearing landscape by introducing noticeable deviations to the characteristic form, line, color, or texture of a landscape. The scale of the deviations in context with surrounding landscape informs the degree of deviation.

Vegetation types also influence deviations to the landscape. Landscapes with a dense canopy cover can mask some linear alterations; sparsely vegetated landscapes are less able to mask linear alterations. On the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, landscapes possess vegetation patterns and compositions that are naturally variable in appearance and contribute to scenic values. Ponderosa pine and higher-elevation forests are less susceptible to scenery impacts from motorized use, but these areas are more vulnerable to scenery impacts from motorized use in meadows, grasslands, and in open, disturbed areas, such as burned lands. An increase in unauthorized routes, particularly in sparsely covered landscapes, can adversely affect the Forests’ scenic resources.

Effects from Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects Under alternative 1, all routes not currently in an area covered by an administrative closure order would remain open, and off-road travel would continue to be allowed. Continuation of motorized cross-country travel has the greatest effects on scenic attractiveness, the scenic importance of a landscape based on human perceptions of the scenic beauty, and scenic integrity, the degree of intactness of landscape character (USDA Forest Service 2000). Without being designed to address scenery concerns, unauthorized routes are more likely to erode and rut resulting in scars on the landscape. Proliferation of unauthorized routes destroys vegetation, creates unnatural contrasts of bare ground to vegetation, and destroys or damages special landscape features, such as wildflowers, grasses, shrubs, rocky outcrops, springs, and water containments. The resulting noticeable linear tracks and circular “doughnuts” through the Forests do not naturally occur and do not mimic natural openings.

As such, creation of unauthorized linear routes conflicts with the desired conditions for scenery management. The characteristic landscape is degraded by repeated motorized cross-country travel, and with extensive occurrences over time, the scenic integrity is lowered, and may not meet forest plan scenic integrity objectives in some portions of the Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 87 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 10. Impacts from off-road motorized use

Seasonal closures (i.e., Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests wet weather policy) currently in effect help to limit the amount of rutting and erosion caused by motor vehicle use during wet seasons. This helps to protect scenic resources and results in better scenic integrity.

Under this alternative, cross-country motorized vehicle travel would continue. Unauthorized routes would continue to be used and new unauthorized routes would be developed. The effects of motorized cross- country travel and unauthorized routes that are created would not naturally rehabilitate over time. Both the NVUM study for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and the Arizona Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan indicate visitation to the Forests and motorized travel would continue and increase in the state and in the Forests (USDA Forest Service 2014; Arizona State Parks 2018).

To begin quantifying potential impacts, we conducted a GIS query comparing vegetation types and inventoried scenic integrity objectives (SIOs). The results are illustrated in figure 11. For this query, the assumption was made that open vegetation types (those without a tree canopy cover) would display more effects to scenery than those with closed (those with tree canopy cover) vegetation types. Using the potential natural vegetation types for the forest, we analyzed acres of grouped open and closed vegetation types and wetland by SIO.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 88 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 11. Scenic integrity objective acres in grouped open and closed vegetation types

Open vegetation types, as noted above, are most vulnerable for impacts to scenery from vehicular intrusions, as the vegetation neither blocks vehicular access nor the routes created by repeated use. In addition, motorized cross-country use in open vegetation types is more visible to visitors for greater distances, depending upon the slope of the land. The majority of SIO acres are in closed vegetation types.

Very high SIOs are assigned to designated wilderness, and these areas are already closed to motorized and mechanized travel. In addition, a few other areas with characteristic landscapes are “intact” and these have also been assigned with very high SIO. Most of these areas have topographic features that minimize motorized cross-country use, or are included in closure areas that prohibit motorized travel.

The unauthorized routes created by motorized cross-country travel establish uncharacteristic linear features, and denuded soils compared with vegetated areas create contrast in color and texture. These effects would not meet very high and high SIOs in limited areas in the foreground of open vegetation types, and up to 3 miles away in some instances. In the closed acres described above, similar impacts to scenery would be found, but the closed canopies make these impacts visible for a shorter distance. The unauthorized routes that create uncharacteristic linear features and contrast of exposed soils would not meet the very high or high SIO in limited areas of the foreground of closed canopy areas up to 0.25 mile away.

In open areas of moderate SIO, unauthorized routes would not remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. The uncharacteristic linear features and contrast of exposed soils would appear moderately altered. The unauthorized routes would not meet the moderate SIO in limited areas of the foreground of open vegetation areas.

Based on the potential for increasing scenery impacts from continued motorized cross-country travel and continuing use and creation of new unauthorized roads, alternative 1 has the greatest scenery impact to the valued landscape character when compared to the other alternatives. It has the greatest potential for a downward trend in scenic integrity across the Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 89 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorized Dispersed Camping Alternative 1 would continue to allow off-road use of vehicles for camping in all areas that are not specifically closed to motor vehicle use or camping. Effects would include small and large group openings where vegetation has been denuded. As contrast in color and texture is created between the bare soil and surrounding vegetation, this would result in scenery impacts to areas of the Forests where the natural capacity to regenerate is less than the impact resulting from use. This would include areas such as meadows, grasslands, low vegetation, flat areas adjacent to lakes and streams, and areas with scenic views are highly desirable camping spots. Highly desirable camping spots such as meadows among the aspens and pines, openings adjacent to lakes, and streamside areas, as well as other places often get such heavy use that vegetation does not successfully re-colonize in often-used camping spots. Scenic impacts in dispersed camping areas would continue or grow slightly over time as a result of unrestricted motorized use to access dispersed camping areas.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Under alternative 1, there would be no changes to motorized cross-country travel, including motorized cross-country travel for the purpose of motorized big game retrieval. The effects of this action on scenic resources would result in a continued less natural-appearing landscape. Overall, the landscape would have lower scenic integrity.

Summary of Resource Indicators and Measures Alternative 1 would affect the scenic integrity of 1,235 miles of roads in open vegetation, as this alternative proposes no changes to the existing motorized system on the Forests. Thus, under this alternative, those roads in open vegetation that are not currently in an area covered by an administrative closure order would continue to affect scenic resources, resulting in difficulty in meeting SIOs and have the greatest effect on scenic integrity.

Alternative 1 would not affect the scenic integrity of the Forests through unauthorized routes, as no unauthorized routes are to be added to the motorized system under this alternative. However, cross-country travel would continue to be allowed across the Forests. This continuation of cross-country travel would have the greatest effect on scenic integrity, resulting in difficulty in meeting the SIOs.

Alternative 1 would not affect scenic integrity of the Forests through dispersed camping corridors, as no dispersed camping corridors would be designated. However, under this alternative, all roads currently not in an area covered by an administrative closure order would remain open and off-road travel would continue to be allowed for dispersed camping across the Forests. This would lead to the potential for greater scenic resource impacts without the concentration of dispersed camping.

Alternative 1 would not affect the scenic integrity of the Forests through designated motorized access for big game (elk) retrieval areas, as no motorized access would be designated. However, under this alternative, all roads currently not in an area covered by an administrative closure order would remain open and off-road travel would continue to be allowed for big game retrieval across the Forests. This continuation of cross-country travel would have the potential for greater scenic resource impacts without the concentration of big game retrieval.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 90 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 36. Scenic integrity resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Resource Used to address: Measure) Alternative 1 Element Indicator P/N, or key issue? Scenic Deviations to Miles roads in No 1,235 miles of roads with Integrity the landscape open vegetation greatest deviation to the landscape in open vegetation. Scenic Deviations to Miles of No No miles of unauthorized Integrity the landscape Unauthorized routes would contrast with the Routes surrounding landscape without rehabilitation. However, cross-country travel would continue to be allowed across the Forests Scenic Deviations to Miles of No No miles of dispersed Integrity the landscape Dispersed camping corridors would be Camping designated across the Corridors Forests and cross-country travel for dispersed camping would continue, without concentration. Scenic Deviations to Miles of No No miles of motorized access Integrity the landscape Motorized for big game retrieval would Access for Big be designated across the Game (Elk) forest and cross-country Retrieval travel would continue, without concentration.

Effects from Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Designation of Roads Alternative 2 would close 533 miles of forest roads to public motorized use and would designate 2,889 miles of forest roads open to motorized use. Some closed roads would naturally rehabilitate over time due to lack of use, others would continue to be used and would not change. Closed roads that naturalize would result in landscapes and viewscapes across the Forests with less evidence of human activity over time. This would result in greater consistency with Scenic Integrity Objectives across the Forests, especially those given a high and moderate objective (few roads are found in very high SIOs).

A query of the miles of road in open vegetation types compared to closed vegetation types was also made in order to so that a relative quantity of roads in all SIO could be determined. Figure 12 illustrates the percent of road in each SIO category for alternative 2. This query provides a relative comparison of the effects that could be inferred for foreground areas in more visible open vegetation types and less visible foregrounds of closed vegetation types.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 91 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 12. Percentage of roads in assigned scenic integrity objectives with open and closed vegetation types for alternative 2

Motorized Dispersed Camping The designation of dispersed camping corridors is expected to concentrate use and thus result in an increase in bare ground from impacts to vegetation in camping corridors (Cole and Monz 2003). As noted in the background section above, many recreationists engage in dispersed camping. Many campsites found on the Forests are small in area, and have little disturbance. Recreation specialists have noted a trend toward large groups of RVs camping together. These group camps can be larger than a football field in size, and repeated use results in large areas of bare soil where the vegetation has been denuded. As shown in Figure 10, many dispersed campsites have small impacts, but in open areas like this, repeated use can cause loss of vegetation and scenery impacts.

The smaller site better resembles the landscape character that includes openings and patchy vegetation. Creation of large group campsites is less acceptable, since a larger area is impacted. Uncontrolled proliferation of campsites, as well as user development of large campsites with growing amounts of bare soil, cause a downward trend in scenic attractiveness.

Effects to scenery from designation of dispersed camping corridors include creation of, and expansion of existing unnatural openings and creation of linear routes in the foreground of forest roads. Repeated motorized travel in these areas causes understory vegetation to be denuded and increases color and texture contrast between vegetated areas and those with bare soil (Cole and Monz 2003, Cole and Monz 2004). In the camping corridor locations, the scenic attractiveness would be decreased. Scenic integrity would be maintained, because the scale of the impacts is small.

Continued Designation of Maverick Trail OHV area The Maverick Trail OHV area would be retained, but would be expanded in alternative 2 by 20 miles. There would be few additional impacts to the scenic resources.

Prohibition of Off-road Motor Vehicle Travel Alternative 2 would improve the scenic quality of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests over time because it would limit off-road travel and restrict motorized use to designated roads, trails and areas. The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would not be noticeable immediately, since natural rehabilitation of trampled vegetation and most unauthorized routes would take between one and three years in forested sites, and longer in less productive vegetation types (Cole and Monz 2003). The scenic

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 92 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

impact from unauthorized routes may be noticeable until these areas naturally rehabilitate within one to five years, although some routes may not return to a “natural” appearance for over a decade. If unauthorized motorized routes intersect the road or highway, a short duration view of a low-impact, unauthorized route may be noticeable until the route naturally rehabilitates. In the long term, unauthorized motorized vehicle routes and impact areas would naturally rehabilitate.

The effects of this action on scenic resources would result in a more natural-appearing landscape. Overall, the landscape would have higher scenic integrity than currently exists, with less evidence of human activity over time. The scenic integrity would be improved, as impacted unauthorized routes revegetate and take on characteristics associated with higher scenic integrity.

Unauthorized Routes Alternative 2 includes designating 100 miles of unauthorized routes that currently exist. Table 37 shows the miles of unauthorized road in each SIO that would be added by this alternative. Addition of these existing routes would have little impact, since they are so few and inconsequential at the Forests scale. By bringing these routes under Forest Service maintenance, there is increased potential to incorporate design features to improve compatibility with scenery objectives and visual quality.

Table 37. Miles of unauthorized route added to the open road system in alternative 2 and scenic integrity objective Alternative 2 Miles of Unauthorized Scenic Integrity Objective Routes Added Very High 2.0 High 27 Moderate 71 TOTALS 100

In the short term, unauthorized routes not added to the motorized system would still be visible from open forest roads or other viewpoints on the Forests. Over time, these routes would be less noticeable as vegetation is reestablished and the unauthorized routes regain natural-appearing characteristics.

In summary, alternative 2 would be beneficial to the scenic resource, because some closed roads and unauthorized routes would naturalize, and management of the designated open routes would improve slightly because there are fewer miles of road requiring intensive maintenance (see Transportation section). Scenic attractiveness would be expected to improve with the restriction of motorized use to designated routes and the removal of motorized use on some routes that are contributing to erosion or appear as unnatural scars or deviations from the desired natural landscape character.

Designation of Motorized Trails Alternative 2 would retain the existing 202 miles of designated motorized trails, and would add 81 miles. This alternative would result in a slight, but localized impact on scenic quality.

Dispersed Camping Corridors Motorized dispersed camping corridors are located on approximately 35 percent of proposed designated roads in alternative 2. This designation would increase impacts to the scenic landscape where these corridors are designated. Within one year, there would likely be direct or indirect impacts to scenery in areas as a result of this alternative, as there are many existing campsites within the camping corridors.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 93 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

More and new campsites are expected to be added in these corridors, and the expected effects include increased unnatural openings and new linear routes to campsites. All of the designated camps would be within the immediate foreground of open travel ways and likely visible to travelers in the camping corridors. Over time, the frequency of camps, combined with the scale of created openings could result in degraded scenic attractiveness along the dispersed motorized camping corridors.

Alternately, many dispersed camps outside of the designated camping corridors are expected to rehabilitate over time. Thus, designation of motorized dispersed camping corridors in alternative 2 would have an overall and forestwide effect of reducing scenery impacts in many areas of the Forests and in important areas of the scenic landscape, such as meadows and riparian areas. While concentrating the dispersed camping to designated corridors would negatively affect scenic resources, this alternative would likely result in improved scenic attractiveness and scenic integrity along routes that would be closed to dispersed camping as unnatural-appearing motorized dispersed camps re-vegetate and blend into the surrounding landscape over time.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Alternative 2 proposes motorized big game retrieval for elk in Game Management Units 1, 27, 28, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. There would be potential short-term effects on 1,207,609 acres, or about 60 percent of the Forests. Effects associated with motorized big game retrieval include vegetation trampling and creation of temporary linear tracks through the Forests. These effects would likely last no more than one to three growing seasons, or until vegetation recovers and grows up to eliminate evidence of motorized travel (Cole and Monz 2003). In comparison to the existing condition, where motorized cross-country travel can occur for animal scouting and locations, establishing hunting camps and other motorized travel, as well as game retrieval across the Forests, the effects are mostly removed. There would be few to no impacts to scenery, and notable change in scenic attractiveness would be unlikely.

Summary of Resource Indicator and Measures Alternative 2 would affect the scenic integrity of 1,099 miles of roads in open vegetation, as this alternative proposes a reduction to the existing motorized system. This alternative would result in less difficulty in meeting SIOs and have a lesser effect on scenic integrity than alternative 1.

Alternative 2 would continue to affect the scenic integrity of 100 miles of existing unauthorized routes, as these would be added to the forest system. These routes would represent a reduction in unauthorized routes across the Forests compared to alternative 1, because cross-country travel would continue to be allowed across the Forests. This would result in much less deviation to the landscape.

Alternative 2 would affect the scenic integrity of 1,027 miles of newly designated dispersed camping corridors. Nonetheless, these routes would represent a 70 percent reduction in dispersed camping corridors across the Forests compared to alternative 1. This would result in much less deviation to the landscape.

Alternative 2 would affect the scenic integrity of 2,693 miles of newly designated motorized big game (elk) retrieval corridors. Nonetheless, these routes would represent a 21 percent reduction in motorized big game retrieval corridors across the Forests compared to alternative 1. This would result in much less deviation to the landscape.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 94 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 38. Scenic integrity resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 2 Scenic Integrity Deviations to the Miles roads in open 1,099 miles of roads with deviation to landscape vegetation the landscape in open vegetation. Scenic Integrity Deviations to the Miles of unauthorized 100 miles of unauthorized routes landscape routes would contrast with the surrounding landscape without rehabilitation. Scenic Integrity Deviations to the Miles of dispersed 1,027 miles of dispersed camping landscape camping corridors corridors would be designated across the Forests. Scenic Integrity Deviations to the Miles of motorized 2,693 miles of motorized access for landscape access for big game (elk) big game retrieval would be retrieval designated across the Forests.

Effects from Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Designation of Roads Alternative 3 would close 1,236 miles of forest roads to public motorized use and would designate 2,201 miles of forest roads open to motorized use. Some closed roads would naturally rehabilitate over time due to lack of use, others would continue to be used and would not change. Closed roads that naturalize would result in landscapes and viewscapes across the Forests with less evidence of human activity over time. This would result in greater consistency with SIOs across the Forests, especially those given a high and moderate objective (few roads are found in very high SIOs).

A query of the miles of road in open vegetation types compared to closed vegetation types was also made so a relative quantity of roads in all SIOs could be determined. Figure 13 illustrates the miles of road in each SIO category for alternative 3. This query provides a relative comparison of the effects that could be inferred for foreground areas in more visible open vegetation types and less visible foregrounds of closed vegetation types.

Figure 13. Miles of roads in assigned scenic integrity objectives with open and closed vegetation types for alternative 3

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 95 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Unauthorized Routes Alternative 3 would include designating 58 miles of unauthorized routes that currently exist. Table 39 shows the miles of unauthorized road in each SIO that would be added by this alternative. Addition of these existing routes would have little impact, since they add less than one percent of additional miles to the open road system and are inconsequential at the Forests scale. By bringing these routes under Forest Service maintenance, there is increased potential to incorporate design features to improve compatibility with scenery objectives and visual quality.

Table 39. Miles of unauthorized route added to the open road system in alternative 3 and scenic integrity objective Scenic Integrity Objective Alternative 3 Miles of Unauthorized Routes Added Very High 1 High 18 Moderate 39 TOTALS 58

In summary, alternative 3 would be beneficial to the scenic resource, because some closed roads and unauthorized routes would naturalize and management of the designated open routes would improve slightly with fewer miles of road requiring intensive maintenance (see Transportation section). Scenic attractiveness would be expected to improve with the restriction of motorized use to designated routes and the removal of motorized use on some routes that are contributing to erosion or appear as unnatural scars or deviations from the desired natural landscape character.

Designation of Motorized Trails Alternative 3 would retain the existing 127 miles of designated motorized trails and add 29 miles of unauthorized routes to the motorized trail system. This alternative would result in a slight, but localized impact on scenic quality.

Dispersed Camping Corridors Motorized dispersed camping corridors are located on approximately 3 percent of the open roads and motorized trails in alternative 3. This designation would increase impacts to the scenic landscape where these corridors are designated. Within one year, there would likely be direct or indirect impacts to scenery in areas as a result of this alternative, as there are many existing campsites within the camping corridors. More and new campsites are expected to be added in these corridors, and the expected effects include increased unnatural openings and new linear routes to campsites. All of the designated camps would be within the immediate foreground of open travel ways and likely visible to travelers in the camping corridors. Over time, the frequency of camps, combined with the scale of created openings could result in degraded scenic attractiveness along the dispersed motorized camping corridors.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 96 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

dispersed camping to designated corridors would negatively affect scenic resources, this alternative would result in improved scenic attractiveness and scenic integrity along routes that would be closed to dispersed camping as unnatural-appearing motorized dispersed camps revegetate and blend into the surrounding landscape over time.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Alternative 3 proposes no motorized game retrieval across the Forests for elk. The effects of this action on scenic resources would result in a more natural-appearing landscape. Overall, the landscape would have higher scenic integrity than currently exists with less evidence of human activity over time. The scenic integrity would be improved as impacted unauthorized routes revegetate and take on characteristics associated with higher scenic integrity.

Summary of Resource Indicator and Measures Alternative 3 would affect the scenic integrity of 841 miles of roads in open vegetation, as this alternative proposes a reduction to the existing motorized system. This alternative would result in a greater ability to meeting SIOs and have a lesser effect on scenic integrity than alternative 2.

Alternative 3 would continue to affect the scenic integrity of 58 miles of existing unauthorized routes, as these would be added to the forest system. Nonetheless, these routes would be almost a 50 percent reduction in unauthorized routes across the Forests compared to alternative 2. This would result in a greater reduction of deviation to the landscape, a greater ability to meet SIOs, and have a lesser effect on scenic integrity than alternative 2.

Alternative 3 would affect the scenic integrity of 79 miles of newly designated dispersed camping corridors. Nonetheless, these routes would be a 90 percent reduction in dispersed camping corridors across the Forests compared to alternative 2. This would result in a greater reduction of deviation to the landscape, a greater ability to meet SIOs, and have a lesser effect on scenic integrity than alternative 2.

Alternative 3 would affect the scenic integrity of no miles of designated motorized big game (elk) retrieval corridors. This would result in a greater reduction of deviation to the landscape, a greater ability to meet SIOs, and have a lesser effect on scenic integrity than alternative 2.

Table 40. Scenic integrity resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 3 Element Scenic Integrity Deviations to the Miles of roads in open 841 miles of roads with deviation to landscape vegetation the landscape in open vegetation. Scenic Integrity Deviations to the Miles of unauthorized 58 miles of unauthorized routes landscape routes added would contrast with the surrounding landscape without rehabilitation. Scenic Integrity Deviations to the Miles of dispersed camping 79 miles of dispersed camping landscape corridors corridors would be designated across the Forests. Scenic Integrity Deviations to the Miles of motorized access No miles of motorized access for landscape for big game (elk) retrieval big game retrieval would be designated across the Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 97 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Cumulative Effects Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in a beneficial effect by decreasing unnatural linear disturbances that could impact scenic integrity when visible from high-use recreation areas, primary transportation routes, and scenic overlooks. The closure of thousands of miles of roads, unauthorized routes, and prohibition of cross-country travel outside of designated areas and restrictions on motorized big game retrieval would result in improvements to viewsheds across the Forests.

Improvements in viewsheds due to implementation of travel management, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable management activities and natural events, would counteract many of the effects on scenery. New utility development, vegetation clearing under powerlines, large scale vegetation management activities, new road construction and reconstruction, and development of new subdivisions or commercial areas would have short-term or long-term impacts on individual viewsheds and may reduce the scenic attractiveness in localized areas. Implementation of design features and monitoring with use of adaptive management would help lessen the impact of individual projects.

Wildfires are likely to result in the greatest cumulative impact to scenic resources. Though wildfires may be a natural part of the southwestern forest ecosystem, the potential for high-severity large-scale wildfires that remove the majority of vegetative cover from entire viewsheds would have a cumulative negative effect on scenic integrity by removing the characteristic vegetation and exposing unnatural linear features such as roads, trails, powerlines, etc. Drifting smoke, blackened vegetation, and charred tree trunks would be the primary effects to scenic resources. Blackened vegetation usually lasts a short time, but charred trees may be evident for many years. Large-scale wildfires may alter scenic integrity and result in additional effects to scenic resources from fire suppression (fire line construction) or post-fire salvage logging (road construction or reconstruction).

Future activities on National Forest Service lands may also result in cumulative scenic impacts, or in some circumstances, future activities may counteract scenic impacts. Any new road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning and/or adding roads to the Forests transportation system are expected to meet the SIOs assigned to the management area in which they occur. Decommissioning roads generally results in a more natural-appearing landscape, thus counteracting some impacts from the establishment of new, unauthorized roads. Although the majority of the Forests would continue to have a natural appearance, it is anticipated that implementation of alternatives 2 and 3, along with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would result in a decrease in Forests lands that appear altered. Though these alternatives would result in localized scenic impacts where motorized dispersed camping corridors are designated, the overall effect would be to reduce impacts to scenic integrity by reducing unnatural visual occurrences throughout the Forests.

On private land or lands administered by other agencies or Tribal land, there is a potential for new development, including subdivisions and commercial enterprises with resulting changes in natural form, line, shape, color, and texture. While the Forest Service cannot dictate or limit such new development, these developments would provide additional effects to scenic resources by creating new linear features on the ground. These possible developments, when combined with travel management activities would result in a slight short-term decrease in scenic integrity when combined with alternative 2 or 3.

Overall, the cumulative effects to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests landscape would result in maintenance or a slight increase in scenic integrity than currently exists with less evidence of human activity over time. Cumulatively, forest scenery is expected to meet forest plan scenery objectives.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 98 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Effects to Socioeconomics More information is available in the project record including the full social and economic analysis file, as part of the Socio-Economic Report.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition There are two configurations of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests socioeconomic analysis areas. The social and economic overview is developed from reports generated from the Headwaters Economics, Economic Profile System tool.

The economic conditions section and effects analysis uses a 12-county region to assess the economic composition and attributes of the affected environment. The economic analysis area is larger than that considered in the social assessment area to capture the full impact or rather all the employment and income due to direct, indirect, and induced spending related within the Forests’ sphere of influence on the regional economy. Counties included in the analysis area occurred within a 50-mile radius of the forest boundary and include Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Navajo, Apache, and Yavapai Counties in Arizona, and Catron, Cibola, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New Mexico. The IMpact analysis for PLANing (IMPLAN) model analysis uses county-level data within a 50-mile radius that incorporates the local expenditures made by Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests visitors.

The social assessment area includes Apache, Navajo, Greenlee and Maricopa Counties in Arizona, and Grant and Catron Counties in New Mexico. The social assessment area was selected due to geographic proximity to the Forests and then further refined by evaluating visitor origination from NVUM results collected in 2007 and 2014 (USDA Forest Service, 2018a, 2018b) and information in the Social and Economic Sustainability Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Catron County was included because county residents contribute to Apache County when they purchase goods and services. Grant County was included because it is adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, and some grazing permittees operate on both the Apache-Sitgreaves and the Gila National Forests. Coconino County was not included because, while a portion of the Forests lies within Coconino County, there is not a strong relationship between the social character of Coconino County and the Apache-Sitgreaves, given the geography of the road networks, distance between the forest and population centers, and the presence of other NFS lands nearer to Flagstaff, which result in low levels of visitation by Coconino County residents. (Less than 1 percent of forest visitors were from Coconino County according to the 2014 NVUM report.) Conversely, Maricopa County is a greater distance from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, but the Forests have a more robust relationship with the populations of Maricopa County. According to the 2014 NVUM report, 5 of the 15 zip code areas identified as the most commonly reported origins for forest visitors originated from Maricopa County.

Prominent cities and towns within the Arizona counties include Phoenix, Heber-Overgaard, Show Low, Alpine, Springerville, Payson, Pinetop-Lakeside, St. Johns, Forest Lakes, Clifton, Snowflake-Taylor, Greer, Eager, and Winslow. Reserve, New Mexico, is the county seat for Catron County. The county seat for Grant County is Silver City, New Mexico. In terms of land area, Greenlee County (1,837 square miles) is the smallest, and Apache County (11,218 square miles) is the largest.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 99 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Social Conditions

Age The median age across the assessment area varies by over 20 years. As shown in figure 14, Catron County has the highest median age at 58.6 years, followed by Grant County with a median age over 10 years less than Catron at 46.4 years. The youngest population was Apache County at 33.8 years.

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016) Note: Data calculated using American Community Surveys conducted during 2012-2016 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Figure 14. Median age by county, 2016

Education Educational attainment levels across the assessment area varied greatly. Figure 15 shows that in Arizona, Apache County, followed closely by Navajo County, had the highest percentage of population without a high school diploma, exceeding the Nation’s percentage by 9 percent. Apache County also had the lowest percentage of people with a bachelor’s degree or higher. In New Mexico, Catron County demonstrated the lowest percentage of people without a high school diploma, which was 5 percent below the nation’s percentage. Maricopa County, Arizona, had the greatest percentage of people with a bachelor’s degree or higher, just exceeding the Nation’s percentage. Geographies with a higher level of educational attainment are typically more resilient to economic downturns than those with lower educational attainment and may experience disproportionate levels of adverse effects related to management actions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 100 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Population Growth Figure 16 demonstrates the change in population across the assessment area from 2010 to 2016. Overall, the population grew by 8.6 percent, which exceeded the population increase across the United States by close to 4 percent. The greatest relative increase in population was in Greenlee County, which grew by an estimated 906 people, while the smallest change was in Navajo County which grew by 1,149 people or 1.1 percent. Both Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico, declined in population by 2.9 percent (105 people) and 2.8 percent (827 people), respectively. Maricopa County had the largest net increase, adding 337,139 people to the population (Headwaters Economics 2018).

(Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2017b) Note: Data calculated using American Community Surveys conducted during 2012-2016 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Figure 16. Percent population change 2010 to 2016

Race and Ethnicity Figure 17 displays the racial composition across the analysis area during the 2012 to 2016 period and shows that the racial composition is largely white alone at 77 percent of the population. Roughly 7 percent identified as some other race alone, and 5 percent identify as Black or African American alone. When considered in context with the analysis area population, which is heavily influenced by the Phoenix population, American Indians alone only account for 4 percent of the population. However, American Indians alone comprises 73 percent of Apache County’s population and 44 percent of the Navajo County population. On the other end of the spectrum, Grant, Catron, and Greenlee Counties are predominantly White alone, at 97, 91, and 90 percent of the population, respectively. Data suggest that the racial composition is not evenly distributed across the analysis area and that the Apache and Navajo County populations should be considered carefully in how the project will distribute the risks and benefits across these populations.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 101 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

During the 2012 to 2016 time period, 30 percent of the population in the analysis area self-identified as Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic or Latino origin means someone who is ancestrally connected with the lineage, cultural heritage, or nationality group of people who prior to arriving in the United States are from Hispanic, Latino or Spanish countries such as Mexico, Cuba, or Puerto Rico. As shown in figure 18, the largest population percentage by county of people who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino occur in Grant County with 50 percent or 14,311 people, and in Greenlee County with 47 percent or 4,290 people. Maricopa County had the largest total population self-identifying as Hispanic or Latino at 1,238,292 people; however, given the large population size of Maricopa County, the Hispanic or Latino population only represents 30 percent of the population (U.S. Census Bureau 2016).

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016) Data calculated using American Community Surveys conducted during 2012-2016 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Figure 18. Hispanic population, percent of total population by county, 2016

Poverty As shown in figure 19, during the period from 2012 to 2016, Apache County followed by Navajo County had the highest estimated percentage of individuals and families living below the poverty level. Both counties had a least twice the incidence of individuals and families living below poverty when compared to the U.S. as a whole. Notably, Greenlee County had the lowest percentage of individuals and families living below poverty at 13 percent and 10 percent, respectively, and was even lower than the percentages for the U.S. as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 2016).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 102 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs on Quality of Life In 2006, the Forests prepared a report titled Values, Attitudes and Beliefs toward National Forest System Lands: The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, which revealed important information about the relationship between neighbors and users of the Forests (USDA Forest Service 2006). The document identifies values, attitudes, and beliefs about forest resources and their management for all National Forests and Grasslands in the Southwestern Region (Region 3), including the Forests (USDA Forest Service 2006). Some people believe that maintaining motorized recreation opportunities will require designating more motorized trails and areas, or designating multiple use trails that allow for both motorized and non-motorized use. Others, however, believe that motorized use should be designated in specific areas so as to also allow for a non-motorized recreation that is free of disturbance created by motorized use. The values, attitudes, and beliefs study revealed that residents near the Forests continue to value their proximity and access to the Forests and resources as well as the aesthetics and benefits of open space. The communities perceive the Forests to be vulnerable to the effects of development and deteriorating ecological conditions associated with tree density, drought, disease, and fire danger.

Comments on this project’s Draft EIS released in 2010 also provide valuable insight on values, attitudes and beliefs. Access to the Forests is a valued asset and desired future by a great majority of the commenters. National forests that continue to be accessible without fees or undue restrictions are valued as contributing to recreation opportunities and enhancing overall quality of life in the region. Some people believe that decreasing opportunities for cross-country OHV access would negatively impact the quality of the environment and their recreation experience, as is demonstrated in the following comments.

“With more and more land being closed off for OHV use, OHV users such as myself and my family are finding it increasingly difficult to find areas to ride. These closures are also causing an overcrowding effect in the areas that are left for OHV use. The proposed 14 percent increase in closed road mileage (reducing open road mileage to approximately 2600 miles) will only serve to increase these issues.” (DEIS comment #14)

“I would like to continue to have access to the areas along the Blue River and particularly the primitive areas, on the existing short side roads. Some sites are existing camping areas that are restricted by natural barriers and their closure would cause the creation of new camping areas with new unapproved access roads being created, and congestion on the main road by those searching for a safe place to camp away from the dust of the road and traffic.” (DEIS comment #146)

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 103 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Other commenters expressed a desire for designating trails specifically for OHV use, while others perceive the need for both designated OHV areas and multiple-use trails open to all users.

“I would like to see the 50" rule expanded to 65" to support the large number of side by side (SxS) off-road vehicles that have become so popular. These vehicles can be found in most riding groups and eliminates the ability of a group to travel together in the same areas. Allowing SxS and ATVs on as many trails as possible also provides a safer riding experience, with the reduction of interaction with larger vehicles on popular forest roads. I also this would reduce user created trails and "go arounds." (DEIS Comment #68)

“the 50 inch wide rule for OHV trails needs to be changed to 65 inches to accommodate UTVs. State Law makes everyone pay $25.00 to ride the trails, but some trails are not available to UTV owners. That is not fair.”(DEIS Comment #50)

“I think your plan to create more 50 inch motorized trail is a good start and in the future you should open several more miles of closed roads and turn them into single track motorcycle trails. The forest should also plan and build more ohv looped recreation areas with restrooms and camping areas.” (DEIS Comment #18)

Maintaining trails and planning future demand are priority recreational issues expressed by the community (USDA Forest Service 2006).

Ecosystem services provided by the forest such as wildlife and plant habitat, is valued among the surrounding residents and lends to the quality of life for forest visitors. Some commenters identified specific roads and trails and the specific resource values they value and believe will be threatened should OHV use be designated on them.

“we reject alternatives A through E of the proposed draft alternatives…All of the four listed" action" alternatives proposed include "adding unauthorized roads or other harms to the system." we regret the A/S decision in the DEIS which includes opening" closed National Forest roads" in Alts. B, D and E (p. 27). this means additional pollution and habitat damages to the animal and plant ecosystems. it causes harm to humans hoping to visit the area and encounter flourishing, untrammeled wildlife, and intact ecosystems. we are concerned that DEIS includes or proposes Alternatives Action Plans...our members strongly oppose such proposed intrusions and disruptions of the A/S forest habitat and its natural and wildlife ecosystems.” (DEIS Comment#53)

“Forest Service roads 8065, 8066, 2751, and 2751-1, as I understand it, are not appropriate for motorized vehicles because of difficult terrain, existing riparian areas, and wildlife use, including the Mexican spotted owl. Please keep the motorized vehicles off those roads. In addition, please close FR9721; motorized vehicles have caused great damage to the riparian area there and if it is closed now, nature's long repair process can begin now.” (Comment #114)

“Please close FR 288 to protect Mexican gray wolves. Two wolves were shot near this route in 2010 and its use will allow the continue persecution of wolves which is likely in violation of the Endangered Species Act as well as common sense.” (DEIS Comment #150)

Recreation Groups Recreation is a component of most lifestyles in the study area. Residents and visitors to the area enjoy the Forests for the numerous recreation opportunities, scenic vistas and landscapes, and for the significance to wildlife and fish and the contributions they make to the greater ecosystem.

The substantial recreation opportunities for hiking, biking, OHV use, and sightseeing are an important element of the overall quality of life for residents in the region. Recreationists represent diverse groups of people, and changes in recreation management can affect recreationists quite differently. They tend to

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 104 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

organize into interest groups; most recreation activities have at least one group that advocates for their activity.

Comments received on recreation during the scoping period included the following concerns: maintaining or increasing access to lands for motorized big-game retrieval, hunting, cross-country skiing, dispersed camping, restricting or maintaining OHV use, the negative effects of OHV use and motorized travel on resources, and enforcing OHV regulations.

The Forests are a popular destination for recreational OHV users. OHV users can include hunters and anglers using the OHVs for access to remote areas, or just recreational users. Several OHV organizations are located in the study area, including the Apache County ATV Roughriders and White Mountain Open Trails Association.

Hunting is currently allowed in most areas in the Forests. The Arizona Game and Fish Department issues licenses for certain game; they also hold periodic draws for permits to hunt special big game. Hunters in the region feel strongly about having access to NFS lands along existing roads and trails for big-game retrieval via OHV. Unrestricted OHV access was identified as particularly important for elderly hunters and hunters with disabilities, who require motorized travel to retrieve big game. Hunters also require access to remote areas to be able to retrieve downed game in a timely manner (USDA Forest Service 2009b).

According to 2016 national survey of hunting, fishing, and wildlife-associated recreation in 2016, hunting declined by 2.2 million hunters since 2011. Big game hunting was the most common type of hunting accounting for 9.2 million of the 11.5 million total hunters (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017a).

Resource-Oriented Groups A variety of individuals and organizations at the local, regional, and national levels have expressed interest in the EIS and offered input during the scoping process. Many of their comments focused on endangered or rare fauna and flora, impacts to vegetation and wildlife, impacts to riparian areas and ephemeral and perennial waters, and environmental damage in general. Many comments indicated a concern regarding OHV use and the associated damage and/or disruption to wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Some of the resource-oriented groups include: Arizona Wilderness Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Maricopa Audubon Society, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Sierra Club, Sky Island Alliance, Wilderness Society, White Mountain Conservation League, and Wild Earth Guardians (USDA Forest Service 2009b).

Environmental Justice In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898. This order directs federal agencies to focus attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities. The purpose of Executive Order 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal agency decision-makers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with respect to minority and low-income populations and identify alternatives that will avoid or mitigate those impacts. According to U.S.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 105 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Department of Agriculture directive5600-002 (USDA 1997), environmental justice, minority, minority population, low-income, and human health and environmental effects, are defined as follows.

• Environmental Justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before agency decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment.

• Minority means a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

• Minority Population means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities.

• Low-Income Population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities. Low-income populations may be identified using data collected, maintained and analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty.

• Human Health and/or Environmental Effects as used in this Departmental Regulation include interrelated social and economic effects.

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy environment. The Council on Environmental Quality has interpreted health effects with a broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities or Indian Tribes …when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (CEQ 1997).Potentially affected populations within the analysis include both minority and low-income populations.

Minority populations are identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent; or, (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. Meaningfully greater is interpreted in this analysis as exceeding 15 percent or more of the nation’s share.

Environmental Justice Communities Minority communities when analyzed at the county level were identified in Apache, Navajo, Grant, and Greenlee Counties. American Indians alone comprise 73 percent of Apache County’s population and 44 percent of the Navajo County population. In Grant and Greenlee counties, just over 46 and 49 percent of people in these respective communities identify as Hispanic or Latino. The percentage of the residents that qualify as minority populations within Apache, Navajo, Grant, and Greenlee counties either exceed the Council on Environmental Quality’s 50 percent rule or exceed the nation’s rate by 15 percent or more and are therefore considered as environmental justice communities in the environmental justice analysis.

Navajo and Apache counties experience the highest share of people in poverty, at 30 and 26 percent respectively. These rates are 15 percent or more of the nation’s share of people in poverty and are

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 106 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

therefore considered in the environmental justice analysis. Grant and Catron also experience a greater share of people in poverty, however, did not exceed 15 percent or more of the nation’s rate and are therefore not considered in the environmental justice analysis.

Exposure Pathways Given the actions proposed in this project, eliminating cross-country motorized travel and designating roads and motorized trails on Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests National Forest System lands, the consideration of potential effects to environmental justice communities is limited to economic, social and cultural impacts to communities at risk. The environmental justice analysis will focus specifically on minority communities with high rates of poverty where national forest land management decisions may considerably influence the structure of the economy and increase the economic burden of low-income communities. Potential impacts on social and cultural systems are considered of potential effects of managing motorized recreation on the forest. American Indian and Hispanic and, or Latino communities may be affected given culturally specific ways that different social groups interact with national forest lands.

Tribes with interests in the management of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests include the Pueblo of Acoma, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ramah Chapter House of the Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. These tribes consider the lands managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests part of their ancestral territory. The Effects to Areas of Tribal Interest section provides more detail on tribal resources. The consultation process for this project was initiated with the 2010 environmental analysis process. Concerns identified through the tribal involvement process related to tribal resources that may be affected by the management of motorized vehicle use and include the following: potential trespass on Fort Apache or San Carlos Apache reservation lands originating from Forest Service lands, impacts to water quality from sedimentation, impacts to springs, meadows, traditional plant gathering areas and culturally-important plant populations, traditional cultural properties and archaeological sites, and looting and vandalism of archaeological sites and shrines due to OHV use. Motorized big game retrieval was not an issue identified through the tribal consultation process (Morgan 2018).

Recreation opportunities on the forest provide opportunities for repeated interaction with a place where meaning is shaped and value is attributed. Through such interactions social bonds, a sense of identity and belonging is forged. Literature on recreation patterns and preferences of Latinos and Hispanic communities recognizes that Latinos and Hispanic are not of one mind but never-the-less has found some commonalities. One four forest study of the opinions of Latino national forest visitors found that facilities and amenities, such as picnic tables, running water, barbeques, and bathrooms, as well as, coverage by law enforcement rated high on their recreation preferences. It was also noted that use by these communities was not evenly distributed across the study area but rather concentrated in areas on the two forests. This suggests that projects that may affect the distribution or amount of developed recreation facilities and law enforcement may affect how and if Latino and Hispanic communities engage recreation opportunities. Such changes in recreation patterns may in turn result in affects to social systems that influence a sense of belonging, identity, connection with others and place.

Economic Conditions in Counties with Environmental Justice Low-Income Communities

Apache County, Arizona Seventy-three percent of Apache County identified themselves as American Indian. Of this population, 97 percent self-identified as being Navajo (Headwaters Economics 2018a).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 107 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

The unemployment rate was 11 percent, more than twice the rate for the United States. Average annual earnings per job were $20,000 less than the average U.S. earning, and per capita income was also $20,000 less than per capita income for the United States. Fifty-nine percent of total personal income in Apache County is from non-labor income exceeding the national percentage by 22 percent. Non-labor income includes dividends, interest and rent (money earned from investments), and transfer payments (includes government retirement and disability insurance benefits, medical payments such as mainly Medicare and Medicaid, income maintenance benefits, and unemployment insurance benefits) (Headwaters Economics 2018a).

Retirement income in Apache County exceeds the national average by 1 percent; however, other sources of non-labor income well exceeded the Nation’s. Over 25 percent of households reported receiving food stamps, which was twice the percentage of households receiving assistance at the national level. Both the cash public assistance income and supplementary security income were received by more than twice the percentage when compared to the United States as a whole (Headwaters Economics 2018b).

The majority of lands in Apache County are Tribal lands (67 percent). Federal lands within Apache County account for 11 percent of the total landownership. The Forest Service is the largest Federal landowner accounting for 7 percent of lands. Federal land payments, however, accounted for 16 percent of general government revenues, indicating a weak economy outside of the government sector. Of the commodities sector, agriculture provides the largest contribution to employment at 19 percent. Employment from the services sector accounted for 37 percent of all jobs, which is roughly half of the proportion that the services sector provides at the national level, 73 percent (Headwaters Economics 2018c).

The data suggest that the services sector is weak and that there is a strong reliance on government for jobs and labor and non-labor income. Government provides nearly three times more jobs, at 38 percent, in Apache County than government provides at a national level 13 percent. Although agriculture provides the largest portion of commodity-related jobs, it appears that the majority of government-related employment is from the education, health care, and social assistance sectors providing for 39 percent of total employment by industry as shown in table 41.

Table 41. Employment by industry in Apache County, 2016* Industries Apache County, Arizona Ag, forestry, fishing & hunting, mining 2.4% Construction 8.2% Manufacturing 1.8% Wholesale trade 1.0% Retail trade 10.1% Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 7.1% Information 1.0% Finance and insurance, and real estate 3.1% Professional, scientific, management, administration, 3.3% & waste management Education, health care, & social assistance 38.5% Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, & 8.4% food Other services, except public administration 3.3%

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 108 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Industries Apache County, Arizona Public administration 11.9% (Source: Headwater Economics 2018a) *Data calculated using American Community Surveys conducted during 2012–2016 and are representative of average characteristics during this period.

Sectors of the economy that may be influenced by the project include industries related to retail trade for hunting, as well as, industries captured under the rubric of travel and tourism. Table 42 shows that the majority of the jobs in the retail trade are located at gasoline stations, and the bulk of the other travel and tourism related employment is provided in the accommodation and food sector. Table 42 also demonstrates that while just over 20 percent of employment is related to travel and tourism, this sector only accounts for 9 percent of income.

Table 42. Percentage of employment and income from travel and tourism, Apache County and United States, 2016* Apache County United States Employment Income Employment Income Travel & Tourism Related 21.3% 8.8% 15.6% 13.5% Retail Trade 9.0% 2.4% 2.7% 2.2% Gasoline Stations 6.9% 1.4% 0.7% 0.6% Clothing & Accessory Stores 0.8% n/a 1.4% 0.9% Misc. Store Retailers 1.3% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% Passenger Transportation 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% Air Transportation 0.0% n/a 0.4% 0.3% Scenic & Sightseeing Transport 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 1.6% Performing Arts & Spectator Sports 0.0% n/a 0.4% 0.3% Museums, Parks, & Historic Sites 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Amusement, Gambling, & Rec. 0.0% n/a 1.3% 1.1% Accommodation & Food 12.3% 6.5% 10.6% 9.4% Accommodation 3.5% 3.0% 1.6% 1.4% Food Services & Drinking Places 8.9% 3.5% 9.0% 8.0% (Source: Headwaters Economics 2018d) *Data calculated using American Community Surveys conducted during 2012–2016 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. Note: The major industry categories (retail trade; passenger transportation; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodation and food) in the table above are the sum of the sub-categories underneath them and as shown here do not represent NAICS codes. Data does not include employment in government, agriculture, railroads, or the self-employed because these are not reported by County Business Patterns.

Navajo County, Arizona Forty-four percent of the Navajo County population in 2016 identified as being American Indian. Of this population, 59 percent (46,069 people) identified as Navajo, 24 percent identified as Apache (10,997 people), and 14 percent identified as Hopi (6,567 people) (Headwaters Economics 2018e).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 109 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

The unemployment estimates for Navajo County were 8 percent in 2016, just over 3 percent higher than the national average. Average annual earnings per job were roughly $19,000 less than the average U.S. earnings, and per capita income was $20,000 less than per capita income for the U.S. Approximately 57 percent of personal income was from non-labor income, which exceeds the national percentage by 20 percent. Table 43 shows the percentage of household reporting earnings from income sources. In all instances but one, labor earnings, Navajo County exceeds the national percentages. The most significant difference was in the percentage of households receiving food stamps, which was more than twice the figure for the Nation. This suggests there is an increased risk of food insecurity for households in Navajo County.

Table 43. Percentage of households receiving earnings by source, Navajo County and United States, 2016* Income Source Navajo County United States Labor earnings 65.7% 77.7% Social Security (SS) 38.7% 30.2% Retirement income 22.2% 18.3% Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 9.6% 5.4% Cash public assistance income 3.7% 2.7% Food Stamp/SNAP 26.7% 13.0% (Source: Headwaters Economics 2018f) * Data calculated by American Community Surveys using annual surveys conducted during 2012–2016 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. ^ Total may add to more than 100 percent due to households receiving more than one source of income.

Like Apache County, the majority of lands in Navajo County are Tribal lands (67 percent). National Forest System lands account for 8 of the 10 percent of Federal lands, while State lands account for 6 percent of the land base. The remaining 18 percent of lands are in private ownership. Federal land payments accounted for 10 percent of general government revenue (Headwaters Economics 2018f). The commodities sector accounted for 14 percent of total employment, with agriculture providing the largest contribution at 9 percent, which was 8 percent higher than the national percentage (Headwaters Economics 2018g).

Employment from the services sector accounted for 57 percent of all jobs, while the government sector provided 23 percent. When considering employment by industry, Navajo County demonstrates a more diversified economy than Apache County, with slightly less reliance on the government sectors, such as education, health care and social assistance, and public administration for employment. The travel and tourism sector accounted for 27 percent of employment. Table 44 shows that Navajo County has a greater reliance on retail trade and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food sectors than that of the Nation.

Table 44. Employment by industry, Navajo County and United States, 2016* Industry Navajo County United States Ag, forestry, fishing & hunting, mining 3.5% 1.9% Construction 7.2% 6.3% Manufacturing 3.7% 10.3% Wholesale trade 1.3% 2.7% Retail trade 13.1% 11.5% Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 7.0% 5.0%

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 110 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Industry Navajo County United States Information 1.3% 2.1% Finance and insurance, and real estate 4.2% 6.6% Professional, scientific, management, administration, 4.2% 11.2% & waste management Education, health care, & social assistance 27.9% 23.1% Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, & 12.8% 9.7% food Other services, except public administration 4.4% 4.9% Public administration 9.3% 4.7% (Source: Headwaters Economics 2018e) *Data calculated by American Community Surveys using annual surveys conducted during 2012–2016 and are representative of average characteristics during this period.

Sectors of the economy that may be influenced by the project include industries related to retail trade for hunting, as well as, industries captured under the rubric of travel and tourism. Table 44shows that, like Apache County, the majority of the jobs in the retail trade are located at gasoline stations and the bulk of the other travel and tourism related employment is provided in the accommodation and food sector. Table 44 also demonstrates that while 27 percent of employment is related to travel and tourism, this sector only accounts for 15 percent of income, indicating that wages in the travel and tourism sector are much lower than the proportion of wages earned in the travel and tourism sector at the national level.

Economic Conditions Recreation and tourism related industries are the most likely segments of the economy to be directly affected by this project, however, it is important to have a sense of the overall economic structure, recent historic changes to gain perspective on the relative importance of recreation and tourism industries related to the project area.

Figure 20 illustrates the trends in employment by industry from 2001 to 2016. Over the 15-year period, the industries with the largest contribution to employment have been in government and retail. Government’s contribution to jobs has been more consistent than the number of jobs in the retail, which like many industries grows and shrinks with economic conditions and trends. Employment in health care and social assistance has steadily increased over the past 15 years and may soon outpace employment in retail. The accommodation and food services industry is the fifth largest sector by employment, and like retail, subject to grow and shrink with economic conditions and events.

Figure 21 illustrates the trends in income by industry from 2001 to 2016. Over the 15-year period, government provided the largest earnings by industry. The health care and social services sector provided the second largest contribution of earnings and grew proportionate to the number the jobs provided in the industry. While retail accounted for one of the largest shares of employment (figure 20), it provided a little more than half of the earnings that the government industry provided (figure 21). Earnings in accommodation and food services likewise, while providing a sizeable portion of employment opportunities, accounted for a much lower proportion of earnings. Industries with a relatively high proportion of employment and low proportion of earnings are demonstrative of industries whose jobs are typically comprised of low-wage positions, such as the retail trade, food and accommodation services.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 111 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Trends in Employment and Income by Industry

(Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2017a) Figure 20. Employment by industry, 2001–2016

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 112 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

(Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2017a) Figure 21. Income by industry, 2001–2016

Tourism As shown in table 45, tourism-related employment in the assessment area is less than 1 percent higher than the percentage of employment in this industry at a national level. Towns and cities throughout the

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 113 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

counties that are located near the Forests profit economically from expenditures made by visitors to the Forests. The towns near the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are primarily a summer destination for tourists; however, winter tourism is also a component of the regional economy. Towns such as Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside, Eagar, and Springerville benefit from visitors to the region who book hotel rooms, eat, purchase gas, and shop, among other activities.

Recreation and tourism are important contributors to the economic stability of the area; economic benefits are derived from direct spending on food, gas, lodging, etc., but also from sales tax generated from visitor spending. Local and sales tax revenue is important in rural (or non-urban) areas. This is because tourism often forms a larger proportion of the economic activity in these areas, and because special excise taxes on tourists and visitors (from food, lodging, and auto rentals) are more heavily paid by visitors rather than residents (Runyan 2008). A recent state wide study of the economic impacts off-highway recreation in the state of Arizona estimated an economic impact statewide of 793 million due to ancillary expenses from off-highway vehicles recreation (Chhabra 2018).

Table 45. Percentage of employment in travel and tourism industries by county region and United States, 2016 Use Sector County Region United States Private 87.0% 84.9% Travel & Tourism 14.3% 13.5% Retail Trade 2.2% 2.2% Gasoline Stations 0.6% 0.6% Clothing & Accessories 0.8% 0.9% Misc. Store Retailers 0.8% 0.6% Passenger Transportation 0.6% 0.4% Air Transportation 0.6% 0.3% Scenic & Sightseeing 0.0% 0.0% Arts, Entertainment, & Rec. 1.6% 1.6% Performing Arts & Spectator Sports 0.4% 0.3% Museums, Parks, & Historic Sites 0.1% 0.1% Amusement, Gambling, & Rec. 1.1% 1.1% Accommodations & Food 9.9% 9.4% Accommodation 1.6% 1.4% Food Services & Drinking Places 8.3% 8.0% Non-Travel & Tourism 71.2% 71.4% Government 13.0% 15.1% (Source: U.S. Department of Labor 2017) *Data calculated using American Community Surveys conducted during 2012–2016 and are representative of average characteristics during this period.

Forest Contribution

National Forest Visitation National Visitor Use Monitoring is conducted on each national forest every five years to provide information about the type, quantity, quality, and location of recreational use on NFS lands. The survey results are reliable at a forest, regional, or national level. The most recent survey on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, conducted in 2014, is referenced within the following summary to describe

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 114 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

the approximate amount of forest visitation, where visitors originated from, their primary activities while visiting the forest and attitudes related to substitute behavior, meaning how a visitor would respond to a situation given a particular activity or opportunity is not available on the Apache-Sitgreaves. Information on visitor expenditures is also used to model the economic contribution national forests have in their local communities related to tourism.

The descriptive information about forest visitors provided in the NVUM results is based on interview results of a sample population of forest visitors. For the 2014 NVUM on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 157 people were interviewed. Only visitors who identified recreation as their purpose were included in the interview sample population (n=157). Of the visitors who agreed to be interviewed about the Apache-Sitgreaves for the 2014 NVUM, 65 percent identified recreation as the purpose of their visit as shown in figure 22. The population identifying the purpose of their visit as something other than recreation such as passing through, work or commute, use the bathroom or some other reason were not included in the interview sample. Therefore, the visitor information provided in the NVUM results are explicit to the recreating population, and little is known about the population of people who identified “some other reason” or “work.”

(Source: USDA Forest Service 2018b)

Figure 22. Purpose of visit by visitors who agreed to be interviewed, 2014

National Forest Visitors The total annual visitation to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in 2014 was estimated to be 520,000 people.

Of the recreating visitors, 57 percent were male and 43 percent were female. The great majority, 94 percent, self-identified as white, and 5 percent self-identified as American Indian. Thirteen percent of visitors identified as Hispanic or Latino. Over 25 percent of visitors were under the age of 16, while the next largest segment of visitors was in the 60 to 69 age range at 16 percent. The lowest level of visitor by age range occurred between the age range of 16 to 29, which only accounted for 8.6 percent of visitors.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 115 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Visitor Origin NVUM survey results found that visitation to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests is primarily from people within Arizona. Visitation from outside of the state only accounts for a small portion of its visitors. Figure 23 shows the proportion of visitation to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests by state. Eighty- three percent of visitors in 2014 were from Arizona. Visitors from New Mexico accounted for the next largest portion at close to 4 percent, followed by Texas and California at 2.5 percent each. All other states represented were 1 percent or less of visitors.

(Source: USDA Forest Service 2018b) Figure 23. Portion of visitors by state of origin to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, 2014

Of the top 15 most commonly reported zip codes for national forest visitor’s origin, close to half, or 46 percent, reported a zip code occurring in Navajo County. Apache and Maricopa Counties each were identified as 23 percent of the most commonly reported places of origin. Notably, Coconino County, one of the counties the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests occurs in, is not represented in the top 15. In fact, only 3 visitors surveyed, representing 2 percent of the visitors, identified Coconino County as their place of origin. The visitor origin data suggests that residents of Coconino County have a weak social connection with the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, while residents of Navajo, Apache, and Maricopa Counties have strong social connections and values related to the Forests.

(Source: USDA Forest Service 2018b) Figure 24. Counties with the 15 most commonly reported zip codes of forest visitors, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 116 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Visitor Activities Fishing was most frequently cited as the main reason for visiting the Forests at 21 percent of all visits. This was followed by hiking / walking at 19 percent and relaxing at 16 percent. Developed camping, picnicking and viewing natural features each were identified by approximately 9 percent of visitors. The remainder of the visitors’ primary purposes were broadly distributed among a number of activities: driving for pleasure (5.3 percent), viewing wildlife (3.7 percent), other non-motorized activity (2.2 percent), motorized trail activity (1.1 percent), primitive camping (1.1 percent), and cross-country skiing (1.0 percent). All other reported activities were identified by less than 1 percent of the population.

Table 46. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests activity participation, 2014 Activity % Participation* % Main Activity‡ Hiking / Walking 59.0 19.6 Relaxing 58.7 16.0 Viewing Wildlife 48.2 3.7 Driving for Pleasure 42.2 5.3 Viewing Natural Features 38.8 8.7 Fishing 38.0 21.0 Picnicking 33.5 8.8 Developed Camping 31.0 9.0 Nature Study 15.5 0.0 Non-motorized Water 5.1 0.0 Motorized Trail Activity 5.0 1.1 Other Non-motorized 5.0 2.2 Bicycling 4.5 0.4 Nature Center Activities 4.3 0.4 OHV Use 4.0 0.1 Some Other Activity 3.7 0.3 Primitive Camping 3.6 1.1 Gathering Forest Products 3.3 0.7 Visiting Historic Sites 3.2 0.0 Resort Use 1.6 0.2 Motorized Water Activities 1.4 0.4 Hunting 1.2 0.4 Cross-country Skiing 1.0 1.0 Other Motorized Activity 0.9 0.0 Horseback Riding 0.0 0.0 Snowmobiling 0.0 0.0 Downhill Skiing 0.0 0.0 No Activity Reported 0.0 3.1 Backpacking 0.0 0.0 (Source: USDA Forest Service 2018b) * Survey respondents could select multiple activities, so this column may total more than 100 percent.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 117 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to all alternatives The following resources and programs are not expected to be affected by the implementation of any of the alternatives, and are therefore, not further discussed in the effects analysis. Effects to permitted uses such as gathering forest products, mining, grazing, and firewood cutting are authorized under a separate permitting process that would continue unaffected by this project. The project would not result in changes in Federal ownership in the planning area, and would therefore, not result in a change of payments made to each county under the Payments In Lieu of Taxes program. The alternatives are not expected to substantially increase or decrease population trends in the study area. Likewise, none of the alternatives are expected to substantially alter real estate or property value trends in the study area for two reasons: (1) no expected changes in population, and (2) no significant changes in overall recreation users. These two factors are assumed to drive demand for real estate in the region. The Forests are expected to continue to be a tourist destination for nature-based activities popular in the region. Thus, no direct or indirect impacts related to these activities are anticipated.

Environmental Justice As was discussed in the affected environment section, recreation opportunities on the forest provide opportunities for repeated interaction with a place where meaning is shaped and value is attributed. Through such interactions social bonds, a sense of identity and belonging is forged. Potential impacts from this project that were considered in respect to Latino and Hispanic Communities was how the project may affect recreation patterns and preferences of Latinos and Hispanic communities. The literature reviewed suggested that projects that may affect the distribution or amount of developed recreation facilities and law enforcement may affect how and if Latino and Hispanic communities engage recreation opportunities. Such changes in recreation patterns may in turn result in affects to social systems that influence a sense of belonging, identity, connection with others and place. This project does not affected the development and distribution of developed recreation facilities. The administration of law enforcement is beyond the scope of this project, however, one product of this project is the Motor Vehicle Use Map, which is enforceable by law. Given that there are no changes in recreation opportunities rated as high preferences for Latino and Hispanic communities, there would be no disproportionate adverse risk to Latinos and Hispanic Communities from any of the alternatives in this project.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis considers impacts of the alternatives when combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions and events. Past actions are considered as reflected within the baseline social and economic conditions, displayed within the affected environment discussion. The direct and indirect effects of this project on jobs, income and environmental justice communities are negligible in magnitude when considered in context of the size analysis area in terms of jobs and income, such that they are considered no effect.

The portion of the Forest’s contribution to jobs and income that may be affected by this project is from expenditures by Forest visitors drawn to the Forest for recreation opportunities related to “driving for pleasure,” “hunting,” and “motorized trail activity.” As displayed in figure 19 (Employment by industry, 2001–2016) and figure 21 (Income by industry, 2001–2016), the travel and tourism industry provides a relatively small portion of the employment and even smaller portion of the income in the analysis area. Expenditures in the travel and tourism industry are, in part, influenced by visitation to the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. Of the estimated 520,000 visits to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in 2014, only a portion of those visits was driven by activities that may be affected by this project. As such,

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 118 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References the primary recreation activities that attract visitors to the forest that may be affected by this project were estimated at 0.4 percent of the visitor population (2,080) for hunting, 1.1 percent of the visitor population (5,780) for motorized trail activity, and 5.3 percent of the visitor population (27,560) for driving for pleasure. The NVUM (USDA Forest Service 2018a) also found that the large majority of forest visitors originated from the forest’s neighboring counties. For those visitors whose visit to the forest included an overnight stay, only 12 percent purchased accommodations in the private sector. This information is presented to contextualize the low magnitude of the impact of expenditures driven by hunting, motorized trail activity, and driving for pleasure.

All of the alternatives provide a range of OHV recreation opportunities that would accommodate different levels of MBGR and opportunities for accessing dispersed campsites, will continue to provide for hunting, motorized trail, and driving for pleasure opportunities. Given that the elimination of cross- country OHV is part of a Forest Service-wide process to comply with the Travel Management Rule, other national forests within a 200-mile radius of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests including the Gila, Tonto, Coronado, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, Cibola and Lincoln, have already eliminated cross-country OHV opportunities, outside of designated OHV areas, roads and motorized trails. Therefore, it is unlikely that visitors will change their behavior by substituting another destination, should any of the action alternatives be selected. Hence, given the relatively low intensity of the changes considered from the no- action alternative and alternatives 2 and 3, in combination with the low magnitude of change anticipated in recreation visitation in hunting, motorized trail activity, and driving for pleasure, it is highly likely that the effects of any of the alternatives on the social values and economic environment related to motorized recreation would be negligible or rather no effect.

Further discussion of other projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis are identified by alternative.

Effects from Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would continue to allow motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping forest-wide, except where motorized restrictions exist. This alternative would leave 2,713 miles available for motorized OHV use and 1,625,363 acres available for motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping.

Under alternative 1, the affected community would spend an estimated $224,608 annually within the analysis area. These total expenditures would directly support 1.2 jobs and $34,270 in labor income to the local economy. When considering indirect and induced effects, however, a total of 1.7 jobs and $57,380 in labor income would be supported. The wide majority of these expenditures, and thus, the resulting contributions, are attributable to the motorized dispersed camping community, as shown in figure 25.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 119 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 25. Distribution of expenditures by activity for alternative 1

Social Impact Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes

Implementation of alternative 1 would likely be viewed by OHV and MBGR users favorably, as it allows for the greatest amount of unrestricted motorized travel providing 1.6 million acres where OHV use is allowed. In addition, alternative 1 provides the most miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads at 3,421 miles. The amount of motorized trails for vehicles under 50 inches in alternative 1 is, however, limited to 63 miles, which is less than half of what is allowed in alternative 2. The limited miles of trails is not likely to result in negative attitudes from OHV users and hunters who have traditionally relied on MBGR as alternative 1 maintains the greatest amount of linear features and areas open to OHV use. Overall, OHV users and big game hunters who value the ability to drive cross country believe that alternative 1 would best serve their quality of life and would respond favorably to the implementation of alternative 1.

People who primarily value natural resources would exhibit negative attitudes toward the implementation of alternative 1, as this alternative takes no action to limit new impacts or mitigate existing adverse effects to water, vegetation, fish and wildlife related to cross-country motorized travel and existing NFS roads or motorized trails. People who prioritize the maintenance and improvement of natural resource conditions would likely believe that alternative 1 would have the largest negative impact to their quality of life when compared to the other alternatives.

Environmental Justice

Given the actions proposed in this project, eliminating cross-country motorized travel and designating roads and motorized trails on National Forest System lands, the consideration of potential effects to environmental justice communities described below relates to economic impacts to communities at risk. Environmental justice communities considered in this analysis include low-income and minority communities within Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 120 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

counties have a higher share of jobs and labor income in this sector than the nation as a whole. User groups and related expenditures that may be affected by the project include those whose primary purpose for visiting was off-highway vehicle use, motorized dispersed camping and big game hunting. The greatest contribution to employment and income of all the alternatives would be from alternative 1, resulting in 1.7 total jobs and $57,380 total income. However, given the size of the 13 county economic analysis area, in terms of jobs and income, which is estimated at 2.8 million total jobs and $206 billion in total income, impact of alternative 1 is relatively small and likely has an immeasurable effect on jobs and income in the two county area, Apache and Navajo Counties. In addition, the economic impact is expected to be distributed evenly across the economic analysis area. Therefore, alternative 1 would have no disproportionate adverse effect on low-income communities and no change is predicted due to management action.

Seventy-three percent and 59 percent of residents of environmental justice communities, respectively, of Apache and Navajo Counties identified as American Indian. American Indians may rely on the provisioning of subsistence resources such as fish, wild game, and special forest products as part of a culturally specific construction of their livelihood. Subsistence resources may provide important non- monetary economic benefits for households that may be living in poverty. Figure 19 illustrates the families and individuals in poverty by county, the analysis area, and Nation. Under alternative 1, current trends related to fish, wild game, and special forest products would continue. Concerns identified by federally recognized tribes related to the project included potential trespass originating from NFS lands, impacts to water quality from sedimentation, impacts to meadows from off-highway vehicle use, and looting and vandalism of archaeological sites. See the watershed and cultural resource sections for detailed information on effects to these resources. Therefore alternative 1 would not result in disproportionate adverse effects to minority communities within Apache and Navajo Counties.

Table 47. Economic and social resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Element Economic Economic Direction & 1.2 direct jobs and 1.7 total jobs contribution to Jobs Magnitude of in the regional change in Direct economy and Total Jobs. Economic Economic Direction & $34,270 in direct labor income and $57,380 in contribution to Magnitude of total labor income Income in the change in Direct regional economy and Total Income. Social Values, Attitudes & Qualitative Moderate beneficial effect to quality of life for Beliefs Assessment people who value cross-country OHV & MBGR opportunities.

Moderate adverse effect to quality of life for people who value natural resource conditions. Social Environmental Change in benefits- No Effect on Employment and Income due to Justice social bonding, change in management. No change to Distribution of identity & subsistence resource trends. No Adverse Risk to low belonging, jobs, disproportionate adverse effects to low-income income & minority income & or minority communities. communities. subsistence

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 121 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Effects from Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Employment and Income Relative to alternative 1, 86.50 percent of roads and motorized trails open to OHV use would remain available, 74.46 percent of lands available for motorized big game retrieval for large game hunters (elk only), and 4.34 percent of the existing motorized dispersed camping corridors remain. The supported community could be expected to spend an annual total of $43,426 within the analysis area, which would directly support 0.2 job and $6,424 in labor income. When considering indirect and induced effects, however, a total of 0.3 job and $10,783 in labor income would be supported. Most of these expenditures, and thus, the resulting contributions, would be attributable to the motorized OHV community, as shown in figure 26.

Figure 26. Distribution of expenditures by activity for alternative 2

Social Impact Values, Beliefs and Attitudes Compared to alternative 1, which allows for the greatest amount of OHV use, alternative 2 eliminates 1.6 million acres of cross-country motorized use, reduces the total miles of NFS roads open to the public by 530 miles, and increases the diversity of OHV recreation opportunities by designating three types of motorized trails that would accommodate single-track, as well as side-by-side vehicles 68 inches wide, for a total of 139 miles of motorized trails. Alternative 2 allows for a limited amount of cross-country travel for the purposes of MBGR by designating 2,693 miles of roads that would allow for a one mile corridor where MGBR is allowed. Alternative 2 also allows for pulling off the road to access dispersed campsites on 1,027 miles of NFS.

National forest visitors who value OHV recreation opportunities and MBGR for hunting big game and believe that NFS lands should be open for cross-country motorized use may have mixed attitudes toward alternative 2. Alternative 2 would likely be regarded favorably for providing a greater diversity of OHV

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 122 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

recreation opportunities with the designation of 139 miles of motorized trails including single-track trails and 68-inch wide trails. On the other hand, alternative 2 eliminates cross-country travel, which would be regarded as a loss of OHV opportunity and may heighten concerns about congestion in the designated areas, roads and trails. Alternative 2 does, however, provide allowances for MBGR and dispersed camping on specific roads, which would mitigate the potential concerns about impacts on big game hunting and dispersed camping. Overall, OHV users and big game hunters who value the ability to drive cross-country may react positively to the expanded diversity of OHV opportunities, but may also believe that alternative 2 would negatively affect their quality of life as compared to alternative 1, given the loss of the expansive cross-country OHV opportunities that currently exist.

For people who are primarily concerned with natural resource conditions, implementation of alternative 2 would be viewed favorably, as the alternative takes a number of actions to limit new impacts and mitigate existing adverse effects associated with cross-country motorized travel and existing NFS roads or motorized trails. The designation of MBGR corridors and dispersed campsite corridors are likely to be viewed as negative impacts to their quality of life as impacts associated with cross-country motorized travel would be perceived as continuing to threaten natural resource conditions which are central to the values of some commenters. Compared to alternative 1, alternative 2 would be viewed overall as improving the quality of life of commenters concerned with natural resource values.

Environmental Justice Given the actions proposed in this project, eliminating cross-country motorized travel and designating roads and motorized trails on National Forest System lands, the consideration of potential effects to environmental justice communities described below relates to economic effects to communities at risk. Environmental justice communities considered here include low-income and minority communities within Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona.

The sector of the economy influenced by the management of National Forest System roads and motorized trails and cross-country motorized use are limited largely to tourism and travel. Navajo and Apache Counties specialize in the travel and tourism industry as demonstrated in Table 42 and Table 44 as these counties have a higher share of jobs and labor income in this sector than the nation as a whole. User groups and related expenditures that may be affected by the project include those visitors whose primary purpose for visiting the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests was off-highway vehicle use, motorized dispersed camping, and big game hunting. Alternative 2 would result in 0.3 total job and $10,783 total income; compared to alternative 1, this is a net loss of 1.4 jobs and $46,597 in total income distributed over a 13 county area, estimated to have 2.8 million jobs and $206 billion in total income. While Navajo and Apache County specialize in travel and tourism, the slight decrease in jobs and total income in the over the two county area would be negligible in magnitude. Alternative 2 would not result in measurable effects to jobs and income in Apache and Navajo Counties. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate adverse effects to low-income communities in Apache and Navajo Counties from alternative 2.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 123 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

vehicle use, and looting and vandalism of archaeological sites. Therefore, alternative 2 would not result in disproportionate adverse effects to minority communities within Apache and Navajo Counties.

Table 48. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct and indirect effects Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects Element Economic Economic Direction & 0.2 direct jobs and 0.3 total jobs contribution to Jobs Magnitude of in the regional change in Direct economy and Total Jobs. Economic Economic Direction & $6,424 in direct labor income and $10,783 in contribution to Magnitude of total labor income Income in the change in Direct regional economy and Total Income. Social Values, Attitudes & Qualitative Minor adverse effect to quality of life for people Beliefs Assessment who value cross-country OHV & MBGR opportunities; minor beneficial effect on diversity of OHV recreation opportunity.

Minor beneficial effect to quality of life for people who value natural resource conditions. Social Environmental Change in benefits- No Effect - Justice social bonding, Negligible Change in the Employment and Distribution of identity & Income. Slight benefit for subsistence Adverse Risk to low belonging, jobs, resources. No disproportionate adverse effects income & minority income & to low-income or minority communities. communities. subsistence

Cumulative Effects Projects identified on the Forest Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) that may affect social values related to this project include the 4FRI Rim Country Project, Black River Restoration Project, the R-C mastication project, the East Eagle/Mud Springs Hazardous Fuels Reduction project, Rodeo-Chediski Reforestation project, the Apache Reforestation project, the Scott Reservoir Overnight Camping Open- season amendment, and the Four Springs Trail Realignment Heber-Overgaard Non-motorized Trail System (USDA Forest Service 2018b).

Projects focused on restoration, forest thinning, hazardous fuels reduction, reforestation, and addressing issues with existing trails aim to improve forest health, water quality and habitat for fish, wildlife and rare plants. For people who believe that OHV use is a primary threat to these resources, the implementation of alternative 2 would likely be thought of as providing a synergistic beneficial effect when viewed in combination with the aforementioned projects. Alternative 2 restricts cross-country OHV use compared to alternative 1, limiting new impacts while the other forest projects take proactive measures to improve natural resource conditions. Low income and minority communities who rely on the provisioning of subsistence resources would also likely receive the synergistic benefits of limiting natural resource impacts while taking active measures to address existing problems with forest health.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 124 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Effects from Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Employment Relative to alternative 1, 58.54 percent of roads and motorized trails open to OHV use would remain available, 0 percent of lands available for motorized big game retrieval for large game hunters, and 0.35 percent of the existing motorized dispersed camping corridors remain. The supported community could be expected to spend an annual total of $14,213 within the analysis area, which would directly support 0.1 job and $2,166 in labor income. When considering indirect and induced effects however, a total of 0.1 job and $3,647 in labor income would be supported. Most all of these expenditures, and thus, the resulting contributions, would be attributable to the motorized OHV community, as shown in figure 27.

Figure 27. Distribution of expenditures by activity for alternative 3

Social Impact Values, Beliefs and Attitudes Compared to alternative 1, which allows for the greatest amount of OHV use, alternative 3 eliminates 1.6 million acres of cross-country motorized use, reduces the total miles of NFS roads open to the public by 1,220 miles, and increases miles of motorized trail for vehicles under 50 inches by 64 miles. Alternative 3 also allows for pulling off the road to access dispersed campsites on 79 miles of NFS.

National forest visitors who value OHV recreation opportunities and MBGR for hunting big game and believe that NFS lands should be open for cross-country motorized use would likely exhibit strong negative attitudes toward the implementation of alternative 3. Alternative 3 provides specific allowances for dispersed camping and designates more miles of motorized trails than alternative 1; however, it does not designate corridors for MBGR, as did alternative 2. Overall, OHV users and big game hunters who value the ability to drive cross country may believe that alternative 3 would have the greatest negative impact to their quality of life, as compared to other alternatives, and are likely to respond with strong unfavorable attitudes toward the implementation of this alternative.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 125 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

For people who are primarily concerned with natural resource conditions, implementation of alternative 3 would be viewed as strongly favorable, as this alternative takes the greatest number of measures to limit new impacts and mitigate existing adverse effects associated with cross-country motorized travel and existing NFS roads or motorized trails. This alternative, when compared to other alternatives, would likely be viewed as contributing the greatest benefit to the quality of life for people who value the maintenance and improvement of natural resource conditions.

Environmental Justice Given the actions proposed in this project, eliminating cross-country motorized travel and designating roads and motorized trails on National Forest System lands, the consideration of potential effects to environmental justice communities is related to economic effects to communities at risk. Environmental justice communities considered in here include low-income and minority communities within Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona.

The sector of the economy influenced by the management of National Forest System roads and motorized trails and cross-country motorized use are limited largely to tourism and travel. Navajo and Apache Counties specialize in the travel and tourism industry as demonstrated in Table 42 and Table 44 as these counties have a higher share of jobs and labor income in this sector than the nation as a whole. User groups that may be affected include those whose primary purpose for visiting was off-highway vehicle use, motorized dispersed camping, and big game hunting. Alternative 3 would result in 0.1 total job and $3,647 total income, compared to alternative 1, this is a net loss of 1.6 jobs and $53,733 in total income over the 13 county economic analysis area, estimated to have 2.8 million jobs and $206 billion in total income. While Navajo and Apache County specialize in travel and tourism, the expected decrease in jobs and total income in the two county area would be negligible in magnitude. While alternative 3 is expected to result in a slight decrease in jobs and total income in the analysis area, the magnitude of this change is negligible across the two county area. Alternative 3 would have no measurable effect on total jobs and income in environmental justice communities. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate adverse effects to low-income communities in Apache and Navajo Counties.

Seventy-three percent and 59 percent of residents, respectively, of Apache and Navajo Counties identified as American Indian. American Indians may rely on the provisioning of subsistence resources such as fish, wild game, and special forest products as part of a culturally specific construction of their livelihood. Subsistence resources may provide important non-monetary economic benefits for households that may be living in poverty. Figure 19 illustrates the families and individuals in poverty by county, the analysis area and nation. Both Navajo and Apache Counties exceed the comparative area’s poverty rate and are at least twice that of the Nation’s. Under alternative 3, the limitation of cross-country travel is expected to slightly improve conditions supporting the provisioning of subsistence resources. Concerns identified by federally recognized tribes related to the project included potential trespass originating from National Forest System lands, impacts to water quality from sedimentation, impacts to meadows from off-highway vehicle use, and looting and vandalism of archaeological sites. The conditions of all the aforementioned resources would be slightly benefitted by implementing alternative 3, benefitting affected tribes. Therefore, alternative 3 would not result in disproportionate adverse effects to minority communities within Apache and Navajo Counties.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 126 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 49. Economics and social resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Element Effects Economic Economic contribution Direction & Magnitude 0.1 direct job and 0.1 total job to Jobs in the regional of change in Direct and economy Total Jobs. Economic Economic contribution Direction & Magnitude $2,166 in direct labor income and to Income in the of change in Direct and $3,647 in total labor income regional economy Total Income. Social Values, Attitudes & Qualitative Assessment Moderate adverse effect to quality of life Beliefs for people who value cross-country OHV & MBGR opportunities.

Moderate beneficial effect to quality of life for people who value natural resource conditions. Social Environmental Justice Change in benefits- No Effect - Distribution of Adverse social bonding, identity Risk to low income & & belonging, jobs, Negligible Change in the Employment minority communities. income & subsistence and Income. Slight benefit for subsistence resources. No disproportionate adverse effects to low- income or minority communities.

Projects focused on restoration, forest thinning, hazardous fuels reduction, reforestation, and addressing issues with existing trails aim to improve forest health, water quality, and habitat for fish, wildlife and rare plants. For people who believe that OHV use is a primary threat to these resources, the implementation of alternative 3 would likely be thought of as providing the most synergistic beneficial effect when viewed in combination with the aforementioned projects and the other alternatives. Alternative 3 provides the most restriction to cross-country OHV use, limiting new impacts, while the other forest projects take proactive measures to improve natural resource conditions. Low income and minority communities who rely on the provisioning of subsistence resources would also be likely to receive synergistic benefits from the cumulative effects of this project. Effects to Wildlife and Rare Plants More information is available in the project record including the full wildlife and rare plants analysis file, as part of the Terrestrial Wildlife and Rare Plants Report.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 127 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Affected Environment

Existing Condition The Forests provide some of the most diverse habitats on National Forest System lands in the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service. These habitats span almost 8,000 feet in elevation, ranging from semi-desert grasslands at about 3,500 feet to spruce-fir forests at about 11,400 feet. A large portion of the Forests is ponderosa pine (part of the largest, contiguous ponderosa pine forest in the world); yet, the Forests also contain much of the acreage in unique habitats of the Southwestern Region. These habitats include montane and subalpine grasslands, extensive wetlands (including bogs and fens), and the headwaters of major river systems in Arizona (Blue, Black, San Francisco, and Little Colorado Rivers). The Forests encompass over 2,000 miles of rivers and perennial streams and more than 30 lakes and reservoirs. Both extensive and unique habitats support species ranging from one of the largest elk herds in Arizona to rare species like the Three Forks springsnail, which only occurs in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. These diverse habitats and the wildlife they support help draw upwards of 2 million visitors to the Forests annually.

The Forests can be divided into 14 major potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) (see table 50 below). PNVTs are coarse-scale groupings of ecosystem types that share similar geography, vegetation, and historic ecosystem disturbances such as fire, drought, and grazing by native species. PNVTs represent the vegetation type and characteristics that would occur when natural disturbance regimes and biological processes prevail. The PNVT mapping (located in the Forests GIS database) was derived from the Forests’ terrestrial ecosystem survey mapping. Table 50 provides the most up-to-date vegetation types within the administrative boundary of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests used for this assessment.

Table 50. Miles of open roads and motorized trails, and acres open to cross-country travel currently within potential natural vegetation types in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Miles of open roads Acres open to cross-country Vegetation Type Acres* and motorized tails travel Wetland/cienega riparian areas 17,900 41 14,390 Montane willow riparian forest 4,808 12 3,211 Cottonwood-willow riparian forest 15,876 37 11,568 Mixed broadleaf deciduous 9,657 15 5,735 riparian forest Ponderosa pine forest 602,206 1522 522,618 Dry mixed conifer forest 147,885 251 107,508 Wet mixed conifer forest 177,995 365 133,342 Spruce-fir forest 17,667 4 6,606 Madrean pine-oak woodland 394,927 145 264,037 Pinyon-juniper woodland 222,166 367 205,866 Semi-desert grassland 106,952 119 94,015 Great Basin grassland 185,523 450 141,483 Montane/subalpine grasslands 51,559 128 42,865 Interior chaparral 55,981 5 36,117 *Acres only include National Forest System lands within the administrative boundaries of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 128 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Considered Species analyzed in this report include those that occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest that are:

1. Endangered Species Act-listed endangered, threatened, or proposed species, and designated or proposed critical habitat for these species;

2. Region 3 Regional Forester Sensitive Species; and,

3. Migratory Bird species that may occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.

Threatened and Endangered Species, and Critical Habitat The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service County List of Endangered and Threatened Species, and Species of Concern were reviewed to determine the Endangered Species Act (federally) listed species that would need to be considered in this evaluation. Table 51 identifies the federally listed species, and respective designated or proposed critical habitat considered in this evaluation. No federally listed plants occur on the Forests.

Table 51. Common and scientific name of federally listed species in the project area and their designated or proposed critical habitat Designated or Proposed Species Status Critical Habitat Present? Mexican wolf Endangered; Experimental, No, critical habitat has been Canis lupus baileyi non-essential population designated for this species New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Endangered Yes, designated critical habitat Zapus hudsonius luteus Mexican spotted owl Threatened Yes, designated critical habitat Strix occidentalis lucida Southwestern willow flycatcher Endangered Yes, designated critical habitat Empidonax traillii extimus Yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened Yes, proposed critical habitat Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Occurring on the Forests Table 52 lists sensitive species potentially occurring on the Forests. Because we lack data for every species, we assume occupancy when suitable habitat is present. Assumed occupancy indicates we have no on Forest occupancy data, but suitable habitat warrants the need to assume presence for this effects analysis.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 129 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 52. Common and scientific name of Regional Forester’s sensitive species that could occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, their habitat association, and PNVT type. Federally listed species are listed in table 51. Common/Scientific Name Habitat Association PNVT Type Mammals - - Pale Townsends big-eared bat Desertscrub, oak woodland, oak/pine, pinyon/juniper, and coniferous forests. Madrean pine-oak woodland, Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Roosts in caves and mines from desertscrub up to woodlands and coniferous pinyon-juniper, Dry mixed conifer forests. Abandoned buildings, cold caves, lava tubes and mines. forest Spotted bat Desertscrub of all four North American deserts (Sonoran, Chihuahuan, Semi-desert grassland, Euderma maculatum Mohavean, and Great Basin) through riparian and pinyon-juniper to montane wetland/cienega riparian, pinyon- coniferous forests of Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevadas and scattered ranges in juniper woodland, dry mixed between. Roost singly in crevices and cracks in cliff faces. conifer, spruce-fir forest Allen’s lappet-browed bat Ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, Mexican woodland and riparian areas of Ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper Idionycteris phyllotis sycamores, cottonwoods and willows, white fir and in Mohave desertscrub. woodland, mixed broadleaf Boulder piles, cliffs, rocky outcrops or lava flows. Roosts in caves and abandoned deciduous riparian, dry and wet mineshafts. mixed conifer forests Western red bat Riparian and other wooded areas especially broad-leaf deciduous riparian forests Mixed broad-leaf deciduous Lasiurus blossevillii and woodlands. May also roost in saguaro boots and occasionally in cave-like riparian, situations. Roosts in cottonwood trees. Navajo Mogollon vole Dry, grassy situations, usually in areas adjacent to ponderosa pine, sometimes Montane/subalpine grassland, Microtus mogollonensis navaho grassy areas in juniper woodland or stands of sagebrush, or as high as spruce-fir. ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper woodland, spruce-fir forest Arizona montane vole Moist, grassy habitats in montane coniferous forests, mesic grassland, dense Montane/subalpine grassland, wet Microtus montanus arizonensis damp to wet, grassy areas at high (alpine like) elevations. mixed conifer White Mountains chipmunk Open short grass subalpine fields to open grass-sedge meadows. Montane/subalpine grassland Neotamias minimus arizonensis White Mountains ground squirrel Open short grass subalpine fields to open grass-sedge meadows. Subalpine Montane/subalpine grassland (Thirteen-lined ground squirrel grassland. subspecies) Ictidomys tridecemlineatus monticola Springerville silky pocket mouse Volcanic Grasslands, prairies of sandy, gravelly, or rocky areas with sparse Montane/subalpine grassland Perognathus flavus goodpasteri vegetation of various grasses and forbs. Not restricted to a specific plant association. American water shrew Boreal and montane riparian habitats. Found in shallow tunnels and runways Wetland/Cienega riparian Sorex palustris through grasses, sedges, reeds, willow and alder thickets, and other vegetation along ponds, marshes, and edges of swift-flowing streams with rocks, logs, crevices, and overhanging banks.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 130 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Common/Scientific Name Habitat Association PNVT Type Birds - - Northern goshawk Wide variety of forest types including deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests. Mixed broadleaf deciduous Accipiter gentilis Typically nest in mature or old-growth forests, commonly in ponderosa pine. riparian, wet and dry mixed conifer, ponderosa pine forests Baird’s sparrow Shortgrass prairies with scattered low bushes and matted vegetation, native Great Basin grassland, Ammodramus bairdii longgrass prairies, desert and open grasslands, and overgrown fields, mixed-oak wetland/cienega riparian areas grassland where the oaks are on the north slope, mixed-grass prairies, wet meadows and tallgrass prairie. Burrowing owl Open, well-drained grasslands, steppes, deserts, prairies, and agricultural lands, Semi-desert grassland, interior Athene cunicularia hypugaea often associated with burrowing mammals. Great Basin Shrubsteppe with open to chaparral dense stands of shrubs and low trees. Chihuahuan Desert Scrub of open stands of creosote bush and large succulents. Gray catbird Occurs in riparian stream areas associated with non-forested Woodlands and Mixed broadleaf deciduous Dumetella carolinensis shrublands. Nests in dense riparian scrub willow and alder. Associated with riparian, cottonwood-willow ponderosa pine; pinyon-juniper, usually on dry, shallow, rocky soils of mesas, riparian, ponderosa pine forests, benches, and canyon walls; and non-forest habitats found in river, riparian pinyon-juniper woodland woodlands, and subalpine marshes. Found in dense shrubs or vine tangles; most abundant in shrub-sapling-stage successional habitats. American peregrine falcon Steep, sheer cliffs overlooking woodlands, riparian areas or other habitats Cliffs – Montane willow riparian Falco peregrinus anatum supporting avian prey species in abundance. Presence of an open expanse is forest, cottonwood-willow riparian critical. Sonoran, Mohave, and Great Basin desertscrub up through areas of Rocky Mountain and Madrean Montane Conifer Forest. Bald eagle Sonoran Riparian Scrubland and Sonoran Interior Strand, Sonoran Desertscrub Wetland/Cienega riparian, Interior Haliaeetus leucocephalus biome-Arizona Upland subdivision, Interior Chaparral biome, and Great Basin chaparral, dry and wet mixed Conifer Woodland biome. Rocky Mountain and Madrean Montane Conifer Forest. conifer, pinyon-juniper woodland, Nests usually on cliff ledges, rock pinnacles, and in cottonwood tree, but have ponderosa pine forests been found in junipers, pinyon and ponderosa pines, sycamores, willows, snags.

Plants - - Goodding’s onion Moist shaded canyon bottoms in mature coniferous Forest. Wet mixed Conifer, spruce-fir Allium gooddingii forests Greene’s milkweed Bare, open patches of soil between clumps of grasses in plains grassland — Great Basin grassland; Madrean Asclepias uncialis spp. uncialis shortgrass communities, open pinyon-juniper woodland and, open Grassland pine-oak woodland; pinyon-juniper areas within Madrean evergreen woodland communities. woodland

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 131 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Common/Scientific Name Habitat Association PNVT Type Villous groundcover milkvetch Endemic to a small area in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico. Grows on Ponderosa pine forest; dry mixed Astragalus humistratus var. crispulus bare ground, including vegetated road cut banks. conifer, pinyon-juniper woodland White Mountains paintbrush Moderately drained sites within high-elevation wet grassy meadows and cienegas Wetland/Cienega riparian Castilleja mogollonica associated with permanent or intermittent creeks. Yellow Lady’s Slipper Boggy and swampy areas, damp woods, near rivers or canal banks, and wet Wetland/Cienega riparian Cypripedium parviflorum var. meadows. Also on rocky wooded hillsides and moist creek sides or swales in pubescens spruce zones. Gila thistle - Cirsium gilense Moist areas or mountain meadows in montane coniferous Forest. Spruce-fir forests, wet mixed conifer forest; montane/subalpine grassland Heathleaf wild buckwheat White, powdery, gypseous limestone of Tertiary lakebed deposits. Madrean pine-oak woodland; Eriogonum ericifolium var. ericifolium pinyon-juniper woodland; Great Basin grassland; semi-desert grassland Wislizeni gentian High-elevation clearings in pine-oak and mixed coniferous forest. Ponderosa pine forest; dry mixed Gentianella wislizeni conifer, montane/subalpine grassland s Arizona sneezeweed Ponderosa pine forests, especially around wet places such as bogs, ponds, lakes, Ponderosa pine forest Helenium arizonicum and roadside ditches. Arizona sunflower Dry, frequently sandy soils between 4,000 and 7,000 feet. Ponderosa pine forest; Madrean Helianthus arizonensis pine-oak woodland; pinyon-juniper woodland; Great Basin grassland; semi-desert grassland; interior chaparral Eastwood alum root Rocky clay slopes on hillsides and along streams from chaparral up to ponderosa Interior chaparral; Madrean pine- Heuchera eastwoodiae pine Forest. oak woodland; pinyon-juniper woodland; ponderosa pine forest Arizona alum root Shaded rocky slopes in humus soils near seeps, streams, and riparian areas. Mixed broadleaf deciduous Heuchera glomerulata riparian forest; montane willow riparian area; cottonwood-willow riparian area Mogollon hawkweed Habitat associations are uncertain. Likely habitat is coniferous forest understory. Spruce-fir with wet mixed conifer Hieracium brevipilum forest Heartleaf groundsel Endemic to mature high-elevation spruce-fir forest. Spruce-fir with wet mixed conifer Packera cardamine forest

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 132 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Common/Scientific Name Habitat Association PNVT Type Arizona Phlox - Phlox amabilis Endemic to Arizona. Occurs in open, exposed, limestone-rocky slopes within Pinyon-juniper woodland; pinyon-juniper woodlands and ponderosa pine-Gambel oak communities. ponderosa pine forest; Maguire’s beardtongue Limestone cliffs in pinyon-juniper woodland. Pinyon-juniper woodland Penstemon linarioides ssp. maguirei Mogollon clover Wet meadows, springs, and along riparian corridors in montane coniferous forest Wetland/Cienega; mixed Trifolium longipes ssp. nuerophyllum between 6,500 and 9,000 feet. broadleaf deciduous riparian forest; montane willow riparian area Davidson’s cliff carrot - Cool, rocky places in pinyon-juniper woodland and lower montane coniferous Pinyon-juniper woodland; Pteryxia davidsonii forest between 6,500 and 8,000 feet. ponderosa pine forest Bebb’s Willow - Salix bebbiana Along riverbanks, streambanks, overflow channels, and seeps in chaparral to Mixed broadleaf deciduous high-elevation coniferous forest. riparian forest; montane willow riparian area; cottonwood-willow riparian area Arizona willow - Salix arizonica High-elevation wet meadows, stream sides, and cienegas. Wetland/Cienega Blumer’s dock - Rumex orthoneurus Mid- to high-elevation wetlands with moist, organic soil adjacent to perennial Wetland/Cienega springs or streams in canyons or meadows. Parish’s alkali grass - Puccinellia Alkaline seeps, springs, or cienegas over a broad range from New Mexico to Wetland/Cienega parishii California. Insects - - Ferris’ Copper - Lycaena ferrisi Meadows and cienegas near the foodplant Rumex hymeospalus. Wetland/Cienega

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 133 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Migratory Birds To comply with the MOU with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Regulatory Framework Section), the Forests analyzed potential effects to representative neotropical migratory birds for the action alternatives. The species are identified in the following table.

Table 53. Migratory birds representing potential natural vegetation types Common name Scientific name PNVT habitat Golden-crowned kinglet Regulis satrapa Spruce-fir Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Spruce-fir Olive-side flycatcher Contopus borealis Mixed conifer (dry and wet) Purple martin Progne subis Ponderosa pine Grace’s warbler Dendroica graciae Ponderosa pine Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Ponderosa pine with Gambel oak Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Pinyon-juniper woodland Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens Pinyon-juniper woodland Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginiae Chaparral Gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Great Basin and semi-desert grasslands Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Montane/subalpine grasslands MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei Montane willow riparian forest Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest

Important Bird Areas The Forests contain the three National Audubon Society’s important bird areas listed below in whole or in part. Important bird areas impose neither management requirement nor legal obligation on National Forest System (NFS) or other lands. Please see the Forest Plan Wildlife Specialist Report: Migratory Birds, Eagles, and Important Bird Areas for more information (WhiteTrifaro 2013). • Upper Little Colorado River Important Bird Area • Blue and San Francisco River Important Bird Area • Mogollon Rim Snowmelt Draws Important Bird Area

Environmental Consequences

Overview of Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action Management activities associated with routes and cross-country motor vehicle use can accelerate erosion and sediment beyond the historic range of variation and natural geological rate (Satterlund and Adams 1992). Although the rate and site-specific locations associated with continued cross-country use cannot be quantified, they are increasing across the landscape, and would continue to do so. Both existing and unauthorized routes would increase the likelihood and potential of introducing invasive species. Invasive plants can directly and indirectly impact wildlife habitat by reducing habitat quality and quantity. Although both intentional and unintentional introductions of species are unpredictable, uncontrolled and unlimited access presents greater risks and threats, with limited management opportunities. See the

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 134 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Vegetation Specialist Report for more information on the effects of this project on invasive species. Topography and vegetative conditions also likely limit or preclude accessibility to some areas across the Forests. Increasing recreational use, especially off road use; increases the potential for adding additional impacts to the existing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the current transportation system and motorized cross-country travel and use. This use can directly damage vegetation, which in turn could affect prey species, increase noise impacts, and increase unintentional disturbance during critical times of the year. Table 54 summarizes by threatened and endangered species, the current conditions on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests for cross-country travel and miles of open routes.

Table 54. Alternative 1 - Acres open to cross-country travel and miles of open roads and motorized trails within habitats for threatened and endangered species Acres Open to Cross-country Travel Species Total # Route Miles within Habitat Mexican wolf 3,138 1,624,246 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 17 1,890.5 Mexican spotted owl 108 75,368 Southwestern willow flycatcher 0.16 829 Yellow-billed cuckoo 2 1,146

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action For the proposed actions, the decrease in the miles of open roads has the potential for positive impacts to terrestrial species. Alternative 2 is proposing a decrease in open roads in the habitats of three terrestrial species (i.e., Mexican wolf, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and Mexican spotted owl). For the Southwestern willow flycatcher and the yellow-billed cuckoo, there are minimal changes proposed in their habitat. The reduction in open route miles would reduce the current level of direct impacts to these species habitats relative to the existing condition (alternative 1) by reducing the potential for loss of habitat, noise and human disturbance. Table 55 displays the miles in open routes for alternatives 1 and 2 for each species.

Table 55. Change by species in the number of open route miles for alternative 2 as compared to alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Change in Open Species # Open Route Miles # Open Route Miles Route Miles Mexican wolf 3,138 2,777 ↓360 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 17 16 ↓1 Mexican spotted owl 108 90 ↓18 Southwestern willow flycatcher 0.16 0.15 ↓0.01 Yellow-billed cuckoo 2 2 0

Roads would directly contribute to the modification of animal behavior, mortality from collisions with vehicles, alteration of terrestrial habitat, and increased contact and exploitation by humans. Roads directly adjacent to habitat can also alter the terrestrial habitat, result in the loss of habitat and function and connectivity.

Alternative 2 designates 1-mile corridors for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) that can be used by an individual that has legally harvested an elk. These acres that would be open to MBGR under alternative 2 are less of an impact for all species habitats than the acres that are currently open to cross-

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 135 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

country travel under the existing condition (alternative 1). Because of this reduction, beneficial impacts would occur on those areas where cross-country travel is no longer allowed. Although reduced, negative impacts can occur from MBGR, but impacts should only occur in the 1-mile corridors for motorized big game retrieval. Table 56 summarizes for each species the current acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, along with the reduced acres that would remain open to MBGR under alternative 2.

Table 56. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 and MBGR (alternative 2) within each species habitat. These are impacts associated with the proposed action. Alternative 1 Alternative 2: Change in Acres Species Acres Open to Cross- Acres Open to from Alternative 1 country Travel MBGR to Alternative 2 Mexican wolf 1,625,363 1,073,466 ↓551,897 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 1,890.5 1,455 ↓436 Mexican spotted owl 75,368 58,302 ↓16,570 Southwestern willow flycatcher 829 89 ↓740 Yellow-billed cuckoo 1,146 0 ↓1,146

Elk harvest rates for the last ten years have steadily increased from approximately 1,500 in 2007, to approximately 2,150 in 2016; and harvest rates are expected to continue to increase into the future. Most areas of the Forests provide summer and winter range for elk, with the exception of some lower elevations on the Clifton Ranger District. Most elk hunting occurs from the beginning of September through the end of December, when soil conditions can be saturated and susceptible to negative impacts from motorized use, such as rutting and compacting soils. Alternative 2 would reduce the potential negative impacts from motorized use, by reducing the miles of open motorized routes.

Alternative 2 would designate dispersed camping corridors (DCCs) (300 feet on both sides) along 1,027 miles of roads. The amount of species habitat that is open to dispersed camping is reduced from Alternative 1. While there is the potential to have concentrated use in these camping corridors, these areas are smaller than what is currently existing the landscape. Table 57 displays the current acres that are open to cross-country travel, and the number of acres that would be open to dispersed camping within each species habitat.

Table 57. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and acres of DCCs in alternative 2 within suitable or occupied habitat. These are considered impacts associated with DCCs. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Change in acres Species Acres Open to Cross- Acres Open to from Alternative 1 to Country Travel Dispersed Camping Alternative 2 Mexican wolf 1,625,363 65,724 ↓1,559,640 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 1,890.5 64 ↓1,827 Mexican spotted owl 75,368 1,943 ↓73,425 Southwestern willow flycatcher 829 0.01 ↓828.99 Yellow-billed cuckoo 1,146 0 ↓1,146

Alternative 3 Increasing recreational use, especially off road use; increases the potential for adding additional impacts to the existing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the current transportation system and

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 136 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

motorized cross-country travel and use. This use can directly damage vegetation, which in turn could affect prey species, increase noise impacts and increase unintentional disturbance during critical times of the year. Alternative 3 proposes route reductions that would reduce the current level of direct impacts to these species habitats relative to the existing condition (alternative 1). Table 58 provides a summary of the number of route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and alternative 3 within suitable or occupied habitat.

Table 58. Number of route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and alternative 3 within suitable or occupied habitat Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Change in Open Species # Open Route Miles # Open Route Miles Route Miles Mexican wolf 3,138 2,072 ↓1,066 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 11 11 0 Mexican spotted owl 108 90 ↓18 Southwestern willow flycatcher 0.16 0.15 ↓0.01 Yellow-billed cuckoo 2 2 0

Alternative 3 does not designate any Motorized Big Game Retrieval corridors; therefore, potential beneficial impacts could occur to all of the terrestrial species habitats and native plants, where cross- country travel is no longer allowed. Beneficial impactions could include an increase in plant cover and diversity, which in turn may support a more diverse prey base for wildlife. Table 59 compares the current acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 with those proposed in alternative 3, which would not have acres open to MBGR.

Table 59. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 and MBGR (alternative 3) within suitable or occupied habitat Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Change in Species Acres Open to Cross- Acres Open to MBGR acres country Travel Mexican wolf 1,625,363 0 ↓1,625,363 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 1,891 1,455 ↓436 Mexican spotted owl 75,368 58,302 ↓16,570 Southwestern willow flycatcher 829 89 ↓740 Yellow-billed cuckoo 1,146 0 ↓1,146

Alternative 3 would designate DCCs (300 feet on both sides) along 79 miles of roads. Table 60 shows current acres open to cross-country travel (alternative 1), and the number of acres that would be open to dispersed camping under the proposed alternative 3 within suitable or occupied habitat..

Table 60. Species habitat acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and DCCs acres for alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Change in Acres Acres Open to Species Acres Open to from Alternative 1 to Cross-country Dispersed Camping Alternative 3 Travel Mexican wolf 1,625,363 3,426 ↓1,621,938

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 137 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Change in Acres Acres Open to Species Acres Open to from Alternative 1 to Cross-country Dispersed Camping Alternative 3 Travel New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 1,891 0 ↓1,891 Mexican spotted owl 75,368 5 ↓75,363 Southwestern willow flycatcher 829 0 ↓829 Yellow-billed cuckoo 1,146 0 ↓1,146

Threatened and Endangered Species and their Proposed or Designated Critical Habitat

Mexican wolf, Canis lupus baileyi (experimental, non-essential population) Mexican gray wolves are the southernmost occurring, rarest, and most genetically distinct gray wolf in North America. They historically occurred in the mountainous regions of the Southwest from throughout portions of southern Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas into central Mexico. Mexican gray wolves were extirpated in the United States by aggressive predator control programs.

On January 12, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published an Endangered Species Act section 10(j) rule for the Mexican gray wolf that provided for the designation of specific populations of listed species in the United States as “experimental populations.” These wolves have been designated as a nonessential experimental population, pursuant to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act as amended.

The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (1996) did not recognize road densities on the Forests as a problem. This EIS did recognize roads adjacent to dens as a concern. To mitigate the potential for motorized recreation to affect wolf dens, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests will continue to issue closure orders adjacent to these areas as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

General – Direct and Indirect Effects Wolves can experience disturbance from the presence and activities of humans and thus avoid areas used by humans such as roads and areas adjacent to them, especially when this noise produces noises such as those of vehicles. Areas with a high level of disturbance can become unavailable to wolves for activities such as hunting. Wolves are sensitive to disturbance during denning season, generally April 1 through July 31, and at rendezvous sites generally from June 1 through September 30. During this time, packs remain near the den site or may congregate at rendezvous sites, and disturbance may adversely affect reproductive success, natural behavior, or persistence of Mexican wolves (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014a).

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts would continue as current under alternative 1 in the Overview of Direct and Indirect Effects section above.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects Alterative 2 and 3, reduce the miles of motorized roads and trails that are open to the public. This may change wolf use patterns based on changes associated with road use or maintenance, but such changes would be temporary and would not interfere with wolves’ ability to carry out essential life functions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 138 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

In both alternative 2 and 3, newly proposed routes are in areas currently open to cross country travel. Proposed routes are currently used by the public either as connector trails or for accessing campsites. While adding these routes to the travel system may increase the potential for human disturbance, this increase may would be minor, and would not interfere with wolves’ ability to carry out essential life functions.

Currently, areas adjacent to roads on the Forests are open to dispersed camping. Proposed roads with dispersed camping in Alternative 2 are in areas that have been identified as having high use for this purpose. Changing motorized access to dispersed camping from what is currently authorized under cross country travel to corridors may concentrate use in those corridors. However, because corridors in Alternative 2 overlap with areas currently used by the public, implementing Alternative 2 would likely result in only a minor change in how the public accesses areas adjacent to roads for dispersed camping. This would likely result in minor changes in wolf disturbance from human activities.

Of the three proposed alternatives, alternative 3 has the fewest miles of roads with camping corridors, which may result in more concentrated dispersed camping in those areas because motorized access is allowed. Wolves may avoid camping corridors with high use. However, camping corridors, as proposed in Alternative 3, would overlap with a small proportion of habitat on the Forest. The potential for an increase in dispersed camping due to a change in access is small under this alternative. The potential use of these camping corridors would be minor and may not interfere with wolves’ ability to carry out essential life functions such as denning. Potential disturbance of denning wolves would be brought to the attention of the Interagency Field Team, which may recommend a temporary road closure to minimize potential disturbance of the denning wolves.

Currently, the cross country travel across the Forest allows for big game retrieval. Wolves may experience disturbance when hunters drive cross country in search of their game. Under Alternative 2, big game retrieval could only occur for elk during hunting season, and hunters would be required to drive directly to their kill. Under Alternative 3, no big game retrieval would occur. Both alternatives may reduce potential disturbance of wolves. Table 61 provides a summary by alternative of the miles of routes, acres of dispersed camping and acres of motorized big game retrieval within suitable habitat.

Table 61. Total number of Miles of Routes, Acres of Dispersed Camping, and Acres of Motorized Big Game Retrieval within suitable Mexican grey wolf habitat. Alternative Miles of Routes within Acres of Dispersed Acres of Motorized Big Suitable Habitat Camping within Suitable Game Retrieval within Habitat Suitable Habitat Alternative 1 3,138 1,625,363* 1,625,363* Alternative 2 2,777 65723.5 1,073,765 Alternative 3 2,071 3425.5 0 *Alternative 1 (current condition) allows for cross country travel which would include the activities designated dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval, the acres represented are the acres currently open for cross country travel.

Alternative 2 contains a proposed motorized travel area on the Black Mesa Ranger District. This area is within what is considered secondary habitat. Motorized travel areas can attract nearby camping for easy access during the day. This area is small (17 acres) compared to the overall suitable habitat across the Forests. Potential disturbance from vehicles in the proposed motorized travel area could occur but it is not anticipated to interfere with the wolves ability to carry out essential life functions. Alternative 3 does not contain a motorized travel area.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 139 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius luteus (Endangered) and its designated critical habitat. T33 known locations of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in the Forests. For habitat information regarding this species, please see the Species Status Assessment (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014b). New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat was determined by buffering known mouse locations and designated critical habitat 0.50 mile up and downstream and 300 feet upland from the stream center.

General-Direct and Indirect Effects Roads can cause sedimentation in streams and cover vegetation, road use can cause dusting of vegetation that can affect vegetation growth, and roads that cross streams can alter hydrology, which can affect riparian habitat by damaging streambank structure and removing streamside vegetation. Vegetation is a key component to support the life history needs of the mouse. Roads may also act as barriers to movement, and create habitat fragmentation, which can have an overall impact on the species’ vital needs of habitat that supports breeding and hibernation.

Alternative 1-Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts would continue as current under alternative 1 (no action) in the Overview of Direct and Indirect Effects section.

Alternative 2 and 3-Direct and Indirect Effects In occupied mouse habitat, alternatives 2 and 3 include a proposal to open 0.04 mile of routes (route 8075) currently closed. Table 62 shows the total route miles that would be opened in occupied and critical habitat by alternative.

Table 62. Total number of route miles open in occupied and designated critical habitat Alternative Occupied Habitat Designated Critical Habitat Alternative 1 11 17 Alternative 2 11 16 Alternative 3 10 15

The overall reduction in cross country travel to access dispersed camping sites in occupied and critical habitat for the mouse may reduce potential effects to the mouse from current conditions, such as noise disturbance and habitat alteration, including critical habitat primary constituent elements (PCEs) related to vegetation as indicated USFWS Critical Habitat Designation (50 CFR Part 17 Vol. 81 No. 51). While localized effects of camping corridors may occur, overall use would have minimal effects on the mouse and its critical habitat. Table 63 shows the acres of occupied and designated habitat within camping corridors and MBGR by alternative.

Table 63. Acres of occupied and designated New Mexico meadow jumping mouse within camping corridors and MBGR by alternative Alternative Acres open to Acres open to Acres Open to Acres Open to Dispersed Dispersed Camping Motorized Big Game Motorized Big Game Camping in in Critical Habitat Retrieval in Occupied Retrieval in Critical Occupied Habitat Habitat Habitat Alternative 1 1,891 1,656 1,891 1,656 Alternative 2 64 34 1,456 1,134 Alternative 3 0 0 0 0

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 140 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Reducing cross country travel to retrieve elk during the elk hunting season in occupied and critical habitat for the mouse may reduce overall potential effects to the mouse from current conditions such as noise disturbance and habitat alteration, including critical habitat PCEs related to vegetation. While localized effects from game retrieval may occur under alternative 2, it would have less effects on the mouse and its critical and occupied habitat than alternative 1.

Alternative 3 does not include big game retrieval. Therefore, implementation of this portion of Alternative 3 may have a beneficial effect on the mouse and its critical and occupied habitat by reducing overall disturbance.

The proposed motorized travel area in alternative 2 and occupied and critical habitat for this species do not overlap. Designation of this area would have no effect on this species. Alternative 3 does not include a motorized travel area.

Mexican spotted owl, Strix occidentalis lucida (Threatened) and its designated critical habitat. The Mexican spotted owl occurs in varied habitat, consisting of mature montane forest and woodland, shady wooded canyons, and steep canyons. In forested habitat, uneven-aged stands with a high canopy closure, high tree density, and a sloped terrain appear to be key habitat components. They can also be found in mixed conifer and pine-oak vegetation types. Generally nests are in older forests of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine/Gambel oak. Nests are found in live trees in natural platforms (e.g., dwarf mistletoe brooms), snags, and on canyon walls. Elevation ranges from 1,249 to 2,743 meters (4,100 to 9,000 feet).

An owl site is an area used by a single or a pair of adult or subadult owls for nesting, roosting, or foraging. In this analysis, we use primary activity centers (PACs) as a surrogate for owl sites to analyze potential effects of disturbance on owls. The definition of a PAC is different than a site and also includes defined management acres used for the analysis. We have also established cores in some PACs. PACs are areas 243 hectares (600 acres) or larger established around Mexican spotted owl nest and roost sites, and cores are areas of 40 hectares (100 acres) established within PACs to protect Mexican spotted owl nests or primary roost areas. The action area contains 167 established PACs.

The project area contains protected and recovery critical habitat for this species. See the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012), available in the project record, for a description of designated critical habitat and its PCEs. The action area contains designated critical habitat with suitable habitat containing all PCEs and unsuitable habitat missing one or more PCEs. The Mexican spotted owl is also identified as a focal species in the forest plan.

General-Direct and Indirect Effects On a local scale, roads and trails through PACs may fragment habitat continuity, alter natural movement patterns, and increase disturbance to resident owls. Roads in nest/roost, forested, and riparian recovery habitat may also result in loss of habitat components (e.g., large logs, large snags, hardwoods) as people access these areas for fuelwood cutting, and in sensitive riparian areas, roads and trail can inhibit hydrological processes that affect proper functioning ecological conditions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed studies on the northern spotted owl and determined that road- and trail-associated factors likely to affect spotted owls were collisions, disturbances at a specific site, animal avoidance/behavior modification, and snag reduction. These same factors are expected to affect the Mexican spotted owl.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 141 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts would continue as current under alternative 1 (no action) in the Overview of Direct and Indirect Effects section.

Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 may provide an overall benefit to the species through potential reduced disturbance from vehicle use via closing routes to the public. However, the action alternatives also propose to change the status of routes from closed to open or propose new routes in PACs. To mitigate potential impacts, it is recommended that seasonal closures during the breeding and nesting season (March 1 through August 31) be implemented or that new proposed routes remain closed.

Table 64 addresses the proposed changes, miles within PACs, and the proposed mitigation measures.

Table 64. Alternative 2 with proposed route changes within Mexican spotted owl PACs and proposed mitigation Road Miles in PAC Proposed Change Mitigation 117H 0.09 Change from ML1 to an Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season open ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) 119 0.17 ML2 to ML3 Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 170BATV 0.67 New Motorized Trail Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 249-T2 <0.01 New Motorized Road Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 25D 0.32 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 273AATV 0.19 New Motorized Trail Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) 275IATV 1.57 ML1 to new ATV route Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) 285C-T3 0.01 New Motorized Road No mitigation needed. 300 0.13 ML3 to a ML2 No mitigation needed. 416 0.16 Change from an ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or no new route 583B <0.01 Change from an ML1 to No mitigation needed. ML2 Road 59BATV 0.44 ML1 to ATV Trail Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) 60ATV 0.03 New ATV Trail No mitigation needed. 60C1 0.28 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 60C6 0.38 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 68Q 0.01 Change from ML1 to No mitigation needed. ML2 Road 68Q1 <0.01 Change from ML1 to No mitigation needed. ML2 Road

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 142 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Road Miles in PAC Proposed Change Mitigation 68Q2 <0.01 Change from ML1 to No mitigation needed. ML2 Road 68S 0.22 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 68T 0.25 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 701B 0.20 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 8067G1ATV 0.05 ML1 to New ATV Route No mitigation needed. 84EATV 1.30 New ATV Trail Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 8666 0.77 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 8666-T1 0.03 New ML 2 route No mitigation needed. 8667 0.02 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 8758ATV 1.53 New ATV Trail Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 8759ATV 0.43 New ATV Trail Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 8855 0.27 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 8855-T1 0.04 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed. 88SATV 1.10 New ATV Trail Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 9561T 0.29 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season ML2 Road (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed NewATV0101 0.06 New ATV Trail No mitigation needed.

Several studies attempt to describe and quantify the effects of non-lethal disturbance on the behavior and reproduction of wildlife, and Mexican spotted owls in particular. Delaney et al. (1999) reviewed literature on the response of owls and other birds to noise and concluded the following: 1) raptors are more susceptible to disturbance-caused nest abandonment early in the nesting season; 2) birds generally flush in response to disturbance when distances to the source are less than approximately 200 feet and when sound levels are in excess of 95 dBA; and 3) the tendency to flush from a nest declines with experience or habituation to the noise, although the startle response cannot be completely eliminated by habituation. Delaney et al. (1999) found that ground-based disturbances elicited a greater flush response than aerial disturbances.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance is to limit potentially disturbing activities to areas ≥0.25 mile from Mexican spotted owl nest sites during the breeding season (March 1 - August 31). This corresponds well with the Delaney et al.’s (1999) 0.25 mile threshold for alert responses to helicopter flights. In addition, Delaney et al. (1999) found that Mexican spotted owls did not flee from helicopters when caring for young at the nest, but fled readily during the post-fledgling period. This may be a result of optimal fleeing decisions that balance the cost-benefit of fleeing. Frid and Dill (2002) hypothesize that this may

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 143 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References be explained using predator risk-disturbance theory and perhaps the cost of an adult spotted owl fleeing during the nestling period may be higher than during the post-fledgling period.

Routes that are proposed to change from closed maintenance level 1 to open maintenance level 2, which minimally intersect PACs may cause minimal effects to owls associated with those PACs through potential disturbance because they either minimally enter or border the PAC.

Opening routes with a camping corridor in may cause repeated disturbance of owls by vehicles and visitors such that this disturbance disrupts normal behavior patterns, especially during the breeding season. These routes pass through the center of the PACs and may create disturbance less than 0.25 mile from Mexican spotted owl nest sites during the breeding season.

Alternative 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 may provide an overall benefit to the species through potential reduced disturbance from vehicle use by closing roads to the public. However, the action alternatives also propose to change the status of roads from closed to open or propose new roads in PACs. To mitigate potential impacts, it is recommended that seasonal closures during the breeding and nesting season (March 1 through August 31) be implemented or that new proposed routes remain closed. Table 65 shows the proposed changes, miles within PACs, and the proposed mitigation measures.

Table 65. Alternative 3, with new proposed routes changes within Mexican spotted owl PACs and proposed mitigation Road Miles in PAC Proposed change Mitigation 117H 0.09 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March ML2 Road 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 119 0.17 ML2 to ML3 No mitigation needed 208-T3 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T4 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T5 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T6 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T7 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T8 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T9 0.02 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T10 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T11 0.02 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T12 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T13 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 208-T14 <0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 249-T2 <0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 25B-T3 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 25B-T4 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 25-T1 0.02 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 25-T2 0.02 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 285C-T3 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 300 0.13 ML3 to ML2 No mitigation needed 37J-T1 0.04 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 144 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Road Miles in PAC Proposed change Mitigation 37-T7 0.03 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 403A-T1 <0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 416 0.16 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March ML2 Road 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 416-T2 0.21 New ML2 Road Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 576-T1 0.06 New ML2 Road Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 576-T2 0.03 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 577-T2 0.10 New ML2 Road Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 577-T3 0.02 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 68S 0.03 Change from ML1 to No mitigation needed ML2 Road 6-T2 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 84E-T1 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 84E-T2 0.02 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 84E-T3 0.02 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 8706-T3 0.03 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 8706-T2 0.03 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 8706-T3 0.03 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 8789-T1 <0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed 9561T 0.29 Change from ML1 to Seasonal Closure during breeding and nesting season (March ML2 Road 1st-August 31st) or road would remain closed 96-T8 0.01 New ML2 Road No mitigation needed

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Effects to Designated Critical Habitat As stated previously, Alternatives 2 and 3 propose less open motorized routes than current condition, even though both alternatives propose new routes that are within critical habitat. Routes proposed in Alternative 2 proposes new maintenance level 2 roads and motorized trails Alternative 3 contains new routes to camping sites only.

Proposed new routes to campsites within Mexican spotted owl habitat in both action alternatives may cause effects to owls through disturbance. Route maintenance has the potential to remove PCEs of critical habitat, such as snags or vegetation that provides residual plant cover to maintain fruits and seeds for owl prey species. Route maintenance may also create another important habitat component of high volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris. New routes may require removal of large, dead trees (snags) for safety along roads and dispersed campsites in corridors (hazard trees) along with other vegetation.

Effects of implementing the action alternatives would occur in localized areas and would have minimal, effects on designated critical habitat. Therefore, adding routes to the travel system would potentially affect critical habitat at the areas were maintenance would occur, but the impacts would be small relative to the designated critical habitat across the forest.

Under current conditions, visitors can drive to access campsites in 145 PACs covering approximately 75,368 acres. In Alternative 2, approximately 1,943 acres of camping corridors would exist with PACs. This proposed action would add both new routes with new camping corridors within six PACs.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 145 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

In Alternative 2, a minimal increase in use of camping corridors is expected above current use (see the Recreation, Designated Areas, and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers Report) on currently open routes because Alternative 2 contains corridors that would likely distribute visitors such that use of camping corridors would lead to minimal additional effects above current use on critical habitat..

Alternative 3 contains only one PAC, with a proposed camping corridor that totals approximately 5 acres along an existing open route. This area is already available for dispersed camping and is not expected to have an increase in visitor use that would impact critical habitat.

Table 66. Acres of Mexican spotted owl occupied habitat affected by camping corridors and MBGR by alternative Acres open to Dispersed Acres Open to Motorized Big Alternatives Camping Game Retrieval Alternative 1 75,368 75,368 Alternative 2 1,943 58,302 Alternative 3 5 0

Summary of Effects Both action alternatives, would reduce impacts to Mexican spotted owl and designated critical habitat. Alternative 2 would reduce potential disturbance within PACs that currently have acres open to dispersed camping and motorized use by reducing the acres open to dispersed camping and motorized use and across 16 PACs where no big game retrieval would occur. Alternative 3 would reduce the potential for disturbance in 145 PACs by decreasing the acres open to dispersed camping and motorized use. Alternatives 2 and 3 may also reduce potential effects on the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) within critical habitat, especially residual plant cover that maintain fruits and seeds, and allow plant regeneration for owl prey and potentially creating an important habitat component of high volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris. The proposed action alternative would may beneficial for critical habitat through reduced potential for habitat modification. The proposed motorized travel area in Alternative 2 and habitat for this species do not overlap, and so, designating this area would have no effect on this species. Alternative 3 does not include a motorized travel area. Alternatives 2 and 3 may reduce the overall potential disturbance to Mexican spotted owls and critical habitat.

Southwestern willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii extimus (Endangered) and designated critical habitat. The historical breeding range of the southwestern willow flycatcher included southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, southwestern Colorado, and extreme northwestern Mexico. The flycatcher’s current range is similar to the historical range, but the quantity of suitable habitat within that range is much reduced from historical levels.

On the Forests, southwestern willow flycatcher nesting has been documented along the Little Colorado River headwaters (Springerville Ranger District), and at one site near the San Francisco River headwaters (Alpine Ranger District). Critical habitat has been designated for the East Fork and West Fork, and the mainstem of the Little Colorado River, on the Springerville Ranger District.

The southwestern willow flycatcher usually breeds in patchy to dense riparian habitats along streams or other wetlands, near or adjacent to surface water or underlain by saturated soil. Common tree and shrub species comprising nesting habitat include willows (Salix spp.), seepwillow (aka mulefat; Baccharis spp.), boxelder (Acer negundo), stinging nettle (Urtica spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), cottonwood

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 146 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

(Populus spp.), arrowweed (Tessaria sericea), tamarisk (aka saltcedar; Tamarix ramosissima), and Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia).

Habitat characteristics such as plant species composition, size and shape of habitat patch, canopy structure, vegetation height, and vegetation density vary across the subspecies’ range. However, general unifying characteristics of flycatcher habitat can be identified. Regardless of the plant species composition or height, occupied sites usually consist of dense vegetation in the patch interior, or an aggregate of dense patches interspersed with openings. In most cases this dense vegetation occurs within the first 3 to 4 meters (10 to 13 feet) above ground. These dense patches are often interspersed with small openings, open water, or shorter/sparser vegetation, creating a mosaic that is not uniformly dense. In almost all cases, slow-moving or still surface water and/or saturated soil is present at or near breeding sites during wet or non-drought years. Thickets of trees and shrubs used for nesting range in height from 2 to 30 meters (6 to 98 feet). Lower-stature thickets (2 to 4 meters or 6 to 13 feet) tend to be found at higher elevation sites, with tall stature habitats at middle and lower elevation riparian forests. Nest sites typically have dense foliage from the ground level up to approximately 4 meters (13 feet) above ground, although dense foliage may exist only at the shrub level, or as a low dense canopy. Nest sites typically have a dense canopy, but nests may be placed in a tree at the edge of a habitat patch, with sparse canopy overhead. The diversity of nest site plant species may be low (e.g., monocultures of willow or tamarisk) or comparatively high. Nest site vegetation may be even- or uneven-aged, but is usually dense. Historically, the southwestern willow flycatcher nested in native vegetation such as willows, buttonbush, boxelder, and Baccharis, sometimes with a scattered overstory of cottonwood. Following modern changes in riparian plant communities, the flycatcher still nests in native vegetation where available, but also nests in thickets dominated by the non-native tamarisk and Russian olive and in habitats where native and non-native trees and shrubs are present in essentially even mixtures.

General-Direct and Indirect Effects Listing factors for the southwestern willow flycatcher include the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range. Changes in the structure, density, and composition of vegetation can occur from motorized-induced soil compaction and erosion. Indirectly roads may prevent suitable breeding habitat from being developed where trampling and soil compaction are impeding regeneration. Roads may also fragment habitat, making it no longer suitable. Direct effects from disturbance during breeding season can cause abandonment of nest or young, especially if eggs have not hatched. Additionally, noise disturbance can alter paternal attentiveness at nest and can increase the risk of predation, disrupt feeding patterns, and may expose young to adverse environmental conditions.

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts would continue as current under alternative 1 (no action) in the Overview of Direct and Indirect Effects section.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects No route level changes would occur within critical habitat or potentially occupied habitat. Therefore, implementation of route changes for either action alternative would not affect this species.

Neither action alternative proposes to add roads within critical habitat and assumed occupied habitat. Therefore, implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 would have no effect on this species.

Under current conditions, cross country travel can occur in 829.24 acres of critical habitat or potentially occupied habitat. Corridors for dispersed camping and critical habitat and occupied habitat overlap with 0.01 acres of critical habitat in Alternative 2 and zero acres in critical habitat for Alternative 3.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 147 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the potential for habitat loss, and potentially reducing erosion, and reducing disturbance from noise.

Under Alternative 2, motorized big game retrieval would still occur in areas within critical habitat and in occupied nesting habitat during hunting seasons. Breeding and nesting for this species occurs from early May until late August. The overlap of disturbance from big game retrieval would be minimal because the hunting seasons occurs after breeding and nesting season. Effects on critical habitat may reduce suitability and fragmentation of habitat. The potential effects to nesting habitat and would likely be limited to disturbance to individuals that could be wintering.

The proposed motorized travel area in Alternative 2 and habitat for this species do not overlap. Thus, designating this area would have no effect on this species. Alternative 3 does not include a motorized travel area.

Yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (threatened) and proposed critical habitat. Historically, yellow-billed cuckoos bred throughout most of continental North America, including portions of eastern and western Canada, northern and central Mexico, and the Greater Antilles. The species is now extirpated in western Canada, Washington, and Oregon, and rare and patchily distributed throughout most of the historical range in the United States west of the Rocky Mountains. The current distribution in the western United States is still difficult to delineate as cuckoos often wander before and after breeding (Hughes 1999). In the eastern United States and in eastern Canada, yellow-billed cuckoos are still a relatively common bird, but populations are declining in many areas.

Yellow-billed cuckoo occupies a wide array of vegetation types across its large geographic range, but generally prefers open woodland with clearings and low, dense, scrubby vegetation. In the southwestern United States, it is most associated with riparian woodlands dominated by Fremont cottonwood or dense mesquite. Cuckoos prefer mature or late-successional cottonwood/willow associations with a dense understory. In parts of the West, they also breed in orchards adjacent to river bottoms. Habitat in Arizona may be primarily native, mixed native and exotic, or primarily exotic plant species, the latter including riparian salt cedar, orchards, and ornamental/shade plantings. The species also occurs in numerous smaller drainages plus isolated wetlands, isolated woodlands, and suburban plantings.

General Direct and Indirect Effects Listing factors for the species include loss of riparian habitat from agricultural use, water use, road development, and urban development. Alterations of riparian systems, especially the removal of cottonwood gallery forming trees and the invasion of exotic plant species (e.g., tamarisk) may inhibit establishment of breeding pairs. Changes in the structure, density, and composition of vegetation can occur from motorized-induced soil compaction and erosion. Indirectly, roads may prevent suitable breeding habitat from being developed where trampling and soil compaction are impeding regeneration. Roads may also fragment habitat, making it no longer suitable. Direct effects from disturbance during breeding season can cause abandonment of nest or young, especially if eggs have not hatched. Additionally, noise disturbance can alter paternal attentiveness at nest and can increase the risk of predation, disrupt feeding patterns, and may expose young to adverse environmental conditions.

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts would continue as current under alternative 1 (no action) in the Overview of Direct and Indirect Effects section.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 148 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed critical habitat and potentially occupied habitat only occurs on the Clifton Ranger District along 1,327 acres of the San Francisco River and 1, 025 acres of the Blue River. No changes in the miles of open roads and motorized trails would occur within this habitat.

Neither action alternative proposes to add roads within proposed critical habitat and potentially occupied habitat. Therefore, implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 would have no effect on this species.

Currently, year-round cross-country travel is allowed in approximately 1,146 acres of proposed critical habitat. Motorized use within or adjacent to habitat has the potential to influence behavior, survival, reproduction, and distribution of these species, as well as alter habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not allow for cross-country travel.

Corridors for dispersed camping and proposed critical habitat and assumed occupied habitat do not intersect for either action alternative. However, Alternative 2 contains camping corridors adjacent to proposed critical habitat and potentially occupied habitat, while Alternative 3 does not. Implementation of either action alternative may be beneficial for the species and its proposed critical habitat due to potential habitat improvements through reduced erosion and therefore sedimentation from elimination of year- round cross-country travel.

Big game corridors do not overlap with proposed critical habitat for Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 does not include big game retrieval. Therefore, implementation of either action alternative may reduce impacts to the species and its proposed critical habitat due to potential habitat improvements of reducing erosion and sedimentation from elimination of year-round cross-country travel.

The proposed motorized travel area in Alternative 2 and habitat for this species do not overlap and are not in the same watershed. Designating this area would have no effect on this species. Alternative 3 does not include a motorized travel area.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Occurring in the Forests

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts would continue as current under alternative 1 (no action) in the overview of effects section.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 proposes 17 acres of Great Basin grassland open for motorized use in the Black Mesa Ranger District. This motorized use has the potential to impact individuals and the Great Basin grassland that is within those 17 acres, but a small amount of habitat would be affected, overall, and would not affect species population levels or habitat trends.

Under alternatives 2 and 3, the effects to the Regional Forester’s sensitive species are reduced from alternative 1 by reducing the potential for habitat fragmentation or loss, noise disturbance, and potential vehicle collisions. Alternative 3 has the greatest reduction in cross-country travel and would be the greatest benefit within those areas. The potential to affect individuals and habitat under all action alternatives still exists; but none would affect the population levels or habitat trends.

We analyzed Regional Forester’s sensitive species by their respective potential natural vegetation types. Some species are found in multiple vegetation types and are listed under each. Table 67 provides the potential natural vegetation types with Regional Forester Sensitive species by alternative and resource measures.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 149 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 67. Potential natural vegetation types, with Regional Forester sensitive species per alternative and measure Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 Potential natural vegetation type Total # Acres Open Total # Acres Acres Total # Acres Acres Species Route miles to Cross- Route Open to Open to Route Open to Open to open country miles open Camping MBGR miles open Camping MBGR Travel Corridors Corridors

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 37 11,568 28 466 9,534 16 94 0 Gray catbird American peregrine falcon Arizona alum root Bebb’s Willow

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 251 107,508 253 4,110 96,463 182 1 0 Pale Townsends big-eared bat Spotted bat Allen’s lappet-browed bat Northern goshawk Bald eagle Wislizeni gentian

Great Basin Grassland 451 174,783 376 2,750 172,077 296 833 0 Baird’s sparrow Greene’s milkweed Heathleaf wild buckwheat Arizona sunflower

Interior Chaparral 5 36,117 5 97 0 1 0 0 Burrowing owl Bald eagle Arizona sunflower Eastwood alum root

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 145 26,4037 148 3,368 47,305 113 916 0 Pale Townsends big-eared bat Greene’s milkweed Heathleaf wild buckwheat Arizona sunflower Eastwood alum root

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 150 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 Potential natural vegetation type Total # Acres Open Total # Acres Acres Total # Acres Acres Species Route miles to Cross- Route Open to Open to Route Open to Open to open country miles open Camping MBGR miles open Camping MBGR Travel Corridors Corridors

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 15 5,735 15 74 1,709 8 44 0 Riparian Forest Allen’s lappet-browed bat Western red bat Northern goshawk Gray catbird Arizona alum root Mogollon clover Bebb’s willow

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 12 3,211 10 124 3,046 9 0 0 American peregrine falcon Arizona alum root Mogollon clover Bebb’s willow

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 128 4,2865 128 1,426 42,033 106 0 0 Navajo Mogollon vole Arizona montane vole White Mountains chipmunk White Mountains ground squirrel Springerville silky pocket mouse Gila thistle Wislizeni gentian

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 151 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Pinon-Juniper Woodland 367 205,866 305 3,125 187,219 207 80 0 Pale Townsends big-eared bat Spotted bat Allen’s lappet-browed bat Navajo Mogollon vole Gray catbird Bald eagle Green’s milkweed Villous groundcover milkvetch Heathleaf wild buckwheat Arizona sunflower Eastwood alum root Arizona phlox Maguire’s beardtongue Davidson’s cliff carrot

Ponderosa Pine Forest 1522 522,618 1301 42,710 483,986 991 2,145 0 Allen’s lappet-browed bat Navajo Mogollon vole Northern goshawk Gray catbird Bald Eagle Villous groundcover milkvetch Wislizeni gentian Arizona sneezeweed Arizona sunflower Eastwood alum root Arizona phlox Davidson’s cliff carrot

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 152 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Semi-desert Grassland 119 94,015 117 3,331 27,136 100 1,523 0 Spotted bat Burrowing owl Heathleaf wild buckwheat Arizona sunflower

Spruce-Fir Forest 4 6,606 3 22 2,682 2 0 0 Spotted bat Navajo Mogollon vole Goodding’s onion Gila thistle Mogollon hawkweed Heartleaf groundsel

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 365 133,342 355 8,669 118,210 259 0 0 Allen’s lappet-browed bat Arizona montane vole Northern goshawk Bald eagle Goodding’s onion Villous groundcover milkvetch Gila thistle Mogollon hawkweed Hertleaf groundsel

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 153 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 41 14,390 38 240 13,787 29 0 0 Spotted bat American water shrew Baird’s sparrow Bald Eagle White Mountains paintbrush Yellow Lady’s slipper Arizona willow Blumer’s dock Parish’s alkali grass Ferris’ Copper

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 154 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Important Bird Areas

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts would continue as current under alternative 1 (no action) in the Overview of Direct and Indirect Effects section.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (current travel system), alternative 2, and alternative 3 have 3,421; 2,889; and 2,201 miles of routes open to the public, respectively. The current condition allows for more visitor use across all potential natural vegetation types than proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, there may be an improvement in habitat and reduced potential disturbance for the represented birds with implementation of the proposed alternatives. Alternative 3 contains fewer camping corridors, habitat for birds may improve. Table 68 shows the designated important bird areas by alternative with the miles of routes within each area.

Table 68. Miles of open routes by alternative in important bird areas Important Bird Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Blue and San Francisco Rivers Complex 71.0 65.1 40.8 Mogollon Rim Snow Melt Draws 116.1 83.6 72.2 Upper Little Colorado River Watershed 64.4 63.9 50.2 Total miles 251.6 212.6 163.2

Both action alternatives proposed new routes. New routes would require scheduled maintenance, which may remove habitat along the route corridors. Both alternative 2 and 3 may have impacts to birds and there habitat. Table 69 shows the miles of new proposed routes in each important bird area.

Table 69. Miles of newly proposed routes by alternative in important bird areas Important Bird Area Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Blue and San Francisco Rivers Complex 0.3 0.7 Mogollon Rim Snow Melt Draws 2.4 0.8 Upper Little Colorado River Watershed 3.9 0.6 Total miles 6.6 2.2

Alternative 2 overlaps 5,430 acres of important bird areas with cross-country travel and dispersed camping. Currently, visitors can travel cross-country in all potential natural vegetation types overlapping 105,927 acres. Alternative 2 may improve habitat and reduced potential disturbance in important bird areas by reducing the acres of allowed cross-county travel for dispersed camping. Alternative 3 contains fewer camping corridors. Habitat for birds may improve under this alternative because use of camping corridors may cause localized effects on birds. Habitat may improve and the potential disturbance for the represented birds may be reduced with this alternative. Table 70 shows the overlap in acres of the current condition compared to alternatives 2 and 3.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 155 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 70. Overlap in acres of allowed cross-country travel for dispersed camping and important bird areas by alternative Important Bird Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Blue and San Francisco Rivers Complex 66,448.5 838.4 0.0 Mogollon Rim Snow Melt Draws 20,453.9 3,945.4 112.5 Upper Little Colorado River Watershed 19,025.3 646.3 0.0 Total acres 105,927.6 5,430.1 112.5

Big game retrieval for elk proposed in Alternative 2 may cause localized effects on birds. Visitors can currently travel cross country across all potential natural vegetation types, alternative 2 may improve habitat and reduced potential disturbance for the represented birds because the disturbance would be localized to those retrieval corridors. Table 71 shows the overlap in acres of allowed cross-country travel under the current condition and the overlap in acres of alternative 2, motorized big game retrieval. Alternative 3 does not allow for big game retrieval. Under this alternative, habitat may improve because no cross country travel would be allowed.

Table 71. Overlap in acres of allowed cross-country travel for big game retrieval and important bird areas by alternative Important Bird Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Blue and San Francisco Rivers Complex 66,448.5 838.4 Mogollon Rim Snow Melt Draws 20,453.9 3,945.4 Upper Little Colorado River Watershed 19,025.3 646.3 Total acres 105,927.6 5,430.1

The motorized travel area proposed in alternative 2 does not overlap any important bird areas, and alternative 3 does not include a motorized travel area. Given that visitors can currently travel cross country, implementation of either action alternative may improve habitat for birds, including those representing potential natural vegetation types.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 Cumulative wildlife assessments address the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This assessment analyzes effects regardless of who has undertaken the action(s) (i.e., private roads within or adjacent to a project area) within the area of potentially affected habitat. In this case, the area of potentially affected habitat is the entire Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

The process used to complete this analysis starts by considering habitat conditions; habitat changes to date as a result of management actions taken within the action area; and potential habitat changes in the near future. Management activities that influence effects to wildlife can include livestock grazing, vegetation management (timber harvest, prescribed fire, and non-fire-related treatments), fire suppression and fire management projects, roads and trails, and recreational activities including non-motorized recreation that can cause effects to species and/or their habitat. Other more natural events that influence wildlife habitat conditions are insect and disease outbreaks, high-severity wildfires, drought, and climate change. As managers, we do not have control or influence over natural events, and they are not considered in this analysis. The following list summarizes the past, present, and future activities that add to the total

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 156 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

cumulative effects. Because travel management occurs across the entire Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, activities are discussed generally.

Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management These types of projects include timber harvest, vegetation treatments, fuel reductions and treatments, wildland-urban interface treatments, forest restoration treatments, and fuelwood harvesting. Past timber harvest activities have resulted in substantial impacts to watersheds, hydrologic conditions, riparian and aquatic habitat, and fish species across the Forests (especially in vegetated areas with high timber resources (e.g., ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer, spruce-fir, etc.). This activity has resulted in most of the existing transportation system present today, especially maintenance level 1 and 2 roads. The use of these roads for these purposes may, in the short term, negatively affect terrestrial wildlife and rare plant species through habitat deterioration and disturbance. Such effects would be less than effects of creating new temporary routes. Control lines may receive unauthorized use by vehicles, and this may have infrequent effects on terrestrial wildlife and rare plant resources similar to temporary roads described above. More recent vegetation treatments likely have had fewer impacts, but can still contribute cumulative effects, especially given resource conditions and ecological processes that have been highly altered from legacy impacts.

For both vegetation treatments and fuels management activities, defined closure areas may be implemented. The closure areas may temporarily shift use to another area that might temporarily receive higher usage, and thus, result in a short-term increase in terrestrial wildlife disturbance or habitat deterioration.

Fuelwood collecting and harvesting is also a very widespread activity occurring across the Forests. It occurs extensively within timber harvest areas, but also occurs as part of or within vegetation treatments in woodland areas as well.

Cumulatively, alternatives 2 and 3 may reduce potential habitat and PCEs, and increase habitat fragmentation for wildlife in the short term in timber harvest and vegetation treatment areas. In the long term, timber harvesting and vegetation management may improve the overall habitat for wildlife, while the implementation of travel management may reduce fragmentation caused by unmanaged motorized use.

Recreation and Recreation Management Recreational activities occur throughout the Forests, and are continuing to increase. Developed recreation sites, dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, driving, boating, wildlife viewing, and many other types of recreational activities occur across the Forests. Riparian areas, lakes, and streams are very popular areas for recreational activities and dispersed camping; this can result in deteriorated resource conditions from the concentrated use (e.g., loss of vegetation and soil compaction), and can also impact water quality.

Cumulatively, alternatives 2 and 3 may reduce potential habitat and PCEs, increase habitat fragmentation for wildlife, and increase visual and noise disturbance. Depending on the species, these activities can have both short-term and long-term impacts. Wildlife may be temporarily displaced from areas, depending on the recreational activity and duration, but they may also permanently abandon areas where continued use occurs. Creating well defined routes, recreational sites, and camping areas may reduce the potential for the creation of unmanaged areas that have the potential to encroach into important wildlife areas.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 157 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Fire Suppression and Fire Management Projects Fire suppression activities have been in place for decades, have resulted in unnatural vegetative conditions, and have altered ecological processes across most of the Forests. Suppression activities are ongoing and would continue well into the future, as vegetation structure and composition has been altered so that allowing it to burn would result in uncharacteristic and unacceptable resource impacts. Fire suppression activities (which sometimes include cross-country travel) can also impact water resources and species dependent upon them by removing water, which usually occurs during the driest part of the year. Prescribed fire and burns have been occurring for the last 10 to 20 years, and have increased considerably in their extent and impacts during the last 5 to 10 years. Fire management can have both short- and long- term impacts, and are dependent on the existing resource conditions and the future environmental conditions. It should also be noted that high levels of wildfire activities have occurred across the Forests in the last 20 to 25 years, especially associated with the Rodeo-Chediski Fire (2002) and the Wallow Fire (2011) that together impacted more than 700,000 acres on the Forests.

Cumulatively, alternatives 2 and 3 may reduce potential habitat and PCEs, increase habitat fragmentation for wildlife, and increase visual and noise disturbance in the short term in wildfire areas depending on the wildfire’s size and severity and area where the fire occurs. Motorized travel routes may improve the ability for fire suppression activities by providing better access to areas and creating potential fire breaks that may slow wildfire progression and potentially reduce the amount of acres of habitat lost and direct wildlife mortality.

Road and Trail Construction and Maintenance As previously stated, past timber activities and harvest primarily accounted for road development and placement, and this is still reflected in the existing transportation system. Over 8,000 roads and almost 1,000 miles of hiking trails occur on the Forests. While roads and trails are necessary for the use, enjoyment, and management of the Forests, they also are responsible for considerable landscape-scale changes to the functioning and maintaining of ecological processes and values. Maintenance activities for roads and trails are limited by available funding, and can result in both positive and negative benefits, depending on when it occurs and how often. These impacts would continue as long as the roads and trails are in place.

Cumulatively, alternatives 2 and 3 may reduce potential habitat and PCEs, increase habitat fragmentation, and increase visual and noise disturbance. Wildlife may be temporarily displaced from areas during construction and maintenance activities. Creating well-maintained and defined routes, recreational sites, and camping areas may reduce the potential for the creation of unmanaged areas that have the potential to encroach into important wildlife areas.

Livestock Grazing Implementation of term grazing permits can involve driving off the designated travel system, which can create trails that seem to the public like they are designated routes. Thus, past livestock grazing management may have contributed to the current travel system and influenced proposals to open some closed roads or add user-created roads to the travel system.

Site-specific analysis of livestock grazing is conducted and consulted on with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mitigation measures have been put in place that reduce affects from grazing management on federally listed species. Direct and indirect effects to species of concern from grazing management have been reduced due to mitigation projects including exclusion of livestock from major streams, grazing management, and livestock dispersal improvement. This may minimize potential effects to terrestrial wildlife and rare plant resources.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 158 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Cumulatively, alternatives 2 and 3 may reduce potential habitat and PCEs, and alter quality and quantity of available habitat. Improving routes and access may increase the ability of permittees to better manage livestock across allotments, as well as improving their ability to maintain rangeland improvements, potentially improving the overall quality of wildlife habitat. Off-road travel can cause degradation and fragment habitat and cause disturbance to wildlife. Creating defined travel routes for the public and implementing mitigation measures within grazing permits may reduce these impacts.

Non-motorized recreation Often, non-motorized recreation activities begin with a drive to the Forests and creation of areas such as parking lots. Implementation of new non-motorized recreation opportunities may change road use and could lead to modification of existing or creation of new infrastructure to support such activities.

Cumulatively, alternatives 2 and 3 may reduce potential habitat and PCEs, increase habitat fragmentation, and increase visual and noise disturbance. Wildlife may be temporarily displaced from areas, depending on the recreational activity and duration, but may also permanently abandon areas where continued use occurs. Creating well-defined routes, recreational sites, and camping areas may reduce the potential for the creation of unmanaged areas that have the potential to encroach into important wildlife areas.

Other activities or stressors not specifically proposed by the Forest Service may affect the Forests’ travel system, and therefore, terrestrial wildlife and rare plant resources. Human population within the area is expected to continue to increase, which can increase use of this system. Area closure for any reason, especially unplanned initiations that result in wildfires may result in closures of particular areas and may have effects as described above. During extreme drought, the Forests may “close the forest” to prevent wildfires or limit off-road travel to specific areas. Such closures may temporarily benefit wildlife and rare plant resources through reduced disturbance and habitat deterioration.

Summary of Environmental Effects Table 72 summarizes the impacts to terrestrial species and rare plants for all three alternatives for each of the resource indicators/measures.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 159 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 72. Summary comparison of environmental effects to terrestrial wildlife species and rare plants Applicable Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Indicators Mortality from collisions with Miles of open roads Currently, there are 3,484 miles This alternative would designate This alternative would result in a vehicles; modification of and motorized trails of open roads and motorized 3,011 miles of open roads and system of 2,328 miles of open animal behavior; alteration trails on the Forests. No changes motorized trails on the Forests. roads and motorized trails on the of terrestrial wildlife habitat to the existing transportation This alternative includes one Forests. No motorized areas are quality and quantity system would be made. There 17-acre area designated for included in this alternative. This would still be the higher motorized use in the Black Mesa decrease in open roads in probability of direct mortality from Ranger District. This decrease in terrestrial habitats would reduce collisions with vehicles, open roads in terrestrial habitats probability of direct mortality from modification of animal behavior, would reduce probability of direct collisions with vehicles, adverse a reduction in habitat quality and mortality from collisions with modification of animal behavior, a reduction in habitat quantity. vehicles, adverse modification of a reduction in habitat quality and animal behavior, a reduction in a reduction in habitat quantity. habitat quality and a reduction in Overall positive effects on habitat habitat quantity. There would be quality and quantity when a beneficial effect relative to the compared to the existing existing condition. condition. Modification of animal Acres of Approximately 1.6 million acres Alternative 2 would designate This alternative includes 79 miles behavior; alteration of unrestricted cross- of NFS lands are currently open dispersed camping corridors of corridors to access dispersed terrestrial wildlife habitat country travel to cross-country motorized travel. (DCCs) (300 feet on both sides) camping locations and eliminates quality and quantity No changes to the existing along 1,027 miles of roads and motorized access for big game transportation system would be designates 1-mile corridors for retrieval. Also, this alternative made. Increasing recreational motorized big game retrieval would close roads for resource use, especially off road use; (MBGR). The amount of species protection. This decrease in increases the potential for adding habitat open to cross-country cross-country travel in terrestrial additional impacts to the travel would be greatly reduced. habitats would reduce probability modification of animal behavior, This decrease would reduce the of direct mortality from collisions reduction in habitat quality and current level of animal behavior with vehicles, adverse reduction in habitat quantity from modification, and would increase modification of animal behavior, use. This use can directly habitat quality and quantity. a reduction in habitat quality and damage vegetation, which in turn a reduction in habitat quantity. could affect prey species (habitat Overall positive effects on habitat quality and quantity). quality and quantity when compared to the existing condition.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 160 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Determination of Effects for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Table 73 shows the preliminary determinations for threatened and endangered species and their associated habitat for alternatives 2 and 3. Preliminary determinations are made at this time to account for potential public comments and changes in the alternatives. The final determinations will be made once the consultation process is initiated with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the biological assessment is complete.

Table 73. Preliminary determinations for threatened and endangered species and their associated habitat for alternatives 2 and 3 Status (species Species followed by critical Alternative 2 Alternative 3 habitat) Mexican wolf Experimental, Not Likely to Jeopardize Not Likely to Jeopardize nonessential New Mexico Endangered May affect, likely to May affect, likely to meadow jumping adversely affect adversely affect mouse Critical Habitat May affect, likely to May affect, likely to adversely affect adversely affect Mexican spotted Threatened May affect, likely to May affect, likely to owl adversely affect adversely affect Critical Habitat May affect, likely to May affect, likely to adversely affect adversely affect Southwestern Threatened May affect, likely to May affect, likely to willow flycatcher adversely affect adversely affect and critical habitat Critical Habitat May affect, likely to May affect, likely to adversely affect adversely affect Yellow-billed Threatened May affect, likely to May affect, likely to cuckoo and adversely affect adversely affect proposed critical Proposed Critical May adversely modify May adversely modify habitat proposed critical habitat proposed critical habitat

Table 74 shows the preliminary determinations for Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Migratory Birds for alternatives 2 and 3. Preliminary determinations are made at this time to account for potential public comments and changes in the alternatives. The final determinations will be made in the Final BAE.

Table 74. Preliminary determinations for Regional Forester sensitive species (RFSS) and migratory birds for alternatives 2 and 3 Species Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Mammals - - Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat - May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Corynorhinus townsendii cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future pallescens(RFSS) listing listing Spotted bat- Euderma May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not maculatum (RFSS) cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 161 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Alternative 2 Alternative 3 White Mountains ground squirrel- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Ictidomys tridecemlineatus cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future monticola(RFSS) listing listing Allen’s lappet-browed bat- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Idionycteris phyllotis(RFSS) cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Western red bat -Lasiurus May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not blossevillii(RFSS) cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Navajo Mogollon vole- Microtus May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not mogollonensis navaho(RFSS) cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Arizona Montane vole- Microtus May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not montanus arizonensis(RFSS) cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing White Mountains chipmunk- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Neotamias minimus cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future arizonensis(RFSS) listing listing Springerville silky pocket mouse- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Perognathus flavus cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future goodpasteri(RFSS) listing listing American water shrew- Sorex May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not palustris(RFSS) cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing White Mountains ground squirrel- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Ictidomys tridecemlineatus cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future monticola(RFSS) listing listing Birds - - Northern goshawk- Accipiter Will not alter forest-wide habitat Will not alter forest-wide habitat gentilis (RFSS) and population trends and population trends Baird’s sparrow- Ammodramus May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not bairdii(RFSS) cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Burrowing owl- Athene May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not cunicularia hypugaea(RFSS) cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Gray catbird- Dumetella Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional carolinensis(RFSS) take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations American peregrine falcon- Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional Falco peregrinus anatum(RFSS) take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Bald eagle- Haliaeetus Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional leucocephalus (RFSS) take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Golden-crowned kinglet- Regulis Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional satrapa take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 162 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Three-toed woodpecker- Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional Picoides tridactylus take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Olive-side flycatcher- Contopus Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional borealis take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Purple martin- Progne subis Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Grace’s warbler- Dendroica Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional graciae take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Flammulated owl- Otus Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional flammeolus take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Pinyon jay- Gymnorhinus Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional cyanocephalus take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Black-throated gray warbler- Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional Dendroica nigrescens take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Virginia’s warbler- Vermivora Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional virginiae take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Gray flycatcher- Empidonax Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional wrightii take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Savannah sparrow Passerculus Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional sandwichensis take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations MacGillivray’s warbler- Oporornis Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional tolmiei take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Yellow-breasted chat- Icteria Will not result in unintentional Will not result in unintentional virens take of individuals, will not cause take of individuals, will not cause a decline in populations a decline in populations Plants - - Goodding’s onion- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Allium gooddingii cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Greene milkweed- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Asclepias uncialis ssp. Uncialis cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Villous groundcover milkvetch- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Astragalus humistatus var. cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future crispulus listing listing White Mountains paintbrush- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Castilleja mogollonica cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 163 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Gila Thistle- Cirsium gilense May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Yellow Ladys-slipper- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Cypripedium parviflorum var. cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future pubescens (=C. calceolus var. listing listing pubesens, C. pubescens) Heathleaf wild buckwheat- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Eriogonum ericifolium var. cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future ericifolium listing listing Wislizeni gentian- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Gentianella wislizeni cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Arizona sneezeweed- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Helenium arizonicum cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Arizona sunflower- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Helianthus arizonensis cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Eastwood alum root- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Heuchera eastwoodiae cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Arizona alum root- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Heuchera glomerulata cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Mogollon hawkweed- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Hieracium brevipilum (=H. cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future fendleri var. mogollense) listing listing Heartleaf groundsel- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Packera cardamine (=Senecio cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future cardamine) listing listing Maguire’s beardtongue- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Penstemon linarioides ssp. cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future Maguirei listing listing Mogollon clover- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Trigolium longipes ssp. cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future Neurophyllum (=T. listing listing neurophyllum) Davidson’s cliff carrot- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Pteryxia davidsonii cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Parish’s alkali grass- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Pucinellia parishii cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Blumer’s dock- May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not Rumex orthoneurus cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Arizona willow- Salix arizonica May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 164 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Bebb’s willow- Salix bebbiana May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing Insects Ferris’ copper - Lycaena ferrisi May impact individuals, will not May impact individuals, will not cause a trend toward future cause a trend toward future listing listing

Effects to Soils, Riparian, and Water Resources More information is available in the project record including the full hydrology and soils analysis file, as part of the Soils, Riparian and Water Resources Report. The cumulative effects for these resources are addressed in the watershed section of this chapter.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 75. Summary comparison of environmental effects to soil and riparian/wetland resources % Difference % Difference between between Travel Type Environmental Effects Alternatives 1 Alternatives 1 and 2 and 3 SOIL RESOURCES Motorized Travel Disturbed Area of Soils 13% Decrease 33% Decrease “ Disturbed Area of Soils with 13% Decrease 33% Decrease Moderate and Severe Erosion Potential “ Disturbed Areas of Soils with 6% Decrease 26% Decrease Unsatisfactory and Inherently Unstable Soils Off-road Travel Motorized Potential Area of Soil 96% Decrease ~100% Decrease Dispersed Camping Corridors Disturbance “ Potential Area of Disturbance 97% Decrease ~100% Decrease of Soils with Moderate and Severe Erosion Potential “ Potentially Area of ~100% Decrease ~100% Decrease Disturbance of Soils with Unsatisfactory and Inherently Unstable Soil Conditions Cross-country Travel Potential Area of Soil 27% Decrease 100% Decrease Motorized Big Game Retrieval Disturbance “ Potential Area of Disturbance 42% Decrease 100% Decrease of Soils with Moderate and Severe Erosion Potential “ Potentially Area of 72% Decrease 100% Decrease Disturbance of Soils with Unsatisfactory and Inherently Unstable Soil Conditions

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 165 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

% Difference % Difference between between Travel Type Environmental Effects Alternatives 1 Alternatives 1 and 2 and 3 RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS Motorized Travel Disturbed Area 15% Decrease 48% Decrease Off-road Travel Motorized Potential Area of Disturbance 97% Decrease ~100% Decrease Dispersed Camping Corridors Cross-country Travel Potential Area of Disturbance 19% Decrease 100% Decrease Motorized Big Game Retrieval

Table 75 and table 76 display the relative changes (percent reductions in indicators between the two action alternatives and the no-action alternative. Overall, both action alternatives provide for some level of resource benefit by reducing acres available to motorized travel and off-road travel, including motorized dispersed camping corridors and motorized big game retrieval, across the forest. In addition, both alternatives reduce acres and number of stream crossings associated with motorized routes open to the public, which reduces the relative risk of impacts to soil, riparian/wetlands and water quality. It is recognized that there are, and would continue to be, localized direct and indirect negative impacts to these resources as a result of all the alternatives.

Table 76. Summary comparison of environmental effects to water quality % Difference % Difference between between Travel Type Environmental Effects Alternatives 1 Alternatives 1 and 2 and 3 Motorized Travel number of crossings on 6% Decrease 26% Decrease perennial streams “ number of crossings on 19% Decrease 41% Decrease intermittent and ephemeral streams “ number of crossings on 17% Decrease 67% Decrease outstanding Arizona waters “ number of crossings on 100% Decrease 100% Decrease impaired streams “ perennial stream miles within 6% Decrease 33% Decrease 300 feet of routes “ intermittent and ephemeral 24% Decrease 45% Decrease stream miles within 300 feet of routes “ route miles within 300 feet of 7% Decrease 23% Decrease lakes “ miles of impaired waters 0% Decrease 0% Decrease within 300 feet of routes “ miles of Outstanding Arizona 0% Decrease 63% Decrease Waters within 300 feet of routes Off-road Travel -Motorized perennial stream miles within 99% Decrease ~ 100% Decrease Dispersed Camping Corridors MDC areas (MDC)

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 166 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

% Difference % Difference between between Travel Type Environmental Effects Alternatives 1 Alternatives 1 and 2 and 3 “ intermittent and ephemeral 98% Decrease ~ 100% Decrease stream miles within MDC areas “ miles of impaired waters 100% Decrease 100% Decrease within MDC areas “ miles of Outstanding Arizona 97% Decrease 100% Decrease Waters within MDC areas Cross-country Travel- perennial stream miles within 33% Decrease 100% Decrease Motorized Big Game Retrieval MBGR areas (MBGR) “ intermittent and ephemeral 34% Decrease 100% Decrease stream miles within MBGR areas “ miles of impaired waters 51% Decrease 100% Decrease within MBGR areas “ miles of Outstanding Arizona 47% Decrease 100% Decrease Waters within MBGR areas

Alternative 3 would result in the greatest beneficial effects to soil health, riparian conditions, and water quality as compared to the other alternatives. Alternative 3 indicators were all lower when compared to alternative 1 with exception of the impaired waterbodies within 300 feet of a routes indicator, which was the same for all alternatives. Alternative 3 had the least potential for negative effects when compared to alternative 2 with the exception of three indicators in which they were equal. All the indicators in alternative 2 were shown to have less resource-related impacts when compared to alternative 1, with the exception of the impaired waterbodies and Outstanding Arizona Waters within 300 feet of routes, which were equal. The most dramatic differences in indicators between the action and no-action alternatives was for motorized dispersed camping corridors and motorized big game retrieval. This is especially true for alternative 3, where cross-country motorized big game retrieval is excluded.

Affected Environment

General Description The climate, for the most part, across the project area is characterized as semiarid and warm, with low annual precipitation and a high number of sunny days. Past precipitation and temperature of the region has varied sharply at timescales ranging from annual to multi-decadal.

The principal period of precipitation events in this area generally occurs during the period of late July through September. During this period, rainfall is characterized by convective, high intensity, short duration storms typical of the southwestern monsoon season. These storms are generally of limited areal extent, averaging an estimated five square miles. During the latter part of this period and continuing on into October, there is also a threat of high intensity, longer duration storms of cyclonic origin associated with Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean hurricanes. These usually do not occur with the same regularity as the monsoon season rains. The second mode of a general bimodal precipitation distribution occurs during the period of November through April, when

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 167 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

easterly storm tracks originating over the Pacific Ocean shift over the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, allowing widespread precipitation. This precipitation falls typically at higher elevations as snow. The snowpack at this elevation generally develops continuously over this period, but melts over a much shorter time span. (http://www.climas.arizona.edu/learning.html)

Climate change, because of global warming, has come to the forefront of current scientific investigation in the Southwest. Research indicates that the late 20th century was “unusually” warm generally (Mann and Bradley 1999). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other modeled projections assert that average annual temperatures in the Southwest could rise by 4.5 to 7 or more degrees (F) during this century. It is also predicted that drought will continue to extend its grip on the Southwest, despite the wet winter of 2004–2005 and the summer of 2006. A global atmospheric pattern known as Hadley Cell circulation is the primary reason for sunny days in the Southwest, as tropical air rises and eventually descends in the subtropics, making it difficult for clouds to form. The area under Hadley Cell’s descending air is projected to widen, moving wetter weather poleward. Results of this movement are yet undetermined, but speculation includes less rain and snow in the Southwest, and an increased potential for flooding during strong monsoons, seemingly contradictory events. While the future of climate change and its effects across the Southwest remains uncertain, it is certain that climate variability will continue to occur across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, with higher probabilities of extended drought, which can lead to dramatic impacts on the landscape.

Effects are disclosed based on climate within its normal range of variability.

The Forests’ soils are described in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (Laing et.al. 1987). The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey is the result of the systematic analysis, mapping, classification and interpretation of terrestrial ecosystems, also known as ecological types, delineated in ecological units. This report defined and mapped 123 Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units that were recognized and defined by the interactions of three major environmental components: soils, climate, and vegetation. It is the only seamless mapping of vegetation and soils available across the Forests that includes field visited, validated and correlated sites with regional and national protocol.

Soils of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests have developed primarily from sedimentary and volcanic origins. Soils range from very shallow to deep, old and well-developed to recent and less-developed, and occur on all slope ranges from nearly level to very steep. The soil orders of Alfisols and Mollisols, as classified in Soil Taxonomy (USDA Forest Service 1999), are common on the highly productive forest, woodland and grassland vegetation types. Inceptisols are commonly found in the highly eroded, thin soils associated with sandstone tuff of Datil Volcanic and Gila Conglomerate formations. Aquatic subgroups are found in wetlands and riparian areas. Elevations in the Forests range from almost 11,000 feet in the Mount Baldy Wilderness Area to 3,500 feet near Clifton, Arizona, which provides soil climate in upland soils ranging from cryic (cold) to thermic (hot) soil temperature regimes, and from udic (moist) to aridic (dry) soil moisture regimes.

Table 77 displays the soil conditions found across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Soil condition is in satisfactory, impaired, and unsatisfactory condition across 63, 21, and 4 percent of the Forests, respectively. Twelve percent of soils were described as inherently unstable. The highest percentage (42 percent) of soils had a severe erosion potential rating (table 78). Whereas, soils with slight or moderate ratings comprised 40 and 18 percent, respectively.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 168 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 77. Summary of soil conditions on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Soil Condition Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory Inherently Unstable Acres 1,293,973 433,002 83,130 256,885 Percentage 63% 21% 4% 12%

Table 78. Summary of erosion hazard on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Erosion Potential Slight Moderate Severe Acres 833,802 371,612 860,797 Percentage 40% 18% 42%

Effects of the Wallow Fire on Soil Condition The Wallow Fire had some dramatic effects on soil conditions. Estimated time for recovery to satisfactory conditions depends on many factors including pre-burn conditions, soil burn severity, post-fire treatments and management and weather patterns. Ground cover is expected to increase enough in high and moderate burn severity areas to bring erosion rates to a level where long term soil productivity is no longer at risk within 5 years (Elliott et al. 2000). Many areas treated with mulch and seeding have already stabilized.

Riparian/ Wetlands Western riparian systems are among the rarest habitat types in the Western Hemisphere (Krueper 1995). In Arizona and New Mexico, these areas occupy less than 0.5 percent of the state’s land area, yet 80 percent of all vertebrates use riparian areas. In Arizona, 60 to 75 percent of the resident wildlife species depend on riparian areas to sustain their populations (Arizona Riparian Council, Fact Sheet No.1, 1995).

Riparian can be simply defined as the vegetation or habitats that are associated with the presence of water, whether it is perennial, subsurface, intermittent or ephemeral in nature (Krueper 1993). These areas are transitional between aquatic and terrestrial areas and have components of both (DeBano and Schmidt 1989). Riparian areas have distinctly different vegetative species composition than adjacent areas.

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests have many streams and wetlands that provide riparian habitat for terrestrial wildlife, aquatic, and avian fauna. A Region 3 riparian vegetation mapping project (RMAP) was initiated in 2009, completed in 2011, and made available to the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests in November 2011. RMAP used a combination of GIS, remote sensing, photo interpretation in conjunction with high resolution infrared photography and other ancillary data sources to map riparian vegetation communities region wide at a scale of 1:12,000.

On the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, there are 12 map units comprising a total of approximately 54,500 acres, which is 2.6 percent of the total area of the forest. Table 79 lists the map units and the associated acres and relative percentages forestwide. Wetlands and upland wet meadows across the Forests range in elevation from 4,300 feet to 9,600 feet; however, the majority of these meadows are located at elevations averaging approximately 7,800 feet. They are typically associated with ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation types. The upland wet meadows typically have bluegrass as one of the dominant herbaceous cover types. These are included in the RMAP assessment under herbaceous riparian. The Herbaceous unit comprises around half of the total RMAP acres. The proportionally next largest units are the Narrowleaf

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 169 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Cottonwood/Shrub and Sycamore-Fremont Cottonwood, with 24 and 17 percent, respectively. The remaining units comprised 5 percent or less of the total acres.

Water Resources Water resources on the forest include streams, wetlands, riparian areas, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and numerous stock ponds and tanks. Based on our Forest geodatabases, there are approximately 1,230 miles of perennial streams and 3,379 miles of intermittent streams on the forest. The remaining drainages are considered ephemeral, of which there are approximately 4,132 across the Forest. Open water comprises almost 700 surface acres when including 30 lakes and reservoirs such as Big Lake, Luna Lake, Crescent Lake, Chevelon Canyon, Woods Canyon Lake, and Scotts Reservoir, in addition to numerous stockponds and other storage tanks, when filled to capacity.

Table 79. RMAP riparian units’ acreage across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests RMAP Code Map Unit Legend Acres Percentage 110 Arizona Alder-Willow 251 0.5% 150 Fremont Cottonwood-Conifer 75 0.1% 170 Fremont Cottonwood/Shrub 805 1.5% 180 Fremont Cottonwood-Oak 1,163 2.1% 190 Herbaceous 26,426 48.5% 230 Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Shrub 13,104 24.1% 270 Sycamore-Fremont 9,158 16.8% Cottonwood 280 Upper Mountain Conifer/Willow 89 0.2% 290 Willow-Thinleaf Alder 2,595 4.8% 300 Arizona Walnut 290 0.5% 350 Ponderosa Pine/Willow 175 0.3% 410 Historic Riparian/Urban 351 0.6% Grand Total 54,481

Water Quality Improvements to the Nation’s waters over the past three decades are largely due to the control of traditional point sources of water pollution. However, a large number of waterbodies remain impaired and the goal of eliminating pollutant discharge and attaining fishable and swimmable waters is still unrealized. Non-point sources of pollution such as agriculture, construction, forestry, and mining are responsible for much of the nation’s remaining water quality impairment. The desired condition is that water quality meets or exceeds Arizona State standards or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water quality standards for designated uses, and water quality meets critical needs of aquatic species.

Historically, in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, the most prevalent non-point source of pollution is from sediment generated from roads in close proximity to drainages, from residual effects of past, and in some cases, current livestock grazing and from short term impacts of ground disturbing activities such as timber harvest and higher severity prescribed fire. Before the initiation of best management practices (BMPs) in the 1980s, timber harvesting was widespread and was also a non-point source of pollution in the form of sediment delivery off-site and into adjoining stream courses. Currently, the Forests implement and monitor site-specific BMPs for all

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 170 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References activities with the potential to pollute surface waters. Forest Service policy directs compliance with required Clean Water Act permits, State rules and regulations, and the use of approved BMPs in an adaptive management strategy to control nonpoint source pollution to meet applicable water quality standards and other Clean Water Act requirements.

Knowing which waters are “Impaired” or “Not Attaining” is important. The following lakes and stream reaches have been identified by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as those with the most severe water quality problems. Permit requirements for discharge into these waters is very strict: ADEQ and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests must make sure that any new discharges or modifications will not further degrade water quality. Table 80 and table 81 show the impaired and not attaining waterbodies on the Forests based on latest ADEQ water quality report (ADEQ, 2016).

Category 5 “Impaired” waters currently on the 303 d list include: Telephone Lake, Crescent Lake, Bear Canyon Lake, Lower Blue River, and the San Francisco River below the confluence with Blue River. These waters were not listed prior to 2006. About 25 miles of stream are included in Category 5

Category 4 “Not Attaining” waters include: Nutrioso Creek, Little Colorado River below the Greer Lakes, Luna Lake, and Rainbow Lake. These waters have approved total daily maximum loads (TMDLs) with recommendations that when implemented are believed to improve the water quality, at which time ADEQ will move them into lower categories. Approximately 14 miles of stream are included in Category 4.

Category 1 –3 waters round out the rest of the waters in the Forests. Category 3 “Inconclusive” waters are placed on the planning list for additional monitoring. The remaining waters (over 400 miles) fall into categories 1, 2, and 3. Overall, forestwide water quality, based on data from 1987 to 2014, shows an upward trend.

Table 80. Impaired and not attaining streams in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Name CATEGORY CATEGORY_D IMPAIRMENT Miles San Francisco River Category 5 Impaired E. coli (2006/8) 9.9 Little Colorado River Category 4A Not Attaining Turbidity / SSC (1998) 8.1 Nutrioso Creek Category 4A Not Attaining Turbidity/SSC (1998) 5.9 Blue River Category 5 Impaired E. coli (2006/8) 25.4

Table 81. Impaired and not attaining lakes and reservoirs in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Name CATEGORY CATEGORY_D IMPAIRMENT Acres Telephone Lake Category 5 Impaired Ammonia (2010) 49 Luna Lake Category 4A Not Attaining pH, Dissolved Oxygen, nutrients 148 and ammonia (1992) Crescent Lake Category 5 Impaired High pH (EPA 2002) 191 Rainbow Lake Category 4A Not Attaining Narrative nutrients, pH and 128 Dissolved Oxygen (1992) Pintail Lake Category 5 Impaired Ammonia (2010) 58 Black Canyon Category 5 Impaired Ammonia (2010) 38 Lake

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 171 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Outstanding Arizona Waters The State of Arizona has also identified stream segments that are particularly pristine and where no degradation of water quality is allowed. These are called “Outstanding Arizona Waters” (OAW), formerly known as “Arizona Unique Waters,” nine of which are located in the high- elevation regions northeast, east, and southeast of Mount Baldy Wilderness. The nine OAW comprising approximately 51 stream miles are:

• Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to the boundary of the San Carlos Indian Reservation • South Fork Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to Bear Wallow Creek • North Fork Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to Bear Wallow Creek • Hay Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River • KP Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Blue River • Lee Valley Creek, from its headwaters to Lee Valley Reservoir • West Fork Little Colorado River, above Government Springs • Snake Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Black River • Stinky Creek, from the Fort Apache Indian Reservation boundary to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River

Environmental Consequences

General Effects Common to All Alternatives, including No Action

Soil Resources

Motorized Routes The primary effects that occur to soil resources that occur throughout all alternatives include compaction, loss of productivity, loss of vegetative ground cover of existing routes, and increased runoff resulting in erosion and sediment production. Impacts to the soils resources will vary to some degree by alternative, with the potential for negative impacts varying by the number of roads that will remain open for motorized use, are available for motorized cross-country travel, area of motorized dispersed camping corridors and motorized areas in each proposed alternative. Adverse effects are not limited to the road prism alone, but include direct and indirect effects to areas adjacent to motorized routes.

Soil compaction is a direct result of the weight of a motor vehicle and its wheels coming into contact with the surface of the ground. The heavier the vehicle the more contact pressure (pounds per square inch, or psi) is exerted by the tire on the ground surface. As tire width increases in relation to the weight of the vehicle, less contact pressure is exerted by the tire on the ground surface. Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together reducing the amount of pore space between soil particles. Soils that are finer-textured such as those with high clay content have less strength, therefore are more susceptible to compaction. Soils with higher moisture content also have less strength and are also more susceptible to compaction to a greater depth than when drier. Additional direct impacts occur as a result of soil compaction, including, but not limited to decreased soil porosity, increased soil bulk density, reduced infiltration rates,

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 172 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

increased surface runoff, increased surface erosion, reduced nutrient cycling, and reduced plant growth.

Compacted soils can persist for many years and variables such as how severely a soil was compacted and to what depth compaction occurred dictate recovery time. Compaction of soils by motorized use results in a series of indirect effects that can be detrimental to soil productivity, watershed condition, and water quality.

Loss of soil productivity occurred when routes were established, and is still occurring to varying degrees. In addition, loss of soil productivity to areas adjacent to motorized routes has and is still occurring. Factors that contribute to loss of soil productivity of the motorized route, or to areas adjacent to motorized routes include: inadequate road surface maintenance, inadequate drainage of road surfaces, poor route design, and poor route location. Loss of soil productivity of areas adjacent to motorized routes occurs as sheet, rill, and gully erosion, and soil compaction.

Concentrated runoff is the primary agent of erosion and sediment production on native surface motorized routes and areas adjacent to, or connected, to the route. Factors that influence the degree of concentrated runoff include: drainage features, route design, route location, and maintenance levels. Wind erosion and fugitive dust are the release of soil particles into the air as a result of the high velocity winds contacting bare soil surfaces or the interaction of tires on the native road surface and the mechanical displacement of soil particles. These are typically smaller soil particles, but as wind velocity increases larger soil particles become more susceptible to being removed from the route.

Loss of vegetative ground cover has occurred on all motorized routes. Maintenance level 3 and 4 roads are typically bladed on an annual basis and are generally denuded of vegetative ground cover. Maintenance level 1 and 2 routes receive less frequent maintenance, have lower use levels, and have varying degrees of vegetative ground cover associated with the road prism. Vegetative ground cover assists in reducing the effects of erosion from concentrated runoff and accumulate on motorized routes and areas adjacent to them.

Surface-erosion problems are worst in highly erodible terrain, particularly landscapes underlain by granite or highly fractured rocks (Megahan and Ketcheson 1996) or are volcanic-derived soils. Unimproved, native roads located on these soils are also primary sediment sources because they generally do not have protective rock or vegetative cover. Existing roads and trails serve as a conduit by capturing and delivering sediment into connected stream courses, and pairing water quality from a suspended sediment standpoint. Soils with moderate erosion are also at risk for accelerated erosion and sediment delivery but to a lesser magnitude than soils with severe erosion hazard.

Cross-country Travel Effects of motorized cross-country travel (for the purposes of dispersed camping and big game retrieval to soil productivity include soil compaction, loss of vegetative ground cover, decreased soil porosity, increased soil bulk density, displacement of litter or duff layers leaving bare soil exposed, soil displacement, reduced infiltration rates, reduced percolation rates, decreased plant growth, disturbance to soil biotic crusts and reduced nutrient cycling. All of these effects lead to increased and concentrated overland flow, erosion, and sediment transport to downslope areas and connected stream courses following storm events, which pose a risk to long-term soil productivity, downstream water quality and overall watershed condition (Cole and Monz 2003,

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 173 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

USDA Forest Service 2008a). Impacts from motorized cross-country travel are most pronounced when soils are wet, and are minimized under dry soil conditions.

Typically, a single motorized pass over an area has minimal effects to vegetation and soils resources. It is when there are repeated passes or when new routes are established that negative effects to vegetation and soils resources become more pronounced. Slope also plays a critical role with regard to the magnitude of the effects that cross-country travel has on vegetation and soil productivity. As slope of the area being traveled increases ground disturbance increases due to wheel slip or churn caused by the forces of gravity and uneven terrain. As a result, more vegetation, litter and soil are displaced. This increases the amount of exposed mineral soil that can potentially be moved off site, leading to accelerated erosion, and consequently decreased soil productivity, soil stability, and overall watershed condition.

Off-road travel on soils with moderate or high erosion hazard is more likely to channelize water and increase surface runoff, resulting in accelerated erosion. On soils with slight erosion hazard, the direct impacts of motorized cross-country travel are not expected to result in accelerated soil erosion but will cause loss of soil productivity when vegetative ground cover is removed, soils are compacted, or rutting occurs (Greacen and Sands 1980, Braunack and Williams 1993). Cross- country travel on soils with unsatisfactory or unsuited soil condition ratings are more likely to exhibit negative impacts in the form of loss of soil productivity and erosion than travel on soils with satisfactory soil condition ratings.

Recreation and other land uses are expected to increase over current levels, especially in light of the increasing popularity of OHVs. Under alternative 1, virtually unlimited motorized cross- country travel would continue. More unauthorized off-road routes and dispersed camping areas would continue to be developed by Forest users at the current rate or higher, especially in areas near scenic views, water sources, and popular recreational and/or hunting areas.

The majority of motorized, dispersed camping occurring on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ponderosa pine, aspen and mixed-conifer types) would not pose substantial risk to water quality or pose a risk to overall soil productivity and ecosystem sustainability. Camping in aspen forests is more concentrated than in ponderosa pine forests but overall, actual impacts are minor in extent and therefore do not and would not continue to cause significant loss of soil productivity. Dispersed camping would have the direct effect of disturbing the vegetative ground cover, exposing bare soil, causing soil compaction and rutting on wet soils and causing accelerated sheet and rill erosion, loss of soil and vegetation productivity (Cole and Monz 2003, USDA Forest Service 2008b).

Most motorized game retrieval also involves a single trip with a vehicle (typically an OHV). Webb and Wilshire (1983) found that after a single pass, annual plants on an OHV route remained intact, but most were destroyed after 10 passes. Perennial plants tend to be more robust, and therefore perennial plants are likely to also sustain one to two passes. Minimal impacts on vegetative ground cover and soil compaction are expected from motorized retrieval of big game. Based on the low number of trips required for big game retrieval, short distance needed for retrieval, and low number of OHV crossings of a site, motorized big game retrieval has minimal effects on soil conditions. Big game retrieval on upland soils under conditions of dry soils would not be expected to appreciably affect vegetation, soil condition, and productivity. Localized impacts would be most pronounced where motorized traffic occurred on wet soils, which could cause soil compaction and loss of vegetation.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 174 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Effects to soil resources as a result of current routes and unlimited cross-country travel (except designated Wilderness, Primitive Areas, or areas specified in Forest Orders) in the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests are detailed above. With alternative 1 there are 3,471 miles of open motorized routes under Forest Service jurisdiction and 5,238 acres of disturbed ground associated with these routes. Of these total acres of disturbance, 1,817 acres are located on soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings and 143 acres are located on soils with unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil conditions. Cross-country travel includes access for motorized big game retrieval and for dispersed recreation and camping. Under this alternative, 1,642,839 acres could potentially be impacted by cross-country travel. Of these acres, 918,267 acres are located on soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and 224,257 acres are located on soils with unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil conditions. Under alternative 1, continued, unrestricted motorized dispersed recreation would continue off of approximately 3,471 miles of routes.

Riparian Resources Although riparian and wetland/wet meadow areas occupy less than 3 percent of the lands managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, they are key to productive aquatics and wildlife habitat; Healthy riparian areas stabilize stream channels, provide storage for sediment, serve as nutrient sinks for surrounding watersheds, improve the quality of water, control water temperature through shading, reduce flood peaks, and serve as recharge areas for alluvial and deeper aquifers (DeBano and Schmidt 1989).

Roads and motorized trails in riparian areas have many of the same effects as those in upland sites; however they compound these effects by disrupting many of the natural beneficial functions provided by riparian areas. A motorized route system can affect riparian areas and wetlands/wet meadows directly or indirectly by inducing changes to natural hydrologic functions. Motorized routes that are adjacent to, or that intersect portions of riparian areas including wetlands/wet meadows alter surface and subsurface hydrology and water flow causing disruption of drainage patterns, decrease in infiltration and loss of water storage. Motorized routes can directly damage riparian vegetation by the action of tires churning up and removing vegetation within or near wet meadows and stream channels, resulting in these systems not functioning properly. Soil rutting, compaction and detachment of soils, and accelerated erosion may occur, as well as sediment transport and sediment deposition occurring into connected waters, reducing water quality on-site and downstream.

Riparian areas are popular recreation sites because of the cool and shady environment they provide in an otherwise hot and arid area. Roads in riparian areas facilitate recreational access to these areas which compounds the effects of the roads themselves. Off-road motorized use and soil and vegetation disturbance has been observed to be highest in montane meadows compared to all other Forest vegetation types and poses the greatest threat to soil productivity, vegetation, and wildlife (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Repeated off-road motorized travel in meadows would continue to cause soil compaction. Although such compaction is not irreversible, it is a long-term adverse effect.

Under Forest Service jurisdiction, there are currently 97 miles of open routes that create 149 acres of motorized route disturbance within riparian areas. Cross-country travel by motorized vehicles is permitted in all areas, except designated Wilderness, primitive areas, or areas specified in Forest Orders, and restricted off-road vehicle areas identified in the Forest Land Management Plan. This cross-country travel includes but is not limited to access for motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed recreation and motorized camping, and motorized areas. Currently,

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 175 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

cross-country travel associated with motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed recreation, and motorized areas has the potential to impact 33,177 acres within riparian areas, including wetlands/wet meadows.

Water Quality The effects of roads and motorized trails on water quality can include sedimentation (deposited solids), turbidity (suspended solids), and pollutants within affected watersheds. Turbidity reduces in-stream photosynthesis and results in reduced food supply and aquatic habitat. Roads increase nutrient delivery to streams by removing vegetation, re-routing water flow paths, and increasing sediment delivery (Gucinski et al. 2001). Nutrients discharged into aquatic systems can cause algal blooms, which reduce water clarity and deplete oxygen (ADOT 1995). Pollutants associated with leaks and spills of petroleum products may be adsorbed to sediments, absorbed by plant material, or dissolved in runoff; once mobilized, these contaminants may enter aquatic systems (Ouren et al. 2007). Roads can lead to water temperature changes by removal of streamside vegetation where roads encroach on channels, and alter streamflow regimes through processes described earlier. Water quality can also be adversely affected when fugitive dust and contaminants enter aquatic systems. Airborne dust and contaminants adsorbed to dust particles raised by OHV traffic may eventually settle directly onto wetlands.

The primary effect to water quality related to a motorized route system is sedimentation originating from road erosion. Roads contribute more off-site sediment than any other land management activity (Gibbons and Salo 1973; Meehan 1991). Motorized routes can cut across hillsides, often intercepting precipitation, surface runoff, and subsurface water flow and transmit it directly into ditches and through culverts where entrain sediment and coalesce with sediment- laden runoff from the roadbed and cut banks before entering a stream. Research has shown that sediment from roads can result in adverse effects to streams and aquatic habitat (Meehan 1991; Dissmeyer 2000; Gucinski et al. 2001; MacDonald and Stednick 2003).

Stream crossings create the most vulnerable point on the stream channel to adverse impacts from a motorized route system. They directly impact the stream by the action of vehicle tires disturbing and mobilizing stream bank and substrate sediments. Crossings, additionally, indirectly effect water quality by providing a direct hydrologic connection from the route into the stream, without a vegetative filter that might remove suspended sediments. Unless hydrologically disconnected, the route will continue to funnel sediment-laden runoff into the stream.

Water quality can also be indirectly affected through the connectivity of the road system to the drainage network. The greater distance a road is from a stream channel, the lower probability of depositing sediment directly into the drainage. The closer a road is to a stream channel, the shorter the distance for vegetation to filter out sediment that mobilized during runoff events. Literature supports that disturbances within 300 feet of streams have the greatest potential to impact water quality, via overland flow (Burroughs and King 1989; Belt et al. 1992). Roads located near a stream can also modify hydrologic response of streamflow from runoff events by responding more rapidly to runoff events, increasing peak stream flows. Stream channels may respond to increases in peak flows by widening or deepening in order to carry these greater flow rates, which may then lead to a higher rate of channel bank erosion and bed mobilization.

Road closures do not immediately eliminate hydrologic impacts and improve water quality. Rather, the disturbed surface takes years to stabilize depending on the level of success in the closure, soil characteristics, vegetative recovery, and other such factors. Proper road or

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 176 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References decommissioning, which returns the road bed to a more natural state offers the best opportunity to restore health to heavily roaded watersheds and to aquatic habitat downstream.

Dispersed camping can have the direct effect of disturbing the vegetative ground cover, exposing bare soil, causing soil compaction and rutting on wet soils and causing accelerated sheet and rill erosion, loss of soil and vegetation productivity (Cole and Monz 2003, USDA Forest Service 2008a), and localized sediment delivery into connected perennial waters.

Under alternative 1, virtually unlimited motorized cross-country travel would continue. More unauthorized off-road routes and dispersed camping areas would continue to be developed by Forest users at the current rate or higher, especially in areas near scenic views, water sources, and popular recreational and/or hunting areas. The number of stream crossings and the number of user-created routes that follow drainages is likely to increase.

Currently across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, there are a total 2,636 motorized stream crossings that impact perennial (201) and intermittent streams and ephemeral channels (2,435). There is one road crossing located on an impaired 303(d) streams. There are a total of six stream crossings located on Outstanding Arizona Waters. Approximately 106 miles of perennial streams and 722 miles of intermittent streams and ephemeral drainages are located within 300 feet of a motorized route. There are 2.6 miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of impaired waterbodies (streams and lakes). There are 2.7 miles of Outstanding Arizona Waters within 300 feet of a motorized route. There are 48 miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of a lake.

Table 82. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Resource Measure Alternative 1 Element Indicator Soil Resources Erosion Acres of disturbance from motorized routes (MR), MR: 5,238 Potential off-road travel related to dispersed camping MDC: 1,642,839 (MDC), and from cross-country travel for MBGR: 1,642,839 motorized big game retrieval (MBGR). Soil Resources Erosion Acres of potential disturbance from motorized MR: 1,817 Potential routes (MR) off-road travel for dispersed camping MDC: 918,267 (MDC), and cross -country travel for motorized big MBGR: 918,267 game retrieval (MBGR) in areas with moderate and severe erosion classes Soil Resources Soil Acres of potential disturbance from motorized MR: 143 Condition routes (MR), off-road travel for motorized MDC: 224,257 dispersed camping corridors (MDC), and cross- MBGR: 224,257 country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) in areas having unsatisfactory and inherently unstable soil condition classes Riparian Areas Disturbance Acres of disturbance from motorized routes (MR), MR: 149 including off-road motorized travel for dispersed camping MDC: 33,177 Wetlands/Wet (MDC), and cross-country travel for motorized big MBGR: 33,177 Meadows game retrieval (MBGR) within riparian areas including wetlands/wet meadows. Water Water Number of stream crossings on perennial streams PS: 201 Resources Quality (PS), intermittent streams, and ephemeral I&ES: 2,435 channels (I&ES), Outstanding Arizona Waters OAW: 6 (OAW) and impaired waterbodies (303d) 303d: 1

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 177 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Resource Measure Alternative 1 Element Indicator Water Water Miles of perennial streams potentially impacted MR: 106 Resources Quality (with 300 feet of) by motorized routes (MR), off- MDC: 1,077 road travel for dispersed camping (MDC), cross- MBGR: 1,077 country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Miles of intermittent or ephemeral streams MR: 722 Resources Quality potentially impacted (with 300 feet of) by MDC: 9,819 motorized routes (MR), off-road travel for MBGR: 8,819 dispersed camping (MDC), cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Miles of Outstanding Arizona Waters potentially MR: 2.7 Resources Quality impacted (with 300 feet of) by motorized routes MDC: 38 (MR), off-road travel for dispersed camping MBGR: 38 (MDC), cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Miles of impaired waterbodies (303(d) listed), MR: 2.6 Resources Quality potentially impacted (with 300 feet of) by MDC: 39 motorized routes (MR), off-road travel for MBGR: 39 dispersed camping (MDC), cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of lakes 48 Resources Quality

Cross-country travel by motorized vehicles is permitted in all areas, except designated wilderness, the primitive area, or areas specified in Forest Orders, and restricted off-road vehicle areas identified in the Forest Land Management Plan. This cross-country travel includes access for motorized big game retrieval, motorized designated dispersed camping and a motorized area. Currently, cross-country travel associated with motorized designated dispersed camping, motorized big game retrieval, and motorized areas (both camping and ATV/motorcycle) have the potential to impact approximately 1,077 miles of perennial, 9,819 miles of intermittent streams and ephemeral channels. There are 39 miles of impaired waterbodies that could be impacted. Approximately 38 miles of Outstanding Arizona Waters could be impacted by cross-country travel.

Alternative 2

Soil Resources

Motorized Routes The effects of motorized routes are described in the Effects of Existing Routes Common to all Alternatives section, and apply to this alternative. This alternative has a greater number of motorized routes than alternative 3 and less than in alternative 1. Under this alternative, 4,546 acres of disturbed ground are associated with the proposed motorized routes. Of that total, 1,588 acres are located on soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings and 134 acres are located on soils with unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil condition ratings.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 178 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorized Dispersed Camping Corridors The effects of motorized off-road travel are described above inthe Effects of Cross-county travel Common to all Alternatives section, and apply to this alternative. Under this alternative there are a total of 70,516 acres that could potentially be impacted within motorized dispersed camping corridors. Of these total acres, 23,423 acres are located on soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings and 1,010 acres are located on soils with unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil condition ratings. Compared to alternative 1, there is a large reduction in potential acres impacted by motorized dispersed camping to soils with moderate and severe erosion hazard ratings and to unsatisfactory and inherently unstable soil condition ratings, with decreases of 97 and nearly 100 percent, respectively.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval The effects of motorized cross county travel are described above in theEffects of Cross-country travel Common to all Alternatives section and apply to this alternative. Under this alternative. A total of 1,207,328 acres could potentially be impacted by motorized big game retrieval. Of these total acres, 534,663 acres are located on soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings and 59,357 acres are located on soils with unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil condition ratings. This alternative reduces potential motorized big game retrieval impacts to soils having moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings by 42 percent, and to soils having unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil condition rating by 74 percent.

Motorized Areas There is one motorized (ATV/motorcycle) area that totals approximately 17 acres located in an old borrow pit site. Currently, there is little to no vegetative cover at this site. The effects of a motorized area would include and are not limited to: continued loss of soil productivity, continued lack of vegetative ground cover, accelerated sheet and wind erosion, soil compaction, soil displacement and potential sedimentation to adjacent drainage system. The motorized area does not impact soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard rating under any alternative, as they are not present in this location. The area is located within soils having unsatisfactory and unsuited soil condition rating.

Riparian Resources

Motorized Routes In riparian areas, including wetlands and wet meadows, the area potentially impacted by motorized routes in action alternative 2 (127 acres) results in reductions of 15 percent from alternative 1 (149 acres).

Motorized Dispersed Camping Corridors In riparian areas, the area potentially impacted by motorized access to disperse camping in action alternatives 2 and 3 (916 acres) results in reductions of 97 percent as compared to alternative 1.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval In riparian areas, the acreage potentially impacted by motorized big game retrieval in action alternative 2 (16,899 acres) is 19 percent less than the alternative 1 (33,177 acres).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 179 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorized Areas The motorized area is not located within a riparian area or wetland/wet meadow.

Water Quality

Motorized Routes Alternative 2 decreases the number of motorized crossings on perennial stream to 189, which is a 6 percent reduction as compared to alternative 1. Intermittent stream and ephemeral channels crossing decreased to 1,817, a 24 percent reduction. Motorized crossings on impaired streams did not change compared to alternative 1 with 1 crossing. Five road crossings are located on Outstanding Arizona Waters, a decrease of 17 percent compared to alternative 1. The length of perennial stream within 300 feet of motorized routes, 106 miles; a 6 percent reduction compared to alternative 1. The number of miles of intermittent stream and ephemeral channels within 300 feet of motorized routes decreased to 585 miles, which is a 24 percent decrease as compared to alternative 1. There are 2.6 miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of impaired waterbodies, the same as alternative 1. There are 44 miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of a lake, a 7 percent decrease from alternative 1.

Motorized Designated Camping There are 16 miles of perennial stream miles located within areas designated for motorized dispersed camping corridors, which is a 99 percent reduction as compared to alternative 1. There are 246 miles of intermittent streams and ephemeral channel within motorized dispersed camping corridors, a 98 percent reduction as compared to alternative 1. Miles of impaired streams potentially impacted by motorized designated dispersed camping corridors decreases to zero, while there is approximately 1 mile of Outstanding Arizona Water within 300 feet in these areas.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Miles of perennial stream potentially impacted by motorized big game retrieval decreases to 717 miles from alternative 1 (1,077 miles), a reduction of 33 percent. For intermittent streams and ephemeral channel, there is a decrease to 6,507 miles from alternative 1 (9,819 miles), a 34 percent decrease. Length of impaired waterbodies with potential impacts by motorized big game retrieval is decreased to 19 miles from alternative 1 (39 miles), a 51 percent decrease. The length of Outstanding Arizona Waters decreased to 20 miles, a 47 percent reduction as compared to alternative 1.

Motorized Area The motorcycle/ATV area is not located adjacent to any stream channels, impaired water bodies nor Outstanding Arizona waters.

Table 83. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 Resource Resource Measure Alternative 2 Element Indicator Soil Erosion Acres of disturbance from motorized routes (MR), MR: 4,546 Resources Potential off-road travel related to dispersed camping MDC: 70,516 (MDC), and from cross-country travel for MBGR: 1,207,328 motorized big game retrieval (MBGR).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 180 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Resource Measure Alternative 2 Element Indicator Soil Erosion Acres of potential disturbance from motorized MR: 1,588 Resources Potential routes (MR) off-road travel for dispersed camping MDC: 23,423 (MDC), and cross-country travel for motorized big MBGR: 534,663 game retrieval (MBGR) in areas with moderate and severe erosion classes Soil Soil Condition Acres of potential disturbance from motorized MR: 134 Resources routes (MR), off-road travel for motorized MDC: 1,010 dispersed camping corridors, and cross-country MBGR: 59,357 travel for motorized big game retrieval in areas having unsatisfactory and inherently unstable soil condition classes Riparian Disturbance Acres of disturbance from motorized routes (MR), MR: 127 Areas off-road motorized travel for dispersed camping MDC: 916 including (MDC), and cross-country travel for motorized big MBGR: 16,899 Wetlands/Wet game retrieval (MBGR) within riparian areas Meadows including wetlands/wet meadows. Water Water Quality Number of stream crossings on perennial streams PS: 189 Resources (PS), intermittent streams, and ephemeral I&ES: 1,817 channels (I&ES), Outstanding Arizona Waters OAW: 5 (OAW). and impaired waterbodies (303d) 303d: 1 Water Water Quality Miles of perennial streams potentially impacted MR: 100 Resources (with 300 feet of) by motorized routes (MR), off- MDC: 16 road travel for dispersed camping (MDC), cross- MBGR 717 country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Quality Miles of intermittent or ephemeral streams MR: 585 Resources potentially impacted (with 300 feet of) by MDC: 246 motorized routes (MR), off-road travel for MBGR: 6,507 dispersed camping (MDC), cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Quality Miles of Outstanding Arizona Waters potentially MR: 2.7 Resources impacted (with 300 feet of) by motorized routes MDC: <1 (MR), off-road travel for dispersed camping MBGR: 20 (MDC), cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Quality Miles of impaired waterbodies (303(d) listed), MR: 2.6 Resources potentially impacted (with 300 feet of) by MDC: 0 motorized routes (MR), off-road travel for MBGR: 19 dispersed camping (MDC), cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Quality Miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of lakes 44 Resources

Alternative 3

Soil Resources

Motorized Routes The effects of motorized routes are described in the Effects of Existing Routes Common to all Alternatives section, and apply to this alternative. Under this alternative there are a total of 3,505 acres of disturbed ground associated with proposed motorized routes. Of these total acres, 1,223 acres are located on soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings and 107 acres are

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 181 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

located on soils with unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil condition ratings. This alternative has the fewest number of motorized routes of all the alternatives. For soils having moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings, this alternative has a 33 percent decrease from alternative 1. For soils that have unsatisfactory or inherently unstable ratings, there is a 26 percent decrease from alternative 1.

Motorized Dispersed Camping Corridors The effects of motorized off-road travel are described above in effects common to all alternatives, and apply to this alternative. Under this alternative, a total of 5,636 acres could be impacted within motorized dispersed camping corridors. Of these total acres, 2,427 acres are located on soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings, and 249 acres are located on soils with unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil condition ratings. Compared to alternative 1, there is a large reduction, nearly 100 percent for both, in potential acres impacted by motorized dispersed camping corridors to soils with moderate and severe erosion hazard ratings and unsatisfactory and inherently unstable soil condition ratings.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Under this alternative there is no motorized big game retrieval, therefore the number of acres that could be potentially impacted by motorized big game retrieval is zero.

Motorized Area There is one motorized area is approximately 17 acres. The effects of the motorized area are described in alternative 2 and apply to this alternative also. This area does not impact soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard rating under any alternative, as there are none at this location. Similar to alternative 2, this area is located within soils having unsatisfactory and unsuited soil condition rating.

Riparian Resources, including Wetlands and Wet Meadows

Motorized Routes In riparian areas, including wetlands and wet meadows, the area potentially impacted by motorized routes in action alternative 3 (57 acres) results in a reduction of 48 percent from alternative 1 (149 acres).

Motorized Dispersed Camping Corridors In riparian areas, the area potentially impacted by motorized dispersed camping in action alternative 3 (137 acres) results in reductions of nearly 100 percent, as compared to alternative 1.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Big game retrieval is excluded in alternative 3, therefore, no acres are potentially impacted by this activity.

Motorized Area The motorized area is not located within a riparian area or wetland/wet meadow.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 182 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Water Quality

Motorized Routes Alternative 3 decreases the number of motorized crossings across perennial streams to 135, a 33 percent reduction, compared to alternative 1. Crossings of intermittent streams and ephemeral channels decreased to 1,448, a 45 percent reduction. Motorized crossings on impaired streams was the same as alternative 1 (alternative 1). There were two road crossings on Outstanding Arizona Waters, a decrease of 67 percent, compared to alternative 1. The length of perennial streams within 300 feet of motorized routes, 78 miles, is a 26 percent reduction as compared to alternative 1. The 426 miles of intermittent stream and ephemeral channels within 300 feet of motorized routes is a 41 percent reduction, compared to alternative 1. As with the other alternatives, 2.6 miles of motorized routes are within 300 feet of impaired waterbodies. There are 37 miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of a lake, a 23 percent decrease from alternative 1.

Motorized Dispersed Camping Corridors For alternative 3, less than 1 mile of perennial stream length is located within areas designated for motorized dispersed camping, nearly a 100 percent reduction compared to alternative 1. Intermittent stream and ephemeral channels found within motorized dispersed camping corridors decrease in length to 19 miles, nearly a 100 percent reduction, compared to alternative 1. Similar to alternative 2, no impaired streams are potentially impacted by motorized dispersed camping corridors. There are zero miles of Outstanding Arizona Waters within 300 feet of motorized designated dispersed camping, a 100 percent reduction, compared to the other alternatives.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval There is no motorized big game retrieval in alternative 3. Therefore, this alternative has the least potential for effects to streams, impaired waterbodies, and Outstanding Arizona Waters.

Motorized Area The motorized area is not located adjacent to any stream channels or outstanding national resource waters wetlands, miles of perennial, intermittent, ephemeral, 303(d), or Outstanding Arizona Waters.

Table 84. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 Resource Resource Measure Alternative 3 Element Indicator Soil Resources Erosion Acres of disturbance from motorized routes (MR), off- MR: 3,505 Potential road travel related to dispersed camping (DC), and MDC: 5,636 from cross-country travel for motorized big game MBGR: 0 retrieval (MBGR). Soil Resources Erosion Acres of potential disturbance from motorized routes MR: 1,223 Potential (MR) off-road travel for dispersed camping (MDC), and MDC: 2,427 cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval MBGR: 0 (MBGR) in areas with moderate and severe erosion classes Soil Resources Soil Acres of potential disturbance from motorized routes MR: 107 Condition (MR), off-road travel for motorized dispersed camping MDC: 249 corridors (MDC), and cross-country travel for MBGR: 0 motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) in areas having unsatisfactory and inherently unstable soil condition classes

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 183 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Resource Measure Alternative 3 Element Indicator Riparian Areas Disturbance Acres of disturbance from motorized routes (MR), off- MR: 57 including road motorized travel for dispersed camping (MDC), MDC: 137 Wetlands/Wet and cross-country travel for motorized big game MBGR: 0 Meadows retrieval (MBGR) within riparian areas including wetlands/wet meadows. Water Water Number of stream crossings on perennial streams PS: 135 Resources Quality (PS), intermittent streams, and ephemeral channels I&ES: 1,448 (I&ES), Outstanding Arizona Waters (OAW). and OAW: 2 impaired waterbodies (303d) 303d: 1 Water Water Miles of perennial streams potentially impacted (with MR: 78 Resources Quality 300 feet of) by motorized routes (MR), off-road travel MDC: <1 for dispersed camping (MDC), cross-country travel for MBGR: 0 motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Miles of intermittent or ephemeral streams potentially MR: 426 Resources Quality impacted (with 300 feet of) by motorized routes (MR), MDC: 19 off-road travel for dispersed camping (MDC), cross- MBGR: 0 country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Miles of Outstanding Arizona Waters potentially MR: 1 Resources Quality impacted (with 300 feet of) by motorized routes (MR), MDC: 0 off-road travel for dispersed camping (MDC), cross- MBGR: 0 country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Miles of impaired waterbodies (303(d) listed), MR: 2.6 Resources Quality potentially impacted (with 300 feet of) by motorized MDC: 0 routes (MR), off-road travel for dispersed camping MBGR: 0 (MDC), cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) Water Water Miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of lakes 37 Resources Quality

Effects to Watershed More information is available in the project record including the full hydrology and soils analysis file, as part of the watershed specialist report. The cumulative effects for soils, riparian, water resources, and watersheds are found within this section.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Comparing alternative 2 to alternative 1, nine subwatersheds or 6 percent of all subwatersheds exhibited a decrease (improvement) of the Open Road Density attribute rating and two that showed an increase or 1 percent of the subwatersheds. For the Proximity of Water attribute, there were a total of 10 subwatersheds or 7 percent that exhibited a decrease (improvement) in the rating and zero an increase (degraded). Combining these two attributes, the difference between alternative 2 and alternative 1, resulted in Terrestrial Physical Road and Trail Indicator decreasing (improvement) in seven watersheds, which was 5 percent of all subwatersheds. The indicator did not increase (degrade) in any subwatersheds.

Comparing alternative 3 to alternative 1 for the Open Road Density attribute, a total of 33 subwatersheds or 23 percent of subwatersheds exhibited a decrease (improvement) of the rating and zero showed an increase (degraded). Alternative 3 resulted in a similar distribution of Proximity to Water ratings as alternative 2; however, 12 subwatersheds or 8 percent showed a decrease in the attribute rating (improvement) and an increase in one watershed or approximately

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 184 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

1 percent of subwatersheds. Combining these two attributes, the difference between alternatives 3 and 1, resulted in Terrestrial Physical Road and Trail Indicator decreasing (improvement) in 17 subwatersheds, 12 percent of all subwatersheds. As with alternative 2, the indicator did not increase (degrade) in any subwatersheds.

In summary, alternative 3 resulted in the greatest improvement of the Open Road Density and Proximity to Water attributes, which resulted in the greatest improvement of the Terrestrial Physical Road and Trail Indicator.

Table 85. Summary comparison of direct and indirect effects to watershed resources Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Percentage of watersheds with Percentage of watersheds with increase or decrease as increase or decrease as compared to alternative 1 compared to alternative 1 Attribute Open Road Density 6% Decrease 23% Decrease 1% Increase 0% Increase Attribute Proximity of Streams 7% Decrease 8% Decrease 0% Increase 1% Increase Indicator Terrestrial Physical 5% Decrease 12% Decrease Road Trail Class 0% Increase 0% Increase

Background The Watershed Condition Classification (WCC) system (USDA Forest Service 2011a and b) is a national forest-based, landscape-scale evaluation of watershed condition. It offers a systematic, flexible means of classifying watersheds based on a core set of national watershed condition indicators. The system relies on professional judgment exercised by forest interdisciplinary teams, existing data (range, riparian, road, aquatic, timber, fire, etc.), local knowledge, GIS data and national databases to the extent they are available. Assessment also involves adhering to a written rules set and criteria for indicators that describe 3 watershed condition classes (Functioning Properly, Functioning at Risk, or Impaired Function). The WCC system evaluates watershed condition at the 6th code (subwatershed) level.

Three classes are used to describe watershed condition (USDA Forest Service 2011a):

• Class 1 = Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition.

• Class 2 = Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition.

• Class 3 = Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition.

The three classes are considered directly related to the degree or level of watershed functionality (USDA 2011):

• Class 1 = Functioning Properly

• Class 2 = Functioning at Risk

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 185 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• Class 3 = Impaired Function

Watershed scores are calculated for 12 watershed condition indicators outlined in the WCC. The indicator scores were derived from evaluation of a series of ratings and scores given to attributes under those indicators. The following information defines these ratings and scores:

Watershed Scores:

• The watershed condition scores are tracked to one decimal point and reported as Watershed Condition Classes 1, 2, or 3. Class 1 (Functioning Properly) represents scores ranging from 1.0 to 1.6, Class 2 (Functioning at Risk) are scores from 1.7 to 2.2, and Class 3 includes scores from 2.3 to 3.0.

Indicator Ratings:

• Indicator Rating 1 = Synonymous with “GOOD” condition. It is the expected indicator value in a watershed with high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to the natural potential condition. The rating suggests that the watershed is Functioning Properly with respect to that indicator.

• Indicator Rating 2 = Synonymous with “FAIR” condition. It is the expected indicator value in a watershed with moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to the natural potential condition. The rating suggests that the watershed is Functioning at Risk with respect to that indicator.

• Indicator Rating 3 = Synonymous with “POOR” condition. It is the expected indicator value in a watershed with low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to the natural potential condition. The rating suggests that the watershed is Impaired or functioning at unacceptable risk with respect to that indicator.

The WCC Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2011a) acknowledges the following limitations related to defining specific classes, which will carry throughout this cumulative effects analysis:

• Watershed condition is not directly observable (Suter 1993). In nature, no distinct lines separate watersheds that are functioning properly from impaired watersheds and, therefore, every classification scheme is arbitrary to some extent. • Watershed condition is a mental construct that has numerous definitions and interpretations in scientific literature (Lackey 2001). • The attributes that reflect the state of a watershed are continually changing because of natural disturbances (e.g., wildfire, landslide, floods, insects, and disease), natural variability of ecological processes (e.g., flows and cycles of energy, nutrients, and water), climate variability, and human modifications. The most current watershed condition assessment for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests is available as an interactive map viewer application at https://apps.fs.usda.gov/wcatt/. The WCC process recommends a periodic reassessment by an interdisciplinary team occur every 5 to 10 years or sooner, in particular if a large-scale event takes place that dramatically changes the landscape and impacts watershed condition.

This version of the WCC assessment includes reassessment of approximately 50 watersheds that were impacted by the Wallow Fire in 2011. The changes from the initial scores to those

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 186 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

watersheds assessed in 2010 were made the following year after the Wallow Fire in 2012. These changes by watershed can be examined using the web-based map view application mentioned above: https://apps.fs.usda.gov/wcatt/.

Affected Environment

Watershed Condition One-hundred and fifty-two watersheds are assessed for condition classification across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Of these 152 watersheds, 34 or 22 percent are classified as “Functioning Properly,” 105 or 69 percent are classified as “Functioning at Risk,” and 13 or 9 percent are classified as “Impaired Function” (see appendix A in the watershed specialist report). These ratings reflect the watershed condition ratings for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ National Forest System (NFS) lands only. The large majority of watersheds classified as Functioning at Risk or Impaired Function have to do with the impact the Rodeo-Chediski fire of 2002 and the Wallow Fire of 2011 had on forest and watershed function and health. These two fires accounted for over 660,000acres of burned area, or a little less than one-third of the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests area. Approximately one-quarter of those acres consisted of uncharacteristic burn behavior across the landscape, which ultimately resulted in high soil burn severity of those areas. Because of the changed conditions created by the Wallow Fire, four subwatersheds were rescored in 2015. Conditions are generally improving in watersheds that were rated as Functioning at Risk or Impaired Function because of the subsequent impacts from either one of these fires, but much more recovery time and restoration effort is ultimately needed to improve many of these watershed scores up a condition class.

Currently, the Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek, Long Tom Canyon-Chevelon Canyon, Pratt Lake and Upper Wildcat Canyon watersheds have been identified as priority watersheds for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. The Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek and Pratt Lake watersheds are identified as Functioning at Risk, but are considered as being able to be moved to Functioning Properly within a 10- to 20-year period, with some investment from forest restoration treatments as part of the proposed action from the West Escudilla Restoration Project (USDA Forest Service 2017a and b). The remaining two priority watersheds are classified as “Functioning Properly,” but considerable opportunity to maintain those ratings coincide with restoration activities as part of the proposed action for the Larson Restoration Project (USDA Forest Service 2014a). Watershed Restoration Action Plans (WRAPs) were completed for each of these watersheds in the last five years (USDA Forest Service 2014b; USDA Forest Service 2018).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 These are general effects common to all alternatives including the no-action alternative (alternative 1).

Direct and Indirect Effects Using the revised no-action alternative road and trail system and applying it the Watershed Condition Framework scoring system, 28 percent of subwatersheds received a good rating for the road density attribute, 69 percent of subwatersheds received a fair rating, and 3 percent of watersheds received a poor rating. For the Proximity to Water Attribute, 15 percent of subwatersheds received a good rating, 85 percent of watersheds a fair rating, and there were no

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 187 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

watersheds with a poor rating. The Road and Trail Indicator class, which is partially dependent on the Road Density and Proximity to Water Attributes, was found to be poor, fair, and good in 9 percent, 81 percent, and 10 percent, of all subwatersheds, respectively.

Table 86. Direct and indirect effects indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Watershed Condition Open Road Density Percentage of watersheds with Poor 3% Attribute ‘Poor,’ ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 69% Good 28% Watershed Condition Proximity to Water Percentage of watersheds with Poor 0% Attribute ‘Poor,’ ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 85% Good 15% Watershed Condition Road and Trail Percentage of watersheds with Poor 9% Indicator ‘Poor,’ ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 81% Good 0%

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects In alternative 2, 32 percent of subwatersheds would receive a good rating for the open road density attribute, 67 percent a fair rating, and 1 percent a poor rating. For the road proximity to streams attribute, 22 percent of subwatersheds received a good rating, 78 percent a fair rating, and zero percent of watersheds received a poor rating. The Road and Trail Indicator class, which is partially dependent on the Road Density and Proximity to Water Attributes, was found to be poor, fair, and good in 5 percent, 83 percent, and 12 percent, of all subwatersheds, respectively.

Table 87. Watershed condition direct and indirect effects alternative 2 Resource Element Resource Measure Alternative 2 Indicator Watershed Condition Road Density Percentage of watersheds with ‘Poor,’ Poor 1% Attribute ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 67% Good 32% Watershed Condition Proximity to Percentage of watersheds with ‘Poor,’ Poor 0% Water Attribute ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 78% Good 22% Watershed Condition Road and Trail Percentage of watersheds with ‘Poor,’ Poor 12% Indicator ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 83% Good 5%

Cumulative Effects The following presents an analysis of the cumulative effects to watershed resources using the Watershed Condition Classification ratings (WCC) within Watershed Condition Framework. This analysis is best presented comparing the relative change of the action alternative to that of alternative 1. The actual acres used to calculate percent change are located in appendices B though H of the watershed specialist report. Note: when ‘within or with WCC” is mentioned it is referring to those acres within subwatersheds that the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are responsible for rating as part of the National WCF program.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 188 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Road Density within WCC Rating Total road density for “open roads” (Maintenance Level 2, 3, and 4 and ATV / Motorized Trail routes) in Functioning at Risk subwatersheds would decrease by 28 percent in alternative 2 compared to alternative 1 (existing condition) (see appendix C in the watershed specialist report).

For Functioning Properly watersheds, total open road density would decrease by 4 percent in alternative 2 and when compared to alternative 1. The total open road density in Impaired watersheds would increase by 3 percent in alternative 2.

Road Density within Past and Planned Activity Areas within WCC The total open road density in completed past activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds across the Forests (roughly 7 percent of the total forest area that is within the WCC) would decrease by 3 percent for alternative 2 as compared to alternative 1 (see appendix D in the watershed specialist report). For total open road density in planned activity areas within these subwatersheds (about 33 percent of the total forest area with WCC), alternative 2 would see a decrease of 2 percent when compared with alternative 1.

For completed past activity areas within Functioning Properly watersheds across the Forests (approximately 3 percent of the total forest area is within the WCC), total open road density decreases by 5 percent in alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1. In planned activity areas (roughly 9 percent of the total forest area that is within the WCC), total open road density in Functioning Properly subwatersheds had a decrease of 9 percent in alternative 2 compared to alternative 1.

In completed past activity locations within Impaired watersheds across the Forests (about 4 percent of the total forest area that has WCC), total open road density increases by 4 percent in alternative 2 as compared to alternative 1. For planned activity areas within Impaired subwatersheds (approximately 3 percent of the total forest area that has WCC), total open road density increases by 7 percent in alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1.

Dispersed Camping Corridors Acres within WCC Total dispersed camping corridor acres in Functioning at Risk watersheds across the Forests would decrease by 96 percent in alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix E in the watershed specialist report). For Functioning Properly watersheds, total dispersed camping corridor acres would decrease by 93 percent in alternative 2 versus alternative 1. The total dispersed camping corridor acres in Impaired watersheds across the Forests would decrease by 96 percent under alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1. The overall total dispersed camping corridor acres across all subwatersheds would decrease by 96 percent in alternative 2 versus alternative 1.

Dispersed Camping Corridor Acres within Completed and Planned Activity Areas by WCC Rating The total dispersed camping corridor acres in completed past activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds across the forest would decrease by 95 percent for alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix F in the watershed specialist report). For total dispersed camping corridor acres in planned activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds, alternative 2 would produce a decrease of 94 percent versus alternative 1.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 189 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

For completed past activity areas within Functioning Properly subwatersheds across the Forests, total dispersed camping corridor acres would decrease by 91 percent in alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1. In planned activity areas within Functioning Properly watersheds, total dispersed camping corridor acres would decrease by 89 percent under alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1.

In completed past activity locations within Impaired watersheds across the Forests, total dispersed camping corridor acres decrease by 97 percent in alternative 2 compared to alternative 1. For planned activity areas within Impaired watersheds, total dispersed camping corridor acres decreases by 93 percent in alternative 2 versus alternative 1.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Acres within WCC Area Total motorized big game retrieval acres in Functioning at Risk subwatersheds across the Forests would decrease by 26 percent in alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix G in the watershed specialist report). For Functioning Properly subwatersheds, total motorized big game retrieval acres would decrease by 23 percent in alternative 2 versus alternative 1. In Impaired subwatersheds, the total motorized big game retrieval acres across the Forests would decrease by 19 percent under alternative 2 compared to alternative 1. The overall total dispersed camping corridor acres across all subwatersheds with WCC would decrease by 25 percent in alternative 2 compared to alternative 1.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Acres within Past and Planned Activity Areas by WCC Rating The total motorized big game retrieval acres in completed past activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds across the Forests would decrease by 16 percent in alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix G in the watershed specialist report). For total motorized big game retrieval acres in planned activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds, alternative 2 would produce a decrease of 20 percent versus alternative 1 (see appendix G in the watershed specialist report).

For completed past activity areas within Functioning Properly subwatersheds across the forest, total motorized big game retrieval acres would decrease by 6 percent in alternative 2 compared to alternative 1. In planned activity areas within Functioning Properly subwatersheds, total motorized big game retrieval acres would decrease by 5 percent under alternative 2 compared to alternative 1.

Within Impaired subwatersheds across the forest in completed past activity areas, total motorized big game retrieval acres decreases by 10 percent in alternative 2 versus alternative 1. For planned activity areas within Impaired subwatersheds, total motorized big game retrieval acres decreases by 20 percent in alternative 2 compared to alternative 1.

The overall total reduction within completed activity areas across all subwatersheds within WCC would be 12 percent and, for planned activity areas, a reduction of 17 percent compared to alternative 1.

Number of Stream Channel Crossings within WCC Across the entire forest the total number of stream crossings on open roads decreases by 13 percent as compared to alternative 1. Based on WCC scores there was a decrease of 13, 14, and 8 percent, respectively, in Function Properly, Functioning at Risk, and Impaired subwatersheds. It

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 190 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

should be noted that the changing of the status of currently open roads to closed or administrative would reduce; however, not remove all the associated effects of the stream crossings.

Number of Stream Channel Crossings on Roads within Completed and Planned Activity Areas within WCC The total number of stream crossings on the open road system in completed past activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds across the Forests would decrease by 8 percent for alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix I in the watershed specialist report). The total number of stream crossings on the open road system in planned activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds would decrease by 13 percent in alternative 2 versus alternative 1.

For completed past activity areas within Functioning Properly subwatersheds across the Forests, the total number of stream crossings on the open road system would decrease by 12 percent for alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix J in the watershed specialist report t). In planned activity areas within Functioning Properly subwatersheds, the total number of stream crossings on the open road system would decrease by 11 percent for alternative 2.

Within Impaired subwatersheds across the Forests in completed past activity areas, the total number of stream crossings on the open road system would decrease by 5 percent under alternative 2 when compared to alternative 1. For planned activity areas within Impaired subwatersheds, the total number of stream channel crossings on the open road system increases by 1 percent for alternative 2.

Number of Stream Channel Crossings on Open Roads across OAW and Impaired Waters Streams within WCC Upon examination of the total number of stream channel crossings on open roads that intersect both OAW and Impaired Waters, there are no notable differences between alternatives. For the Impaired Water Crossings, there is currently only 1 in the Forests located on the Blue River. For the OAW stream crossings, there are currently 2 on Hay Creek, 1 on Snake Creek, 1 on the West Fork-Little Colorado River, and 1 on Stinky Creek. The only differences detectable under either alternative have to do with changes in road status of certain crossings on OAW streams. There are no differences by alternatives among road status for any of the crossings on Impaired Waters streams.

OAW Streams with Road Status Changes: • West Fork Little Colorado River – One crossing currently as an ML2 road would become part of the closed road system. • Stinky Creek – Under alternative 2, two open roads with crossings would become ML2 administrative roads.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 191 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 88. Watershed cumulative effects measures and indicators for alternative 2 Alternative 2 % Difference Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure from alternative 1 Watershed Condition- Open Road Density Open Road Density across entire Roads and Trails ASNF by WCC rating: FP ↓ 4% Attribute Functioning Properly (FP), FAR ↓ 28% Functioning at Risk (FAR) or IF ↑ 3% Impaired Function (IF) Watershed Condition- Open Road Density in Open Road Density within past FP ↓5% Soil Productivity and activity areas activity areas by WCC rating FAR ↓3% Erosion Attribute IF ↑4% Watershed Condition- Open Road Density in Open Road Density within FP ↓9% Soil Productivity and activity areas proposed activity areas by WCC FAR ↓2% Erosion Attribute rating IF ↓7% Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from Framework-Soil area from Dispersed DCCs across entire forest by FP ↓93% Productivity and Camping Corridors WCC rating: Functioning FAR ↓96% Erosion Attribute Properly (FP), Functioning at IF ↓96% Risk (FAR) or Impaired Function (IF) Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓91% Framework-Soil area from Dispersed DCCs within past activity areas FAR ↓95% Productivity and Camping Corridors by WCC rating IF ↓97% Erosion Attribute Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓89% Framework-Soil area from Dispersed DCCs within proposed activity FAR ↓94% Productivity and Camping Corridors areas by WCC rating IF ↓93 Erosion Attribute Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓23% Framework-Soil area from Motorized MBGR across entire forest by FAR ↓26% Productivity and Big Game Retrieval WCC rating IF ↓19% Erosion Attribute Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓6% Framework-Soil area from Motorized MBGR within past activity areas FAR ↓16% Productivity and Big Game Retrieval by WCC rating IF ↓10% Erosion Attribute Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓5% Framework-Soil area from Motorized MBGR within proposed activity FAR ↓20% Productivity and Big Game Retrieval areas by WCC rating IF ↓20% Erosion Attribute Watershed Condition Potential Water Quality Stream Crossings across the FP ↓13% Framework-Water Changes from Stream entire forest by WCC rating FAR ↓ 14% Quality Attributes Crossings IF ↓8% Watershed Condition Potential Water Quality Stream Crossings across the FP ↓12% Framework-Water Changes from Stream entire forest within past activity FAR ↓ 8% Quality Attributes Crossings areas by WCC rating IF ↓5% Watershed Condition Potential Water Quality Stream Crossings across the FP ↓11% Framework-Water Changes from Stream entire forest within proposed FAR ↓13% Quality Attributes Crossings activity areas by WCC rating IF ↑ 1%

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 192 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 2 % Difference Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure from alternative 1 Watershed Condition Potential Water Quality Stream Crossings across the Framework-Water Changes from Stream entire forest within impaired Quality Attributes Crossings water bodies or OAWs WCC -3* rating: Functioning Properly (FP), Functioning at Risk (FAR) or Impaired Function (IF) Notes: ASNF = Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, WCC = Watershed Condition Framework, DCC = Dispersed Camping Corridor, Motorized Big Game Retrieval, FP = Functioning Properly, FAR = Functional at Risk, IF = Impaired Function, OAW = Outstanding Arizona Waters. * Except the potential water quality changes from stream crossings’ indicator which is an absolute change.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects In alternative 3, 50 percent of subwatersheds would receive a good rating for the road density attribute, 49 percent of subwatersheds would receive a fair rating, and 1 percent of watersheds a poor rating. For proximity to water, most watersheds received a fair rating with 78 percent, followed by 22 percent rated good. No watersheds were rated as poor. The Road and Trail Indicator class, which is partially dependent on the Road Density and Proximity to Water Attributes, was found to be poor, fair, and good in 3, 78, and 19 percent, of all subwatersheds, respectively.

Table 89. Watershed direct and indirect effects indicators and measures, alternative 3 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 3 Watershed Condition Road Density Attribute Percentage of watersheds with Poor 1% ‘Poor,’ ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 49% Good 50% Watershed Condition Proximity to Water Percentage of watersheds with Poor 0% Attribute ‘Poor,’ ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 78% Good 22% Watershed Condition Road and Trail Indicator Percentage of watersheds with Poor 3% ‘Poor,’ ‘Fair,’ or ‘Good’ rating Fair 78% Good 19%

Cumulative Effects

Road Density Total road density for “open roads” (Maintenance Level 2, 3, and 4 and ATV / Motorized Trail routes) in Functioning at Risk subwatersheds would decrease by 48 percent in alternative 3 compared to alternative 1 (existing condition) (see appendix C in the watershed specialist report).

For Functioning Properly subwatersheds, total open road density would decrease by 28 percent for alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1. The total open road density in Impaired watersheds would decrease by 34 percent under alternative 3. The overall total open road density across all subwatersheds considered would decrease by 38 percent in alternative 3 compared to alternative 1.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 193 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Road Density within Past and Planned Activity Areas within WCC The total open road density in completed activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds across the Forests (roughly 7 percent of the total forest area that has WCC) would decrease by 25 percent under alternative 3 as compared to alternative 1 (see appendix D in the watershed specialist report). For total open road density in planned activity areas within these subwatersheds (about 33 percent of the total forest area that has WCC), alternative 3 would see a decrease of 33 percent when compared with alternative 1.

For completed past activity areas within Functioning Properly subwatersheds across the Forests (approximately 3 percent of the total forest area that has WCC), total open road density decreases by 25 percent in alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1. In planned activity areas (roughly 9 percent of the total forest area that has WCC), total open road density in Functioning Properly subwatersheds decreased 32 percent in alternative 3.

In completed past activity locations within Impaired watersheds across the Forests (about 4 percent of the total forest area that has WCC), total open road density decreases by 24 percent in alternative 3 compared to alternative 1. For planned activity areas within Impaired watersheds (approximately 3 percent of the total forest area that has WCC), total open road density decreases by 32 percent in alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1.

Dispersed Camping Corridors Acres within WCC Total dispersed camping corridor acres in Functioning at Risk watersheds across the Forests would decrease by greater than 99 percent under alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix E in the watershed specialist report). For Functioning Properly subwatersheds, total dispersed camping corridor acres would decrease by over 99 percent in alternative 3 versus alternative 1. The total dispersed camping corridor acres in Impaired subwatersheds across the Forests would decrease l00 percent in alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1. The overall total dispersed camping corridor acres across all subwatersheds with WCC would decrease by over 99 percent in alternative 3 versus alternative 1.

Dispersed Camping Corridor Acres within Past and Planned Activity Areas within WCC The total dispersed camping corridor acres in completed past activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds across the Forests would decrease by greater than 99 percent in alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix F in the watershed specialist report). For alternative 3, total dispersed camping corridor acres in planned activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds, would decrease over 99 percent versus alternative 1.

For completed activity areas within Functioning Properly subwatersheds across the Forests, total dispersed camping corridor acres would decrease by over 99 percent in alternative 3 when both are compared to alternative 1. In planned activity areas within Functioning Properly watersheds, total dispersed camping corridor acres would decrease by over 99 percent in alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1.

In completed activity locations within Impaired watersheds across the Forests, total dispersed camping corridor acres decrease by 100 percent in alternative 3 compared to alternative 1. For planned activity areas within Impaired watersheds, total dispersed camping corridor acres would decrease by 100 percent in alternative 3 versus alternative 1.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 194 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Acres within WCC Alternative 3 would result in a 100 percent reduction of the total motorized big game retrieval acres across all watersheds in the Forests as it involves complete removal of motorized big game retrieval (see appendix G in the watershed specialist report).

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Acres within Completed and Planned Activity Areas with WCC Alternative 3 would result in a 100 percent reduction of the total motorized big game retrieval acres across all watersheds in the Forests completely removes motorized big game retrieval (see appendix H in the watershed specialist report).

Number of Stream Channel Crossings across within WCC Across the entire forest, the total number of stream crossings on open roads decreases by 43 percent as compared to alternative 1. Based on WCC ratings, there was a decrease of 41, 44, and 40 percent, respectively, in Function Properly, Functioning at Risk, and Impaired subwatersheds (see appendix I in the watershed specialist report.)

Number of Stream Channel Crossings on Roads within Completed and Planned Activity Areas with WCC The total number of stream crossings on the open road system in completed activity areas within Functioning at Risk and Functioning Properly subwatersheds across the Forests would decrease by 29 and 34 percent, respectively under alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix I in the watershed specialist report). The total number of stream crossings on the open road system in planned activity areas within Functioning at Risk subwatersheds would decrease by 46 percent under alternative 3 versus alternative 1.

Within Impaired subwatersheds, the total number of stream crossings on the open road system in completed activities areas would decrease by 31 percent for alternative 3 when compared to alternative 1. For planned activity areas within Impaired subwatersheds, the total number of stream channel crossings on the open road system would decrease by 28 percent for alternative 3.

OAW Streams with Road Status Changes by Alternative:

• Hay Creek – Under alternative 3, the two crossings currently on ML2 roads would become part of the closed road system. • Snake Creek – In alternative 3, the one crossing currently on an ML2 road would become part of the closed road system.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 195 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• West Fork Little Colorado River – The one crossing currently as an ML2 road would become part of the closed road system. • Stinky Creek –Under alternative 3 an ML-3 road with only one crossing would remain as part of the open road system.

Summary of Watershed Cumulative Effects The following is a summary of the cumulative effects for the preceding soil, riparian, water resources, and watershed analyses.

Road Density within WCC For total open road density, the most notable result was that alternative 3 offers a 24 percent greater reduction than alternative 2 across the entire forest area within the WCC area (see appendix C in the watershed specialist report). Another notable result was that alternative 3 would include an overall reduction of 34 percent in total open road density in Impaired watersheds compared an increase of 3 percent under alternative 2, a 37 percent difference.

Table 90. Watershed cumulative effects indicators and measures, alternative 3 Alternative 3 Resource % Difference Resource Element Measure Indicator from alternative 1 Watershed Condition- Open Road Open Road Density across entire FP ↓ 28% Roads and Trails Density ASNF by WCC rating: Functioning FAR ↓ 48% Attribute Properly (FP), Functioning at Risk IF ↓ 34% (FAR) or Impaired Function (IF) Watershed Condition-Soil Open Road Open Road Density within FP ↓ 25% Productivity and Erosion Density in activity completed activity areas by WCC FAR ↓ 25% Attribute areas rating IF ↓ 24% Watershed Condition-Soil Open Road Open Road Density within FP ↓ 32% Productivity and Erosion Density in activity planned activity areas by WCC FAR ↓ 33% Attribute areas rating IF ↓ 32% Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓ 99% Framework-Soil area from DCCs across the Forests by WCC FAR ↓ 99% Productivity and Erosion Dispersed rating IF ↓100% Attribute Camping Corridors Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓ 99% Framework-Soil area from DCCs within completed activity FAR ↓ 99% Productivity and Erosion Dispersed areas by WCC rating IF ↓ 100% Attribute Camping Corridors Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓99% Framework-Soil area from DCCs within planned activity FAR ↓ 99% Productivity and Erosion Dispersed areas by WCC rating IF ↓ 100% Attribute Camping Corridors Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓ 100% Framework-Soil area from MBGR across the Forests by FAR ↓ 100% Productivity and Erosion Motorized Big WCC rating IF ↓ 100% Attribute Game Retrieval Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓ 100% Framework-Soil area from MBGR within completed activity FAR ↓ 100% Productivity and Erosion Motorized Big areas by WCC rating IF ↓ 100% Attribute Game Retrieval

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 196 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 3 Resource % Difference Resource Element Measure Indicator from alternative 1 Watershed Condition Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from FP ↓ 100% Framework-Soil area from MBGR within planned activity FAR ↓ 100% Productivity and Erosion Motorized Big areas by WCC rating IF ↓ 100% Attribute Game Retrieval Watershed Condition Potential Water Stream Crossings across the FP ↓ 28% Framework-Water Quality Changes entire forest by WCC rating FAR ↓ 29% Quality Attributes from Stream IF ↓ 33% Crossings Watershed Condition Potential Water Stream Crossings across the FP ↓ 29% Framework-Water Quality Changes Forests within completed activity FAR ↓ 34% Quality Attributes from Stream areas by WCC rating IF ↓ 31% Crossings Watershed Condition Potential Water Stream Crossings across the FP ↓ 40% Framework-Water Quality Changes Forests within planned activity FAR ↓ 46% Quality Attributes from Stream areas by WCC rating IF ↓ 28% Crossings Watershed Condition Potential Water Stream Crossings across the Framework-Water Quality Changes Forests within impaired water -5* Quality Attributes from Stream bodies or OAWs WCC rating Crossings Notes: ASNF = Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, WCC = Watershed Condition Framework, DCC = Dispersed Camping Corridor, Motorized Big Game Retrieval, FP = Functioning Properly, FAR = Functional at Risk, IF = Impaired Function, OAW = Outstanding Arizona Waters. * Except the potential water quality changes from stream crossings’ indicator which is an absolute change.

When total open road density was examined in completed and planned activity areas within watersheds by WCC, there were also some noteworthy differences between alternatives when compared to alternative 1. Within Functioning at Risk watersheds, the total open road density in completed and planned activity areas decreased by 22 and 31 percent respectively more in alternative 3 than for alternative 2 (see appendix D in the watershed specialist report). In Impaired watersheds, the total open road density in completed and planned activity areas decreased by 28 and 25 percent more respectively, than for alternative 2.

Overall, while both alternative 2 and alternative 3 would result in beneficial effects in Functioning at Risk watersheds across the Forests as a whole, alternative 3 offers the most beneficial impact to cumulative effects locations (completed and planned activity areas) with regards to total open road density reductions in Functioning at Risk watersheds. Alternative 3 also offers more opportunity for potentially beneficial impacts to Impaired watersheds with regard to total open road density reductions in cumulative effects locations as opposed to increases in those areas that would occur in alternative 2. This is particularly notable as, by definition, Impaired watersheds are the most susceptible to an unacceptable risk of degradation.

With respect to which of the watershed condition indicators embedded in this analysis would be most impacted by the alternatives in regards to open road density, it is apparent that the roads / trail condition indicator (particularly in watersheds in which a “Fair” or “Poor” road / trail condition rating is contributing to a Functioning at Risk or Impaired watershed condition classification) has the potential to improve the most with the implementation of alternative 3. The largest improvement could also be seen in alternative 3 versus alternative 2 for the water quality and soil condition indicators in watersheds where a “Fair” or “Poor” rating for these is

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 197 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

contributing to an overall Functioning at Risk or Impaired watershed condition classification, but probably to a lesser extent than the roads / trail condition indicator. Lastly, water quantity, as route density plays a minor role in the quantification of this indicator, has the potential to possibly improve over a period of time with the implementation of alternative 3, compared to most likely a negligible change with implementation of alternative 2. With that being said, no potentially adverse cumulative effects to a watershed condition indicator(s) as a result of road density changes with the implementation of alternative 2 as opposed to alternative 3 are anticipated to occur at a degree or extent that would impact the overall WCC class for a watershed.

Dispersed Camping Corridors within WCC Allowed dispersed camping corridor acres, currently, is synonymous with the acres open to cross- country travel on the Forests, which is 1,625,363 acres or roughly 75 percent of the total forest area. One of the major objectives of this project, for both alternatives 2 and 3, is to substantially reduce the amount of cross-country travel allowed and to specifically designate camping corridor areas. Both alternatives offer a greater than 90 percent reduction in dispersed camping corridor acres across within the WCC compared to alternative 1 with the largest reductions seen in Impaired watersheds (see appendix E in the watershed specialist report). Overall, there would be a 3 percent greater reduction in dispersed camping corridor acres within the WCC for alternative 3 than alternative 2. Similarly, in completed and planned activity areas within Functioning Properly watersheds, an 8 and 10 percent greater reduction, respectively, is expected to occur for alternative 3 as compared to alternative 2. For Functioning at Risk subwatersheds the difference between alternative 3 and alternative 2 for completed and planned areas was a 4 and 5 percent reduction, respectively. Greater reductions, 3 and 7 percent, were also present for alternative 3 as compared to alternative 2 in Impaired subwatersheds (see appendix F in the watershed specialist report).

Overall, across the Forests, both alternatives 2 and 3 offer very similar and considerably beneficial effects across all watersheds. Selection of either has the potential to improve watershed condition in the long term. The watershed condition indicator with potential to improve the most is soil condition. Cross-country travel and the subsequent creation of user-created, unauthorized route systems across the Forests has impacted soil condition in select spots to the point where there is an increased vulnerability to degradation of proper soil function or where soil function impairment has already occurred. Networks of such routes can hinder potential soil productivity through compaction effects, accelerate soil erosion and, if route networks are largely connected to drainageways, increase sedimentation into stream channels. By reducing or eliminating cross- country travel acres for dispersed camping, soil condition in watersheds where considerable cross-country travel has resulted in a “Fair” or “Poor” rating could have the potential to improve in the long term with the implementation of either alternative 2 or 3, as these areas should have a chance to naturally recover. Additionally, if sedimentation were an issue as a by-product of dense cross-country travel routes connected to drainageways in a particular watershed, there would be the potential for an improvement in the water quality indicator rating for those areas with the implementation of either alternative.

Ultimately, the implementation of either alternative would amount to no adverse cumulative effects to a watershed condition indicator(s) as a result of dispersed camping corridor area reduction that would impact the overall WCC class for a watershed. There does exist the potential for beneficial cumulative effects to watershed condition indicator(s) as a result of dispersed camping corridor area reduction with the implementation of either alternative that may result in the improvement of an indicator rating over time.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 198 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorized Big Game Retrieval within WCC Similar to dispersed camping allowed under current management, motorized big game retrieval acres are equal to the number of acres allowed for cross-country travel which is about 75 percent of total forest area. One of the main objectives of this project is to considerably reduce cross- country travel, motorized big game retrieval is reduced under both alternatives. Alternative 3 is most beneficial to watershed condition across watersheds in the Forests, as it would result in a complete removal of cross-country travel for motorized big game retrieval. Alternative 2, while not as much as alternative 3, would also benefit overall watershed condition across watersheds on the forest with a 25 percent reduction (see appendix G in the watershed specialist report) in cross- country motorized big game retrieval acres. There would be a 77, 74, and 81 percent greater reduction, respectively, in acres potentially disturbed by motorized big game retrieval for alternative 3 as compared to alternative 2, in Functioning Properly, Functional at Risk, and Impaired Function subwatersheds. Comparing alternative 3 to alternative 2, reductions of 94 and 95 percent, 84 and 80 percent, and 90 and 80 percent are expected for completed and planned areas in Functioning Properly, Functional at Risk, and Impaired Function subwatersheds respectively. (See appendix H in the watershed specialist report).

Overall, across the Forests, alternative 3 offers the best chance for watershed condition improvement over time due to the extent of the beneficial effect compared to alternative 2. However, that does not go without saying that the selection of alternative 2 would also see an improvement in watershed condition across select areas over time. With a reduction in motorized big game retrieval acres, much like the reduction of cross-country travel acres for dispersed camping, the watershed condition indicator with potential to improve the most is soil condition. As previously mentioned, cross-country travel and user-created, unauthorized routes have impacted soil condition in some locations across the Forests to the point where there is an increased vulnerability to soil function degradation or where soil function impairment has already occurred. Effects from these ground disturbances can hinder potential soil productivity through compaction, accelerate soil erosion and, if route networks are connected to drainageways, increase sedimentation into stream channels. By reducing or eliminating cross-country travel acres for big game retrieval, soil condition in watersheds where appreciable cross-country travel has resulted in a “Fair” or “Poor” rating could have the potential to improve in the long term with the implementation of either alternative 2 or 3 as these areas should have a chance to naturally recover. Additionally, if sedimentation were an issue as a by-product of dense cross-country travel routes connected to drainageways in a particular watershed, there would be potential for an improvement in the water quality attribute rating for those areas with the implementation of either alternative.

The implementation of either alternative would amount to no adverse cumulative effects to a watershed condition indicator(s) as a result of motorized big game retrieval area reduction that would impact the overall WCC for a watershed. There is potential for beneficial cumulative effects to watershed condition indicator(s) as a result of motorized big game retrieval area reduction with the implementation of either alternative (more so in alternative 3, compared to 2) that may result in the improvement of an indicator rating over time.

Stream Crossings When the overall total number of stream crossings on open roads was examined in all subwatersheds within the Forests’ WCC there was a 30 percent greater reduction from alternative 3 than alternative 2 when compared to the no action alternative. Broken down by WCC, this

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 199 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

equated to a reduction of 28, 29, and 33 percent, respectively, for Functioning Properly, Functioning at Risk, and Impaired function subwatersheds (see appendix I in the watershed specialist report). For the number of stream crossings on open roads that occur on OAW or Impaired Stream crossings, there are only a few minor differences in road status on the OAW locations and no changes at all to crossings on Impaired streams.

When the total number of stream crossings on open roads was examined in completed and planned activity areas within watersheds by WCC, there were also some noteworthy differences between alternatives when compared to alternative 1 (see appendix J in the watershed specialist report) . Within Properly Functioning, Functioning at Risk, and Impaired subwatersheds, the number of stream crossings on open roads in completed activity areas decreased in alternative 3 by 17, 26, and 26 percent more, respectively, than for alternative 2 when compared to the no action alternative. In planned activity area the differences were 29, 33, and 29 percent, respectively. See appendix J in the watershed specialist report.

Overall, while both alternatives 2 and 3 would result in beneficial effects in Functioning at Risk watersheds across the Forests, alternative 3 offers the most beneficial impact to cumulative effects locations (completed and planned activity areas) with regard to the number of stream channel crossing reductions on the open road system in Functioning at Risk watersheds. Alternative 3 also offers more opportunity for potentially beneficial impacts in cumulative effects locations within Impaired watersheds with regard to the number of stream channel crossing reductions on the open road system in these areas. This is particularly notable as, by definition, Impaired watersheds are the most susceptible to an unacceptable risk of degradation.

The water quality condition indicator (particularly in watersheds in which a “Fair” or “Poor” road / trail condition rating is contributing to a Functioning at Risk or Impaired watershed condition classification) has the potential to improve the most with the implementation of alternative 3. Another notable improvement could also be seen in alternative 3 versus 2 for the road / trail and soil condition indicators in watersheds where a “Fair” or “Poor” rating for these is contributing to an overall Functioning at Risk or Impaired watershed condition classification, but probably to a lesser extent. Lastly, water quantity, as stream crossings on the open road system play a minor role in the quantification of this indicator, has the potential to possibly improve over a period of time with the implementation of alternative 3 compared to most likely a negligible change with implementation of alternative 2. No potentially adverse cumulative effects to a watershed condition indicator(s) as a result of changes to the number of stream crossings with the implementation of alternative 2 as opposed to alternative 3 are anticipated to occur at a degree or extent that would impact the overall WCC for a watershed.

Table 91. Summary comparison of cumulative environmental effects to watershed resources Resource Resource Indicator Measure Relative % Element Difference between Alternatives 3 and 2* WCC-Roads and Open Road Density Open Road Density across entire FP 24% Trails Attribute ASNF by WCC rating: Functioning FAR 20% Properly (FP), Functioning at Risk IF 37% (FAR) or Impaired Function (IF) WCC- Soil Open Road Density Open Road Density within FP 30% Productivity and in activity areas completed activity areas by WCC FAR 22% Erosion Attribute rating IF 20%

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 200 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Resource Indicator Measure Relative % Element Difference between Alternatives 3 and 2* WCC- Soil Open Road Density Open Road Density within planned FP 23% Productivity and in activity areas activity areas by WCC rating FAR 31% Erosion Attribute IF 25% WCC-Soil Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from DCCs FP 6% Productivity and area from Dispersed across the Forests by WCC rating FAR 3% Erosion Attribute Camping Corridors IF 4% WCC-Soil Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from DCCs FP 8% Productivity and area from Dispersed within completed activity areas by FAR 4% Erosion Attribute Camping Corridors WCC rating IF 3% WCC-Soil Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from DCCs FP 10% Productivity and area from Dispersed within planned activity areas by FAR 5% Erosion Attribute Camping Corridors WCC rating IF 7%

WCC-Soil Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from MBGR FP 77% Productivity and area from Motorized across the Forests by WCC rating FAR 74% Erosion Attribute Big Game Retrieval IF 81% WCC-Soil Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from MBGR FP 94% Productivity and area from Motorized within completed activity areas by FAR 84% Erosion Attribute Big Game Retrieval WCC rating: Functioning Properly IF 90% (FP), Functioning at Risk (FAR) or Impaired Function (IF) WCC-Soil Potential disturbed Potential disturbed area from MBGR FP 95% Productivity and area from Motorized within planned activity areas by FAR 80% Erosion Attribute Big Game Retrieval WCC rating IF 80% WCC-Water Potential Water Stream Crossings across the FP ↓28% Quality Attributes Quality Changes Forests by WCC rating FAR ↓29% from Stream IF↓33% Crossings WCC-Water Potential Water Stream Crossings across the FP 17% Quality Attributes Quality Changes Forests within completed activity FAR 26% from Stream areas by WCC rating IF 26% Crossings WCC-Water Potential Water Stream Crossings across the FP 29% Quality Attributes Quality Changes Forests within planned activity areas FAR 13% from Stream by WCC rating IF 29% Crossings WCC-Water Potential Water Stream Crossings across the 2** Quality Attributes Quality Changes Forests within impaired water from Stream bodies or OAWs WCC rating Crossings Notes: ASNF = Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, WCC = Watershed Condition Classification, DCC = Dispersed Camping Corridor, Motorized Big Game Retrieval, FP = Functioning Properly, FAR = Functional at Risk, IF = Impaired Function, OAW = Outstanding Arizona Waters * As compared to alternative 1; ** Absolute change

Effects to Fisheries More information is available in the project record including the full fisheries analysis file, as part of the Aquatics/Fisheries Report.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 201 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Affected Environment Lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests form the headwaters for the Little Colorado, Black, Blue, and San Francisco Rivers, which produce water for many uses throughout Arizona. Streams and riparian areas occur at a higher density than any other area in the state, with over 2,000 miles of rivers and perennial streams and more than 30 lakes and reservoirs. The Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests are home to 14 native and approximately 25 nonnative fish species. Fish habitats range from high elevation cold water trout streams to the lower elevation warm water streams. Other aquatic and semi-aquatic species include leopard frogs, gartersnakes, springsnails, and other invertebrates such as the California floater.

Aquatic and riparian habitat in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests is extremely limited (less than 3 percent of the Forests), but provides for a wide array of aquatic biota and terrestrial flora and fauna. These habitats are critical to sustaining aquatic biota diversity in the Southwest. Overall, the Apache-Sitgreaves account for 41 percent of the perennial streams and 38 percent of the stream reaches with native fish on national forests in Arizona (Vander Lee et al. 2006).

The speckled dace, Sonora sucker, and desert sucker have the largest distributions in the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests; while the Gila trout, Gila chub, and spikedace have the smallest. All of the streams with loach minnow in national forests in Arizona are in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. In addition, within national forests in Arizona, over two-thirds of the stream reaches with the bluehead sucker (95 percent), Apache trout (80 percent), Gila trout (71 percent), Lower Colorado River (LCR) sucker (70 percent), and Little Colorado (LC) spinedace (66 percent) are in the Apache-Sitgreaves (Vander Lee et al. 2006).

Current information regarding aquatic and riparian habitats and aquatic biota primarily consists of surveys and studies completed by State and Federal agencies over the last 10 to 20 years. These surveys show that approximately 70 percent of the stream reaches that have been surveyed are not meeting a minimum habitat condition index (HCI) standard of 60 percent. Where repeat surveys have occurred, conditions on approximately 50 percent of those stream reaches have declined in their HCI rating over the last 20 years, while the other 50 percent have increased in their HCI rating.

Most streams and aquatic and riparian habitats have experienced considerable degradation and alteration from a variety of human- and management-related activities; their ability to recover and improve has been affected, especially as ongoing and new impacts occur. Habitat quality and complexity have resulted from loss of pool habitat, loss of large wood within streams, riparian area impacts, channel alterations, and down cutting. Increased sedimentation rates can adversely impact habitat and species through negative impacts to water quantity and quality. Fish population surveys and sampling efforts have also shown declines for some species, while some nonnative species have shown increases.

Historic impacts (e.g., grazing, water developments and diversions, timber harvest and roads, fire suppression) that occurred 20 to over 100 years ago caused impacts to aquatic communities and their watersheds. The species and habitats of today have not yet recovered. Fish populations have been reduced from large interconnected populations to isolated populations within severely altered and degraded habitats. All the native species have lost much of their population redundancy within and outside the Forests. This is reflected in the historic and recent (last 20 years) population declines and fragmentation of fish species in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Historically, 17 of the 33 5th-level HUC watersheds in the Forests contained one or more

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 202 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

fish species. Currently, only 12 of these watersheds contain native fish, and those that still contain native fish have lost one to several species. There are two watersheds in the Forests where there were no fish historically present, but they are currently occupied by Apache trout.

The native aquatic species and populations analyzed here (especially federally listed) lack the resiliency to survive environmental disturbances from either natural or human-caused actions (e.g., fire and suppression of fire, climate variation, degraded watersheds and aquatic habitat, altered hydrologic conditions, loss of riparian and aquatic habitat, recreation demands, non-native species introductions, roads). The watersheds and ecosystems upon which these aquatic species and their habitats depend are also altered and departed from historical conditions; and while most of these impacts have occurred slowly over many decades, the individual and collective impacts still remain. Current conditions for aquatics/fisheries at the 5th level HUC watershed can be attributed to many factors. Changes throughout vegetation types have altered fire regimes, successional structure, composition and cover classes, and processes from historic conditions. Several vegetation types also have impaired soil conditions. Additionally, riparian condition is predominantly functioning-at-risk and hydrologic conditions (e.g., groundwater, water quality, stream flow) have also changed from historic conditions.

The razorback sucker has not been found in the Forests since the late 1980s, and the spikedace has not been found recently, although razorback sucker is considered extirpated (locally extinct) at this time, the spikedace is not. The LC spinedace, spikedace, and loach minnow are likely declining range-wide. The roundtail chub, LCR sucker, and the bluehead sucker are included in a multi-state conservation agreement in an attempt to improve their status and potentially prevent them from future listing under the Endangered Species Act. The longfin dace, Sonora sucker, desert sucker, and speckled dace are also likely declining in their numbers and/or distributions across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Recent declines for the speckled dace are associated with chemical treatments of streams for Apache trout recovery projects. Although this has likely impacted large numbers of individuals and reduced distribution, no populations have been lost and the species is considered secure within the Forests.

Table 92. Fisheries resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Resource Existing Resource Indicator Measure Element Condition Fish, snake, and Habitat impacts from Number of miles of open Discussed in text frog species disturbance roads and motorized trails above/below Fish, snake, and Habitat impacts from Number of road crossings Discussed in text frog species disturbance of drainages for opened above/below roads Fish, snake, and Habitat impacts from Acres of motorized big Discussed in text frog species disturbance game (i.e., elk) retrieval above/below corridors Fish, snake, and Habitat impacts from Acres of dispersed camping Discussed in text frog species disturbance corridors above/below Invertebrate Habitat/riparian impacts from Change in sediment Discussed in text species and frogs sediment and disturbance delivery above/below

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 203 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

alterations in habitat quality and complexity have resulted from loss of pool habitat, loss of large wood within streams, riparian area impacts, channel alterations, and down cutting. Increased sedimentation rates can adversely impact habitat and species through negative impacts to water quantity and quality. Across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, current conditions for most of the aquatic habitats and conditions are not currently meeting most of the desired conditions in the land management plan.

Roads can directly contribute fine sediment to streams, negatively impacting aquatic habitat and species and water quality; especially fish eggs and early life history stages that occur on or within the substrate, and the aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure. Roads directly adjacent to streams can also alter the stream channel, result in the loss of riparian habitat and function, and cause stream bank erosion and stream channel down cutting. Where roads cross streams, they can create barriers or impede the movement of aquatic organisms. Vegetation removal and alteration directly and indirectly impacts aquatic habitat quality and suitability, and reduces allochthonous7 input and increases stream temperature. Water quality can also be impacted by pollutants from motorized vehicles; and increased access to the stream increases the potential to introduce nonnative vegetation, species, and diseases.

Road crossings can contribute fine sediment to streams, negatively impacting aquatic habitat and species and water quality; especially fish eggs and early life history stages that occur on or within the substrate, and the aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure. Road crossings can also alter the stream channel, result in the loss of riparian habitat and function, and cause stream bank erosion and stream channel down cutting. Where roads cross streams, they can create barriers or impede the movement of aquatic organisms. Vegetation removal and alteration directly and indirectly impact aquatic habitat quality and suitability, and reduce allochthonous input and increases stream temperature. Water quality can also be impacted by pollutants from motorized vehicles; and increased access to the stream increases the potential to introduce nonnative vegetation, species, and diseases.

Currently, 1,624,246 acres in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are open to general cross- country motorized use for dispersed recreational activities, which includes big game retrieval and dispersed camping. No data or information are available that could either quantitatively or qualitatively characterize or describe the existing impacts from motorized cross-country travel to threatened, endangered, or sensitive aquatic species or their habitats. Motorized cross-country use is most likely to be disparately concentrated within riparian areas and all areas where water is present. Topography and vegetative conditions also likely limit or preclude accessibility to some areas across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Increasing recreational use, especially off- road use; increases the potential for adding additional impacts to the existing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the current transportation system and motorized cross-country travel and use. This use can directly damage riparian and aquatic habitat, and certain life stages of fish with no or limited mobility. These same impacts can indirectly impact downstream habitat primarily through increased sediment and water quality, as well as other changes in hydrologic conditions.

Environmental Consequences The following section describes the impacts to aquatic species and their habitats on the forests. Fish species analyzed include Apache trout, desert sucker, Gila chub, Gila trout, Little Colorado

7 Exogenous food organisms, organic matter, and nutrients originating outside and transported into an aquatic system (Armantrout 1988)

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 204 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References spinedace, Little Colorado River sucker, loach minnow, roundtail chub, Sonora sucker, and spikedace. For these fish species analyzed, designated critical habitat occurs on the forests for Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, loach minnow, and spikedace; and the critical habitat was also included in the analyses. Two aquatic snake species and their proposed critical habitat are also evaluated below, along with three frog species (i.e., Chiricahua, Lowland and Northern leopard); and this included the designated critical habitat of the Chiricahua Leopard frog. Additionally, several aquatic invertebrate species were evaluated, and these included the California floater, Three Forks springsnail, and four aquatic macroinvertebrates. Table 93 displays the species analyzed, their status, and whether they have any designated or proposed critical habitat.

Table 93. Common and scientific names of federally listed and sensitive aquatic species in the project area and their designated or proposed critical habitat Designated or Proposed Species Status Critical Habitat Present? Gila Chub Endangered Yes, critical habitat has been Gila intermedia designated for this species Loach Minnow Endangered Yes, designated critical Tiaroga cobitis habitat Spikedace Endangered Yes, designated critical Meda fulgida habitat Three Forks Springsnail Endangered Yes, designated critical Pyrgulopsis trivialis habitat Apache Trout Threatened No Oncorhynchus apache Gila Trout Threatened No Oncorhynchus gilae

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Threatened Yes, designated critical Lithobates chiricahuensis habitat

Little Colorado Spinedace Threatened Yes, critical habitat is epidomeda vittata designated

Narrow-headed Gartersnake Threatened Yes, proposed critical habitat Thamnophis rufipuctatus

Northern Mexican Gartersnake Threatened Yes, proposed critical habitat Thamnophis eques megalops

Caddisfly Sensitive Not applicable Lepidostoma apache

Caddisfly Sensitive Not applicable Lepidostoma knulli

Caddisfly Sensitive Not applicable Limnephilus granti

California Floater Sensitive Not applicable Anodonta californiensis

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 205 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Designated or Proposed Species Status Critical Habitat Present? Desert Sucker Sensitive Not applicable Catostomus clarkii

Little Colorado Sucker Sensitive Not applicable Catostomus Sp. 3

Lowland Leopard Frog Sensitive Not applicable Lithobates yavapaiensis

Mogollon Snowfly (A Stonefly) Sensitive Not applicable Capnia caryi

Northern Leopard Frog Sensitive Not applicable Lithobates pipiens

Roundtail Chub Sensitive Not applicable Gila robusta

Sonora Sucker Sensitive Not applicable Catostomus insignis

All species analyzed would have beneficial impacts that result from the removal of motorized cross-country travel across the forests. Closing of roads and their associated stream crossings would also reduce impacts to aquatic species and their habitats across the forests. While the addition of roads and their associated stream crossings are minimal for the action alternatives, this does result in negative impacts to aquatic species. Negative impacts could also result from activities associated with motorized big-game retrieval and dispersed camping corridors for alternative 2, and dispersed camping corridors in alternative 3.

Effects from Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects The continued growth and use of unauthorized and closed routes, along with cross-country motorized travel will result in increased impacts to overall watershed health, maintenance of water and soil quality, maintenance and protection of fish and aquatic species, and maintaining resilience to invasions by non-native fish and other aquatic species. Management activities associated with routes and cross-country motor vehicle use can accelerate erosion and sediment beyond the historic range of variation and natural geological rate (Satterlund and Adams 1992). Without the disturbances caused by roads and associated activities, stream channel characteristics, such as channel and floodplain configuration, substrate embeddedness, riparian condition, amount and distribution of woody debris, stream flow, and temperature regime, are less likely to be altered (Furniss et al. 1991). Although the rate and site-specific locations associated with continued cross-country use cannot be quantified, they are increasing across the landscape, and will continue to do so. Both existing and unauthorized routes will increase the likelihood and potential of introducing invasive species to aquatic systems and riparian areas. Invasive plants can directly impact riparian areas, and invasive species can directly and indirectly impact native aquatic species and fish, as well as their habitats. Although both intentional and unintentional introductions of species are unpredictable, uncontrolled and unlimited access presents greater risks and threats, with limited management opportunities.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 206 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Cross country motorized use causes soil impacts similar to new trail or road construction. When users travel off road with motor vehicles, soil is compacted, infiltration is reduced, and greater water runoff and erosion occurs. Roads have also been recognized as a primary source of human- caused soil and water quality disturbances, especially in forested areas. Roads serve as a means of dispersal for many non-native invasive plant species, with seed or plant parts inadvertently transported into previously unaffected areas. Ground disturbance associated with roads and other road-related activities provides additional opportunities for establishment of invasive non-native plant species. Continued road expansion would allow a corresponding increase in the adverse ecological effects associated with establishment of invasive species, such as habitat alteration, replacement of native species, and alteration of ecosystem processes. Road crossings associated with the existing transportation system, and continued cross-country travel will increase these impacts. Riparian areas are highly susceptible and the most likely areas for invasive species to be introduced and become established. Invasive plants can displace native species and alter habitat conditions and stream channel stability, reducing the quantity and quality of habitat available for native species. Road crossings and their associated riparian areas and water features receive relatively high levels of use compared to upland areas across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Although these impacts cannot be quantified and addressed site specifically, uncontrolled and increased access across large landscapes provides substantial opportunities for new species introductions to occur.

Currently there are 3,484 miles of open roads and motorized trails in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. There are approximately an additional 3,344 miles of closed roads, and many miles of user created roads that have not been inventoried. For alternative 1, cross-country travel off of system roads on approximately 1,625,363 acres would continue to be allowed. This would continue the current direction that the forest is legally “open to cross-country motor vehicle use unless posted closed.” The existing condition (alternative 1) for the aquatics/fisheries resource in the Apache-Sitgreaves is discussed below relative to two primary components being addressed through the Travel Management Rule: the transportation system and cross-country motorized travel. Table 94 summarizes by species the current conditions in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests for cross-country travel, miles of open roads, and the number of stream crossings associated with open roads.

Although the total extent and impacts associated with motorized cross-country travel are unknown, unauthorized routes created by forest users, and the continued use of closed and decommissioned roads; we do know that these are continuing to increase across the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests as overall and off-road use has dramatically increased over the last decade. Approximately 3,344 miles of roads are currently closed, but an unknown number of these will continue to be used and subject to increased use under current management and existing conditions. Indirect impacts from this use can alter watershed and hydrologic conditions, resulting in changes in the quality and quantity of fish habitat. Direct impacts are associated with road crossings and where roads are located within or near drainages. These impacts can include alterations of riparian vegetation, channel morphology, and water quality, resulting in negative impacts to fish and their habitats.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 207 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 94. Indicators and measures for alternative 1 (existing condition) by species (Includes acres that are open to cross-country travel, miles of open routes, and number of stream crossings occurring on open routes) Species Species Cross-country Travel Miles of # Open Route Status Acres / Percentage of Open Stream Action Area Routes Crossings Apache trout Threatened 103,789 / 77.3% 341.5 195 Desert sucker Sensitive 613,835 / 72.5% 1,037.5 929 Gila chub Endangered 90,148 / 96.1% 104.4 129 Gila trout Threatened 20,612 / 38.8% 51.7 40 LC spinedace Threatened 232,959 / 78.4% 798.6 395 LCR sucker Sensitive 134,249 / 73.7% 430.4 177 Loach minnow Endangered 499,032 / 68.4% 687.1 657 Roundtail chub Sensitive 640,567 / 69.9% 1,353.6 930 Sonora sucker Sensitive 613,835 / 72.5% 1,037.5 929 Spikedace Endangered 441,688 / 67.1% 498.4 184 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 8,883 / 41.3% 47.6 105 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 163 / 5.7% 1.7 2 Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 23,638 / 92% 38.6 N/A

High road densities, and where roads are located along streams and riparian areas, present the greatest potential for these negative impacts to occur. Highest road densities occur and are associated with past and ongoing timber harvest and vegetation management activities. Apache trout and LCR spinedace have likely been impacted the most by these activities and the associated transportation system. Roads along the Blue River, Eagle Creek, and San Francisco River have had considerable negative impacts to the fish species and populations within these drainages, along with the associated riparian habitat and corridors. The endangered loach minnow and spikedace populations have likely been impacted the greatest in these areas, along with the Gila and roundtail chubs. All aquatic species and their habitats have been impacted directly and indirectly from roads and cross-country travel, and this will continue under the existing transportation system. While indirect impacts may not be distinguishable from other impacts across the landscape, they cannot be discounted; as they are both short- and long-term, and chronic sources of sediment and altered hydrologic conditions that will remain as long as roads and motorized travel continues. Table 95 displays by species the current totals for closed and open miles of roads in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Table 95. Numbers of route miles for alternative 1 within each action area for each species Species Species Total # Route Total # Total # Open Status Miles Closed Route Miles Route Miles Apache trout Threatened 667.3 325.8 341.5 Desert sucker Sensitive 1,882.3 844.8 1,037.5 Gila chub Endangered 117.1 12.7 104.4 Gila trout Threatened 99.7 48.0 51.7 LC spinedace Threatened 1,746 974.4 798.6 LCR sucker Sensitive 1,049.4 619.0 430.4

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 208 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Total # Route Total # Total # Open Status Miles Closed Route Miles Route Miles Loach minnow Endangered 1,037.7 350.6 687.1 Roundtail chub Sensitive 2,738.9 1,385.3 1,353.6 Sonora sucker Sensitive 1,882.3 844.8 1,037.5 Spikedace Endangered 667.2 168.8 498.4 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 64.4 16.8 47.6 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 1.7 0.0 1.7 Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 1,260.1 520.3 739.8

Roads and their drainage crossings within the species action areas are important indicators of the potential extent of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat when they occur within the watersheds where fish species or their habitat is present. Where they occur upstream of occupied habitat, increased sedimentation rates can impact downstream reaches, both short and long term; and the amounts and rates of additional sediment are dependent on several factors, and will vary in intensity and duration over time. No site-specific information regarding the conditions and potential impacts to fish and their habitats for the existing crossings other than location was available for the analysis. As with roads, their crossings occur widely and sporadically throughout the landscape; precluding the ability to quantify their impacts individually, collectively, and cumulatively to fish and their habitat. Table 96 displays by species the number of stream crossings for both closed and open roads in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Table 96. Numbers of route crossings for alternative 1 by species Species Species Total # Route Total # Closed Total # Open Status Stream Route Stream Route Stream Crossings Crossings Crossings Apache trout Threatened 411 216 195 Desert sucker Sensitive 1,684 755 929 Gila chub Endangered 140 11 129 Gila trout Threatened 65 25 40 LC spinedace Threatened 847 452 395 LCR sucker Sensitive 436 259 177 Loach minnow Endangered 983 326 657 Roundtail chub Sensitive 1,879 949 930 Sonora sucker Sensitive 1,684 755 929 Spikedace Endangered 710 526 184 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 173 68 105 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 2 0 2

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 209 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References threatened, endangered, or sensitive aquatic species or their habitats. Motorized cross-country use is most likely to be disparately concentrated within riparian areas and all areas where water is present. Topography and vegetative conditions also likely limit or preclude accessibility to some areas across the Apache-Sitgreaves. Increasing recreational use, especially off-road use, increases the potential for additional impacts to the existing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the current transportation system and motorized cross-country travel and use. This use can directly damage riparian and aquatic habitat, and certain life stages of fish with no or limited mobility. These same impacts can indirectly impact downstream habitat, primarily through increased sediment and water quality, as well as other changes in hydrologic conditions. Table 97 shows the acreage and percentage of each species’ action area that cross-country travel currently impacts.

Table 97. Acres open to cross-country travel for alternative 1, by species Species Species Species Cross- % Species Action Status Action country Area Acres Open to Area Acres Travel Acres Cross-country Travel Apache trout Threatened 134,186 103,789 77.3% Desert sucker Sensitive 847,179 613,835 72.5% Gila chub Endangered 93,774 90,148 96.1% Gila trout Threatened 53,185 20,612 38.8% LC spinedace Threatened 296,966 232,959 78.4% LCR sucker Sensitive 182,190 134,249 73.7% Loach minnow Endangered 729,843 499,032 68.4% Roundtail chub Sensitive 916,400 640,567 69.9% Sonora sucker Sensitive 847,179 613,835 72.5% Spikedace Endangered 658,178 441,688 67.1% Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 21,528 8,883 41.3% Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 6,954 163 2.3% Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 420,453 336,517 80.4%

Table 98. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Resource Indicator Measure (Alternative 1) Element Fish, frog, and Habitat/riparian impacts Number of miles of open Species-specific in snake species from sediment and roads and motorized trails table 94 to table 97 disturbance above Fish, frog, and Habitat/riparian impacts Number of road crossings Species-specific in snake species from sediment and of drainages for opened table 94 to table 97 disturbance roads above Fish, frog, and Habitat/riparian impacts Acres of motorized big Species-specific in snake species from sediment and game (i.e., elk) retrieval table 94 to table 97 disturbance corridors above Fish, frog, and Habitat/riparian impacts Acres of dispersed Species-specific in snake species from sediment and camping corridors table 94 to table 97 disturbance above Invertebrate Habitat/riparian impacts Change in sediment Species-specific in species and frogs from sediment and delivery table 94 to table 97 disturbance above

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 210 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

General Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 Trombulak and Frissell (2000) reviewed the scientific literature on the ecological effects of roads and found that they are associated with negative effects on biotic integrity in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Roads of all kinds have seven general effects: mortality from road construction, mortality from collisions with vehicles, modification of animal behavior, alteration of the physical environment, alteration of the chemical environment, spread of exotics, and increased use of areas by humans. Roads change soil density, temperature, soil water content, light levels, dust, surface waters, patterns of runoff, and sedimentation; as well as adding heavy metals (especially lead), salts, organic molecules, ozone, and nutrients to roadside environments. Roads promote the dispersal of exotic species by altering habitats, stressing native species, and providing movement corridors. Roads also promote increased hunting, fishing, passive harassment of animals, and landscape modifications. Not all species and ecosystems are equally affected by roads, but overall, the presence of roads is highly correlated with changes in species composition, population sizes, and hydrologic and geomorphic processes that shape aquatic and riparian systems.

Forman and Alexander (1998) also reviewed roads and their major ecological effects. Road networks crossing landscapes cause local hydrologic and erosion effects, whereas stream networks and distant valleys receive major peak-flow and sediment impacts. Alteration of flows can have major physical and/or chemical effects on aquatic ecosystems. Water runoff and sediment yield are the key physical processes whereby roads have an impact on streams and other aquatic systems, and the resulting effect distances can vary widely. Roads on upper hillslopes concentrate water flow, which in turn form channels higher on slopes than in the absence of roads. This process leads to smaller, more elongated first-order drainages and longer total length of the channel network. Water rapidly runs off relatively impervious road surfaces, especially in storm and snowmelt events. Surface water is then carried by roadside ditches, some of which connect directly to streams, while others drain to culverts, which can form gullies below their outlets. Increased runoff associated with roads may increase the rates and extent of erosion, reduce percolation and aquifer recharge rates, alter channel morphology, and increase stream discharge rates. Peak discharges or floods then restructure riparian areas by rearranging channels, logs, branches, boulders, fine sediment deposits, and pools.

Sediment and chemicals enter streams primarily where roads cross. The fixed stream location at a bridge or culvert reduces both the amount and variability of stream migration across a floodplain. Therefore, with altered flow rates, pool riffle sequences, and scour, these impacts can reduce habitat-forming debris and aquatic organisms. The volume of sediment yield from a road depends on sediment supply and transport capacity. Sediment yield is determined by road geometry, slope, length, width, surface area, and maintenance, in addition to soil properties and vegetation cover. Road surfaces, cut banks, fill slopes, bridge/culvert sites, and ditches are all sources of sediment associated with roads. The exposed soil surfaces, as well as the greater sediment-transport capacity of increased hydrologic flows, result in higher erosion rates and sediment yields. Fine sediment increases turbidity, which disrupts stream ecosystems in part by inhibiting aquatic plants, macroinvertebrates, and fish. During low-flow periods, fine sediment deposits tend to fill pools and embed gravel beds, degrading habitats and spawning sites for some fish species. During high discharge events, accumulated sediment tends to be flushed out and deposited downstream in larger streams. Roads accelerate water flows and sediment transport, which raise flood levels and degrade aquatic ecosystems by altering riparian conditions, channel morphology, or aquatic habitat. Localized hydrologic and erosion effects along roads are dispersed across the landscape,

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 211 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

whereas major impacts are concentrated in the stream network downstream in higher order stream reaches. Most chemical transport from roads occurs in storm water runoff through or over soil. Runoff pollutants alter soil chemistry, may be absorbed by plants, and can affect stream ecosystems, where they are dispersed and diluted over considerable distances. Typical water- quality responses to road runoff include altered levels of heavy metals, salinity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. These water quality changes can be sporadic and localized due to fluctuations in water quantity.

Road density has been considered a useful index of several ecological effects of roads in a landscape. Effects are evident for faunal movement, population fragmentation, human access, hydrology, aquatic ecosystems, and fire patterns. Hydrologic effects, such as altered groundwater conditions and altered drainage upslope, are sensitive to road density. Increased peak flows in streams and macroinvertebrate diversity may be impacted with increasing road density. Road density is an overall index that averages patterns over an area; its effects probably are sensitive to road type and width, traffic density, and network connectivity.

Road density in a watershed affects the collection and transport of water out of the watershed (Burroughs and King 1989). The potential for increases in runoff rates increases with more miles of road. A well-maintained, closed road system would result in less sediment from road surface erosion. Roads not proposed for designation as a motor vehicle route in the project area may have long-term adverse effects on water quality if they are not properly maintained. For this analysis, it is assumed that when a road is closed, it will continue to have impacts on the aquatic system, and both of the action alternatives involve the closure of roads to vehicle use by the public rather than the physical removal of roads.

The effects of roads on aquatic organisms are well documented. Roads and trails disturb soils and increase the potential for erosion and sediment transport and deposition in streams. Motorized and non-motorized uses (e.g., motorcycles, ATVs, horses, mountain bikes) can further disturb soils and increase potential for erosion and sediment delivery. Surface erosion from forest roads affects the fine sediment budget and may impose a chronic condition of sediment inputs to streams, directly affecting the stream substrate and the health of aquatic life (Luce et al. 2001). The reduction of riparian vegetation and widening of the channel at stream crossings can impact water temperature (Poole and Berman 2001, Beschta 1997, and Heede 1980). Chronic erosion from roads can greatly reduce an aquatic system’s integrity, and in some cases, can be the primary source of sediment input (Switalski et al. 2004). Sediment concerns are generally highest when roads and trails are not sufficiently drained. Water and sediment can concentrate on roads and trails during spring snowmelt runoff or periods of intense rain and be delivered to streams. With sufficient drainage, water and sediment from upland segments of roads can be diverted, filtered through forest vegetation, and not routed to streams. As such, upland segments of roads can generally be designed to mitigate sediment delivery concerns. The primary concern is erosion and sediment delivery from roads that are near streams and that cross streams. Fine sediment is a key physical element to focus on when attempting to delineate land management impacts on aquatic habitat and biota (Rinne 1990). Excessive fine sediment input into a stream can fill pool habitat and reduce both summer and winter rearing habitat for juvenile fish (Heede and Rinne 1990).

Gucinski et al. (2001) also synthesized road impact information in “Forest Roads: A synthesis of scientific information.” Some of the key findings included both physical and biological impacts. Physical impacts included (1) roads affect geomorphic process by four primary mechanisms: accelerating erosion from the road surface and prism itself by both mass and surface erosion

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 212 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

processes; directly affecting channel structure and geometry; altering surface flow paths, leading to diversion or extension of channels onto previously unchannelized portions of the landscape; and causing interactions among water, sediment, and woody debris at engineered road-stream crossings, and (2) roads have three primary effects on water: they intercept rainfall directly on the road surface and road cut banks and intercept subsurface water moving down the hillslope; they concentrate flow, either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and they divert or reroute water from flow paths that it would otherwise take if the road were not present. Biological impacts included (1) increased fine-sediment composition in stream gravel has been linked to decreased fry emergence, decreased juvenile densities, loss of winter carrying capacity, and increased predation of fishes; (2) the effects of roads are not limited to those associated with increases in fine-sediment delivery to streams; they can include barriers to migration, water temperature changes, and alterations to streamflow regimes, road-stream crossings have been shown to have effects on stream invertebrates. Hawkins and others found that the aquatic invertebrate species assemblages (observed versus expected, based on reference sites) were related to the number of stream crossings above a site; and (3) several studies at broad scales document aquatic habitat or fish density changes associated with road density or indices of road density.

Direct and indirect impacts to fisheries, aquatic, and riparian habitats as a result of designating motorized routes and corridors (i.e., MBGR and dispersed camping) are essentially the same for both action alternatives; but differ primarily in relation to the measures/indicators for the number of motorized route miles within stream buffer zones (250 meters) and the number of stream crossings, along with the extent that MBGR and dispersed camping occurs. Indirect impacts to aquatic and aquatic-dependent species resulting from roads and motorized vehicle use include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of fine sediment, riparian habitat alteration, and the increased potential for the intentional or unintentional introduction of nonnative species. Large woody debris has been well studied in streams, and is critically important for maintaining riparian and aquatic habitat integrity and resiliency (i.e., structure, function, and composition). Road construction along streams includes the removal of trees, and the persistence of roads within riparian areas along streams reduces the availability of large woody debris. Ephemeral streams indirectly support fish populations by providing required nutrients and other materials to the perennial streams (Levick et al. 2008). Roads not only impact perennial and intermittent streams where aquatic species are present, but influence the habitats where they are located adjacent to or cross ephemeral channels in the watershed.

Common direct and indirect impacts occurring in all alternatives include: (1) the direct and indirect physical loss of riparian habitat and functions within the 100-year floodplain, as a result of motorized uses in those areas destroying vegetation; (2) the direct and indirect creation of drainage pathways that follow route treads and alter surface water pathways of both the immediate stream, as well as its associated high water pathways, throughout the 100-year floodplain, during periods of flooding; (3) the indirect conversion of dispersed surface runoff and sediment filtering throughout the riparian area, to direct deliveries of accumulated runoff and sediment, following route tread pathways, leading from both the intercepted adjacent watershed areas, as well as channelized runoff flowing directly down a route tread;(4) the creation of direct and indirect impacts to streams, habitats, and aquatic species at route crossing points; (5) the direct channel disturbances of stream bank damage, leading to indirect impacts of increased bank erosion and stream sedimentation; (6) the direct dislocation of fish spawning activity within ford/stream crossings that can occur, depending on fish species and spawning suitability of stream

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 213 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

substrate and flows; and (7) an indirect decrease in fish egg hatching success and subsequent fish populations due to sedimentation.

The closer a road is to a stream system, the greater the impacts on the stream and the organisms inhabiting it. Roads directly adjacent to streams can impact streams by channelizing the stream, eliminating streamside vegetation, and introducing sediment into the stream. Where roads are close to streams, they impact the stream more directly (Luce et al. 2001). Sediment transport away from roads can exceed 300 feet (Burroughs and King 1989, Belt et al. 1992). Road-stream crossings are areas where the impacts of roads are the greatest in terms of channel impacts, sediment, and movement barriers to aquatic organisms. There is a high correlation between road- stream crossings and fine sediment (McCaffery et al. 2007).

Effects from Alternative 2 Overall, this alternative designates 2,889 miles of NFS roads and 202 miles of motorized trails, and includes one 17-acre area designated for motorized use on the Black Mesa Ranger District. This alternative also designates motorized access corridors for dispersed camping (DCCs) along 1,027 miles of road, and motorized access for big game (elk only) retrieval (MBGR) along 2,693 miles of roads and motorized trails.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Roads Impacting Aquatic Species For the proposed actions, increases in the miles of open roads is one component that has the potential for impacts to aquatic species. Direct impacts would result if these roads are opened in a species habitat. Alternative 2 is proposing an increase in open roads in the habitats of six fish species (i.e., Apache trout, desert sucker, LCR sucker, loach minnow, Sonora sucker, and spikedace). Increases relative to the existing numbers of open roads ranges from 0.8 to 9.3 percent. For the Gila trout and northern Mexican gartersnake, no changes are proposed in their habitat, so there would be no direct impacts. For the Gila chub, Gila trout, LCR spinedace, roundtail chub, narrow-headed gartersnake, and Chiricahua leopard frog, decreases in the miles of open roads range from 1.6 to 16 percent. These reductions would reduce the current level of direct impacts to these species habitats relative to the existing condition (alternative 1). Table 99 displays this information for each species.

Roads would directly contribute fine sediment to streams, negatively impacting aquatic habitat and species and water quality, especially fish eggs and early life history stages that occur on or within the substrate, and the aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure. Roads directly adjacent to streams can also alter the stream channel, result in the loss of riparian habitat and function, and cause stream bank erosion and stream channel down cutting. Where roads cross streams, they can create barriers or impede the movement of aquatic organisms. Vegetation removal and alteration directly and indirectly impacts aquatic habitat quality and suitability, and reduces allochthonous input and increases stream temperature. Water quality can also be impacted by pollutants from motorized vehicles; and increased access to the stream increases the potential to introduce nonnative vegetation, species, and diseases.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 214 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 99. Change by species in open route miles for alternative 2 compared to alternative 1 Species Species Alternative 1: # Open Alternative 2: # Open Status Route Miles Route Miles Apache trout Threatened 15 16.4 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↑9.3% Desert sucker Sensitive 41.5 42.8 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↑3.1% Gila chub Endangered 6.2 6.1 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓1.6% Gila trout Threatened 2.1 2.1 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↔No change LC spinedace Threatened 10 8.4 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓16% LCR sucker Sensitive 1.2 1.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↑8.3% Loach minnow Endangered 34.6 34.8 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↑0.6% Roundtail chub Sensitive 6.2 5.8 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓6.5% Sonora sucker Sensitive 38.8 39.7 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↑2.3% Spikedace Endangered 25.8 26 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↑0.8% Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 47.6 45.8 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓3.8% Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 1.7 1.7 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↔No change Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 38.6 35.6 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓7.8%

For the proposed actions, increases in the miles of open roads also has the potential for indirect impacts to aquatic species. Indirect impacts occur similar to the way direct impacts occur, although they occur on tributaries and drainages that flow into aquatic habitats; primarily resulting in increases in sedimentation and alterations of water quality downstream into occupied habitat. For alternative 2, all of the action areas have decreases in the number of open roads, ranging from 2.1 to 14.9 percent. Table 100 displays these changes for each species. These reductions would reduce the level of indirect impacts to these species habitats, as compared to the existing condition (alternative 1).

Table 100. Changes in the numbers of route miles in alternative 2 compared to the existing condition (alternative 1) within the species action area Species Species Alternative 1: # Open Alternative 2: # Open Status Route Miles Route Miles Apache trout Threatened 341.5 330.8 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓3.1%

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 215 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Alternative 1: # Open Alternative 2: # Open Status Route Miles Route Miles Desert sucker Sensitive 1,037.5 992.1 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓4.4% Gila chub Endangered 104.4 101.7 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓2.6% Gila trout Threatened 51.7 44 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓14.9% LC spinedace Threatened 798.6 719.1 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓10% LCR sucker Sensitive 430.4 383.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓10.9% Loach minnow Endangered 687.1 639.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓7% Roundtail chub Sensitive 1,353.6 1304 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓3.7% Sonora sucker Sensitive 1,037.5 969.2 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓6.6% Spikedace Endangered 498.4 487.9 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓2.1% Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 739.8 721.8 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓2.4%

For most roads, the removal of motorized vehicle use would result in less fine sediment delivered to the stream and aquatic habitat. However, a closed road would continue to have impacts on the stream and aquatic ecosystem; and total road densities and impacts would not decrease until routes are decommissioned, allowing vegetation to establish and the restoration of hydrologic features.

Stream Crossings High levels of fine sediments in streams are highly correlated with road crossings. These road- stream crossings are areas where the impacts of roads are the greatest in terms of stream channel alterations and impacts, inputs of fine sediment, and movement impediments and barriers to aquatic species. As with roads adjacent to streams, road crossings would also directly contribute fine sediment to streams, negatively impacting aquatic habitat and species and water quality; especially fish eggs and early life history stages that occur on or within the substrate, and the aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure. Crossings also result in the direct loss and/or alteration of riparian and aquatic habitat, and impacts can vary depending the type of road crossing structure (e.g., ford, culvert, bridge) associated with the road. Road crossings of streams can also alter the stream channel, resulting in the loss of riparian habitat and function, and cause stream bank erosion and stream channel down cutting, both upstream and downstream of the crossing. Vegetation removal and alteration at the crossing site directly and indirectly impacts aquatic habitat quality and suitability, and reduces allochthonous input and can increase stream temperature. Water quality can also be impacted by pollutants from motorized vehicles; and increased access to the stream increases the potential to introduce nonnative vegetation, species, and diseases. Table 101 displays the number of road crossings that would be opened under

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 216 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

alternative 2. Direct impacts from alternative 2 would result for Apache trout at three crossings, and Desert sucker and Sonora sucker at one crossing. Road crossings can also negatively impact dispersing narrow-headed gartersnakes and Chiricahua leopard frogs. For the remaining species, no crossings are associated with roads being added to the transportation system, so there would be no impacts.

None of the new stream crossings are located within any eligible or suitable Wild and Scenic River corridors. Although one crossing occurring within Apache Trout habitat has approximately 328 feet (100 meters) of the road located within the upland portion of the corridor; neither fish nor wildlife are outstandingly remarkable values for this stream, so no impacts would occur. It should be noted that the stream crossings displayed in Table 101are those that occur only within the species occupied and/or critical habitats, and these are considered to have direct impacts to species and their habitats. Stream crossings that occur upstream of occupied and critical habitats, and can have indirect impacts are displayed in Table 102.

Table 101. Number of route crossings for the existing condition (alternative 1) and changes to the number of open route crossings for alternative 2 Species Species Status Alternative 1: # Open Alternative 2: # Road-Stream Opened Road-Stream Crossings Crossings Apache trout Threatened 29 3 Desert sucker Sensitive 93 1 Gila chub Endangered 22 0 Gila trout Threatened 4 0 LC spinedace Threatened 19 0 LCR sucker Sensitive 2 0 Loach minnow Endangered 76 0 Roundtail chub Sensitive 10 0 Sonora sucker Sensitive 93 1 Spikedace Endangered 67 0 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 105 0 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 2 0

For the proposed actions, increases in the number of opened road crossings has the potential for indirect impacts to aquatic species. Indirect impacts occur similar to the way direct impacts occur, although they occur on tributaries and drainages that flow into aquatic habitats, primarily resulting in increases in sedimentation and alterations of water quality downstream into occupied habitat. For alternative 2, all of the aquatic species action areas have increases in open road crossings, ranging from a low of three for the Gila chub to the roundtail chub with the most at 46. Table 102 displays these changes for each species. These crossings could also negatively impact the dispersal and movement of the narrow-headed gartersnake and the Chiricahua leopard frog. It should be noted that the stream crossings displayed in Table 102 are those that occur outside the species occupied and/or critical habitats, and these are considered to have indirect impacts to species and their habitats. These stream crossings occur upstream of occupied and critical habitats, but can have indirect impacts as they flow or drain into occupied and/or critical habitats.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 217 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 102. Numbers of route crossings for the existing condition (alternative 1) and changes for alternative 2 within each species action area Species Species Status Alternative 1: # Open Alternative 2: # Road-Stream Crossings Opened Road-Stream Crossings Apache trout Threatened 195 12 Desert sucker Sensitive 929 32 Gila chub Endangered 129 3 Gila trout Threatened 40 4 LC spinedace Threatened 395 30 LCR sucker Sensitive 177 16 Loach minnow Endangered 657 13 Roundtail chub Sensitive 930 46 Sonora sucker Sensitive 929 32 Spikedace Endangered 184 8

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Alternative 2 designates 1-mile corridors for MBGR that can be used by individuals who have legally harvested an elk. Under alternative 2, fewer acres would be open to MBGR for all species’ habitats, as compared to acres that are currently open to cross-country travel under the existing condition (alternative 1), and reductions range from 5 to 94 percent. Beneficial impacts would occur on those areas where cross-country travel is no longer allowed; and although reduced relative to existing cross-country travel, negative impacts can occur from MBGR. Table 103 displays for each species the current acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, along with the reduced acres that would remain open to MBGR under alternative 2.

Elk harvest rates for the last 10 years have steadily increased from approximately 1,500 in 2007, to approximately 2,150 in 2016; and harvest rates are expected to continue to increase into the future. Most areas of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests provide summer and winter range for elk, with the exception of some lower elevations on the Clifton Ranger District. Most elk hunting occurs from the beginning of September through the end of December, when soil conditions in both the uplands and riparian areas can be saturated and susceptible to negative impacts from motorized use. MBGR direct impacts within species habitats can alter or destroy existing vegetation, cause damage and destabilization to stream banks resulting in increased sedimentation and stream channel instability, and negatively impact aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish species (e.g., eggs, larvae) associated with stream substrates.

Cross-country motorized travel can cause soil, watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat impacts that are similar to new road or trail construction. Soils can be compacted, water infiltration is reduced and greater water runoff and erosion can occur. These are indirect impacts that can occur within a species action area (i.e., watershed area that drains into a species occupied habitat) by changes in the uplands and on tributaries and drainages that flow into aquatic species habitats; and primarily result in increases in sedimentation and alterations of water quality. Table 104 displays for each species’ action area the current number of acres open to cross-country travel under alternative 1, along with the number of acres for each species action area that would be open to MBGR under alternative 2. MBGR acres are reduced, with decreases ranging from 2.1 to 75.9 percent. MBGR could also negatively impact the dispersal and movement of the narrow-

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 218 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References headed gartersnake and the Chiricahua leopard frog; and increase the risk of introducing nonnative vegetation, nonnative aquatic species, and diseases and pathogens, into aquatic systems and habitats.

Table 103. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 and MBGR (alternative 2 – elk only) within each species habitat Species Species Alternative 1: Acres Alternative 2: Acres Status Open to Cross-country Open to MBGR Travel Apache trout Threatened 6,496 4,125 % Change - - ↓36.5% Desert sucker Sensitive 5,959 1,280 % Change - - ↓78.5% Gila chub Sensitive 3,135 459 % Change - - ↓85.4 Gila trout Threatened 1,067 182 % Change - - ↓82.9% LC spinedace Threatened 3,072 2,919 % Change - ↓5% LCR sucker Sensitive 553 411 % Change - ↓25.7% Loach minnow Endangered 3,931 672 % Change - ↓82.9% Roundtail chub Sensitive 1,339 902 % Change - ↓32.6% Sonora sucker Sensitive 4,568 835 % Change - ↓81.7% Spikedace Endangered 3,805 635 % Change - ↓83.3% Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 8,883 3,421 % Change - - ↓61.5% Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 163 103 % Change - - ↓36.8% Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 23,638 1,409 % Change - - ↓94%

Table 104. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1 and MBGR acres allowed in alternative 2 within each species action area Species Species Status Alternative 1: Acres Open Alternative 2: Acres to Cross-country Travel Open to MBGR Apache trout Threatened 103,789 86,286 % Change - - ↓16.9% Desert sucker Sensitive 613,835 272,207 % Change - - ↓55.7% Gila chub Endangered 90,148 24,750

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 219 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Status Alternative 1: Acres Open Alternative 2: Acres to Cross-country Travel Open to MBGR % Change - - ↓72.5% Gila trout Threatened 20,612 13,175 % Change - - ↓36.1% LC spinedace Threatened 232,959 223,848 % Change - - ↓3.9% LCR sucker Sensitive 134,249 131,428 % Change - - ↓2.1% Loach minnow Endangered 499,032 162,687 % Change - - ↓67.4% Roundtail chub Sensitive 640,567 369,378 % Change - - ↓42.3% Sonora sucker Sensitive 613,835 272,652 % Change - - ↓55.6% Spikedace Endangered 441,688 106,602 % Change - - ↓75.9% Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 336,517 237,198 % Change - - ↓29.5%

Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping Corridors Alternative 2 would designate DCCs (300 feet on both sides) along 1,027 miles of roads. While the amount of species habitat that is open to dispersed camping is substantially reduced from alternative 1, negative impacts would occur and are likely to increase as use would be concentrated in the remaining areas that are left open. Table 105 displays the current acres that are open to cross-country travel, and the number of acres that would be open to dispersed camping within each species’ habitat. It also shows the reduction in acres available for dispersed camping, with substantial decreases ranging from 96 to 100 percent.

DCCs direct impacts to species habitats can alter or destroy existing vegetation; cause damage and destabilization to stream banks, resulting in increased sedimentation and stream channel instability; and negatively impact aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish species (e.g., eggs, larvae) associated with stream substrates.

Motorized travel and dispersed camping within DCCs can cause soil, watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat impacts that are similar to new road or trail construction. Soils can be compacted, water infiltration is reduced, and greater water runoff and erosion can occur. These are indirect impacts that can occur within a species action area (i.e., watershed area that drains into a species occupied habitat) by changes in the uplands and on tributaries and drainages that flow into aquatic species habitats, and primarily result in increases in sedimentation and alterations of water quality. Table 106 displays for each species’ action area the current number of acres open to cross-country travel under alternative 1, along with the number of acres for each species’ action area that would be designated as DCCs under alternative 2. The number of DCC acres are much reduced, with decreases ranging from 89.1 to 98 percent. DCCs could also negatively impact the dispersal and movement of the narrow-headed gartersnake and the Chiricahua leopard frog; and

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 220 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References increase the risk of introducing nonnative vegetation, nonnative aquatic species, and diseases and pathogens, into aquatic systems and habitats.

Table 105. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and acres of DCCs in alternative 2 within species’ habitats Species Species Alternative 1: Acres Alternative 2: Acres Status Open to Cross- Open to Dispersed country Travel Camping Apache trout Threatened 6,496 86 % Change - ↓98.7% Desert sucker Sensitive 5,959 43 % Change - ↓99.3% Gila chub Endangered 3,135 71 % Change - ↓97.7% Gila trout Threatened 1,067 6 % Change - ↓99.4% LC spinedace Threatened 3,072 0.7 % Change - ↓99.9% LCR sucker Sensitive 553 0 % Change - ↓100% Loach minnow Endangered 3,931 13 % Change - ↓99.7% Roundtail chub Sensitive 1,339 49 % Change - ↓96.3% Sonora sucker Sensitive 4,568 43 % Change - ↓99.1% Spikedace Endangered 3,805 0 % Change - ↓100% Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 8,883 16 % Change - ↓99.8% Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 163 1 % Change - ↓99.4% Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 23,638 477 % Change - ↓98%

Table 106. Acres open to cross-country travel for alternative 1, and acres of DCCs in alternative 2 within each species action area Species Species Status Alternative 1: Acres Alternative 2: Acres Open to Cross-country Open to Dispersed Travel Camping Apache trout Threatened 103,789 6,478 % Change - ↓93.8% Desert sucker Sensitive 613,835 21,210 % Change - ↓96.5% Gila chub Endangered 90,148 2,357

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 221 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Status Alternative 1: Acres Alternative 2: Acres Open to Cross-country Open to Dispersed Travel Camping % Change - ↓97.4% Gila trout Threatened 20,612 1,050 % Change - ↓94.9% LC spinedace Threatened 232,959 19,017 % Change - ↓91.8% LCR sucker Sensitive 134,249 14,646 % Change - ↓89.1% Loach minnow Endangered 499,032 11,962 % Change - ↓97.6% Roundtail chub Sensitive 640,567 32,988 % Change - ↓94.9% Sonora sucker Sensitive 613,835 21,210 % Change - ↓96.5% Spikedace Endangered 441,688 8,959 % Change - ↓98% Chiricahua leopard Threatened 336,517 15,770 frog % Change - ↓95.3%

Additional Species not Covered by Resource Indicators and Measures Several aquatic species were not quantitatively analyzed using the four resource indicators and measures. This was not possible, primarily due to the species’ limited or unknown distributions, or no or limited impacts that could result from the proposed actions. These species include six invertebrates (Three Forks springsnail, California floater, one stonefly, and three caddisflies). GIS maps were reviewed for all three alternatives to qualitatively assess the impacts that could occur to these species from the proposed actions (i.e., opening roads, MBGR, and DCCs).

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates The Mogollon snowfly (Capnia caryi) is a stonefly that is known to occur only within Mamie Creek in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Stonefly nymphs are typically found on rocks in flowing streams with good water quality. Some are predatory, but the family Capniidae are herbivorous. Adult Capniidae emerge during winter over the snow, unlike other stonefly species. The Mogollon snowfly is known from only two streams in the southwestern United States (Baumann and Jacobi 2002)—one in New Mexico (Iron Creek) and one in Arizona (Mamie Creek). No habitat information was reported for the collection location. Alternative 2 could result in negative direct and indirect impacts to Mamie Creek from both MBGR within the lower portion of the watershed, and a DCC along NFS Road 275; while the removal of cross-country travel would have beneficial impacts, especially in the upper portion of the watershed west of NFS Road 275.

Caddisflies, one of the largest groups of aquatic insects, are adapted to a wide range of microhabitats. Larval caddisflies have diverse diets and feeding strategies, and occupy different trophic levels and functional feeding groups, including predators and filter feeders. Larvae are mainly herbivorous scavengers, feeding primarily on plant fragments and other living and dead

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 222 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

organisms. Functionally, they can be collectors, shredders, scrapers, and predators. Feeding strategies may vary seasonally, depending on items available and size of the larvae. The larvae of most caddisfly species can be found in a variety of benthic habitats, including temperate lakes, streams, and ponds. Larvae of some species can tolerate low oxygen concentrations. Habitats can include benthic areas of streams (both cool and warm), lakes, marshes, and ponds. Caddisfly larvae are adapted to species-specific water temperatures and velocities, mineral and pollutant concentrations, and sunlight exposure. Because of this, many species can occur together in a single stream or river. Adult caddisflies are terrestrial, nocturnal, and hide in cool, moist habitats (e.g., riparian vegetation) during the day.

Lepidostoma apache is a sensitive species known to occur in the Blue River (Houghton 2001). Alternative 2 could have some negative direct impacts to this species from approximately 0.2 mile of opened roads (i.e., NFS Roads 281J, new70, and 281U), roads, and indirect impacts from MBGR along Bush Creek. Lepidostoma knulli is also a sensitive species, which is known to occur in the East and West Forks of the Black River (Houghton 2001). Negative indirect impacts from MBGR could occur in alternative 2, while beneficial impacts would occur from removal of cross- country travel. Limnephilus granti is a sensitive species found only in springs, and is known to occur in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in the West Fork Little Colorado River and Rosey Creek. Rosey Creek could have negative direct and indirect impacts from MBGR under alternative 2, while also having beneficial impacts from removal of cross-country travel.

California Floater The California floater is likely only present in Boneyard Creek and Three Forks on the North Fork of the East Fork of the Black River, although it is possible that it may still occur in Chevelon Creek below Chevelon Canyon Dam. No negative impacts would occur from alternative 2, and indirect beneficial impacts from removing cross-country travel would be expected to Chevelon Canyon.

Lowland and Northern Leopard Frogs The lowland leopard frog is currently known to occur at nine sites in the Clifton Ranger District. Alternative 2 could have direct and indirect negative impacts on one site within a DCC located on NFS Road 212B. Four of the nine sites could have direct impacts from MBGR, and could also indirectly impact dispersing individuals.

Northern leopard frogs are currently only known from one site on private land in the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, but dispersing individuals could be impacted by actions occurring in the Forests. Alternative 2 could have negative impacts from the DCC along the N/A-86 road, and indirect impacts to dispersing individuals from MBGR.

Three Forks Springsnail The Three Forks springsnail is an endangered species, and its distribution is limited to three areas (17 acres) of critical habitat in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Two areas are on Boneyard Creek (11 acres), and one is at Three Forks (6 acres). There are no proposed actions within the species habitat, or that have the potential to have negative impacts to the species or its critical habitat from alternative 2. The 11 acres on Boneyard Creek are currently open to cross- country travel; therefore, the species and habitat would have beneficial impacts from this removal of cross-country travel.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 223 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Cumulative Effects

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary is the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests boundary, as this area includes all actions associated with implementation of the TMR for this analysis. The following list summarizes the past, present, and future activities that would add to the total cumulative effects. Since the implementation of the TMR is in the entire Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, the activities will be discussed generally.

. Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management: These types of projects include timber harvest, vegetation treatments, fuel reductions and treatments, wildland urban interface treatments, forest restoration treatments, and fuelwood harvesting. Past timber harvest activities have resulted in substantial impacts to watersheds, hydrologic conditions, riparian and aquatic habitat, and fish species across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (especially in vegetated areas with high timber resources (e.g., ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer, spruce-fir, etc.). This activity has resulted in most of the existing transportation system present today, especially management level 1 and 2 roads. More recent vegetation treatments likely have had fewer impacts, but can still contribute cumulative effects, especially given resource conditions and ecological processes that have been highly altered from legacy impacts. Fuelwood collecting and harvesting is also a very widespread activity occurring across the Apache-Sitgreaves. It occurs extensively within timber harvest areas, but also occurs as part of or within vegetation treatments in woodland areas as well.

. Recreation and Recreation Management: Recreational activities occur throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, and are continuing to increase. Developed recreation sites, dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, driving, boating, wildlife viewing, and many other types of recreational activities occur across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Riparian areas, lakes, and streams are very popular areas for recreational activities and dispersed camping; this can result in deteriorated resource conditions from the concentrated use (e.g., loss of vegetation and soil compaction), and can also impact water quality.

. Fire Suppression and Fire Management Projects: Fire suppression activities have been in place for decades, have resulted in unnatural vegetative conditions, and have altered ecological processes across most of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Suppression activities are ongoing and will continue well into the future, as vegetation structure and composition has been altered so that allowing it to burn will result in uncharacteristic and unacceptable resource impacts. Fire suppression activities can also impact water resources and species dependent upon them by removing water, which usually occurs during the driest part of the year. Prescribed fire and burns have been occurring for the last 10 to 20 years, and have increased considerably in their extent and impacts during the last 5 to 10 years. Fire management can have both short- and long-term impacts that are both positive and negative, and cumulatively these impacts will be dependent on the existing resource conditions and the future environmental conditions. It should also be noted that significant levels of wildfire activities have occurred across the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests in the last 20 to 25 years, especially associated with the

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 224 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Rodeo-Chediski Fire (2002) and the Wallow Fire (2011) that, together, impacted more than 700,000 acres.

. Livestock Grazing: Grazing livestock has likely occurred for over a century across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Historically unrestricted and unregulated grazing resulted in overgrazing, especially within riparian areas, and has likely contributed to the degraded riparian and aquatic habitat conditions that occur throughout the Forests. Livestock grazing is continuing over most of the Apache-Sitgreaves, although some areas are excluded for resource recovery reasons. Infrastructure development and maintenance associated with livestock grazing allotments is substantial. Thousands of miles of fences and thousands of stock tanks occur throughout the Forests. Impacts to aquatic habitat and species, hydrologic conditions and processes, and riparian and upland conditions have occurred; and this will continue as long as livestock management and the associated infrastructure remains in place, and contributes cumulative effects to fish and their habitats.

. Road and Trail Construction and Maintenance: As previously stated, past timber activities and harvest primarily accounted for road development and placement, and this is still reflected in the existing transportation system. Over 8,000 roads (open and closed roads) and almost 1,000 miles of hiking trails occur in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. While roads and trails are necessary for the use, enjoyment, and management of the Forests, they also are responsible for considerable landscape-scale changes to the functioning and maintaining of ecological processes and values. Maintenance activities for roads and trails are limited by available funding, and can result in both positive and negative benefits, depending on when it occurs and how often. These impacts will continue as long as the roads or trails are in place, and are a major contributor to cumulative effects in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

. Special Uses and Permits/Minerals Management/Land Exchanges: Hundreds of special use permits have been issued across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. These include permits for outfitter and guiding activities, fuelwood and Christmas tree cutting, road easements, plant and minerals collection, church and youth camps, gravel and cinder pits, ditch bill easements, communications sites, and other uses, as well. All of these activities can result in impacts to watersheds, riparian areas, and aquatic habitat and species, and contribute to cumulative effects, especially water development and diversion projects. Land exchanges have resulted in the acquisition of riparian habitat (and in some cases associated water rights) that could help improve or maintain the status of some aquatic species.

. Dam and Reservoir Development/Water Developments and Diversions: These projects have resulted in considerable impacts to aquatic habitat and species both directly and indirectly. Dam and reservoir development began in the late 1800s and continued into the 1950s. Most of this activity was to provide for downstream (and off Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests) water use and irrigation, and to provide for recreational opportunities. Most dams and water diversions have detrimental impacts to aquatic species and habitats, and have isolated or separated populations, and dewatered or introduced nonnative species into upstream and downstream habitats.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 225 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

. Fisheries and Wildlife: Fisheries habitat improvement work in streams in the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests began in the 1930s. These efforts were in response to degraded habitat conditions (likely from grazing livestock) and were focused on higher- elevation trout streams, and intended to stabilize streams and provide pool habitat that had been reduced. Later efforts did not occur until the1970s through the 1980s, and these efforts were largely focused on areas that were heavily impacted by past management activities and concentrated recreational use (e.g., East Fork Black River and West Fork Little Colorado River). Considerable efforts were made in the 1990s to improve habitat conditions for Apache trout recovery by installing habitat improvement structures within several streams in the Apache-Sitgreaves, primarily in the Springerville Ranger District.

Roads Impacting Aquatic Species The total number of open road miles impacting aquatic species for alternative 2 are displayed in table 107. For Apache trout and Gila chub, the total open road miles are increased; resulting in an increase in cumulative impacts, primarily increases in sedimentation, substrate embeddedness, and riparian vegetation alteration. For the remaining species (except northern Mexican gartersnake, which is unchanged) in table 107, the total open road miles are decreased. This would reduce the current level of cumulative impacts, by reducing the levels of fine sediments currently being added to streams and aquatic habitats.

Table 107. Numbers of open route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and for alternative 2 for each species being analyzed Species Species Alternative 1: Total # Alternative 2: Total # Status Open Route Miles Open Route Miles Apache trout Threatened 341.5 347.2 Desert sucker Sensitive 1,037.5 1,034.9 Gila chub Endangered 104.4 107.8 Gila trout Threatened 51.7 46.1 LC spinedace Threatened 798.6 727.5 LCR sucker Sensitive 430.4 384.8 Loach minnow Endangered 687.1 674.1 Roundtail chub Sensitive 1,353.6 1,309.8 Sonora sucker Sensitive 1,037.5 1,034.9 Spikedace Endangered 498.4 487.9 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 47.6 45.8 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 1.7 1.7 Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 778.4 757.4

Stream Crossings The total number of road-stream crossings that would be opened for alternative 2 are displayed in table 108. For the narrow-headed and northern Mexican gartersnakes, there are no road-stream crossings being opened; therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to these two species. For the remaining species in table 108, the total number of road-stream crossings increase, ranging from 3 to 46 percent. These additional road-stream crossings would add to the current level of cumulative impacts, by increasing the levels of fine sediments currently being added to streams and aquatic habitats.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 226 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Table 109 contains the number of acres currently open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and the total amount of acres that would be open to MBGR in alternative 2. The area that would be allowed for MBGR is reduced for all species. For areas where cross-country travel would no longer occur; conditions would improve from this action, reducing the current level of cumulative impacts to all species. Negative impacts that can occur from MBGR would result in cumulative impacts.

Table 108. Numbers of currently open road-stream crossings for the existing condition (alternative 1) and changes (i.e., number of opened road-stream crossings) for alternative 2 Species Species Alternative 1: Total # Alternative 2: Total # Status Open Road-Stream Opened Road-Stream Crossings Crossings Apache trout Threatened 195 15 Desert sucker Sensitive 929 33 Gila chub Endangered 129 3 Gila trout Threatened 40 4 LC spinedace Threatened 395 30 LCR sucker Sensitive 177 16 Loach minnow Endangered 657 13 Roundtail chub Sensitive 930 46 Sonora sucker Sensitive 929 33 Spikedace Endangered 184 8 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 105 0 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 2 0

Table 109. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and MBGR in alternative 2 Species Species Status Alternative 1: Total Acres Alternative 2: Total Acres Open to Cross-country Open to MBGR Travel Apache trout Threatened 103,789 90,411 Desert sucker Sensitive 613,835 273,487 Gila chub Endangered 90,148 25,209 Gila trout Threatened 20,612 13,357 LC spinedace Threatened 232,959 226,767 LCR sucker Sensitive 134,249 131,839 Loach minnow Endangered 499,032 163,359 Roundtail chub Sensitive 640,567 370,280 Sonora sucker Sensitive 613,835 273,487 Spikedace Endangered 441,688 107,237 Narrow-headed Threatened 8,883 3,421 gartersnake Northern Threatened 163 103 Mexican gartersnake

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 227 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Status Alternative 1: Total Acres Alternative 2: Total Acres Open to Cross-country Open to MBGR Travel Chiricahua Threatened 360,155 238,607 leopard frog

Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping Corridors Table 110 contains the number of acres currently open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and the total amount of acres that would be open for DCCs in alternative 2. The area that would be allowed for DCCs is substantially reduced for all species. For areas where cross-country travel would no longer occur; all species would benefit from this action, reducing the current level of cumulative impacts. Negative impacts that can occur within DCCs would result in cumulative impacts for each species.

Table 110. Acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and DCCs within alternative 2 Species Species Alternative 1: Total Alternative 2: Total Status Acres Open to Cross- Acres Open to country Travel Dispersed Camping Apache trout Threatened 103,789 6,564 Desert sucker Sensitive 613,835 21,253 Gila chub Endangered 90,148 2,428 Gila trout Threatened 20,612 1,056 LC spinedace Threatened 232,959 19,018 LCR sucker Sensitive 134,249 14,646 Loach minnow Endangered 499,032 11,975 Roundtail chub Sensitive 640,567 33,037 Sonora sucker Sensitive 613,835 21,253 Spikedace Endangered 441,688 8,959 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 8,883 16 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 163 1

Table 111. Fisheries resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 Resource Resource Indicator Measure (Alternative 2) Element Fish, snake, and Habitat and riparian Changes in the miles of Species-specific in table 99 frog species alteration/disturbance open roads to table 110 above Fish, snake, and Habitat and riparian Number of road crossings Species-specific in table 99 frog species alteration/disturbance of drainages for opened to table 110 above roads Fish, snake, and Habitat and riparian Acres of motorized big Species-specific in table 99 frog species alteration/disturbance game (i.e., elk) retrieval to table 110 above corridors Fish, snake, and Habitat and riparian Acres of dispersed camping Species-specific in table 99 frog species alteration/disturbance corridors to table 110 above Invertebrate Habitat impacts from Changes in sediment Discussion in Aquatic species sediment delivery delivery and habitat Macroinvertebrates section conditions above

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 228 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Effects from Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed to addresses Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping, Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game Retrieval, and Issue 3: Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use. This alternative includes minimal miles of corridors to access dispersed camping locations and eliminates motorized access for big game retrieval. Also, this alternative closes roads for resource protection. Similar to alternative 2, alternative 3 addresses the purpose and need by providing motorized access to the Forests while protecting resources. Maps displaying open roads and motorized trails under this alternative are found in appendix A.

This alternative would result in a system of 2,201 miles of NFS roads designated for motor vehicle use, and 127 miles of NFS motorized trails. No motorized areas are included in this alternative. Additionally, this alternative designates 79 miles (4 percent of roads open for public use) for motorized access to dispersed camping. Similar to alternative 2, motorized access may only be designated on one side of the road or may not be continuous to address resource concerns and to be fully consistent with the revised forest plan.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Roads Impacting Aquatic Species For the proposed actions, increases in the miles of open roads is one component that has the potential for impacts to aquatic species. Direct impacts would result if these roads are opened in a species’ habitat. Alternative 3 proposes no change or to decrease open roads in the habitats of all aquatic species. Decreases relative to the existing numbers of open roads range from 7.8 to 51.6 percent; and for the Gila trout and LCR sucker, no changes are proposed in their habitat, so there would be no direct impacts. The reductions would reduce the current level of direct impacts to these species’ habitats relative to the existing condition (alternative 1). Table 112 displays this information for each species.

For the proposed actions, increases in the miles of open roads also has the potential for indirect impacts to aquatic species. Indirect impacts occur similarly to the way direct impacts occur, although they occur on tributaries and drainages that flow into aquatic habitats; primarily resulting in increases in sedimentation and alterations of water quality downstream into occupied habitat. For alternative 3, all of the action areas have decreases in the number of open roads, and the decreases range from 22.3 to 35.9 percent. Table 113 displays these changes for each species. The reductions would reduce the level of indirect impacts to these species’ habitats as compared to the existing condition (alternative 1).

Table 112. Number of route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and alternative 3 (direct impacts) Species Species Status Alternative 1: # Alternative 3: # Open Route Miles Open Route Miles Apache trout Threatened 15 10.5 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓30% Desert sucker Sensitive 41.5 36.9 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓11.1% Gila chub Endangered 6.2 3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓51.6% Gila trout Threatened 2.1 2.1

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 229 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Status Alternative 1: # Alternative 3: # Open Route Miles Open Route Miles % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↔No change LC spinedace Threatened 10 8.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓17% LCR sucker Sensitive 1.2 1.2 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↔No change Loach minnow Endangered 34.6 31.2 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓9.8% Roundtail chub Sensitive 6.2 5.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓14.5% Sonora sucker Sensitive 38.8 34.6 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓10.8% Spikedace Endangered 25.8 22.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓13.6% Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 47.6 38.3% % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓19.5% Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 1.7 1.2 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓29.4% Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 38.6 35.6 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓7.8%

Table 113. Numbers of route miles for the existing condition (alternative 1) and for alternative 3 (indirect impacts) Species Species Status Alternative 1: # Alternative 3: # Open Route Miles Open Route Miles Apache trout Threatened 341.5 232.2 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓32% Desert sucker Sensitive 1,037.5 733.4 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓29.3% Gila chub Endangered 104.4 72.5 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓30.6% Gila trout Threatened 51.7 34.5 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓33.3% LC spinedace Threatened 798.6 532.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓33.3% LCR sucker Sensitive 430.4 276 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓35.9% Loach minnow Endangered 687.1 494.2 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓28.1% Roundtail chub Sensitive 1,353.6 951.5 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓29.7% Sonora sucker Sensitive 1,037.5 713.4 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓31.2%

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 230 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Status Alternative 1: # Alternative 3: # Open Route Miles Open Route Miles Spikedace Endangered 498.4 387.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓22.3% Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 739.8 561.3 % Change of Open Route Miles - - ↓24.1%

Stream Crossings Road-stream crossings are areas where road impacts are the greatest in terms of stream channel alterations and impacts, inputs of fine sediment, and movement impediments and barriers to aquatic species. As with roads adjacent to streams, road crossings would also directly contribute fine sediment to streams, negatively impacting aquatic habitat and species and water quality; especially fish eggs and early life history stages that occur on or within the substrate, and the aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure. Crossings also result in the direct loss and/or alteration of riparian and aquatic habitat, and impacts can vary depending the type of road crossing structure (e.g., ford, culvert, bridge) associated with the road. Road crossings of streams can also alter the stream channel, resulting in the loss of riparian habitat and function, and cause stream bank erosion and stream channel down cutting both upstream and downstream of the crossing. Vegetation removal and alteration at the crossing site directly and indirectly impacts aquatic habitat quality and suitability, and reduces allochthonous input and can increase stream temperature. Water quality can also be impacted by pollutants from motorized vehicles; and increased access to the stream increases the potential to introduce nonnative vegetation, species, and diseases. Under alternative 3, direct impacts from alternative 3 would not occur to any aquatic species, as there are no crossings associated with roads being added to the transportation system.

For the proposed actions, increases in the number of opened road crossings has the potential for indirect impacts to aquatic species. Indirect impacts occur similarly to the way direct impacts occur, although they occur on tributaries and drainages that flow into aquatic habitats; primarily resulting in increases in sedimentation and alterations of water quality downstream into occupied habitat. For alternative 3, seven fish species’ action areas have increases in open road crossings, ranging from a low of one to the most at 10. Table 114 displays these changes for each species. These crossings could also negatively impact the dispersal and movement of the narrow-headed gartersnake and the Chircahua leopard frog.

Table 114. Numbers of route crossings for the existing condition (alternative 1) and the number open under alternative 3 (indirect impacts) Species Species Status Alternative 1: # Open Road- Alternative 3: # Open Road- Stream Crossings Stream Crossings Apache trout Threatened 195 1 Desert sucker Sensitive 929 9 Gila chub Endangered 129 0 Gila trout Threatened 40 0 LC spinedace Threatened 395 3 LCR sucker Sensitive 177 1 Loach minnow Endangered 657 2 Roundtail chub Sensitive 930 10

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 231 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Status Alternative 1: # Open Road- Alternative 3: # Open Road- Stream Crossings Stream Crossings Sonora sucker Sensitive 929 9 Spikedace Endangered 184 0

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Alternative 3 does not designate any MBGR corridors; therefore, beneficial impacts would occur to all of the aquatic species’ habitat and their action areas where cross-country travel would no longer be allowed.

Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping Corridors Motorized travel and dispersed camping within DCCs can cause soil, watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat impacts that are similar to new road or trail construction. Soils can be compacted, water infiltration is reduced and greater water runoff and erosion can occur. Alternative 3 would designate DCCs (300 feet on both sides) along 79 miles of roads, but none would occur within any species habitats; therefore, beneficial impacts would occur to all of the aquatic species action areas where cross-country travel is no longer allowed.

Motorized travel and dispersed camping within DCCs can cause soil, watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat impacts similar to new road or trail construction. Soils can be compacted, water infiltration is reduced, and greater water runoff and erosion can occur. These are indirect impacts that can occur within a species’ action area (i.e., watershed area that drains into a species’ occupied habitat) by changes in the uplands and on tributaries and drainages that flow into aquatic species’ habitats; and primarily result in increases in sedimentation and alterations of water quality. Table 115 displays for each species’ action area the current number of acres open to cross-country travel under alternative 1, along with the amount of acres for each species’ action area that would be designated as DCCs under alternative 3. The DCCs acres are substantially reduced, with decreases ranging from 99.3 to 100 percent, but would still likely result in indirect impact where they occur. DCCs could also negatively impact the dispersal and movement of the narrow-headed gartersnake and the Chiricahua leopard frog; and increase the risk of introducing nonnative vegetation, nonnative aquatic species, and diseases and pathogens into aquatic systems and habitats.

Table 115. Aquatic species action area acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and acres within DCCs for alternative 3 Species Species Status Alternative 1: Acres Alternative 3: Acres Open to Cross-country Open to Dispersed Travel Camping Apache trout Threatened 103,789 0 % Change - - ↓100% Desert sucker Sensitive 613,835 2,533 % Change - - ↓99.6% Gila chub Endangered 90,148 591 % Change - - ↓99.3% Gila trout Threatened 20,612 0 % Change - - ↓100% LC spinedace Threatened 232,959 936

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 232 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Status Alternative 1: Acres Alternative 3: Acres Open to Cross-country Open to Dispersed Travel Camping % Change - - ↓99.6% LCR sucker Sensitive 134,249 837 % Change - - ↓99.4% Loach minnow Endangered 499,032 2,563 % Change - - ↓99.5% Roundtail chub Sensitive 640,567 2,480 % Change - - ↓99.6% Sonora sucker Sensitive 613,835 2,576 % Change - - ↓99.6% Spikedace Endangered 441,688 2,576 % Change - - ↓99.4% Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 336,517 1,525 % Change - - ↓99.5%

Additional Species not Covered by Resource Indicators and Measures Several aquatic species were not analyzed using the four resource indicators and measures, primarily because of limited or unknown distributions, or no or limited impacts that could result from the proposed actions. These species include six invertebrates (Three Forks springsnail, California floater, one stonefly, and three caddisflies). GIS maps were reviewed for all three alternatives to qualitatively assess the impacts that could occur to these species from the proposed actions (i.e., opening roads, MBGR, and DCCs), and they are discussed below for alternative 3.

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates The Mogollon snowfly (Capnia caryi) is a stonefly known to occur only within Mamie Creek in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. There are no changes associated with roads, and no impacts could occur from MBGR or DCCs from alternative 3. Alternative 3 includes removing cross-country travel, which would have beneficial impacts to the upper watershed of the Mogollon snowfly, west of NFS Road 275. Lepidostoma apache occurs within the Blue River. Alternative 3 does not include any road changes, MBGR, or DCCs; therefore, there are no impacts for those actions. Alternative 3 removes cross-country travel from the upper Blue River and its watershed, and this would have beneficial impacts to this species and its habitat. Lepidostoma knulli occurs in the East and West Forks of the Black River. Alternative 3 does not include any road changes, MBGR, or DCCs; therefore, there are no impacts for those actions. Alternative 3 removes cross-country travel from the uplands and tributaries within the species’ watersheds, and this would have beneficial indirect impacts to this species and its habitat. Limnephilus granti is found only in springs, and is known to occur in Government Springs on the West Fork Little Colorado River and Rosey Creek. Alternative 3 does not include any road changes, MBGR, or DCCs; therefore, there are no impacts for those actions. Alternative 3 removes cross-country travel from Rosey Creek and its watershed, and this would have beneficial impacts to this species and its habitat by eliminating direct and indirect effects.

California Floater The California floater is likely only present in Boneyard Creek and Three Forks on the North Fork of the East Fork of the Black River, although it may still occur in Chevelon Creek below

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 233 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Chevelon Canyon Dam. No negative impacts would occur from alternative 3, and indirect beneficial impacts from removing cross-country travel are expected to Chevelon Canyon.

Lowland and Northern Leopard Frogs The lowland leopard frog is currently known to occur at nine sites in the Clifton Ranger District. Alternative 3 could have direct and indirect negative impacts at one site within a DCC located on NFS Road 212B. Alternative 3 removes cross-country travel from all nine sites, and this would have beneficial impacts to this species and its habitat by eliminating direct and indirect effects.

Northern leopard frogs are currently only known from one site on private land within the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, but dispersing individuals could be impacted by actions occurring in the Forests. Alternative 3 would have no negative impacts to this species, as no road openings, MBGR, or DCCs are proposed. Removing cross-country travel would eliminate any indirect impacts to dispersing individuals.

Three Forks Springsnail The Three Forks springsnail is an endangered species, and its distribution is limited to three areas (17 acres) of critical habitat in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Two areas are on Boneyard Creek (11 acres), and one is at Three Forks (6 acres). Alternative 3 proposes no actions within the species’ habitat, or that have the potential for negative impacts to the species or its critical habitat. The 11 acres on Boneyard Creek are currently open to cross-country travel; therefore, the species and habitat would have beneficial impacts from removing cross-country travel.

Cumulative Effects

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The forest-wide cumulative impacts for alternative 3 are the same as those summarized for alternative 2 (see page 224), so they are not duplicated here.

Roads Impacting Aquatic Species The total number of open road miles impacting aquatic species for alternative 3 are displayed in table 116. For all aquatic species, the total open road miles have decreased; and would result in a reduction to the current levels of cumulative impacts, by reducing the levels of fine sediments being added to streams and aquatic habitats.

Table 116. Total numbers of open route miles for alternatives 1 and 3 for each species Species Species Status Alternative 1: Total # Alternative 3: Open Route Miles Total # Open Route Miles Apache trout Threatened 341.5 242.7 Desert sucker Sensitive 1,037.5 770.3 Gila chub Endangered 104.4 75.5 Gila trout Threatened 51.7 36.6 LC spinedace Threatened 798.6 540.6 LCR sucker Sensitive 430.4 277.2 Loach minnow Endangered 687.1 525.4

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 234 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Status Alternative 1: Total # Alternative 3: Open Route Miles Total # Open Route Miles Roundtail chub Sensitive 1,353.6 956.8 Sonora sucker Sensitive 1,037.5 770.3 Spikedace Endangered 498.4 387.3 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 47.6 38.3 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 1.7 1.2 Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 778.4 586.0

Stream Crossings The total number of road-stream crossings that would be opened for alternative 3 are displayed in table 117. For the Gila chub, Gila trout, spikedace, and narrow-headed and northern Mexican gartersnakes, there are no road-stream crossings being opened; therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to these five species. For the remaining species in table 117, the total number of road-stream crossings increase, with increases ranging from 1 to 10. These additional crossings would add to the current level of cumulative impacts, by increasing the levels of fine sediments being added to streams and aquatic habitats.

Table 117. Numbers of route crossings for alternative 1 and changes (number of opened route crossings) for alternative 3 Species Species Status Alternative 1: Total # Alternative 3: Total # Open Route Opened Route Crossings Crossings Apache trout Threatened 195 1 Desert sucker Sensitive 929 9 Gila chub Endangered 129 0 Gila trout Threatened 40 0 LC spinedace Threatened 395 3 LCR sucker Sensitive 177 1 Loach minnow Endangered 657 2 Roundtail chub Sensitive 930 10 Sonora sucker Sensitive 929 9 Spikedace Endangered 184 0 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 105 0 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 2 0

Motorized Big Game Retrieval As alternative 3 does not include any MBGR, for all of the area where cross-country travel would no longer occur, conditions would improve from this action, reducing the current level of cumulative impacts to all species.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 235 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 118. For each species acres open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and acres of DCCs in alternative 3 Species Species Status Alternative 1:Total Alternative 3: Total Acres Open to Cross- Acres Open to country Travel Dispersed Camping Apache trout Threatened 103,789 0 Desert sucker Sensitive 613,835 2,576 Gila chub Endangered 90,148 662 Gila trout Threatened 20,612 0 LC spinedace Threatened 232,959 937 LCR sucker Sensitive 134,249 837 Loach minnow Endangered 499,032 2,576 Roundtail chub Sensitive 640,567 2,529 Sonora sucker Sensitive 613,835 2,576 Spikedace Endangered 441,688 2,576 Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 8,883 0 Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 163 0 Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened 360,155 1,525

Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping Corridors Table 118 shows the number of acres currently open to cross-country travel in alternative 1, and the total number of acres that would be open for DCCs in alternative 3. The area that would be allowed for DCCs is substantially reduced for all species. For areas where cross-country travel would no longer occur, all species would benefit from this action, reducing the level of cumulative impacts. Negative impacts that can occur within DCCs would result in cumulative impacts for all of the species where this activity would occur.

Table 119. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure (Alternative 3) Fish, snake, and Habitat and riparian Changes in the miles of open Species-specific in table 112 to frog species disturbance roads table 118 above Fish, snake, and Habitat and riparian Number of road crossings of Species-specific in table 112 to frog species disturbance drainages for opened roads table 118 above Fish, snake, and Habitat and riparian Acres of motorized big game Species-specific in table 112 to frog species disturbance (i.e., elk) retrieval corridors table 118 above Fish, snake, and Habitat and riparian Acres of dispersed camping Species-specific in table 112 to frog species disturbance corridors table 118 above Invertebrate species Habitat impacts and Change in habitat impacts and Discussion in Aquatic sediment delivery sediment delivery Macroinvertebrates section above

Determination of Effect for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Negative effects would occur from both direct and indirect impacts as a result of opening roads and the associated road-stream crossings, motorized big game retrieval, and dispersed camping corridors for alternative 2; and indirect impacts as a result of opening roads and the associated road-stream crossings and dispersed camping corridors, for alternative 3. Positive (i.e., beneficial

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 236 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

effects) would result from both alternatives 2 and 3, associated with the reduction of acres that would be open for motorized cross-country travel. Additionally, opening routes, motorized big game retrieval, and dispersed camping corridors increase the risk and potential for the introduction and spread of invasive plant species, nonnative and invasive aquatic species, and native and nonnative diseases and pathogens. These are described in more detail in the environmental consequences discussion earlier in this document.

Table 120 displays the determination of effect for alternatives 2 and 3 for all of the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (and their designated and/or proposed critical habitats) considered in this analysis. Please keep in mind that these determinations do not provide any comparative information as to the level of negative impacts and are not reflective of the amount and level of any beneficial impacts associated with the proposed actions. The previous discussions of each alternative provides a more detailed quantitative and qualitative presentation of impacts to each species considered. This information provides more specific data and impacts that would result to each species from the various alternatives; while the determinations are the same for each action alternative, there are considerable differences in impacts between the alternatives. Although alternative 3 results in the greatest improvements for aquatic species and their habitats, alternative 2 also results in substantial improvements to aquatic species relative to the existing condition (i.e., alternative 1). Although both action alternatives improve conditions for aquatic species, even very small impacts within a species occupied or critical habitats can result in adverse impacts. It is these adverse impacts that have resulted in the “likely to adversely affect” determinations for the aquatic species being analyzed.

All of the threatened and endangered species, and their critical habitats, are likely to be adversely affected (LAA) by both action alternatives. For all of the sensitive species, both alternatives may impact individuals (MII) or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. It should be noted that the determination of effect for the species considered here are preliminary; and could change based on additional findings or input, or changes to the proposed actions. The biological assessment and evaluation will have the final determination of effect to federally listed and sensitive species.

Table 120. Determination of effects for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species for alternatives 2 and 3 LAA = likely to adversely affect. MII = may impact individuals or their habitat. Species Species Critical Species Critical Habitat Status Habitat Determination Determination Gila chub Endangered Yes Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Loach minnow Endangered Yes Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Spikedace Endangered Yes Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Three Forks springsnail Endangered Yes Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Apache trout Threatened No Alternative 2: LAA N/A Alternative 3: LAA Gila trout Threatened No Alternative 2: LAA N/A Alternative 3: LAA

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 237 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Species Species Critical Species Critical Habitat Status Habitat Determination Determination Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened Yes Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Little Colorado spinedace Threatened Yes Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened Yes Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 2: LAA (proposed) Alternative 3: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Northern Mexican Threatened Yes Alternative 2: LAA Alternative 2: LAA gartersnake (proposed) Alternative 3: LAA Alternative 3: LAA Caddisfly Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Caddisfly Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Caddisfly Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII California floater Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Desert sucker Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Little Colorado sucker Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Lowland leopard frog Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Mogollon snowfly Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Northern leopard frog Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Roundtail chub Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII Sonora sucker Sensitive N/A Alternative 2: MII N/A Alternative 3: MII

Effects to Air Quality More information is available in the project record including the full air quality analysis file, as part of the Air Quality Report.

Summary of Environmental Effects The impacts to the ambient air quality of the Forests due to vehicular travel, whether through engine exhaust or re-entrained dust, are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Implementation of any of the alternatives, including the no-action alternative, would be anticipated to have no significant adverse long-term impacts on the air quality of the region.

A summary and ranking of the direct impacts associated with the proposed alternatives is provided in table 121. The ranking ranges from 1 to 3, with the lowest number representing the least impact. This is based on total open road mileage, which may have no bearing on actual traffic density. It is assumed that traffic density may increase into the future; however there are no available predictions of this effect within the Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 238 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 121. Summary and ranking of air impacts Miles of % Change in Miles of Rank Alternative Impact Road/Motorized Road/Motorized Trail Trail 3 Alternative 1 – No Action Baseline 3,484 N/A

2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Reduced 3,092 -11.25%

1 Alternative 3 Reduced 2,328 -33.18%

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Human health standards are defined in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for seven pollutants considered harmful to public health: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter 10 microns in size or smaller (PM10), particulate matter 2.5 microns in size or smaller (PM2.5), ozone, and sulfur dioxide. Population centers with the potential to be impacted from management activities in the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests are the Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside, Eagar/Springerville, Winslow, Holbrook, Heber/Overgaard, and Payson areas. Some of these communities are affected by particulates from smoke, while certain particulates from vehicles on forest system roads may not reach this extent. The Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside, Eagar/Springerville, Heber/Overgaard, and Payson areas are monitored continuously for fine particulates, as they receive air drainage from the Forests and nearby Fort Apache Indian Reservation. As determined by the State of Arizona, a portion of the Forests falls within a sulfur dioxide (SO2) maintenance plan area near Morenci. Disturbances as described within the Forest Plan (e.g., vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, smoke from fires) may have an insignificant impact on air quality within this maintainence area. Road miles and densities within and immediately surrounding the maintenance area are some of lowest compared to any area on the Forests (DEIS, Appendix C).

Temporary decreases in air quality from management activities in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are primarily from prescribed fire. Wildfires also produce emissions and are subject to conformance with State regulations. The NAAQS pollutant of concern from wildland fire is fine particulate matter, both PM10 and PM2.5. Studies indicate that 90 percent of smoke particles emitted from wildland fires are PM10, and about 90 percent of PM10 is PM2.5. Because of its small size, PM2.5 has an especially long residence time in the atmosphere and penetrates deeply into the lungs.

The same fine particulate matter that poses health risks is also largely responsible for visibility impairment. The State of Arizona has developed a State Implementation Plan with long-term strategies to make “reasonable progress: in improving visibility in Class I areas inside the state and in neighboring jurisdictions” (ADEQ 2011), and focuses on anthropogenic (human) sources of emissions.

Road dust has not been demonstrated to be a measurable contributor on a regional level to visibility in the 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau (ADEQ 2008). Although road dust has been a localized issue associated with implementation of some projects in the past, it has been addressed with site-specific mitigation measures.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 239 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Mount Baldy Wilderness (7,000 acres) is the only Class I airshed in the Forests. This airshed is located directly above the wilderness. In Mount Baldy Wilderness, little to no deterioration of air quality is allowed. All other areas of the Forests are Class II airsheds where only moderate deterioration of air quality is allowed.

Regulated Air Quality Compounds The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for wide-spread pollutants that are considered harmful to the public and environment. These pollutants come from numerous and diverse sources and include principal pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants. These are called criteria pollutants because they (1) identify a chemical compound, (2) describe a time period for measurement, and (3) define a maximum concentration.

The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards, primary and secondary. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Table 122 shows the seven federally regulated criteria pollutants.

Table 122. Federal criteria pollutant standards Pollutant Averaging time Primary Standard Secondary Standard Ozone 8 hours 147 μg/m3 Same as primary Respirable PM 10 24 hours 150 μg/m3 Same as primary 3 Respirable PM 2.5 24 hours 35 μg/m Same as primary Annual arithmetic mean 15 μg/m3 3 Carbon Monoxide 8 hours 10,000 μg/m None 1 hours 40,000 μg/m3 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual arithmetic mean 100 μg/m3 Same as primary 3 Sulfur Dioxide Annual arithmetic mean 80 μg/m None 3 24 hours 365 μg/m 3 hours None 1,300 μg/m3 Lead Calendar quarter 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary Source: EPA (2008). Note: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

Air pollution can affect human health, reduce visibility, and contribute acidic deposition in sensitive, high-elevation lakes. Air quality on the Forests is affected by various factors. Industrial sources near the Forests, such as power plants, mines, and oil and gas extraction activities, contribute to local and regional air pollution. Urbanization and resort development near the Forests may create hazardous emissions that affect a wider area. These sources include wood smoke and dust from dried de-icing compounds on paved roads in winter. De-icing compounds can affect air quality on paved roads as well as forest health by killing trees and eventually affecting ground water quality. Wildfires on public or private land are also an air quality concern because the smoke can inundate communities and other sensitive areas.

Air pollutants generated by motor vehicles on the Forests include tailpipe emissions and dust from travel over dry, unpaved road surfaces. Off-road travel can also have impacts by disturbing soils and creating dust and tailpipe emissions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 240 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Background Concentrations Ambient air monitoring and meteorology recording is conducted at a number of locations near the Forests. The nearest facility with a complete air quality data set is in Springerville, Arizona, at the northeastern corner of the Forests. This station measures nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), and there are two sites that measure particulate matter (PM). Maximum 24-hour 3 average PM10 concentrations at Springerville were 129 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m ) in

2004; 198 μg/m3 in 2005; and 298 μg/m3 in 2006. The State of Arizona also operates an intermittent monitoring station in Show Low to measure smoke from local or regional sources. This station is also used occasionally to verify PM10 attainment status. The maximum 24-hour 3 3 3 PM10 values measured from 2004 to 2006 were 41 μg/m , 37 μg/m , and 58 μg/m , respectively (ADEQ 2008, 52 and 61).

The EPA rates air quality for all criteria pollutants on a scale called the Air Quality Index (AQI). In many urban areas, the AQI is calculated daily and is reported in newspapers and on television weathercasts. The EPA (AIRNow 2009) explains the AQI this way:

“Think of the AQI as a yardstick that runs from 0 to 500. The higher the AQI value, the greater the level of air pollution, and the greater the health concerns. For example, an AQI value of 50 represents good air quality with little potential to affect public health, while an AQI value over 300 represents hazardous air quality.

An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the national air quality standard for the pollutant, which is the level EPA has set to protect public health. AQI values below 100 are generally thought of as satisfactory. When AQI values are above 100, air quality is considered to be unhealthy—at first for certain sensitive groups of people, then for everyone as AQI values get higher.”

Table 123 provides an annual summary of AQI values for Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties taken from outdoor monitors, and later uploaded into the AQS (Air Quality System) database. No data for Greenlee County are available. The Forests are located in portions of these four counties, and the AQI for the most recent four years of data (2013–17) are well within the satisfactory range.

Table 123. Air quality index summary, 2013–17 # Days Unhealthy for Very Year County with Good Moderate Sensitive Unhealthy Unhealthy AQI Groups Apache 357 356 1 0 0 0 2013 Coconino 364 262 99 3 0 0 Navajo 365 246 119 0 0 0 Apache 365 364 1 0 0 0 2014 Coconino 357 250 102 5 0 0 Navajo 365 272 91 2 0 0 Apache 361 361 0 0 0 0 2015 Coconino 365 260 101 4 0 0 Navajo 365 317 48 0 0 0

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 241 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

# Days Unhealthy for Very Year County with Good Moderate Sensitive Unhealthy Unhealthy AQI Groups Apache 366 364 2 0 0 0 2016 Coconino 366 301 65 0 0 0 Navajo 366 301 65 0 0 0 Apache 365 363 2 0 0 0 2017 Coconino 365 259 105 1 0 0 Navajo 365 279 85 1 0 0

Existing Emissions Sources A number of primary emission sources exist on the Forests. Emissions can be roughly divided into human-caused (anthropogenic) and natural sources. These emissions may impact the health of visitors and residents and may impair scenic vistas in the region. Anthropogenic emissions vary according to the season. In colder months, residential wood smoke is a large source of PM and other compounds in localized areas (settlements, campgrounds). In drier summer months, motor vehicles can stir up dust on dirt roads and emit exhaust pollutants.

Important stationary sources include the Coronado Generating Station near St. Johns (north of Springerville). This coal-fired power plant emits SO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and PM that, under some atmospheric conditions, impairs visibility over a wide area. The plant’s owners, Salt River Project, recently reached a permit-violation settlement with the EPA that will result in new scrubbers being installed. This settlement will reduce combined SO2 and NOx emissions by more than 21,000 tons each year. Salt River Project will also spend at least $750,000 replacing pre- 1988 wood stoves with EPA-certified stoves or other clean heating devices in St. Johns, Springerville, and Show Low. These two actions, which will take place over the next 5 to 6 years, will substantially improve visibility, reduce ozone (O3) smog potential, and protect human health in the northern part of the Forests.

Vehicle emissions include NOx, hydrocarbons, fine PM, and carbon monoxide (CO). Travel on unsurfaced roads can substantially increase local atmospheric concentrations of fine PM unless those roads are treated for dust abatement. Surfaced roads, where cinders and sand are applied to facilitate traction during icy conditions, can result in significant short-term dust once the roads dry out.

Natural sources on the Forests fall into two broad categories: (1) fine PM that reduces visibility and may impact health; and (2) everything else. Fine PM comes from naturally occurring fires (e.g., started by lightning) and windblown soil and dust (which may include ash). Non-PM sources usually are complex organic molecules emitted by vegetation (such as terpenes from conifer trees). Terpenes and similar natural volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react with O3 to form a whitish haze. The Great Smoky Mountains derive their name from the haze generated this way. Terpenes and other organic molecules can produce a haze over the Forests when O3 is present in sufficient quantities, just as in the Great Smoky Mountains (Appalachian Mountains). The O3 needed for this reaction would likely come from Phoenix or other large urban area, or it could be generated by emissions from local sources such as the Coronado power plant near St. Johns. On occasion, Arizona is also impacted by air pollution originating from as far away as Los Angeles (verified at the Grand Canyon).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 242 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Visibility One of the primary attributes of western public lands is the ability to see extraordinary and dramatic vistas. Air monitoring has been conducted for about 30 years at many of the western parks, and various techniques have been used to measure and describe visibility. The Regional Haze Rule requires the tracking of visibility conditions expressed in deciviews (dv), or a measurement based on perceptible change to the human eye. Baseline conditions have been defined using a 5-year average of IMPROVE monitoring data for the most-impaired (20 percent worst) days and the least-impaired (20 percent best) days. For the Mt. Baldy Wilderness Area Class I airshed, baseline visibility values range from 2.98 (20 percent best) to 11.85 (20 percent worst). Aside from Grand Canyon National Park, Mt. Baldy has the best visibility of any Class I airshed in the state. Sources of visibility reducing compounds are provided in table 124. (ADEQ 2011)

Table 124. Sources of visibility reducing compounds in the Mt. Baldy Wilderness Area Class I Airshed Organic Ammonium Ammonium Elemental Coarse Pollutant Mass Fine Soil Nitrate Sulfate Carbon Mass Carbon Sources Motor Utility and Combustion Autos, Natural fire, Natural fire, vehicles and Industrial of wood, trucks, and fugitive dust, fugitive dust, industrial Boilers diesel, other industrial road dust, road dust, boilers materials products windblown windblown dust dust 20% Best 7.32% 36.59% 9.76% 14.63% 29.27% 2.4% Days 20% Worst 5.08% 24.15% 12.29% 9.32% 43.64% 5.08% Days

Climate Change Climate change may cause some or all of following on the Forests: precipitation regimes may change (e.g., more rain in summer and drier winters); more frequent droughts with insect impacts to forests; less winter snowpack and reduced spring runoff with effects on fish and wildlife; and invasion of new species as a result of milder winters. Stronger storms may cause localized floods, stream course alteration, and erosion. If droughts are protracted, fires may be widespread and unstoppable, with subsequent habitat changes, such as wooded areas transforming to grass or brush land.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives Effects that would carry throughout all alternatives are related to re-entrained dust, vehicle emissions, air quality within the Mt. Baldy Class I airshed, and potential impacts to climate change. Implementing any one of the three alternatives would impact air quality to some degree, with the potential for impacts varying by the number of roads and motorized trails that would remain open for motorized use.

Re-entrained dust levels produced from forest roads result from user activities, wind disturbance on road surfaces, and forest management activities. While wind can release re-entrained dust from

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 243 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

the road even without motorized interaction, the primary release of re-entrained dust into the atmosphere is a result of tires interacting with the road surface and releasing dust particles into the air.

The primary effects from re-entrained dust are reduced visibility on and adjacent to roads and increased levels of PM2.5 and PM10, which can impact human health. Re-entrained dust impacts involve larger particles that generally settle close to the disturbance, and fine particles of dust that can disperse over a much wider area. Drift distances for re-entrained dust have been estimated based on particle size and wind speeds. These estimates indicate that for a typical mean wind speed of 10 mph, particles larger than about 100 microns in aerodynamic diameter are likely to settle out within 20 to 30 feet from the edge of the route. Particles that are 30 to 100 microns in diameter are likely to settle farther out, but usually within a few hundred feet of the source, depending on wind speed and direction. Smaller particles such as PM2.5 and PM10 have much slower settling rates and are much more likely to be impacted by atmospheric turbulence. The release of these smaller particles becomes an indirect effect to air quality over a more widespread area. However, PM2.5 and PM10 levels would rapidly disperse over a larger area. (EPA 1995)

Emissions from automobile use within the Forests’ boundary would be most concentrated adjacent to motorized roads and trails. The direct effects of these emissions are formation of PM2.5, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, and production of diesel engine particulate matter. Indirect effects of vehicle emissions are related to air quality degradation as a result of PM2.5 and PM10, reduced ability of the blood to carry oxygen based on exposure to carbon monoxide, and formation of ozone in the atmosphere when hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide precursor emissions react in the presence of sunlight.

A low volume of traffic and good wind dispersion are generally sufficient to avoid long-term air quality impacts. In addition, automobile emissions are controlled by standards that are designed to regulate outputs that contribute to the formulation of ozone and carbon monoxide. Emissions from OHVs, especially those with two-stroke engines, would have the most negative impact on air quality, as these can produce significant amounts of airborne contaminants. These contaminants can settle onto plants or into soils and act as fertilizers. If these volumes of emissions are significant, the contaminants can cause changes in plant community composition and alter growth rates. Some contaminants can persist in soils for several years.

Air quality within the Mt. Baldy Wilderness Class I airshed can be negatively impacted by motorized routes on adjacent roads, as this activity can reduce visibility by the production of dust. Fine particulate matter produced from roads on the Forests that becomes suspended in the air can contribute to regional haze.

Impacts to climate change may occur from the burning of fossil fuels by motorized vehicles. This burning results in the emission of greenhouse gases including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). These gases are emitted as CO2, CH4, N2O emissions resulting directly from operation of the vehicle, and CO2 emissions resulting from operating the air conditioning system.

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts to air quality as a result of current motorized use on the Forest are detailed above in the Effects Common to All Alternatives. Under Forest Service jurisdiction, there are currently 3,421 miles of open routes and 63 miles of motorized trails. These routes are of varying widths

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 244 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

based on maintenance levels. Cross country travel by motor vehicles is permitted in all areas, except designated Wilderness, roads, trails, or areas specified in Forest Orders, and restricted off- road vehicle areas identified in the Forest Land Management Plan. This cross-country travel includes access for motorized big game retrieval, dispersed recreation and camping areas. Currently, cross-country travel associated with motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed recreation, and camping areas is not repetitious enough in the same location to generate notable amounts of fugitive dust. This would only occur in an area where an unauthorized route has been created, the route was frequently traveled, and little to no vegetation remained on the route.

Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Direct Effects: The total number of miles of accessible roadways/trails is decreased from the no- action alternative; the direct impact would be considered decreased by 11 percent and, combined with much more limited cross-country travel, could result in a reduced impact through a reduction in the vehicle miles traveled and adverse air-quality impacts from dust and vehicular emissions. Designated Areas on the Forests where use is concentrated would likely see a local impacts on air quality, as would watersheds where open-road density increases (see table 125). The Snake Creek-North Fork White River and Lower Beaver Creek would see the greatest negative changes. Some watersheds on the Forests that would see the most significant reduction in open-road density could potentially see a long-term beneficial impact on air quality (see table 125). The most significant positive changes would occur in the Ballard Take-Cottonwood Wash, Pablo Canyon, Sand Draw and Ortega Draw watersheds. Air-quality effects associated with dispersed camping corridors may include vehicle emissions and campfire smoke. Effects from cross- country motorized big-game retrieval would be sporadic and largely from vehicle emissions. These other aspects of travel management would not appreciably impact ambient air quality on the Forests.

Table 125. Change in road density for alternative 2 (Watersheds with no changes are not shown in this table.) Watershed Alternative 1 Road Alternative 2 Road Change with Density (mi/mi2) Density (mi/mi2) Alternative 2 Ballard Tank-Cottonwood 3.5 2.2 -1.3 Wash Pablo Canyon 2.4 1.2 -1.2 Sand Draw 1.7 0.7 -1.0 Ortega Draw 2.1 1.2 -0.9 Schoens Crossing-Show Low 1.8 0.9 -0.8 Creek Upper West Chevelon Canyon 2.2 1.4 -0.8 Cabin Draw 2.0 1.2 -0.8 Dodson Wash 1.8 1.0 -0.8 Linden Draw 1.5 0.7 -0.7 Squaw Wash-Black Canyon 1.6 0.9 -0.7 Gentry Canyon 2.1 1.4 -0.7 Upper Brookbank Canyon 1.8 1.2 -0.7 Trap Tank-Chevelon Canyon 1.2 0.5 -0.7 Wilkins Canyon 1.9 1.2 -0.7 Upper Chevelon Canyon- 1.9 1.2 -0.6 Chevelon Canyon Lake

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 245 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Watershed Alternative 1 Road Alternative 2 Road Change with Density (mi/mi2) Density (mi/mi2) Alternative 2 Alder Canyon 2.1 1.5 -0.6 Upper Willow Creek 2.7 2.2 -0.5 Lower West Chevelon Canyon 1.6 1.2 -0.4 Tillman Draw 1.5 1.1 -0.4 Bagnal Draw-Show Low Creek 1.1 0.7 -0.4 Lower Potato Wash 1.7 1.3 -0.4 West Fork Black Canyon 0.9 0.5 -0.4 Upper Potato Wash 1.2 0.9 -0.4 Mortensen Wash 1.5 1.1 -0.4 Windsor Valley 1.8 1.5 -0.4 Coleman Creek 1.7 1.4 -0.4 East Fork Black River 2.1 1.7 -0.3 Fools Hollow 1.2 0.8 -0.3 Stinson Wash 0.7 0.4 -0.3 Bull Hollow 1.5 1.2 -0.3 Porter Creek 1.8 1.5 -0.3 Lower Willow Creek 1.1 0.8 -0.3 Thistle Hollow-Show Low 1.5 1.2 -0.3 Creek Show Low Lake-Show Low 0.8 0.5 -0.3 Creek Upper Day Wash 1.3 1.0 -0.3 Lower Day Wash 1.8 1.5 -0.3 Long Lake 2.8 2.5 -0.3 Lower Wildcat Canyon 1.1 0.9 -0.3 Fish Creek 1.7 1.4 -0.2 Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek 0.7 0.5 -0.2 Scott Wash 1.1 0.9 -0.2 Centerfire Creek 1.7 1.5 -0.2 Sepulveda Creek 1.8 1.6 -0.2 Billy Creek 0.9 0.7 -0.2 Upper Beaver Creek 1.2 1.1 -0.2 Walker Lake-Cottonwood 1.5 1.3 -0.2 Wash Campbell Blue Creek 1.2 1.0 -0.2 Mexican Lake-Silver Creek 0.2 0.0 -0.2 Bull Flat Canyon 1.4 1.3 -0.1 Middle Wildcat Canyon 1.2 1.0 -0.1 Lower Pierce Wash 1.2 1.1 -0.1 Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek 1.7 1.6 -0.1 South Fork Little Colorado 1.5 1.4 -0.1 River

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 246 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Watershed Alternative 1 Road Alternative 2 Road Change with Density (mi/mi2) Density (mi/mi2) Alternative 2 Lower Phoenix Park Wash 1.2 1.0 -0.1 Clear Creek 0.2 0.1 -0.1 Grapevine Creek-Little 0.7 0.6 -0.1 Colorado River Lower Brookbank Canyon 0.7 0.6 -0.1 Bear Canyon-Black Canyon 1.5 1.4 -0.1 Lower Brown Creek 0.5 0.4 -0.1 Centerfire Creek-Blue River 0.1 0.2 0.1 Cheney Lake 1.1 1.1 0.1 Snake Creek-Black River 1.6 1.6 0.1 Bear Creek-Black River 1.1 1.1 0.1 East Eagle Creek 0.2 0.3 0.1 Water Canyon Creek 0.6 0.7 0.1 Lower West Fork Black River 2.1 2.2 0.1 Rudd Creek 1.8 1.9 0.1 San Francisco River-Luna 1.0 1.1 0.1 Lake Neal Spring 1.3 1.4 0.1 Upper Brown Creek 1.5 1.6 0.1 Reservation Creek 1.1 1.2 0.1 East Fork Little Colorado River 1.0 1.1 0.1 Buckskin Canyon-Carrizo 1.5 1.6 0.1 Creek Upper Mallory Draw 1.0 1.1 0.2 Long Draw 1.3 1.5 0.2 Pulcifer Creek 1.7 1.9 0.2 Fish Creek-Little Colorado 1.2 1.4 0.2 River Canyon Creek Headwaters 0.8 1.0 0.2 Long Hollow Tank-Black 0.8 1.0 0.2 Canyon Buckskin Wash 0.9 1.1 0.2 Upper Mineral Creek 2.2 2.4 0.2 Boneyard Creek 1.4 1.7 0.2 Snake Creek-North Fork White 1.4 1.7 0.3 River Lower Beaver Creek 1.0 1.5 0.5

The additional restrictions on motorized travel, such as specifying the seasons of use, the types of vehicles that may use the roadways and the type of use of the roadways, and restrictions on cross- country travel and parameters for motorized big-game retrieval would further reduce the regional vehicle miles traveled and air-quality impacts. Conversely, expanding motorized travel into limited areas may locally increase impacts on the air quality.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 247 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Indirect Effects: The indirect effects of alternative 2 on air quality would be extremely limited, considering off-Forest effects or effects that occur. Due to less overall motorized travel on Forest lands from cross-country travel, this could theoretically translate into less vehicular exhaust and incidental dust, however, actual differences may be immeasurable. Overall, road and motorized trail mileage would decrease in this alternative, which would produce less pollution than alternative 1 along roadways.

Vehicular emissions could be conceived to interact with other compounds in the air; however the amount attributable to this alternative would not be measurable. Compared to alternative 1, alternative 2 could have somewhat less indirect impact based on lower overall motorized travel on the Forests.

Alternative 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects Direct Effects: The total number of miles of accessible roadways/trails is reduced from the no- action alternative by 33 percent. This may result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled and reduced adverse air-quality impacts regionally from dust and vehicular emissions, and, as there are no designated areas, there would be no local increase in particulate matter or vehicle emissions in these areas. Some watersheds on the Forests that would see the most significant reduction in open-road density would likely see a long-term beneficial impact on air quality (see table 126). The watersheds with the greatest positive changes are: Ballard Tank-Cottonwood Wash, Cabin Draw, Schoens Crossing-Show Low Creek, Sand Draw, Pablo Canyon, Upper Brookbank Canyon, Lower Potato Wash, Gentry Canyon, Dodson Wash, Colter Creek, Alder Canyon, Ortega Draw, Tillman Draw, Upper Chevelon Canyon-Chevelon Canyon Lake, and Upper West Chevelon Canyon. Watersheds where open-road density increases would likely see an adverse impact to air quality (see table 126). This would only occur in four watersheds for this alternatives: Woods Canyon and Willow Springs Canyon, Cheney Lake, Canyon Creek Headwaters, and Snake Creek-North Fork White River watersheds. Air-quality effects associated with dispersed camping corridors may include vehicle emissions and campfire smoke. These other aspects of travel management would not appreciably impact ambient air quality on the Forests.

Table 126. Change in road density for alternative 3 (Watersheds with no changes are not shown in this table.) Alternative 1 Road Alternative 3 Road Change with Watershed Density (mi/mi2) Density (mi/mi2) Alternative 3 Ballard Tank-Cottonwood 3.5 2.2 -1.3 Wash Cabin Draw 2.0 0.8 -1.3 Schoens Crossing-Show Low 1.8 0.5 -1.3 Creek Sand Draw 1.7 0.5 -1.3 Pablo Canyon 2.4 1.1 -1.3 Upper Brookbank Canyon 1.8 0.7 -1.2 Lower Potato Wash 1.7 0.6 -1.1 Gentry Canyon 2.1 1.1 -1.0 Dodson Wash 1.8 0.8 -1.0 Colter Creek 1.7 0.8 -1.0 Alder Canyon 2.1 1.1 -1.0

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 248 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 1 Road Alternative 3 Road Change with Watershed Density (mi/mi2) Density (mi/mi2) Alternative 3 Ortega Draw 2.1 1.2 -0.9 Tillman Draw 1.5 0.6 -0.9 Upper Chevelon Canyon- 1.9 0.9 -0.9 Chevelon Canyon Lake Upper West Chevelon Canyon 2.2 1.3 -0.9 Upper Willow Creek 2.7 1.9 -0.8 Snake Creek-Black River 1.6 0.7 -0.8 Linden Draw 1.5 0.7 -0.8 Lower Day Wash 1.8 1.0 -0.8 Windsor Valley 1.8 1.1 -0.7 Lower Wildcat Canyon 1.1 0.4 -0.7 Boneyard Creek 1.4 0.7 -0.7 Squaw Wash-Black Canyon 1.6 0.9 -0.7 Bull Flat Canyon 1.4 0.7 -0.7 Campbell Blue Creek 1.2 0.5 -0.7 Wilkins Canyon 1.9 1.2 -0.7 Coleman Creek 1.7 1.1 -0.7 Upper Phoenix Park Wash 1.2 0.5 -0.7 Long Lake 2.8 2.1 -0.7 Trap Tank-Chevelon Canyon 1.2 0.5 -0.7 Buckskin Canyon-Carrizo 1.5 0.9 -0.7 Creek Porter Creek 1.8 1.1 -0.6 East Fork Black River 2.1 1.5 -0.6 Bear Canyon-Black Canyon 1.5 0.9 -0.6 Upper Day Wash 1.3 0.7 -0.6 Centerfire Creek 1.7 1.1 -0.6 Lower West Chevelon Canyon 1.6 1.1 -0.6 Upper Silver Creek-White 0.5 0.0 -0.5 Mountain Lake Lower Willow Creek 1.1 0.5 -0.5 Upper Pierce Wash 1.3 0.8 -0.5 Lower Phoenix Park Wash 1.2 0.6 -0.5 Middle Wildcat Canyon 1.2 0.7 -0.5 Dry Prong Creek 0.6 0.1 -0.5 Stinson Wash 0.7 0.2 -0.5 Upper West Fork Black River 1.6 1.1 -0.5 Thistle Hollow-Show Low 1.5 1.0 -0.5 Creek Upper Potato Wash 1.2 0.7 -0.5 Bull Hollow 1.5 1.0 -0.5 Bagnal Draw-Show Low Creek 1.1 0.6 -0.5

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 249 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 1 Road Alternative 3 Road Change with Watershed Density (mi/mi2) Density (mi/mi2) Alternative 3 Lower West Fork Black River 2.1 1.6 -0.5 Fish Creek 1.7 1.2 -0.5 Mortensen Wash 1.5 1.0 -0.5 Durfee Draw-Chevelon Canyon 0.8 0.4 -0.5 Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek 1.7 1.3 -0.4 South Fork Little Colorado 1.5 1.1 -0.4 River Bear Creek-Black River 1.1 0.6 -0.4 Billy Creek 0.9 0.5 -0.4 Upper Rocky Arroyo 1.0 0.5 -0.4 Upper Mineral Creek 2.2 1.8 -0.4 West Fork Black Canyon 0.9 0.5 -0.4 Lower Brown Creek 0.5 0.1 -0.4 Lower Brookbank Canyon 0.7 0.3 -0.4 Show Low Lake-Show Low 0.8 0.4 -0.4 Creek Reservation Creek 1.1 0.7 -0.4 Upper Beaver Creek 1.2 0.9 -0.4 Long Draw 1.3 1.0 -0.4 Rudd Creek 1.8 1.5 -0.3 Fools Hollow 1.2 0.8 -0.3 San Francisco River-Luna 1.0 0.7 -0.3 Lake Pulcifer Creek 1.7 1.4 -0.3 Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek 0.7 0.4 -0.3 Upper Wildcat Canyon 1.5 1.2 -0.3 Upper Mallory Draw 1.0 0.7 -0.3 Decker Wash 1.1 0.8 -0.3 Walker Lake-Cottonwood 1.5 1.2 -0.3 Wash North Fork East Fork Black 1.3 1.1 -0.3 River Harden Cienega Creek 1.2 0.9 -0.3 Long Hollow Tank-Black 0.8 0.5 -0.2 Canyon Middle Prong Creek 1.1 0.9 -0.2 Grapevine Creek-Little 0.7 0.5 -0.2 Colorado River Lower Pierce Wash 1.2 1.0 -0.2 Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek 0.8 0.6 -0.2 Scott Wash 1.1 0.9 -0.2 Sepulveda Creek 1.8 1.6 -0.2 Upper Carnero Creek 1.4 1.2 -0.2 Dalton Tank-Cottonwood Wash 1.3 1.1 -0.2

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 250 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 1 Road Alternative 3 Road Change with Watershed Density (mi/mi2) Density (mi/mi2) Alternative 3 Hall Creek-Little Colorado 1.1 1.0 -0.2 River West Fork Cottonwood Wash- 1.3 1.1 -0.2 Cottonwood Wash Cottonwood Canyon-Eagle 0.2 0.0 -0.2 Creek Auger Creek 0.7 0.5 -0.2 East Fork Little Colorado River 1.0 0.9 -0.2 Mexican Lake-Silver Creek 0.2 0.0 -0.2 Coalson Creek-San Francisco 0.4 0.3 -0.2 River Sheep Wash 0.7 0.6 -0.1 Paddy Creek-Nutrioso Creek 0.8 0.6 -0.1 Cienega Creek-Blue River 0.5 0.3 -0.1 West Fork Little Colorado River 0.4 0.2 -0.1 Neal Spring 1.3 1.2 -0.1 Coyote Creek 1.6 1.4 -0.1 East Eagle Creek 0.2 0.1 -0.1 Rattlesnake Canyon 0.6 0.5 -0.1 Mud Springs Canyon-Eagle 0.9 0.8 -0.1 Creek Strayhorse Creek 0.1 0.0 -0.1 Lower Rocky Arroyo 0.8 0.7 -0.1 Bear Canyon 0.6 0.5 -0.1 Clear Creek 0.2 0.1 -0.1 Long Tom Canyon-Chevelon 1.2 1.1 -0.1 Canyon Coal Creek 0.6 0.5 -0.1 Bee Canyon-Eagle Creek 1.2 1.1 -0.1 Turkey Creek 0.4 0.3 -0.1 Town Draw 1.3 1.3 -0.1 Upper Brown Creek 1.5 1.5 -0.1 Water Canyon Creek 0.6 0.6 -0.1 Dix Creek 0.8 0.7 -0.1 Woods Canyon and Willow 0.6 0.7 0.1 Springs Canyon Cheney Lake 1.1 1.1 0.1 Canyon Creek Headwaters 0.8 0.9 0.1 Snake Creek-North Fork White 1.4 1.7 0.3 River

The additional restrictions on motorized travel, such as specifying the seasons of use, the types of vehicles that may use the roadways and the type of use of the roadways, and the elimination of cross-county motorized big-game retrieval may further reduce the vehicle miles traveled and air- quality impacts.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 251 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Indirect Effects: The indirect effects of alternative 3 on air quality are extremely limited considering off-Forest effects or effects that occur at a later time. Due to less overall access to Forest lands from cross-country travel, this could theoretically translate into less vehicular exhaust and incidental dust; however, actual differences may be immeasurable. Due to the least overall road and motorized trail mileage, this alternative could be assumed to produce the least air quality impacts. Considering incidental dust produced from unpaved roads, this effect is not anticipated to be carried off-Forest as dust normally settles out fairly quickly.

Vehicular emissions could be conceived to interact with other compounds in the air; however the amount attributable to this alternative is not measurable. Compared to alternative 1, alternative 3 could be expected to have somewhat less indirect impact.

Cumulative Effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 Cumulative impacts for air quality consider the impacts of the proposed alternatives with past, present, and future actions. Those activities that may result in an adverse impact to air quality include:

• Uncontrolled forest fires • Controlled burns • Commercial operations (timber harvesting, sand/gravel operations, etc.) • Past activities that deposited air-borne toxins across Forest lands: historic use of leaded fuels (tetra-ethyl-lead) and deposits left from historic smelters (mercury). • Continued use of ADOT de-icing compounds on state highways across the Forests. Road salts used by ADOT in liquid form (calcium chloride brine) dries on pavement surfaces to form a white coating that turns into white dust in traffic, which can result in local air quality exceedances. Road salts such as calcium chloride can and has killed trees and other vegetation, and it can potentially affect surface and ground water quality as well. • Nearby coal-fired generating stations • Nearby mining operations Uncontrolled forest fires provide the greatest present impact on air quality on both a local and regional scale; the extent and duration of the fire are major factors determining their impact. Controlled burns, such as listed in the Forest’s SOPA list, can also have a negative impact on the local and regional air quality, but can be controlled and the impacts mitigated through limiting the size of the area and conducting the operation under favorable atmospheric conditions. Controlled burns are regulated through the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to limit the number of controlled fires occurring at one time. The travel management alternatives would not be expected to coordinate with burning activities regarding air quality effects, meaning that given road impacts to air quality are discounted as negligible when controlled burns are planned. During extensive wildfires or broadcast burns, public access and travel is normally restricted for safety reasons not necessarily tied to air quality concerns.

Changes in miles traveled and driving patterns affect fuel consumption, and therefore CO2 emissions. The current state of science cannot support a direct calculation of climate changes resulting from a minor source such as driving on the Forests. If fuel consumption increases measurably as a result of Forest Service action, the resulting CO2 emissions would contribute to a cumulative effect. Forest action that would allow increases in tree cover could provide a carbon

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 252 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

sink that may offset the cumulative effect of increasing CO2. On a global scale, all alternatives can be considered insignificant in terms of air quality effects and remotely related climate change concerns.

The main impacts to air quality within the state of Arizona focus on the limited amount of heavy industry located in the state (coal-fired power plants, milling operations, large-scale open pit mining) and large metropolitan areas such as greater Phoenix and Tucson.

Cumulative effects to the Forest’s only Class I airshed (Mt. Baldy Wilderness) from motorized travel on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests would be considered negligible for several reasons including the following: (1) Mt. Baldy is located upwind of all roads on the Forests. The primary wind direction is out of the southwest and the Forest Apache Indian Reservation is located upwind of Mt. Baldy. This area has very few roads and little traffic. (2) The only roads located closest to the wilderness area to the north and northeast are high standard roads. Other gravel roads to the northeast of the wilderness receive lower amounts of traffic and less dust is generated from them. (3) Roads that can generate potential dust near the wilderness are located 1 to 2 miles away, and road dust normally does not travel that far. Most road dust travels less than 1/8 mile before it settles out. Only during days experiencing high winds (often during spring) can dust travel farther, and then it would travel to the northeast and away from the wilderness.

Potential visibility issues were considered in this analysis. As existing conditions are close to excellent, and none of the alternatives propose notable changes in the total open road mileage (see table 121, it stands to reason that visibility would not measurably be affected by any of the alternatives. Effects to Cultural Resources The original effects analysis was completed between 2007 and 2010 based on existing cultural resource data and tribal consultation completed at that time. This analysis is informed by the original analysis, plus additional information obtained through cultural resource surveys and information provided by tribes.

Cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, and other areas important to tribes located on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests or tribal lands adjacent to the forests’ boundaries have been documented to have received impacts from unrestricted motor vehicle use or trespass. The focus of this section is the analysis of each of the alternatives (Alternatives 1 through 3) to the extent that they may affect cultural resources and tribal interests. Under Section 212.55 of the Travel Management Rule, the Region 3 Travel Management Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2008a) and Appendix I of the Southwestern Region’s programmatic agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officers (programmitc agreement, USDA Forest Service 2007), Region 3 National Forests are required to identify effects to cultural resources and tribal interests and mitigate those effects. More information is available in the project record including the full cultural resources analysis file, as part of the Heritage Report.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 253 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Summary of Environmental Effects

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The no action alternative (Alternative 1) would have the most future impacts on cultural resources. Table A1 in Appendix A lists the most prominent undertakings that are either being implemented now or would be implemented in the future. The majority of the projects are for timber sales or prescribed fire, which would reduce fuel loading and therefore density of vegetation, allowing for the opportunity of motorized vehicle users to drive to areas where they may not necessarily have been able to drive before. Such access over the landscape may result in sites being damaged by vehicles or by looting sites in areas otherwise inaccessible.

In comparing system road miles for Alternatives 2 and 3 to the no action alternative, there would be a slight increase in the number of cultural resources potentially impacted by opening new roads, motorized trails, camping spurs, with the smallest increase occurring with Alternative 3. The numbers of sites at risk of being damaged by motorized use of roads, trails, and camping spurs would be increased between 14 and 4.7 percent, respectively.

For off-road motorized use under Alternative 2, there would be a reduction in the number of cultural resources potentially impacted by restricting off road use to dispersed camping corridors, motorized use areas, and for motorized big game retrieval (MBGRs) (Table 127). Based on the percentage of land open to motorized travel in comparison to current conditions, the numbers of sites at risk from damages caused by dispersed camping would be reduced by 90.8 in Alternative 2 to and by 99.6 percent in Alternative 3, respectively. For Alternative 2, there are still sites in high site density areas that would need to be mitigated to meet the programmitc agreement to reduce potential effects from motorized travel for dispersed camping. One option may include placing the corridors only on one side of a road, in areas where there are good places to camp but there are no cultural resources, or by reassessing some of the corridors and replacing them with site-specific camping spurs where mitigating the effects to sites the spurs go through is manageable and cost-effective. Another option would be to remove those corridors with high site density. Other options are listed in the programmatic agreement.

There are currently 8,238 cultural resource sites documented on the forests. Under alternative 1, 7,369 of these sites are located in areas where off-road vehicle use is allowed. Under alternative 2, the numbers of sites at risk from damages caused from driving motorized vehicles through MBGRs would be reduced by 9.7 percent. Under Alternative 2, 90.3 percent of the known sites are located within 1 mile of any system road that would allow for MBGR.

Under Alternative 3, no off-road travel for MBGR would be allowed and therefore, outside any road, motorized trail, camping spur, or dispersed camping corridor, all cultural resources would be protected, from what are likely minimal impacts already. The numbers of sites at risk from any damages caused from MBGRs would be reduced to zero.

Table 127 summarizes the impacts to cultural resources for all three alternatives for each of the four resource indicators/measures8. Alternative 1 is the biggest threat because vehicular access open. Under Alternative 3, sites that may have been exposed by vegetation removal during a federal undertaking would be safer from harm than sites under Alternatives 1 or 2.

8 These are only estimates based on geospatial analysis. We currently do not know if sites are being impacted or to what extent because many need to be ground-truthed.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 254 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 127. Summary comparison of environmental effects to known cultural resources

Resource Element Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 - Percent Alternative 3 - Percent Percent of known of known cultural of known cultural cultural resources resources potentially resources potentially potentially impacted impacted impacted (baseline data) Added roads, n/a 14% increase 4.7% increase motorized trails and camping spurs Unrestricted 100% 90.8% decrease 99.6% decrease dispersed camping/designating fixed-width dispersed camping corridors Motorized Use Areas 100% 100% decrease 100% decrease MBGRs 100% 9.7% decrease 100% decrease

New Roads, Motorized Trails, and Dispersed Camping Spurs As noted elsewhere, concerns were made known that adding roads to the transportation system would adversely impact cultural resources. Because motor vehicle use would be concentrated and not distributed as in Alternative 1, it can be assumed that restricting the general public to drive only on 30 feet off the edges of roads for roadside parking would increase the impacts to natural and cultural resources located along those roads, however sites beyond the 30 feet would not be impacted.

If new roads with numerous sites are removed or modified so that sites would be avoided or mitigated, through protection measures such as covering them with geotextile and fill, potential impacts would likely be reduced.

Unrestricted Dispersed Camping vs. Designating Fixed Width Dispersed Camping Corridors Through scoping for the 2010 DEIS, concerns were made known that adding camping corridors to the transportation system would adversely impact cultural resources. Along roads with designated camping corridors the general public will be allowed to drive only within 300 feet of a road centerline for dispersed camping. This would increase the impacts to natural and cultural resources located within the corridors because dispersed camping uses would be concentrated within the corridors instead of within the general forest as a whole.

Unrestricted open motorized travel across the majority of the landscape on the Apache-Sitgreaves per alternative 1, are known to have an effect on cultural resources and under this alternative would continue to do so as long as there are no restrictions. Designating dispersed camping corridors or camping spurs would benefit cultural resources and resources of American Indian interest. According to Neil Weintraub and Connie Reid of the Kaibab National Forest, which used to be a forest open to cross-country traffic like the Apache-Sitgreaves, prior to implementation of the Travel Management Rule, sites located on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts were receiving impacts from “unlimited cross-country motorized travel and people camping wherever they chose, often creating new roads” (Weintraub, personal communication February 20, 2018). On the North Kaibab, impacts prior to implementation of TMR included antler hunters driving on

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 255 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

top of features and camping on top of sites. These numbers were reduced dramatically after implementation of TMR (Connie Reid, personal communication, February 20, 2018).

According to Reid (2018), implementation of TMR on the North Kaibab did not include designating camping corridors in areas of high site density, thus the forest does not allow people to camp throughout a corridor; but rather, allows campers to use spur roads to access dispersed camping locations where there are no cultural resources: the spur roads and dispersed camping areas with sites were closed. Additionally, wood gatherers are only allowed to drive off road for 30 feet to collect wood in areas where site density is high. Due to these closures, the Kaibab is experiencing less vehicular damage to sites (Weintraub and Reid, personal communication, February 20, 2018).

Implementation of Alternative 2 would reduce threats to cultural resources by 90.8 percent; however, many of the corridors are located in areas of high site density, which, in turn would likely have adverse effects to cultural resources if there is high motorized use within or in close proximity of sites, or if mitigation measures results in data recovery Data recovery, which is the partial or total removal of features and associated cultural deposits through scientific study, is considered an adverse effect under cultural resource law and the Region 3 programmatic agreement.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce threats to cultural resources by 99.6 percent, with only 30 (currently identified) sites that would need to be managed through the mitigation measures identified elsewhere in this document and in the programmitc agreement.

Alternative 1 would have the most potential for adverse cumulative effects from motorized use. Alternative 2 could have the most cumulative effects to cultural resources located in dispersed camping corridors. Alternative 3 would have the least amount of cumulative effects to cultural resources.

Motorized Use Areas and MBGRs Alternative 1 has no designated motorized use areas. Off-roaders can currently travel anywhere on forest except in areas that are signed closed for resource protection or if there is a signed closure order. Alternative 2 has 17 acres identified for a designated motorized use area and no cultural resources were found during the inventory that was conducted there. Under Alternative 1, the continued opening of the landscape through thinning and prescribed burning may result in negative impacts to sites and natural resources important for tribes, since more of the landscape would be available for off-road use. Alternative 3 has no motorized use areas. Comparatively speaking, Alternatives 2 or 3 are most beneficial for the protection of cultural resources.

Under alternative 1, the majority of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are open for motorized big game retrieval. Under alternative 2, MBGR areas are restricted to one mile corridors along roads and motorized trails. This would mean that 90.3 percent of the known cultural resources would still be vulnerable as the landscape is cleared through proposed large- scale restoration projects such as 4FRI Rim Country, although the cumulative threats to sites by use of off-road vehicles to harvest a downed elk are minimal. Under alternative 3, there would be no cumulative effects to cultural resources from MBGR because there is no plan to designate MBGR corridors.

Of the three alternatives analyzed, alternative 3 is best suited for the protection of cultural resources for the future.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 256 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Affected Environment

Existing Surveys and Sites For over forty years, Apache-Sitgreaves Cultural Resource specialists, in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, have surveyed 542,091 acres (27 percent) on the Apache-Sitgreaves. Approximately 11,165 acres of this includes surveys conducted for TMR between 2007 and 2010. A total of 364,984 acres (67.3 percent of the total acreage surveyed) of this survey coverage do not meet current professional standards9.

As of the date of this report, archaeologists have identified 8,238 cultural resources10, listed 10 of them on the National Register of Historic Places, and through tribal consultation and research into existing ethnographic literature, identified 13 peaks, two water courses, 11 springs, one lake, and numerous caves as potential traditional cultural properties (USDA Forest Service 2015a). Two of the peaks have been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places with State Historic Preservation Office and tribal concurrence, but they have not been formally nominated. Material evidence suggests that all types of landscapes and elevations on the Apache- Sitgreaves, from the lowest elevations to the highest were occupied by humans throughout prehistory and history.

Most of the sites recorded are prehistoric or protohistoric11 in nature (6,265 sites, 76.05 percent) followed by sites of unknown affiliation (941 sites, 11.42 percent), historic sites12 (934 sites, 11.34 percent)13, and multi-component sites with historic and prehistoric artifacts/features (98 sites, 1.19 percent). Site types represent a full range of human occupation, from Paleoindian sites of the Late Pleistocene (ca. 11,500 years ago) to a wide variety of historic period sites that are 50 years old and older.

American Indian sites recorded on the Apache-Sitgreaves include Paleoindian, Early to Late Archaic, Basket maker, early to late Highland Mogollon, Ancestral Puebloan, Sinagua, and

9 There are likely many more surveys that meet current professional standards but are not properly input in the ASNF Natural Resource Manager (NRM) survey database. As data is cleaned up, adjustments will be made. Surveys that do not meet current standards include those that: a. do not meet the requirements of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Alternative Identification Methods for Undertakings (AIMU, Schroeder 2012) b. are of an unknown survey type c. are sample surveys that did not meet AIMU requirements d. are surveys that focused on locating only prehistoric sites e. are identified as “less than complete survey” or “invalid” survey in the ASNF GIS/NRM databases 10 This number includes discontiguous segments of historic trails, roads, railroad grades and communication lines. National Register-contributing or unassessed segments are counted as individual sites for this analysis because they are discontiguous and may receive different kinds of impacts from motor vehicle use, depending on their locations and the nature of local land forms. 11 The ASNF cultural resource geodatabase attributes used for this analysis does not differentiate between prehistoric and protohistoric sites, thus they are lumped together. 12 ASNF did not start to actively record historic sites until 1996. It is likely that many more historic sites are located within the Areas of Potential Effect than is reflected by existing data. 13 This number probably represents a lower number of historic sites than what should be expected on the Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 257 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

prehistoric, protohistoric and historic Hopi, Zuni, Apache, Pai14 and Navajo. Prehistoric site types include artifact scatters and midden deposits; large multi-room and multi-story pueblos; smaller room blocks; kivas and great kivas; pit houses; jacal structures; field houses; ramadas; rock art; caves/rock shelters, rock cairns; terraces and check dams; agave gardens; caches/storage areas, stone tool quarries and manufacturing/retooling locales; thermal features; bedrock grinding areas, shrines and other areas of spiritual importance, and rock walls.

Protohistoric American Indian site types recorded include: Apache caves/rockshelters, brush shelters, sweat lodges, breastworks and trails; and, some of the prehistoric sites have evidence of Apache re-occupation and use. Only one Yavapai site has been documented, but it is probable that there are more of these sites, especially along the western fringes of the Black Mesa Ranger District. No protohistoric Hopi, Zuni, Acoma, or Navajo sites have been documented within the Apache-Sitgreaves databases, but they are likely present as well.

On the Apache-Sitgreaves, archaeologists have recorded historic and contemporary Apache shrines, caves, rock shelters, Apache brush shelters, wickiup rings, sweat lodges, hornos, breastworks, plant gathering areas, trails, trash dumps, and resource procurement sites. Documented contemporary or historic Navajo sites include hogans, sweat lodges, and brush structures. Historic Yavapai sites have not been identified, but are likely present. The only historic Puebloan (Acoma, Hopi or Zuni) sites recorded are shrines or other religious/ceremonial sites, and at least one resource procurement site15. Springs are important to all tribes who claim affiliation on the Apache-Sitgreaves, but only a few have been formally recorded. Other site types include stock driveways, livestock camps, logging camps, and campgrounds and picnic areas for which they helped construct or at which they lived or worked.

Historic Euro-American exploration and settlement of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) began in the 1860s, during and after the Civil War. No evidence of early Spanish entry or exploration has been recorded within the Apache-Sitgreaves, but Spanish-American descendants established agricultural communities in nearby Round Valley in 1862 and St. Johns by 1872. Historic site types recorded on the Apache-Sitgreaves include military trails; wagon roads; military forts; pack trails; railroad logging grades, sidings and logging camps, logging-related artifact scatters and trash dumps; sawmills and logging towns; homesteads; ranches, corrals, fences and other range improvements; temporary range, logging and recreational camps; isolated historic cabins; dugouts; Basque and Mexican sheep driveways, sheep herding camps and dendroglyphs; mines and mining prospects; early historic auto roads and historic highways; refuse scatters and historic dumps; grave sites and cemeteries; water impoundment and conveyance features such as reservoirs, dams and ditches; rock cairns and rock piles; and recreation sites of all ages and types.

Late 19th Century and pre-World War II historic Forest Service and other government administrative sites include ranger stations/compounds, administrative sites, fire lookouts, lookout trees, Forest Service communications lines; Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) base camps and spike camps, trash dumps, CCC-constructed campgrounds and shelters, check dams, diversion dams, stock tanks, numerous roads and trails and bridges; culverts, spring developments, communications lines, boundary fences, tree nurseries, and other features (Moore 2006:110, 126, 130–132). Late historic sites include 1960s-1970s-era Job Corps sites; picnic

14 One site is entered in the Apache-Sitgreaves database as “Pai.” There is no associated site record, and therefore, it is unknown if the site is Yavapai, Havasupai, or Hualapai. 15 This is probably the result of either an error in the Apache-Sitgreaves database, or protohistoric and historic Puebloan sites were recorded as prehistoric.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 258 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

areas, campgrounds, reservoirs, and other recreation areas; administrative areas and roads and trails. These site types can be found throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves. See Figure 28 for an example.

Ethnic affiliation of non-American Indian sites are recorded in the NRM database as Euro- American (347), American (7), European (109), Basque (3), African-American (2) and Undetermined (369)16. One site, Camp Lawton, was an African-American Civilian Conservation Corps camp located on the Apache-Sitgreaves. In 1924, five hundred African-American laborers and their families from Louisiana were transferred to McNary (formerly named Cooley, located on the Fort Apache Reservation) by William M. Cady in order to log the conifer forests the vicinity of Pinetop-Lakeside and the reservation. They worked with the local Apaches, Navajos, Caucasians, and Hispanics during these logging operations (Woodard and Hangan, n.d.). Existing site records of associated sites and isolated artifact scatters on the Apache-Sitgreaves (railroad grades, logging camps, spike camps or “lunch areas”), unfortunately do not document the different ethnic groups involved with these historic logging operations.

Figure 28. Photograph of Camp Lawton, an African-American CCC camp located on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. Photo credit: National Archives.

Existing Condition Within the Apache-Sitgreaves boundaries, there are currently 3,421 miles of roads open to the public, 63 miles of motorized trails open to the public, no designated dispersed camping

16 Missing from this list are sites occupied by people of Mexican or Latino descent, though they shouldn’t be. With the Anglicization of America’s material culture over time, it is difficult to differentiate ethnic affiliation of sites unless there is historic documentation available, or unless there are specific artifact types or features present that are associated with a particular ethnic group in large enough quantities where it can be determined, with some confidence that the features can be attributed to the ethnic group and/or artifacts are not ancillary or heirlooms collected by the occupants/users of a different ethnic group.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 259 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

corridors, and a large amount of the forest open for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR). These numbers include all public transportation routes that access the Forests, including those under jurisdiction of local counties and Arizona Department of Transportation.

Current Survey Coverage and Survey Needs Approximately 230,618 acres have been surveyed within alternative 2 MBGR; 35,912 acres within alternative 2 dispersed camping corridors; 2,737 acres within alternative 2 motorized roads and trails; and, 17 acres within the alternative 2 motorized area. Of 715 routes (294.1 miles) identified for alternative 2, 498 routes need inventory and 392 corridors need inventory.

Approximately 294 acres within the alternative 3 motorized roads and trails and 5,636 acres within alternative 3 dispersed camping corridors have been surveyed. Out of 833 routes (173 miles) identified for alternative 3, 380 routes need inventory, and 48 alternative 3 dispersed camping corridors need inventory.

Results from these surveys may identify sites that are highly susceptible to damage from motor vehicle use or they may identify sites where current damage is occurring, which may preclude certain roads, trails and segments of corridors from being designated for motorized use. Depending on the nature of the damage and/or potential impacts, some of these areas, corridors, roads and trails could be designated with implementation of certain mitigation or protection measures identified in Stipulation IX of Appendix I of the programmatic agreement, or some of them or parts of them may not be designated due to resource conflicts (USDA Forest Service 2007, page 74; USDA Forest Service 2008; USDA Forest Service 2015, pages 70, 76, 90, 91-94).

Resource Indicators and Measures At present, out of a total of 8,238 cultural resource sites recorded on the Apache-Sitgreaves, 7,369 (89.5 percent) cultural resource sites are located in areas that are currently open for motorized use (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests GIS, inventory and site files, see below for additional information). The following table of indicators and measures for the existing condition provides information on the numbers of sites currently known on the Apache-Sitgreaves that could potentially be impacted by off-road use. Many of these sites are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but most are unevaluated.

Table 128. Resource indicators and measures for the current condition – cultural resources Resource Number of Sites Element Resource Indicator Measure Present Cultural Presence of cultural resources Number of cultural 1,195 Resources within the Areas of Potential resources potentially Effect of roads, motorized trails impacted and camping spurs Cultural Presence of cultural resources Number of cultural 7,369 Resources within the Areas of Potential resources potentially Effect of unrestricted dispersed impacted camping. Cultural Presence of cultural resources Number of cultural 7,369 Resources within the Areas of Potential resources potentially Effect of motorized use areas. impacted

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 260 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Resource Number of Sites Element Resource Indicator Measure Present Cultural Presence of cultural resources Number of cultural 7,369 Resources within the Areas of Potential resources potentially Effect of MBGRs. impacted Total Number of n/a n/a 8,238 Cultural Resources Recorded

Types of Site Impacts Forest use has impacted cultural resources throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves. During the 20th century a large network of railroad grades and roads were constructed to access, harvest and transport timber. Road construction, use, and maintenance have been a major source of human impacts to sites, including damage or destruction of site features and cultural materials by the excavation or grading away of soil material. Of the 8,238 recorded sites on the Apache- Sitgreaves, up to 7,369 sites have the potential to be affected by the existing conditions (Table 128). To assess the existing condition of known cultural resources, a sample of 1,707 site records for were reviewed by Schroeder et al. (2010). This list of sites was selected by overlaying the Apache-Sitgreaves heritage GIS site location data with a 300 foot buffer over the Apache- Sitgreaves GIS transportation system data. This process created a list of known sites within a 600- feet-wide corridor along all system roads and motorized trails. The amount of information in each site record was variable, and many records had not been updated since the 1970s and 1980s. Table 129 summarizes previous impacts to the sampled sites on the Apache-Sitgreaves, in addition to types of impacts observed over the last eight years (Apache-Sitgreaves site records database).

Thus, many cultural resource sites and traditional cultural properties located on the Apache- Sitgreaves have evidence of one form of human-caused disturbance or another, because of continual access. Sites are currently impacted by unrestricted use of National Forest System land17. No site type is immune to damages that could be caused by motorized use or roads, but the most vulnerable are prehistoric and historic sites with recognizable structures, rock art, dendroglyphs, wood cabins and other structures. Sites with recognizable structures on the Apache-Sitgreaves have been looted for artifacts to sell on the black market; dendroglyphs have been shot, re-carved or cut down for firewood; rock art and historic cabins have been used for target practice, graffiti, or other generalized vandalism; wooden structures have been dismantled for firewood.

Several types of disturbances to sites can be attributed to transportation and the use of vehicles for access and are further discussed below. These are: road construction, indirectly make it easier to access sites for looting and vandalism (which is illegal), off-road use, logging operations, fuelwood treatments, firewood permits, unrestricted dispersed camping, and motorized big game retrieval.

17 “Disturbance” in this case is any kind of human-caused disturbance that occurred to the site post- abandonment or if in use, a disturbance that alters the character, setting, or feeling of a site.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 261 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 129. Types and frequencies of site impacts currently documented in Schroeder et al. (2010) and the Apache-Sitgreaves NRM database Impact Type Number Of Sites Comments Affected Roads, Road 633 The 2010 numbers for disturbances by roads was 626 Construction, Road Cuts, (Schroeder et al. 2010: Table 3). At least seven more sites were Road Maintenance, Non- documented to have been disturbed by roads over the last 8 system Roads years. This effect to sites is the most frequent effect that is documented on the Apache-Sitgreaves. However, the number of sites impacted by roads is probably larger, because roads are not always identified as an impact by recorders.

Numerous sites, especially those located on small rises or knolls have been cut by roads that were constructed through them prior to the passage and implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act. Looting/Vandalism 138 Based on field observations, it is probable that this number is smaller than what it should be. This is probably because of data gaps. Seven incidents of looting, one incident of shooting at a historic building and taking an ax or other sharp instrument to it, and one incident of vandalism by shooting petroglyphs were documented within the last four years. Off-Road Use 46 This number includes three sites recently observed (within the last three years) with evidence of OHV disturbances. Based on recent field observations, it is probable that this number is smaller than what it should be. This is probably because of gaps in existing digital data. Logging Operations 196 Schroeder and others (2010), documented 191 sites with evidence of disturbances by timber management. Between 2014 and 2018, five sites were documented to have been disturbed by timber management activities, and new sites found typically have evidence of disturbances from mechanical treatment because treatments either occurred before NHPA, sites were not found during sample surveys and subsequently logged over, or sites were buried and exposed by later treatments after NHPA compliance work was completed. Fuelwood Cutting – Both 4 Legal fuelwood cutting is not reported as such in the database, Legal and Illegal possibly because unless the field archaeologist goes through years of paper records (if they are available) to determine if an area had been designated for personal use or commercial fuelwood cutting, evidence of wood cutting may not be attributable to either legal or illegal wood cutting.

Illegal wood cutting of legacy (large) alligator junipers has been documented to coincide with site looting. The four listed here occurred within the last four years. Illegal wood cutting is common on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, due to trespassers using NFS roads to access the reservation. Recreational Activities 172 This type of impact is ill-defined, but could include driving within Campgrounds, through, parking within sites; fire rings, tent platforms, casual Dispersed Camping aspen carving, ax-carved blazes or attempts at cutting down Areas, Trails, Trailheads; small trees with axes, litter, vehicle tracks or ruts, soil Hunting/Game Retrieval, compaction, etc. and within General Forest Areas

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 262 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Impact Type Number Of Sites Comments Affected Wildfires/Fire 212 Damages to sites from wildfires currently is not documented in Suppression, BAER the NRM database. There are hundreds. See the discussion activities below about the number of sites burned over during the Rodeo- Chediski and Wallow Fires.

Typical fire suppression damages are from dozer lines, dozer pushes, or deep hand lines constructed through sites. Over the last 2 years, 11 sites were damaged by fire suppression activities that occurred. Others are not documented in the NRM database.

No direct or indirect BAER-related damages are currently documented. Prescribed Fire 48 Typical damages include flammable materials being burned and dozer line construction. One site was destroyed by a dozer line and three sites with flammable materials were burned over in the last three years. Livestock Grazing and 66 Typically trailing, wallowing, congregating in features, trampling, Livestock-related Project crushing, congregating around salt licks or water in site Implementation boundaries, tank or guzzler construction in sites, defecating and urinating in concentrated areas within sites, pushing or chaining damages to sites or features, unauthorized reconstruction of historic structures. Bioturbation 16 Typically disturbances caused by animals such as burrowing rodents, bears or other animals digging holes in sites, but can also include damages by insects like ants. Natural Erosion 37 Sheet wash, rill development, displacement of artifacts due to erosion by fluvial or alluvial processes. Stream Erosion 298 Down-cutting of streambeds, exposure of artifacts and features – and displacement of artifacts and features. May not necessarily be natural. Tree Planting 1 One site was damaged in 2015 when trees were unlawfully planted within its boundaries. Lands and Recreation 5 Five sites were damaged by permittees within the last three Special Use Permit years. Damages included unauthorized facility construction, Holders unauthorized roads, unauthorized OHV “play” areas, livestock damage, tree removal, establishing an unauthorized group camp within a site, ruts, and establishment of six horseshoe pits within a National Register-eligible site. Construction/building 2 One site was damaged in 2014 by the removal of a historic removal building and the construction of a temporary road through a prehistoric site without Section 106 compliance and several sites on NFS and private were damaged by ADOT contractors that constructed a Right-of-Way fence through sites using mechanical equipment instead of by hand. Unknown 296 Site records or digital data indicate the presence of disturbances, but the type of disturbances are not specifically identified.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 263 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Impact Type Number Of Sites Comments Affected Total Number of sites 2,169 This includes data from Schroeder et al. (2010), current NRM with documented entries, plus 43 instances that have occurred within the last four evidence of disturbances years (3 OHV, 7 looting, 1 road maintenance, 5 mechanical treatments, 11 fire suppression, 1 cattle, 1 unauthorized range improvement, 4 prescribed fire (including one dozer line), 2 construction-related disturbances, 5 lands and recreation special use permit-related disturbances, 2 illegal wood cutting, and 1 silviculture-related).

Roads, Road Construction, Road Cuts, Road Maintenance, Non-system Roads At least 633 sites have been impacted by roads, road construction, road cuts, or road maintenance. Over 100 of these sites have been directly and/or indirectly impacted by non-forest system roads (temporary logging roads, unclassified roads, or unauthorized roads).

Based on existing Apache-Sitgreaves’ records approximately 1,204 miles of road were present on the Apache-Sitgreaves in 1964 (USDA Forest Service 1941, 1961, 1962, 1964). Although many roads were constructed prior to 1960, the network of roads dramatically increased over the next two decades to support timber harvesting: 1963-1987. The 1987 forest management plan states that 8,040 miles of constructed roads existed on the Apache-Sitgreaves. Of the total 8,040 miles of road, 2,340 miles were system roads open for motorized use and the other 5,700 mile roads were closed to motorized use, of which 3,000 were planned for obliteration (USDA Forest Service 1987). During the last two decades from 1987-2007 the Apache-Sitgreaves added 427 miles to the forest transportation system as open to motorized use, for a total of 2,767 miles. An additional 3,388 miles of road are part of the forest system, but are not open to motorized use (Bielecki 2008). These roads are kept in storage and closed until they are needed for a second entry timber harvest, fire management activities or other management related activity.

While the construction and use of roads (both official and unauthorized) in and near sites have directly impacted them, the presence of roads in and near sites also can indirectly affect site condition as well. The most important of these impacts is intentional vandalism (looting). Ease of access to sites creates conditions where individuals can pick up artifacts from the ground surface, dig for artifacts below surface, and intentionally deface or destroy features and structures (see Looting and Vandalism below).

Looting and Vandalism Looting and grave robbing of archaeological sites have been problematic ever since the area was settled by non-indigenous peoples in the 1870s. Oftentimes, looting starts out as a curiosity about trinkets created by people other than themselves that are appealing or unusual. These items may be collected casually and placed on a bookshelf, mantel piece or in jars or coffee cans if small. In the desiccated environment of the desert, artifacts (other than stone tools) preserve better than found elsewhere in the world. Coupled with this, ancestral American Indians in the Southwest were artisans beyond compare and items became of interest because of their sheer beauty. What originally started off as a hobby for the collection of beautiful curiosities, soon became a profession for looters as museums and private collectors were willing to pay for items left behind by American Indian ancestors The looting of sites became such an epidemic in the Southwest, that the American Antiquities Act was drafted and signed in 1906 – to create National Monuments and protect sites by requiring permits to excavate them. This, of course, did not prevent looting.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 264 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Looting was too lucrative a business on public, state, and private land. American Indian concerns brought up during past scoping, about continued looting and damages to cultural resources is real. From 2013 to 2018, one Puebloan site on the Lakeside Ranger District was looted multiple times (Figure 29), one Mogollon Pueblo on the Springerville Ranger District was probed and looted, and one pithouse village site on the Lakeside Ranger District was looted for drug money. All three of these sites were located within 300 feet of an existing road. In the case of the pueblo on Lakeside Ranger District, the road into the site was to be closed after the completion of a timber sale but was left open. The site got hit twice within a week as a result.

Figure 29. A photo of two looter’s pits dug in a Mogollon habitation site on the Lakeside Ranger District. This site gets hit often because of its accessibility by vehicle. The bone on the right is not human, but looters will disrespectfully discard human remains next to their pits as they dig them up.

Looting is conducted for recreation and by others for illegal gain. When a site is looted significant contextual information and parts of our history are stolen and destroyed. As transportation technology has advanced (such as 4x4s, ATVs, UTVs), and the opening of the landscape for logging operations, a greater number of roads have provided access to remote areas. This increasing number of roads also provides access to remote sites and provides looters a convenient method to easily transport heavy, awkward or delicate archaeological items and/or larger quantities of those items that previously would have been difficult to remove from the backcountry.

Studies from the 1970s to recent have shown that sites are more likely to be looted if they are within 200 meters (656.2 feet) of a road (Alhstrom et al. 1992, Spangler 2006) especially if they

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 265 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

are of a particular site type or visible from a road. Additionally, in the past, roads were created by looters specifically to pilfer sites (Alhstrom et al. 1992: 35). A 2014 cultural resource survey in an area on the Apache-Sitgreaves that had only a few access roads revealed that the only site showing evidence of looting or visitation by the public was one site that was within 300 feet of a road; 63 sites showed no evidence of looting or “piling” of artifacts on rocks or stumps, as is common to sites easily accessible by the public (Bustoz, et al. 2015).

Other studies conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s on the behavior and impacts by looters documented that these individuals prefer small to large prehistoric masonry sites that are accessible by maintained roads, within a driving distance of 1-20 miles of local communities, and do not require walking more than a few hundred yards (Nickens, Larralde and Tucker 1981). Lightfoot and Francis (1978) conducted studies on the Apache-Sitgreaves, where they documented unimproved jeep roads and trails within the Little Colorado Planning Unit appeared to have no other purpose than to provide access directly to sites. Lightfoot (1978) found there is a correlation between the amount of illegal surface collecting of artifacts from sites and the distance and visibility of the site from a road. Francis (1978, p. 130) determined that the degree of casual collection appears to be the most severe on sites that are located within 150 meters (492 feet) of unimproved roads such as 4-wheel drive jeep trails.

Of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests site records reviewed during Schroeder and others’ (2010) TMR assessment, 98 sites had documented impacts by looting and vandalism.

Of the 98 looted sites, 38 were within 30 feet of a road, and 63 were within 100 feet of a road. Almost all of the looted sites were located along unmaintained and high clearance roads. Forest Service records also document sites farther than 300 feet off a system road which have been looted, damaged and accessed by user created roads (Taylor 2006; Mehalic 2006; Schroeder 2009). Most of the sites that have been looted are near communities.

Off-Road Use The general public and Tribes have been collecting and harvesting forest resources for centuries or decades. Prior to the 1940s, motorized vehicles were not commonly used to access Apache- Sitgreaves lands and resources; rather, access was by horse, railroad, or foot, as vehicular roads were not very common and they often were reconstructed wagon routes that had a set destination and nothing much in between. The use of motorized vehicles to access resources has substantially increased from the 1940s to the present and with the advent modernized highways, increases in population and hence an increasingly large numbers of motor vehicles on the road, the renewed interest in recreation after the post-war area, and of course with the advent of 4x4s - especially small ATVs and UTVs.

Spangler (2006) did a site condition and vandalism study in Arch Canyon, San Juan County Utah, which included documentation of vandalism and impacts from OHV use. Arch Canyon is a well- known destination to view archaeological sites and for off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation. Public comments from 2010 indicated that the results and recommendations from this study should be considered in designating the routes open for motorized travel on the Apache- Sitgreaves. Similar types of impacts as noted in the study may be found on the Apache- Sitgreaves, especially in areas with moderate to high site density; however, most of these areas do not have similar intensity of use or visitation like Arch Canyon. In the areas where unauthorized OHV roads/trails are being used in moderate to high site density areas, the forest is proposing designated motorized trails to minimize and manage the potential impacts from OHV use. Where

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 266 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

current trails have been established on the Lakeside Ranger District, it appears that OHV users are staying on the established trails and not causing inadvertent disturbance and damage to archaeological sites.

According to existing data, a minimum of 2,169 sites have documented disturbances, including 356 that have been impacted by activities that can be associated, either directly or indirectly by off-road use or access by existing roads18.

Access to cultural resources and forest resources on the Apache-Sitgreaves is much easier today. It is estimated that 88.5 percent of all of the sites currently documented on the Apache-Sitgreaves are accessible by motor vehicle. Motorized use within all permitted and accessible travel routes and corridors – no matter if they are ATV, UTV, or car or SUV – can directly or indirectly impact cultural resources and important gathering places in several ways. Types of disturbances attributable to road or motorized trail use (Forest System and unauthorized roads and motorized trails) or off-road use include, but are not limited to: use of structural remains like foundations as “play” areas, ruts, “donuts”, looter’s holes (Figure 32 and Figure 33), soil compaction, horseshoe pits; fuelwood theft, removal of wood from historic structures and features for fire pits, removal of stonework from historic features to build fire pits; surface collecting and artifact piles, and vandalism (such as graffiti, shooting, and dismantling of structures, (Figure 30 and Figure 31). These kinds of impacts can be direct, indirect, or both.

Figure 30. Example of vandalism within the cabin pictured in figure 41

18 This is likely under-estimated, as there are numerous data gaps in the NRM database that have not been corrected since NRM migration.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 267 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 31. Photograph of a vandalized historic cabin located along a ML1 road that is not identified as closed or physically closed and is accessible by motor vehicle. This road is recommended to be changed to an open ML2 road under alternative 2 because the road goes to a single, dispersed campsite located less than 300 feet southeast of this site. Continued use of this access road could result in continued vandalism and eventual total loss.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 268 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Figure 32. Photo of ruts within a site boundary. The access road through the site (ML2) is less than 30 feet away, as seen at the upper right of the photo.

Figure 33. Photograph of an ATV play zone located adjacent to the Water Canyon Road (ML3) on the Springerville Ranger District. If cultural resources were present at this location, they would have been adversely affected by off-road use within 30 feet from the edge of the road.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 269 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Logging Operations Commercial timber harvesting has occurred across the Apache-Sitgreaves since the late 1870s. By 1917 the commercial logging industry was well-established on the Apache-Sitgreaves. During the 1920s an extensive network of logging railroad spurs were constructed on the Apache- Sitgreaves, primarily on the Sitgreaves side. By 1939 roads had replaced most of the railroads to transport timber. Existing records indicate that impacts from road construction have caused the most damage to sites associated with logging (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests GIS heritage database, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests site files).

Cumulative effects from logging on the Apache-Sitgreaves can damage sites caused by construction of hauling roads and landings, movement of heavy equipment across the ground surface, skidding of trees and indirectly impacts can occur from opening up an otherwise dense forest which allows for motorized access through it (and thus impact sites). Heavy ground disturbances can lead to erosion. Also heavy thinning may open sites up for looting because they may have otherwise been inaccessible by motorized vehicles. Another indirect effect is that opened landscapes could result in wetlands and springs being impacted because of access.

Additionally, the presence of logging slash and easier access to legacy junipers could create impacts by people driving over sites to access wood products, steal fuelwood (in this case standing legacy junipers).

Sites in the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts have been the most impacted by logging and logging-related activities. This is due to three factors: the presence of saw timber, the gentle topography allows for easier access, which led to more harvesting; and the higher density of sites on these two ranger districts.

Fuelwood Treatments, Firewood Permits, Illegal Firewood Cutting Besides impacts from logging saw timber, impacts from commercial and non-commercial fuelwood harvests have occurred. Available GIS data for fuelwood treatments show 17,283 acres were harvested prior to 1990. Permit records indicate that a majority of the Apache-Sitgreaves’ non-commercial fuelwood permits have allowed for travel off system roads to collect fuelwood. Large, legacy alligator junipers and other highly-sought after trees such as oak located in areas accessible by vehicle are also susceptible of being stolen for firewood. Direct and indirect impacts to sites caused from fuelwood harvesting or theft are similar to those caused from OHV impacts and logging. Some of the unauthorized roads have been created from this activity.

Recreational Activities From 2010-2017, there has been an 8.6 percent increase in growth of population in Apache, Navajo, Greenlee and Maricopa Counties (see the Socio-Economic report, page 9). During the 2014 NVUM studies, 65 percent of those interviewed identified recreation as their main purpose for visiting the Apache-Sitgreaves, with 5.3 percent driving for pleasure and 1.1 percent using motorized trails. Hiking/walking was the highest at 59 percent, following relaxing at 58.7 percent. OHV use was 4 percent, gathering forest products 3.3 percent and visiting heritage sites 3.2 percent, a reduction from 11 percent in 2002 (Schroeder et. al. 2010).

Presently, there are 3,421 miles of national forest roads open to motorized use, 63 miles of motorized trails, and 3,344 miles of roads closed to motorized use that are kept in storage for future management use. An unknown number of unauthorized or user created roads are also present on the Apache-Sitgreaves. Many of the closed roads and user created roads are used by

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 270 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References visitors regardless of the road’s status (see Table 1 in Bielecki, 2008 for a list of closed areas and their corresponding Forest Plan Management Area or Forest Order No.). Although many of the national forest roads were created to access and manage timber; public recreation has become one of the primary uses of forest roads today.

Results from past TMR surveys identify sites that are highly susceptible to damage from motor vehicle use or where current damage is occurring to sites that may preclude certain roads, trails and segments of corridors from being designated for motorized use. Depending on the nature of the damage and/or potential impacts, some of these roads, motorized trails and camping spurs could be designated with implementation of certain mitigation or protection measures identified in Stipulation IX of Appendix I of the programmitc agreement (USDA Forest Service 2007: 74).

The potential for impacts to sites would increase/decrease depending on the alternative selected, site density, site type, soils, and season of travel (wet vs. dry; frozen vs. unfrozen).

Unrestricted Dispersed Camping The Apache-Sitgreaves had, in the past managed some of the forest system roads for motorized recreation including dispersed camping. From 1961-1976, forest management allowed for and provided motorized dispersed camping along specific roads open to the public, most notably on the Black River Ranger District. These roads had a 200 foot wide dispersed recreation corridor along each side. These corridors were defined as “roadside zones” (1961 Forest Service Recreation Plan Map). These corridors were removed because of resource damage.

Currently, 1,625,363 acres of the Apache-Sitgreaves’ 2,110,135 acres are open to cross-country travel and dispersed camping. However, not all of this acreage is accessible by motorized vehicles. Approximately 247,438 acres have a slope greater than 40 percent and there are likely other areas where vegetation limits cross-country travel.

As discussed above, OHV use has impacted some sites in areas where there are no formal system roads. Heritage NRM records indicate that OHVs can cause indirect or direct damages to sites, including associated looting. The reason: the creation of unauthorized dispersed camping spurs allow easy access to sites that would have otherwise not been accessible.

In the 2010 study (Schroeder et al. 2010), camping was documented to have impacted 33 sites: one site on the Alpine Ranger District, 14 sites on the Black Mesa Ranger District, five sites on both the Clifton and Springerville Ranger Districts, and eight sites on the Lakeside Ranger District. Camping, too, can indirectly lead to looting and unintentional vandalism of sites. Sites that are near camping areas can be damaged from the removal of rock materials from structures and features for fire pits and for other camping activities, digging holes for latrines or trenches for discharging gray water; surface collecting and rearrangement of artifacts into piles, using pieces of collapsed wooden historic structures as firewood, and clearing of space for tents and other equipment.

At present, outside a developed campground with constructed camping spurs and pullouts, motorized vehicle users can camp anywhere on the Apache-Sitgreaves unless prohibited by law (such as wilderness), closure order, or temporarily signed closed for safety or resource protection. Observed site disturbances from unrestricted dispersed camping could apply to fixed width dispersed camping corridors under TMR. Damages from dispersed camping are similar to routes, motorized trails, camping spurs, but also include:

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 271 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• building campfire rings on top or within structures • urinating and defecating in sites or features (including leaving waste and toilet paper on the surface or in cat holes within sites or structures) • displacing soil, artifacts and features, both on the surface and subsurface, especially with the construction of tent platforms or drainage ditches; • compacting the soil within sites; • removal of wood or other flammable materials from features to use for camp fires/bonfires; • leaving trash in sites; and, • creating donuts and denuding parts of or entire sites.

Motorized Use/Cross-Country Travel Areas Under the existing condition, there are no designated motorized use areas on the Apache- Sitgreaves. Approximately 1,625,363 acres are currently open for cross-country travel. Within those acres, there are 7,369 sites that could be impacted by cross-country motorized uses.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MGBR) No site condition data were available for previous impacts to sites caused by MBGR. Information is available about permits and successful hunts. See the recreation and socioeconomic reports or Arizona Game and Fish Department (2017) for information about elk harvest numbers within the eleven Game Management Units (GMUs) associated with the Apache-Sitgreaves: 1, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 23N, 27 and 28. The GMUs with the highest site densities, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, and 4B. These GMUs are the most vulnerable to OHV impact from MBGR (Table 130).

Under current conditions because there is open travel in most areas, a hunter may utilize motorized travel for retrieval of a downed animal. Under Alternative 2, retrieval is restricted to the permit holder collecting the downed elk, which means one vehicle per harvest. In Alternative 3, no off-road travel would be allowed for game retrieval. The game units cover large areas, and in general the potential impact to sites is widely dispersed and unpredictable. In addition, not all hunters use motorized vehicles to recover game. As noted, archaeologists have not identified impacts to sites specific to motorized game retrieval. Thus, at present, the impacts from cross- country motorized travel for MBGR are probably negligible and are not known to have caused adverse effects to the character and use of cultural resources.

Table 130. Site density by game management unit per square mile Number of known Unit Acres within Unit Square Miles Site Density per GMU Cultural Resource the Apache- within the Apache- Square Mile Sites within the Unit Sitgreaves Sitgreaves 1 663 411,040 642 1.03 2B 0 41 .06 0 3A 104 17,578 27 3.85 3B 599 103,724 162 3.70 3C 2,647 285,858 447 5.92 4A 1,171 205,530 321 3.65 4B 1,614 196,051 306 5.27 5A 9 66 0.1 90

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 272 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Number of known Unit Acres within Unit Square Miles Site Density per GMU Cultural Resource the Apache- within the Apache- Square Mile Sites within the Unit Sitgreaves Sitgreaves 27 738 779,333 1,217 0.61 28 14 15,810 25 0.56 23N 3 39 0.06 50 Total 7,566 2,015,329 3,147.22 Note: Site density was calculated based on total number square miles within each GMU, not on number of acres/miles surveyed per unit. Numbers of sites recorded have increased by 19 percent since 2010, and site densities per square mile are therefore higher. GMU acreage was calculated only for those acres within the Apache-Sitgreaves using ArcGIS, resulting in different numbers of miles and square acres, compared to the Schroeder et al. (2010) calculations. Depending on the number of acres surveyed for each GMU, site density could be higher than what is stated in this table.

Summary of Known Direct and Indirect Impacts to Cultural Resources Caused by Various Activities on NFS Land

Table 131. Direct and indirect effects to sites from motorized and other uses from Schroeder and others’ 2010 study with recent observations from the last 8 years (in italics) or activities that contribute to cumulative effects to cultural resources (identified with an asterick) Type of Activity Direct Effects Indirect Effects Roads, *Road Displacement, alteration, damage to, or Displacement, alteration, damage to, or Construction, *Road Cuts, removal of, features and artifacts removal of, features and artifacts *Road Maintenance, Non- (including those features associated with associated with historic roads (with system Roads (includes historic roads) maintenance) historic roads19 that are Compaction Erosion still system roads; most Erosion Sedimentation over sites caused by other system roads were Exposed/displaced burials drainage fixtures constructed for timber Exposed/displaced hearths and other Erosion/downcutting caused by harvesting) features drainage fixtures Removal of cultural deposits through Sites vulnerable to looting or vandalism maintenance due to proximity to roads Sedimentation over sites caused by drainage fixtures Erosion/downcutting caused by drainage fixtures Widening of historic roads Damage, removal, or burial of features associated with the historic roads *Looting and Vandalism Removal of artifacts, displacement, Loss of scientific information alteration and damage of and artifacts. Disruption of tribal ceremonies, sacred Destruction or alteration of features areas Grave robbing Loss of site integrity Loss of scientific information Loss of National Register eligibility Disruption of tribal ceremonies, sacred areas Loss of site integrity Loss of National Register eligibility

19 Documented historic roads are as follows: Blue Road, Red Hill Road, Stone Creek Road, Forest Highway (FH) 12, FH 40, Water Canyon Road, 300 Road, 504 Road, Pueblo Park Road, Crook Trail, Eagle Creek Road, Coronado Trail, 24 Road, 25 Road, and 57 Road.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 273 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Type of Activity Direct Effects Indirect Effects Off-road Use Displacement, alteration and damage to New roads to sites and through sites features and artifacts Exposed/displaced hearths and other Compaction features Use of building foundations as “play Removal of cultural materials areas” Erosion/downcutting caused by removal “Donuts” of vegetation Ruts in sites and over features Sites vulnerable to looting or vandalism Exposed/displaced hearths and other due unregulated access features Removal of cultural materials Erosion/downcutting caused by denuding of vegetation *Logging Operations Displacement, alteration and damage to Opening of areas previously cut off by features and artifacts. vegetation allow for cross-country travel Removal of artifacts and damages to sites, features Erosion Opening sites for looting Compaction Removal of surface duff or soil exposing artifacts or features Skid roads or temporary roads constructed through sites Ruts caused by tracked and rubber-tired vehicles *Fuelwood Treatments, Displacement, alteration and damage to Opening of areas previously cut off by *Firewood Permits, features and artifacts. vegetation allow for cross-country travel *Firewood Theft Removal of artifacts and damages to sites, features Erosion Opening sites for looting; looting can be Compaction contemporaneous with firewood theft Removal of surface duff or soil exposing artifacts or features Temporary roads constructed through sites User-created roads and trails leading up to or going through sites Ruts caused by tracked and rubber-tired vehicles Recreational Activities Intentional Vandalism Unintentional Vandalism (clearing within Campgrounds, Looting features and artifacts from area for Dispersed Camping Soil compaction camping, reuse of features and Areas, Trails, Trailheads; Displaced artifacts masonry for camping activities) Hunting/Game Retrieval, Denuding of vegetation Ruts and within General Forest Ruts Creation of new roads and trails Areas Creation of new roads and trails Pits dug in sites Defecation and urination within sites Vegetation removed Pits dug in sites Livestock trampling *Wildfires/Fire Destruction, alteration, removal, or Exposure of previously- hidden sites, Suppression, *BAER damage to features and artifacts artifacts and features activities Refiring, melting, spalling Looting post-fire Erosion/downcutting caused by removal of Erosion and mass-wasting vegetation Looting post-fire Dozer lines constructed through sites Reopening closed roads or widening roads that lead into sites or cross site boundaries BAER erosion control devices fail and flood or otherwise affect sites

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 274 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Type of Activity Direct Effects Indirect Effects *Prescribed Fire Destruction, alteration, removal, or Exposure of previously- hidden sites, damage to flammable features and artifacts and features artifacts Looting post-fire Refiring, melting, spalling Erosion/downcutting caused by removal of vegetation Looting post-fire Dozer lines constructed through sites Reopening closed roads or widening roads that lead into sites or cross site boundaries Motorized Big-Game Unauthorized roads or tracks through Looting Retrieval sites Carcasses buried in sites at camps

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects As noted above, each of the three alternatives has the potential to affect cultural resources located on the Apache-Sitgreaves, both directly and indirectly. In most instances, effects to cultural resources can be both direct and indirect, depending on the circumstances and the intent of the user. For this reason, effects are divided up by motorized use on roads and trails, plus the 30-foot corridor on either side; the dispersed camping corridors (300 feet from centerline), and the motorized big game retrieval (one mile from centerline for every motorized route where off-road access is authorized).

Indirect and direct effects would be more extensive with the no-action alternative because unlimited motorized cross-country travel allows for more sites and more acreage to be potentially affected. Current forest recreation management allows cross-country motorized use forestwide (excluding areas with restrictions). Some motorized cross-country travel is used to access user created dispersed campsites.

Motorized use within all permitted and accessible areas on-forest and on travel routes and corridors can directly impact archaeological sites and important gathering places in several ways. Dispersed camping activities may cause unintentional vandalism to sites. Campers have taken rocks from prehistoric and historic structures to build camp fire rings and wind breaks; used and rearranged rocks from features as tent weights; dug holes for latrines or buried garbage; collected pieces of wood from collapsed and standing structures for campfires; pulled historic buildings apart; constructed horseshoe pits, animal pens, bonfire pits within sites; used site features for ATV play areas, and rearranged artifacts into piles. These types of impacts have adverse effects to sites by altering, damaging or destroying the characteristics that contribute to the sites’ significance. Sites located in areas where frequent camping occurs would continue to experience unintentional vandalism unless the impacts are mitigated through data recovery, fencing, plating, or closure.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 275 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Effects from Alternative 1 – No Action The APE of alternative 1 includes 1,625,363 acres20 of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. This includes 195,572 acres of roads and trails.

Direct and Indirect Effect Motorized big game retrieval, motorized use of unauthorized, user-created roads and trails, and motorized dispersed camping would continue forest-wide except where motorized restrictions exist. The 2015 Forest Plan prohibits cross-country travel in designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, research natural areas, recommended research natural areas, natural landscapes, energy corridors, wildlife quiet areas, and the Blue Range Primitive Area. Existing motorized prohibitions and seasonal closures would remain in place. Table 132lists the estimated acreage/percentage of land administrated by the Apache-Sitgreaves that is currently available for motorized use, or 91.3 percent. This table also includes and the number of known cultural resources located within those areas that potentially could be impacted by unrestricted motorized use, or about 98.9 percent.

Table 132. Estimated acreage/percentage of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest open for motorized use under alternative 121

Number/Percent of Cultural Resources Administrative Status Acreage/Percent within Land Open for Motorized Use

Total Land Base 1,779,402/100 8,238/100

Land Currently Open for Motorized 1,625,363/91.3 5,145*/98.9 Use

* This does not include the 93 out of a total of 8,238 cultural resources that are located in areas where motorized use is currently prohibited.

Table 133 lists the total number of National Forest System roads currently open to the public (ML2 through ML5). This table also presents the number of cultural resources located within existing route prisms or within 30 feet from both edges of the routes. These numbers are larger than the total number of documented sites because more than one route or routes of different maintenance levels may enter part of, or go through a site. Additionally, abandoned linear sites may be crossed by a route several times or may be the linear site themselves. Each segment is counted as a separate site because it better reflects the potential effects of unmanaged motorized uses upon the segments instead of the overall site. Table 133 and Table 134 function as a baseline for the analyses of alternatives 2 and 3.

20 Acres calculated from polygons created using ESRI software (ArcGIS) are used here instead of miles because the areas of potential effect to cultural resources are not linear. 21 This number is the same as the Motorized Big Game Retrieval acreage for alternative 1, as it includes all areas currently without motorized vehicle restrictions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 276 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 133. National Forest System routes open to the public, administrative use only, and motorized trails under alternative 1

NFS Routes Open to Public Miles Number of Cultural Resources intersected by Routes22

Total Roads Open to the Public 3,421 6,865

Maintenance Level 2 Roads 2,650 2,613

Maintenance Level 3 Roads 683 1,652

Maintenance Level 4 Roads 88 874

Motorized Trails Open to Vehicles less than 50 63 79 inches

Maintenance Level 2 Administrative Use Only 81 95 Roads

TOTALS 6,986 12,17823

Cultural resources currently bisected by, or near ML1-5 roads, existing ATV routes and trails, and user-created or unauthorized roads would continue to be impacted by motorized use and associated activities. Motorized access to dispersed camping areas throughout the Apache- Sitgreaves would continue to be allowed where access is not prohibited or restricted. Continued cross-country motorized use would continue to increase the potential to adversely impact sites within non-restricted areas. Sites in non-restricted areas that are accessible by motorized vehicles have the potential to be impacted by MBGR. However, no adverse impacts from motorized uses directly related to big game retrieval have been documented and any potential impacts are expected to be negligible based on the amount of expected trips for MBGR and the existing site condition information (one vehicle per animal harvested; see the recreation specialist report for additional information).

Through the no-action alternative, continued disturbances to cultural resources throughout the Forests are expected to occur, and as the Forests are opened up to reduce catastrophic wildfire and as user population increases it is probable that site impacts would continue and potentially increase.

22 These numbers were generated by identifying the number of cultural resources located within the 30-foot corridor (30 feet from the route from the edges) of each route. This count is by number of site polygons, points or lines (for linear sites) that intersect the 30-foot corridor, including the route and route prism. Because it is a site count by route buffer, sites may be counted more than once, depending on the number of routes go through them (such as the intersections of several routes within a site boundary). Several of these cultural resources are sites in of themselves and they are included in the counts. 23 Total number of sites within the APE of existing National Forest System roads, motorized trails, and camping spurs currently open to the public is 5,218.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 277 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 134. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Number, Percent, Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 5,218 7124 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk existing roads, motorized trails and camping spurs Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 0 025 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk added roads, motorized trails and camping spurs Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 7,369 100 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk existing unrestricted dispersed camping Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 7,369 100 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk motorized use areas. Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 7,369 100 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk MBGRs.

Effects from Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The APE of alternative 2 (the proposed action) includes 1,210,198 GIS acres for Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MBGR), 70,557 acres of dispersed camping corridors, 17 acres for open cross- country travel, and 194,085 acres for motorized roads and trails.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Resource Indicators and Measures At present, out of a total of 8,238 cultural resource sites recorded on the Apache-Sitgreaves (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests inventory and site files), 6,857 sites are located within the alternative 2 MBGR area, about 83.2 percent of the total number of known sites. One thousand, seventeen (1,017) sites are located within the APE of motorized travel routes and camping spurs, and 681 are located within alternative 2 dispersed camping corridors. No sites are located within the alternative 2 Motorized Use Area.

24 There are 7,369 cultural resources that are currently threatened by off-road use. This number is used as a baseline for all subsequent tables. 5,218 of these are within the APE of existing roads, motorized trails and camping spurs, or 71% of the total number of sites. 25 Under Alternative 1, there are no added roads, motorized trails and camping spurs, so the number is zero.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 278 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Table 135. Comparison between the numbers of potentially impacted cultural resources, differences between the no-action alternative and alternative 2 Number, Percent Difference Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 2 from Alternative 1 Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 1,017 ↑14 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk added roads, motorized trails and camping spurs Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 681 ↓90.8 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk dispersed camping corridors Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 0 ↓100 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of threatened motorized use areas. Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 6,857 ↓9.7 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of threatened MBGRs.

Added Roads, Motorized Trails, and Dispersed Camping Spurs Under alternative 2, the number of sites potentially impacted by designation of unauthorized routes, motorized trails and dispersed camping spur roads is 1,017, an increase of 14 percent from alternative 1. Some of these routes selected for adding to the system are historic railroad grades (or railroad grade segments) and historic road segments (specifically, abandoned segments of the Coronado Trail). The number of sites potentially impacted is high because numerous routes through areas of high site density were added as part of alternative 2, and some dispersed camping spurs cross site boundaries, go by sites, or terminate within sites.

Fixed Width Dispersed Camping Corridors Alternative 2 designates 300-foot corridors along 1,027 miles of road (36 percent of roads open for public use) for the sole purpose of motorized dispersed camping per 36 CFR 212.51(b). Vehicles may pull off the road to access dispersed camping sites within that corridor. Motorized access may only be designated on one-side of the road or may not be continuous in order to address resource concerns and to be fully consistent with the Forest Plan.

Under alternative 2, the number of sites potentially impacted by motorized dispersed camping with the addition of 300-foot camping corridors along 1,027 miles of roads, as compared to unrestricted access to dispersed camping areas throughout most of the Forests is a reduction of 90.8 percent. This is a substantial decrease in the number of sites threatened by unrestricted dispersed camping; however there are some corridors located in very high site density areas. One 6-mile-long corridor contains 5326 sites within it. Not counting the National Register-eligible historic road this corridor is part of, the other known sites cover 234,724 square meters (23 hectares or 58 acres) of surface area within the corridor; the only places people can park to disperse camp are where the sites are located. A sampling of site records (Apache-Sitgreaves site records and NRM files) from this corridor indicate that the sites are already being damaged by off-road use and people camping on the sites. Evidence of looting is present at sites that have

26 This number does not include the National Register-eligible historic road for which the corridor follows.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 279 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

above-ground masonry structures. If these sites are already being impacted by off-road use, then it can be concluded that as the width of the dispersed camping corridor is restricted to 300 feet from centerline, impacts would continue to increase. Options for reducing the effects as outlined in the programmitc agreement can be used, but mitigating effects to 53 sites27 is cost prohibitive at $3,000.00 per cubic meter. If we assume that only one cubic meter were removed as mitigation per site, at $3,000.00 per cubic meter for 53 sites, the minimum cost would be $159,000.00. Most sites would probably require more than one cubic meter of soil removed; if 234,724 cubic meters were removed, the cost would add up to approximately $704,172,000.00.

Data recovery is one of many ways to address this and is the most expensive. Other solutions may include removing part or all of the corridor in high site density areas, moving the corridor to another location along this route, or use only existing access routes to the dispersed camping areas.

The majority of the fixed-width corridors under alternative 2 have not been inventoried at all - or not fully inventoried per the programmitc agreement and it is probable that more sites will be found within the corridors, especially in the high site density areas. Under the Region 3 Porgrammatic Agreement, cultural resource surveys can be phased over a length of time. Corridors would not be added without completion of the cultural resource surveys and assessment of sites found and standard protection or mitigation measures developed and implemented. This may delay placing the corridors on the MVUM.

Motorized Use Areas Seventeen acres on the Black Mesa Ranger District have been identified for a motorized use area under alternative 2. A cultural resources survey of that area was done in 2010. There are no cultural resources within this motorized use area, and therefore, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources if this motorized use area is designated.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Alternative 2 would designate one-mile corridors along either side of 2,693 miles of roads and motorized trails (87 percent of routes open for public use) for the sole purpose of retrieval of a downed elk per 36 CFR 212.51(b). These corridors are along NFS roads and trails open to motor vehicles and on NFS lands adjacent to open roads managed by other State and Federal agencies except where there are existing motorized restrictions.

These corridors can only be used by an individual who has legally taken an elk, according to the regulations established by Arizona Game and Fish Department. Details on these regulations can be found here: https://www.azgfd.com/Hunting/. MBGR must still adhere to regulations that do not allow for resource damage. This alternative only designates access for elk in order to remain consistent with Travel Management Rule implementation on other National Forests in the Southwestern Region (Arizona and New Mexico).

Restrictions in law, regulation or policy, prohibit motorized access for big game retrieval in designated and recommended wilderness areas; Blue Range Primitive Area; areas closed to motorized use by Forest Order; and Forest Plan management areas unsuitable for motorized use (natural research areas, recommended natural areas, natural landscapes, and wildlife quiet areas).

27 This number excludes the historic road, which may require some form of documentation to mitigate effects as well.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 280 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Most sites recorded on the Apache-Sitgreaves were found during surveys for ground-disturbing undertakings. As a result, 6,857, or 90.3 percent of the sites known to be on this forest are within 1 mile of a motorized route that would be within a designated MBGR corridor.

As noted in the discussion for the No Action alternative, the 2010 cultural resources specialist report (Schroeder et al. 2010) suggested impacts to cultural resources created by MBGR appear to be negligible.

Minimal impacts have been observed since 2010; and impacts are more likely to occur at dispersed campsites where the hunters stage, camp, and take the downed elks to and finish processing the carcasses. Carcass processing may include digging pits for disposal of unwanted parts, as well as erecting game stands. If livestock is used to go beyond the one mile fixed-width corridor, livestock trampling may be an impact if sites are located within the camps or where they are tethered.

Sites Potentially Impacted Alternative 2 has the potential to impact cultural resources (Table 136). Designation of non- system roads, new roads and trails, and fixed width corridors to the current transportation system could have direct and indirect impacts to 1,698 sites. Most of the sites that could be affected are within the road prisms of motorized trails, roads, and camping spurs (1,017 sites).

Table 136. Alternative 2 changes to forest road system and sites within the APE

Proposed change to # of known cultural Description existing system resources within APE

Miles of unauthorized routes, added to the 19 3128 motorized road system that would be open to the public as new roads Miles of previously-closed roads that would be 152 14529 opened for motorized use

Miles of system roads with 300-foot corridors 1,026 1,31430 designated for motorized access to dispersed camping areas Miles of existing closed roads to be added for 0.3 0 motor vehicles 50 inches or less in width

Miles of unauthorized routes to be added for 81 7731 motor vehicles 50 inches or less in width New motorized trails 42 7

28 Includes four historic railroad grades that were evaluated as eligible for inclusion in the National Register. These grades were identified as new routes or would be crossed by proposed new routes. 29 Includes one National Register-eligible railroad grade that was requested to be converted to a vehicular road by the public. 30 This includes several roads with very high site density, where mitigation measures such as fencing, and data recovery will be cost-prohibitive. These numbers also include historic linear sites such as roads and railroad grades within the corridors. 31 Includes 18 abandoned segments of National Register-eligible railroad grades or other historic linear sites.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 281 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Proposed change to # of known cultural Description existing system resources within APE

Areas to be designated for open motorized use 17 0 (in acres) Motorized big-game retrieval areas, located one 2,693 6,85732 mile on either side of designated routes (1,207,609 acres) Total cumulative miles and sites, forest-wide 4,030.333 8,43134

Impacts would be the same as discussed under impacts common to all alternatives with the addition that mitigation measures may need to be implemented to sites located along some of the proposed motorized routes, trails, and camping spurs, and corridors. There are known sites that are being impacted or at risk of being adversely impacted by the proposed motorized trails and dispersed camping areas. For these areas natural or artificial barriers would be installed to prevent current or future intrusions on the sites. In some cases the non-system route would need to be relocated to avoid impacted sites. Also, cultural resources could continue to be impacted by unintentional and intentional impacts of motorized travel activities, but these effects would likely be less than for those alternatives that propose greater access.

The designation of a 1 mile corridor on either side of designated roads for Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MBGR), could impact up to 6,857 sites. However, no adverse impacts have been documented to sites on the Forests from MBGR and any potential impacts are expected to be negligible based on the amount of expected trips for MBGR (only one vehicle per harvested animal, USDA Forest Service 2008a: 11) and the lack of documented impacts from big game retrieval.

Effects from Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Resource Indicators and Measures At present, out of a total of 8,238 cultural resource sites recorded on the Apache-Sitgreaves (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests inventory and site files), 126 are located within the APE of alternative 3 new motorized travel routes, and 30 are located within alternative 3 dispersed camping corridors (Table 137). Many of these sites are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but most are unevaluated. The number of cultural resources potentially impacted by designating roads, motorized trails, camping spurs, compared to the no action alternative is an increase of 1.7 percent. Compared to alternative 2, there is a reduction by 87.6 percent. The number of cultural resources potentially impacted by designating dispersed

32 Includes 242 historic linear sites and 189 sites that were noted on site location maps but not field- verified. 33 Total cumulative number of miles may be greater than actual GIS-miles because some of the routes and corridors are multi-purpose. 34 Total cumulative number of sites may greater than the number of currently-known sites because some of the routes and corridors have more than one purpose and therefore sites may have been counted more than once as part of the sum.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 282 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

camping corridors compared to the no action alternative and alternative 2 is a reduction of 99.3 percent and 93 percent, respectively.

Table 137. Comparison between the numbers of potentially at risk cultural resources, differences between the no action alternative and alternative 3 Number, Percent Difference Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 3 from Alternative 1 Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 126 ↑1.7 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk added roads, motorized trails and camping spurs. Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 30 ↓99.6 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk dispersed camping corridors. Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 0 ↓100 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk motorized use areas. Cultural Resources Presence of cultural Number/percent of 0 ↓100 resources within the Areas cultural resources of Potential Effect of potentially at risk MBGRs.

New Roads, Motorized Trails, and Dispersed Camping Spurs One hundred twenty-six cultural resources are located within the APE of the alternative 3 new roads, motorized trails, and dispersed camping spurs. This is drop of 87.6 percent from alternative 2 (1,017 sites). Outside of dispersed camping corridors, implementation of this alternative would mean that at a minimum 891 known sites would be protected from damages caused by motor vehicle use.

Fixed Width Dispersed Camping Corridors Thirty cultural resources are located within the APE of the alternative 3 fixed-width dispersed camping corridors. This is drop of 99.6 percent from alternative 1. With only 30 cultural resources within this alternative’s fixed width dispersed camping corridors, this is a reduction of 7,339 sites potentially impacted by dispersed camping and access to dispersed camping sites under alternative 1 and a reduction of 651 sites potentially impacted by dispersed camping and access under alternative 2. Outside of new roads, motorized trails and dispersed camping spurs, implementation of this alternative would mean that at a minimum 7,339 known sites would be protected from damages caused by motor vehicle use, and depending on location and condition, only 30 or fewer cultural resources would require protection measures under Appendix I of the programmatic agreement.

Motorized Use Areas and MBGRs There are no motorized use areas or motorized big game retrieval corridors to be designated under alternative 3 and therefore all of the sites that are located within alternative 1 motorized use areas and alternative 1 and 2 MBGRs (7,369 sites) and outside of the APE of added roads, motorized trails, and camping spurs would be protected from damage by motorized uses.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 283 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Site Impacted Alternative 3 has less potential to impact cultural resources than the no action alternative and alternative 2 (Table 138). Designation of non-system roads, new roads and trails, and fixed width corridors to the current transportation system could have direct and indirect impacts to 156 sites. Most of the sites that could be affected are within the road prisms of motorized trails, roads, and camping spurs (126 sites).

Table 138. Alternative 3 changes to forest road system and sites within the APE Proposed change to # of known cultural Description existing system resources within APE Miles of unauthorized routes, added to the 25 7035 motorized road system that would be open to the public as new roads Miles of previously-closed roads that would be 70 41 opened for motorized use

Miles of system roads with 300-foot corridors 79 30 designated for motorized access to dispersed camping areas Miles of existing closed roads to be added for 23 1 motor vehicles 50 inches or less in width

Miles of unauthorized routes to be added for 29 1436 motor vehicles 50 inches or less in width

New motorized trails 0.05 0 Areas to be designated for open motorized use 0 0 (in acres) Motorized big-game retrieval areas, located one 0 (0 acres) 0 mile on either side of designated routes Total cumulative miles and sites, forest-wide 226.0537 15638

Impacts would be the same as discussed under impacts common to all alternatives with the addition that mitigation measures may need to be implemented to sites located along some of the proposed motorized routes, trails, and camping spurs, and corridors – but fewer than alternative 2. If there are sites that are being impacted or at risk of being adversely impacted, natural or artificial barriers would be installed to prevent current or future intrusions on the sites. In some cases non-system routes would need to be relocated to avoid impacted sites. Also, cultural resources could continue to be impacted by unintentional and intentional impacts of motorized

35 Includes five historic railroad grades that were evaluated as eligible for inclusion in the National Register. These grades would be crossed by proposed new routes. 36 Includes 9 abandoned segments of National Register-eligible railroad grades and two segments of an abandoned historic highway. One of the railroad grades and the two highway segments are proposed to become part of the new ATV trail. 37 Total cumulative number of miles may be greater than actual GIS-miles because some of the routes and corridors are multi-purpose. 38 Total cumulative number may greater than the number of currently-known sites because some of the routes and corridors have more than one purpose and therefore sites may have been counted more than once as part of the sum.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 284 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

travel activities, but these effects would likely be less than for those alternatives that propose greater access.

Because there are no Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MBGR) areas, no sites would be impacted unless they are located within a fixed width dispersed camping corridor or within the APE of motorized routes or trails.

Cumulative Effects from Alternatives 2 and 3 The cumulative effects on cultural resources should take into account all surface-altering actions that have occurred or are likely to occur within the Forests. Many recorded sites in the Forests are at least regionally significant, and some are nationally significant. This regional or national importance of some sites within the Forests reinforces the need for protecting significant local cultural resources that may be affected from cumulative impacts of management activities within the Forests and region.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Large-scale undertakings from the last 10 years, current, and foreseeable undertakings, as well as recent large-scale wildfires (Rodeo-Chediski of 2002, Wallow of 2011) as listed on Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A of the Heritage Specialist Report are included, as any undertaking that may affect cultural resources is considered a connected action. These tables were developed from the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Apache-Sitgreaves and professional knowledge of the analysis area. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all present and reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis area, but a thorough representation of known actions. For this analysis, the cumulative effects analysis area is the planning area (boundary of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests).

Until the fuel loading and forests are restored to a more natural condition, archaeological sites could be exposed to high intensity fires and may be adversely effected. In general, low to moderate intensity fires do not have an adverse effect to archaeological sites that do not contain flammable materials. In 2002, 167,215 acres of the Apache-Sitgreaves was burned by the Rodeo- Chediski Fire (North et al. 2003). Of the 2,107 sites, 198 sites had been previously impacted by fire. Of those, 128 sites were specifically impacted by the Rodeo-Chediski Fire: 99 sites in the Black Mesa Ranger District and 29 sites in the Lakeside Ranger District. Fire suppression and/or heavy machinery associated with fire suppression also impacted 41 sites. Although 198 sites were affected by fire in some capacity, impacts to sites after the Rodeo-Chediski fire were “generally benign” (North et al. 2003). The fire did have more permanent impacts in the high intensity burn areas. Impacts mainly consisted of burned artifacts and masonry, and spalling and discoloration of rock outcroppings with rock art. Historic sites with flammable materials such as hogans or railroad ties on abandoned railroad grades were burned up (Courtright et al. 2017). Like grazing, the indirect impact of increased erosion from loss of ground cover was the biggest impact to site condition (North et al. 2003). The loss of ground cover increased erosion potential, which mainly affected artifact location but in some cases also damaged structures.

Large-scale undertakings from the last 10 years, current, and foreseeable undertakings as listed on Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A in the Heritage Specialist Report are included, as any undertaking that may affect cultural resources is considered a cumulative effect. Most prominent of undertakings of the landscape scale planned or under implementation include 4FRI Rim Country Ponderosa Pine Restoration, Green’s Peak Farm Bill CE, Rim Lakes Restoration, Larson

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 285 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Restoration, Wallow West Prescribed Burn, Rodeo-Chediski Prescribed Burn, Black River Restoration, West Escudilla Restoration, Upper Rocky Arroyo Restoration, Timber Mesa Vernon Wild Urban Interface, Bourdon Pasture Restoration, Sundown Restoration, Stateline Rangeland Allotment Management Plan, Heber Range Allotment Management Plan, Wildbunch Allotment Range Management Plan, and East Eagle/Mud Springs Vegetation Management. Current grazing management practices and allotment management plans have minimized, or would minimize impacts so they have negligible to no adverse effects to cultural resources.

Under the Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2015), guidelines and desired conditions for cultural resources include preventing adverse effects to sites (pp. 90-91, 93). Two proposed land exchanges, Camp Tatiyee and Show Low South, will have an adverse effect to cultural resources, because National Register-eligible sites will be removed from National Forest management and be turned over to private organizations or private individuals. Mitigation of the adverse effects of the Camp Tatiyee is nearly complete. The adverse effects to sites located within the Show Low South land exchange are expected to be mitigated through data recovery in consultation with the ACHP, Arizona SHPO and culturally affiliated Tribes.

All-in-all, project undertakings make up approximately 1,877,468 acres of Apache-Sitgreaves land, and recent large-scale wildfires burned over 684,809 acres, much of which are also within the footprint of TMR.

General Cumulative Effects The recent rapid increase in personal motorized vehicle use in the Forests poses a threat to cultural resources. In addition, burgeoning human populations in communities within and surrounding the Forests are correlated to increased damage to archaeological and historical resources. Potential impacts from illegal excavation (looting) and collection from archaeological sites located on forests would continue in accessible areas. Significant contextual information and parts of our history would be stolen and destroyed by looting and collecting. As transportation technology advances and more roads are constructed, a greater number of people would have the ability to visit undisturbed sites farther from the main transportation routes increasing potential incidents of looting. Implementation of the travel management rule would designate and restrict access of off-road motorized use, reducing future impacts to more remote undisturbed sites by intentional vandalism, looting, and artifact collecting, and unintentional impacts from recreational cross-country travel by motorized vehicles. The cumulative effects of increased visitation due to accessibility are commensurate with the growing popularity of OHV use. These factors have the potential to result in further damage to cultural resources in the Forests.

Cumulative damage imparted on cultural resources, and traditional cultural properties through years of visitor impacts results in the outright loss of these resources or diminished integrity. Limiting off-road motorized use to designated areas and the designated road system would reduce the amount of existing and potential impacts to cultural resources from off-road motorized use.

Prior to any actions or ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to affect the character or use of cultural resources, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ensures compliance with the NHPA by following the stipulations of the PA. If cultural resources are located within the project areas, avoidance or appropriate mitigation measures are implemented to achieve a determination of no effect or no adverse effect to cultural resources.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 286 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Effects to Areas of Tribal Interest Cultural prehistoric and historic artifacts and traditional properties are of great interest to the tribes whose ancestors occupied and roamed the lands which are now the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Protecting these as historic features that tell a story are of great importance to the tribes. Motorized travel can have direct impacts where travel intersects these features and cause crushing and/or displacement (see Effects to Cultural Resources for analysis of these effects).

Tribes are vibrant modern communities with a large range of concerns. Concerns include but are not limited to access to lands and resources occupied and used by their ancestors and still used today; protection of ancestral sites, shrines, springs and meadows; protecting medicinal plants and other plants important to their livelihood; preventing trespass into tribal lands through the National Forests, and so forth. Also of interest is the ability for tribal members to visit traditional cultural properties, special places, and ancestral sites, gather traditional products such as plants and poles, and participate in traditional or activities for subsistence such as hunting.

Cultural heritage sites and traditional cultural properties are of great interest to the tribes whose ancestors occupied and roamed the lands which are now the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Protecting these as historic features that tell a story are of great importance to the tribes. Motorized travel can have direct impacts where travel intersects these features and cause crushing and/or displacement (see effects to cultural section for analysis of these effects).

Affected Environment There are 13 identified traditional cultural properties39 located within the Apache-Sitgreaves. Two have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places but have not yet been nominated. Sacred sites, shrines and traditional use areas also located within the Apache-Sitgreaves. Many Tribes consider archaeological sites occupied by their ancestors to be traditional cultural properties under NHPA. Tribes have expressed concerns regarding the continuing impacts from looting and vandalism to archaeological sites and areas opened for timber sales and other resource extraction, causing resource damage because of the opened access (Morgan 2015). See Figure 34 for an example. Below is a list of how motorized uses can affect resources and areas of tribal concern: • by destroying populations of plants important for traditional uses, or destroying important legacy plants such as agave; • by disrupting traditional ceremonies with noise and dust; • by disrupting important streams; • by disrupting wildlife important to tribes; • by damaging cultural resources; and, • by trespassing onto reservation lands by access through National Forest System lands. Conversely, the more routes, motorized trails, and areas open for use and dispersed camping, the easier it is for tribal members to access areas to collect resources, to hunt, or to perform

39 TCPs are official designations; however, it is understood that archaeological sites can be culturally significant and/or sacred to decendent communities

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 287 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

traditional ceremonies. However, because of the special relationship federally-recognized tribes have with the US government, closed routes or areas can be opened for tribes for their use.

Figure 34. Example of a pinyon-juniper grassland that had not been treated for over 60 years until just before this photo was taken in 2016. Sites located in this treatment area were in excellent condition and had very little human-caused disturbance except in areas where there were existing roads. Tribes have expressed concern that when these types of areas are opened, if left unchecked, cultural resource sites and other resources could be adversely affected by off-road use.

Environmental Consequences Please refer to the Effects to Cultural Resources for effects cultural heritage sites.

Effects from Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Under this no action alternative, there would be no change to the existing management of motorized access to the Apache-Sitgreaves and their possible impacts to American Indian rights and interests. Motorized use of unauthorized roads and trails, unrestricted motorized dispersed camping, and motorized big game retrieval would continue forest-wide except where motorized restrictions exist. traditional cultural properties, traditional use areas, sacred sites, cultural resource sites, springs, streams, and other natural resources identified as culturally important to tribes would continue to be impacted by unrestricted motorized use. Vegetation restoration projects that reduce tree density will open up the landscape for off-road use and would make it easier for off-road users to drive to sites, drive over sites, camp on sites, and loot sites because areas previously inaccessible by vehicle will become accessible. Medicinal plants may be taken illegally and off-road vehicles may be used to gain access into and disturb meadows with such plants, with sites, and with spring areas, which are very important to tribes (Morgan 2015). Forest managers opening the landscape through thinning and prescribed burning may, therefore, result in negative impacts to sites and natural resources important for tribes, since under alternative 1, more of the landscape will become available for unrestricted off-road use.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 288 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

The Fort Apache Indian Reservation shares its boundary with the Black Mesa, Lakeside, Springerville, and Alpine Ranger Districts. The San Carlos Apache Reservation shares its boundary with the Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts. Any existing trespass issues caused by people crossing into the Fort Apache and San Carlos Reservations from the Apache-Sitgreaves will continue to occur.

Effects from Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Under alternative 2, the changes to route designation, specifically designating roads and motorized trails, dispersed camping corridors and the 17-acre motorized use area, plus designating one-mile wide MBGR corridors would benefit those resources important to tribes that are located outside the designated areas and routes. Traditional cultural properties, traditional use areas, sacred sites, cultural resource sites, springs, streams, medicinal plant areas and other natural resources that are identified as culturally important to tribes should receive less impacts from designated motorized use, as long as the users honor the designation (see Glassco 2008). Areas opened by thinning and prescribed fire should receive less impacts by off-road use except where there are designated dispersed camping corridors.

In considering concern over trespass into the Fort Apache Indian Reservation from the Apache- Sitgreaves, there are existing ML1 (closed), ML2 (open to high clearance vehicles), and ML3 (drivable with low-clearance passenger vehicle) routes under NFS jurisdiction that either go into the reservation or are located adjacent to the reservation boundary. Under alternative 2, there are 27 existing ML2 routes that abut, or go into the reservation40. There are 12 ML2 roads proposed to be closed. Five of these go into the reservation41. There are eight ML3 roads that abut or go into the reservation42, and there is one ML3 road, the Rim Road (National Forest Service Road (FR) 300) that is proposed to be changed from ML3 to ML2 on the Black Mesa Ranger District. This historic road abuts the reservation boundary in places. There are no proposed motorized trails near the reservation boundary.

There are 64 ML1 (closed) roads that either go into the reservation or are in close proximity that will remain closed. Ten of these roads cross into the reservation43. Two ML1 roads (FRs 8850 and 8847) enter the Apache-Sitgreaves from the reservation. There are six ML1 roads proposed to be changed to ML2 that either abut the reservation boundary, or go into it. The ML1 roads that go into the reservation are: West Buckskin Trail (FR 9571O) and FRs 8480 and 8480A. The ML1 roads that are less than 400 feet from the reservation boundary are the West Lincoln Trail (FR 9882L) and FRs 8478 and 8262E. There are two ML1 roads (9845K, 9867F) proposed to be changed to ML2 administrative roads.

There are 17 proposed dispersed camping corridors that either abut or are located along roads that go into the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The dispersed camping corridors that only abutt the reservation boundary are: FRs 132, 162, 198, 168C, 196, 300 (Black Mesa Ranger District only), 8674, 8478, 9559F, 9571 D, 9576K, and 9702Y. The dispersed camping corridors that go into the

40 The ML2 routes that go into the reservation are FRs 25F, 82, 110, 116A, 116T, 161, 168C, and 9569J. 41 These routes are FRs 9D, 72I, 96F, 9818W, and 9835. 42 The ML3 routes that go into the reservation are FRs 116 and 300 (in places). 43 These ML1 roads are FRs 9E, 168E, 260R, 300E, 8277, 8471A, 8480A, 8847, 9577G, and 9577H (Whiskey Canyon Road).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 289 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

reservation are: FRs 25F, 82, 110 (the Chediski Lookout Road), 9569J, and 9571O (also a ML1 road proposed to be changed to a ML2 road as noted above).

The MBGR boundary abuts the Fort Apache Indian Reservation boundary except in areas where there are existing closure orders prohibiting motorized traffic such as the Big Cienega Mountain Area, Mt. Baldy Wilderness, and the NFS land in or directly adjacent to the Black River corridor where it is only accessible from the reservation. Two areas where FR 300 goes through only have a 300- to 400-foot corridor identified for MBGR. The 17-acre designated motorized use area is located over 15 miles from the reservation boundary.

Designating access roads that end at the reservation boundary or cross into it, and adding designating camping corridors that end at the reservation boundary or cross into it, may result in more incidences of trespass into the reservation. Given there is existing motorized access for big game retrieval along the reservation boundary, the likelihood that designating the MBGR would create additional trespass problems is slim.

Where the Apache-Sitgreaves shares its boundary with the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, there are 7 existing ML2 roads and one existing ML3 road that abuts or crosses into it. Most of these roads are located in the vicinity of private land along the Eagle Creek drainage. Two of the ML2 roads, FR 8301 and 8463, enter the reservation. There are no ML1 roads near the reservation boundary. One ML2 road is proposed to be changed to a ML1 road. There are no dispersed camping corridors near the reservation, nor are there any motorized routes proposed for designation near the reservation boundary. The MBGR areas are only located south of Black River, north of the Bear Wallow Wilderness, east of the Eagle Creek/reservation boundary, and south of Cottonwood Canyon where they are currently accessible by vehicle. In sum, there are only minor changes to existing conditions with designating the MBGR along the San Carlos Apache Reservation boundary, and it is expected that there will be no change to any existing trespass problems.

Effects from Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects In considering concern over trespass into the Fort Apache Indian Reservation from the Apache- Sitgreaves, there are existing ML1, ML2, and ML3 routes under NFS jurisdiction that either go into the reservation or are located adjacent to the reservation boundary. Under alternative 3, there are the same 64 ML1 (closed) roads that either go into the reservation or are in close proximity that will remain closed. The proposed changes from alternative 2 include keeping FRs 9845K and 9867F closed and closing 18 ML2 roads44 that are either near or cross into the reservation. All of the existing ML1 (closed) roads that abut or go into the reservation proposed to be changed to ML2 - such as West Buckskin Trail (FR 9571O), West Lincoln Trail (FR 9882L), and FRs 8262E, 8478, 8480 and 8480A (the segment closest to the reservation boundary) - remain ML1 roads under alternative 3.

44 The roads that cross into the reservation are FRs 9D, 72I, 96F, 116A, 116T, 161, 9569J, 9818W, and 9835.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 290 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

There are 18 existing ML2 routes that abut, or go into the reservation45. These will not change. There are 20 ML2 routes that will be closed under alternative 346. There are seven ML3 roads that abut or go into the reservation47, and on the Black Mesa Ranger District, the Rim Road (FR 300) is also proposed to be changed from ML3 to ML2. There are no proposed motorized trails near the reservation boundary.

Under alternative 3, there are no proposed dispersed camping corridors in the vicinity of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, there are no MBGRs proposed, and there are no designated motorized use areas under this alternative.

Where the Apache-Sitgreaves shares its boundary with the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, there are no existing ML1 roads. There are 3 existing ML2 roads and no existing ML3 roads that abut or cross into the reservation48. Like alternative 2, most of these roads are located in the vicinity of private land along the Eagle Creek drainage. Four ML2 roads are identified for closure under alternative 3. One of these, FR 8463 goes through the reservation boundary.

There are no dispersed camping corridors near the reservation. There are no motorized routes proposed for designation near the reservation boundary, and there are no MBGR areas identified for this alternative. Not adding access roads or dispersed camping corridors that end at the reservation boundary or cross into it, and not adding MBGRs or designating motorized use areas near the reservation should have a positive outcome and greatly reduce threats of trespass onto the reservations.

Under alternative 3, the changes to route designation, specifically not designating new roads or motorized trails near the Fort Apache and San Carlos Reservations, not designating any dispersed camping corridors near the reservations, not designating one-mile wide MBGR corridors, and not designating an off-road use area will benefit those resources important to all of the tribes, not just the Apache. Traditional cultural properties, traditional use areas, sacred sites, cultural resource sites, springs, streams, medicinal plant areas and other natural resources that are identified as culturally important to tribes should receive less impacts from unrestricted motorized use, as long as the users honor the designation (see Glassco 2008). Areas opened by thinning and prescribed fire should receive less impacts by off-road use except where there are designated dispersed camping corridors.

Cumulative Effects from Alternatives 2 and 3 Along with the cumulative effects described in the Effects to Cultural Resources, Cumulative Effects from Alternatives 2 and 3 section, other activities can cumulatively affect resources of tribal interest. Timber management, recreation activities, prescribed fire, and special uses all can cause resource impacts to special places and plants. The Forest Service strives to ensure resource damage does not occur for any activity, however impacts can occur. Any one activity can impact a resource. The action alternatives for travel management demonstrate a reduction to potential

45 The ML2 roads that go into the reservation that will remain ML2 under Alternative 3 are FRs 25F, 82, 110, and 168C. 46 Those ML2 roads that go into the reservation and will be closed under Alternative 3 are 9D, 72I, 96F, 116A, 116T, 161, 9569J, 9818W, and 9835. 47 Two go into the reservation: FR 116 and segments of 300. 48 The ML2 road is FR 8301.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 291 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

impacts; therefore, they do not cumulatively contribute to increasing the impacts to tribal interests.

Summary of Environmental Consequences The no action alternative (Alternative 1) would have the most future impacts on resources of interest to all eleven tribes the Apache-Sitgreaves consults with, and would contribute to continued trespass on neighboring tribal land. Like affects to historic properties, the majority of the projects listed on Table A1 would reduce fuel loading and therefore density of vegetation, allowing for the opportunity of motorized vehicle users to drive to areas where they may not necessarily have been able to drive before. Such access over the landscape may result in previously inaccessible cultural and other resources being damaged by vehicles or by looting.

In comparing alternatives 2 and 3 to the no action alternative, there would be a slight to substantial reduction in the number of cultural and natural resources of tribal interest potentially impacted by establishing motorized travel on a designated system, driving for dispersed camping corridors and spurs rather than across the landscape, and limitations or elimination of motorized travel for game retrieval, with the largest reduction occurring with alternative 3.

Under alternative 2, the threat of unregulated off-road use would decrease substantially, with motorized vehicle users being restricted to authorized dispersed camping corridors and spurs. While the one mile-wide MBGR areas are located adjacent to the White Mountain and San Carlos Apache boundaries, effects to cultural resources and natural resources of concern by the tribes should be reduced. Changing the designation of some ML2 roads to ML1 closed roads, should discourage off road users from utilizing these roads to access the reservations.

Alternative 3 would provide the best protection of important natural resources of interest to the tribes because few dispersed camping corridors will be designated, thus reducing impacts to cultural and natural resources. Alternative 3 would also help discourage trespass onto neighboring reservations because existing ML1 roads into reservations would be remain closed and some ML2 roads would also be closed, thus reducing the numbers of places where the reservation boundaries can be breached.

While protection of cultural resources of interest from impacts by motorized travel is greatest in Alternative 3, access to special places, traditional uses, and gathering sites would be reduced in Alternative 3 and Alternative 2. Motorized access for game retrieval would be greatest in Alternative 1, followed by Alternative 2, then Alternative 3. Motorized access would only be allowed for elk under Alternatives 2 and 3

There are options per regulations for tribes and tribal members to obtain special use permits for certain traditional activities that would have to be processed under Alternatives 2 and 3 for motorized access that they currently do not need under Alternative 1.

Each of the three alternatives has the potential to affect American Indian rights and interests but the form and scale is different. Without mitigation (such as moving an important plant species to another viable location) or establishing and enforcing site-specific protection measures (such as closing access roads going into sensitive natural and cultural resources); restricted or unrestricted motorized big game retrieval; designated or unrestricted motorized use of previously-closed or unauthorized roads and trails; and designated or unrestricted motorized dispersed camping corridors could impact traditional cultural properties, traditional use areas, sacred sites, cultural

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 292 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

resource sites, springs, streams, medicinal plants, and other natural resources that are culturally important to tribes. Such potential impacts include vehicular damages, erosion, looting (sites, traditional cultural properties and sacred sites) and theft of medicinal plants and other natural resources. Other potential effects, depending on the alternative, could include the cutting of reservation boundary fences and trespass by non-Indians coming from NFS land and going into Indian reservations without authorization; or cutting fences to travel into protected areas (Altaha 2010; Glassco 2008). Effects to Vegetation This section examines the potential impacts of the implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR) for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests on native vegetation. More information is available in the project record including the full vegetation analysis file, as part of the Vegetation Report.

Summary of Environmental Effects Alternative 1 would result in the highest amount of possible adverse effects to vegetation. Alternative 2 would reduce potential adverse vegetation effects as compared to alternative 1. And, alternative 3 would pose the least risk to plants and their habitat, but greatly reduce the number of acres and miles open to motorized cross-country travel and MBGR.

Listed sensitive plant species occupy many wetland and riparian PNVTs that have been identified as sensitive and unique within the Forests. The dispersed camping corridors in alternative 2 would open up these habitats to cross- country travel. In addition, MBGR within alternative 2 would open some of the riparian and wetland PNVTs to cross-country travel. Cross-country travel within these PNVTs increases the risk to the plant species that occupy these wetland and riparian areas.

Alternative 1 would allow some cross-country travel through the wetland and riparian vegetation types (table 141) but eliminate this for alternatives 2 and 3. The dispersed camping corridors would open up some of the sensitive wetland or riparian vegetation types to cross-country travel for alternatives 2 and 3 (table 140). In addition, MBGR within alternatives 1 and 2 would open some of the riparian and wetland PNVTs to cross-country travel but eliminate it for alternative 3 (table 142).

Affected Environment

Vegetation Types Elevations on the Forests range from approximately 3,400 feet near Clifton, Arizona, to nearly 11,000 feet west of Springerville, Arizona. The landscape is equally varied and includes mountains, hills, cinder cones, plains, plateaus, deep canyons, and escarpments (USDA Forest Service 2008, 3). The climate also varies in the Forests from hot steppe at the lower elevations to boreal at the higher elevations (Laing et al. 1987).

Within the boundaries of the Forests lies a portion of the largest ponderosa pine forest in the world and the largest montane/subalpine Grasslands in Arizona (USDA Forest Service 2008, 3).

Vegetation communities were broken down into Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVTs) to determine the potential effects of the travel management plan on the forested ecosystems.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 293 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Vegetation Types are mid-scale groupings of ecosystem types that share similar vegetation composition and historic ecosystem disturbances such as fire, drought, and grazing by and domestic native animal species. Two references were used in developing the PNVTs for the Forests: (1) the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2008), and (2) The Nature Conservancy analysis on the Forest Service Southwestern Region (Region 3) National Forest System lands throughout Arizona and New Mexico (Vander-Lee et al. 2006).

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Forests was mapped with 1:24,000 scale aerial photography and was accuracy tested (Laing et al. 1987), (USDA Forest Service 2008). The Nature Conservancy analysis used data from the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) (Vander-Lee et al. 2006), which was obtained from Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper 30m satellite imagery and has not been accuracy tested (Vander-Lee et al. 2006, 2-3). Because the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey provides data at a finer scale and better accuracy for the Forests than the SWReGAP, it was used for mapping and quantitative data (i.e., acreage). The Nature Conservancy’s analysis was used primarily for descriptions of Vegetation Types.

Fourteen vegetative Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVTs) were identified (table 139) in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015). Three PNVTs (Ponderosa Pine, Madrean Pine-Oak, and Pinon-Juniper) encompass a majority of the Forests’ acreage (59 percent). Of the remaining PNVTs: Dry Mixed Conifer, Wet Mixed Conifer, Spruce-Fir, and Aspen comprise 20.2 percent, Grasslands comprise 16.5 percent of the Forests, and riparian areas only cover 1.5 percent of the Forests, but include the majority of riparian areas in northeastern Arizona (USDA Forest Service 2016).

Table 139. Land Area, in Acres, of the Forested Major Potential Natural Vegetation Types in Relation to the Overall Acreage of the Forests (USDA Forest Service 2015) Potential Natural Vegetation Types (Vegetation Approximate Acres Approximate Types) on the Forests Percent of the Forests Forests Ponderosa Pine 602,200 29.0 Dry Mixed Conifer 147,900 7.1 Spruce-Fir with Wet Mixed Conifer 195,700 9.4 Aspen and Aspen/codominant with conifer 76,000 3.7 Woodlands Madrean Pine-Oak 396,678 19.1 Piñon-Juniper 231,049 11.1 Grasslands Great Basin 177,681 8.6 Semi-desert 107,599 5.2 Montane/Subalpine 56,505 2.7 Chaparral Interior 56,006 2.7 Riparian Areas/Riparian Forests

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 294 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Potential Natural Vegetation Types (Vegetation Approximate Acres Approximate Types) on the Forests Percent of the Forests Wetland/Cienega 11,825 0.6 Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 6,865 0.3 Montane Willow 5,542 0.3 Cottonwood-willow 5,198 0.3

Potential Natural Vegetation Types

Forest Ponderosa Pine Forest: Ponderosa pine at approximately 602,200 acres represents the largest PNVT on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This PNVT generally occurs at elevations ranging from 6,000 to 9,000 feet. It is dominated by ponderosa pine and commonly includes other species such as Gambel oak, New Mexico locust, and at lower elevations and more southerly aspects, juniper, and piñon. Occasionally, species such as quaking aspen (aspen), southwestern white pine, Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, white fir, and blue spruce may be present and may occur as individual trees or in small groups at higher elevations and more northerly aspects. This PNVT sometimes appears savanna like, with extensive areas of grasses, forbs and occasional shrubs forming variably-sized interspaces in between individual trees, small clumps, and groups of trees. Approximately 6,000 acres of aspen are scattered across this PNVT.

This PNVT’s overstory is currently (post-Wallow Fire) severely departed from reference conditions. There are too many stands in all diameter classes with a closed canopy characteristic, and there are too few large to very large size trees with an open canopy character. The majority (85 percent) of the herbaceous understory vegetation within ponderosa pine forest is highly to severely departed from desired conditions. Approximately 9 percent of this PNVT was reset to an early seral state because of the 2011 Wallow Fire. The natural fire regime is also severely departed from reference conditions. Historically, fire burned relatively frequently (every 2 to 17 years) and at low severity that kept the forest open with abundant herbaceous cover.

Some areas that appear to be ponderosa pine forest are actually historic montane/subalpine or Great Basin grasslands that have been encroached by conifer species.

Dry Mixed Conifer: The dry mixed conifer PNVT burns on a more frequent cycle than the wet mixed conifer PNVT, due to the presence of shade intolerant (fire and dry site adapted) species in the mix. Dry mixed conifer, covering approximately 147,900 acres, typically occurs between the ponderosa pine and wet mixed conifer forests. Dry mixed conifer generally occurs at elevations between 7,000 and 10,000 feet on flat ridgetops and upper slopes of drainages and knolls. Species vary in relation to elevation and moisture availability and are mainly shade intolerant trees. In lower elevations and drier areas, Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, Gambel oak, ponderosa pine, piñon, and juniper may co-dominate. In higher and more mesic elevations ponderosa pine may co-dominate with Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, aspen, white fir, southwestern white pine, and Rocky Mountain juniper. The understory can be composed of a wide variety of shrubs, grasses, sedges, rushes, and forbs depending on the soil type, aspect, elevation, disturbance history, and other factors. Over 14,000 acres of aspen are scattered across this PNVT.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 295 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

This PNVT’s overstory is currently (post-Wallow Fire) highly departed from reference conditions. The forest composition has shifted toward more shade tolerant species that are not adapted to fire, such as true firs. It also has too many stands with a closed canopy characteristic, and there is an underrepresentation of medium to very large size trees with an open canopy character. The majority (approximately 78 percent) of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the dry mixed conifer forest is highly to severely departed from desired conditions. Approximately 25 percent of this PNVT was reset to an early seral state because of the 2011 Wallow Fire. The natural fire regime is also severely departed from reference conditions. Historically, fire burned relatively frequently (every 10 to 22 years) and at low severities. This historic regime kept the forest open and maintained fire-resistant species and an abundant herbaceous understory.

Wet Mixed Conifer: Wet mixed conifer, with approximately 178,000 acres, occurs at elevations between 8,500 to 10,000 feet on gentle to very steep slopes. Tree species composition varies depending on seral state, elevation, and moisture availability. This PNVT can be composed of early seral species such as aspen, Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, New Mexico locust, southwestern white pine, and late seral species such as maple, white fir, and blue spruce. Ponderosa pine may be a minor component in some locations or absent. The absence of Engelmann spruce distinguishes this PNVT from spruce-fir. This PNVT has an understory of a wide variety of shrubs, grasses, and forbs depending on soil type, aspect, elevation, disturbance, and other factors. Herbaceous species may include, but are not limited to, red baneberry, starry false Solomon’s seal, and subalpine lupine. Over 50,000 acres of aspen are scattered across this PNVT.

This PNVT’s overstory is currently (post-Wallow Fire) highly departed from reference conditions. There is a lack of aspen regeneration and too few large to very large shade tolerant trees with a closed canopy characteristic. Approximately 35 percent of this PNVT was reset to an early seral state because of the 2011 Wallow Fire. The majority (approximately 74 percent) of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the wet mixed conifer forest is highly to severely departed from desired conditions.

The natural fire regime is also moderately departed from reference conditions. Historic fire regimes were typically of mixed severity fires (every 35 to 50 years) and occasional high severity, stand replacing, crown fires (every 120 to 400 or more years). Natural ecological disturbances in this PNVT typically occur at two spatial and temporal scales: large scale infrequent (mostly fire) and small scale frequent (e.g., fire, insects, disease, and wind).

Spruce-Fir: The spruce-fir forest PNVT, at approximately 17,700 acres, is found on the coldest, wettest high elevation sites (approximately 9,500 to 11,400 feet) and within cold-air drainages at lower elevations on the Apache National Forest portion of the Forests. The majority of this forested PNVT lies within designated wilderness areas. Spruce-fir intergrades with the wet mixed conifer PNVT at lower elevations. It is dominated by Engelmann spruce but contains other species depending on elevation. The understory commonly includes currant, Scouler’s willow, honeysuckle, common juniper, huckleberry, alpine clover, and sedges. Approximately 6,000 acres of aspen are scattered across this PNVT. This PNVT’s overstory is currently (post-Wallow Fire) highly departed from reference conditions. There is a lack of aspen regeneration. There are also too few large to very large shade tolerant trees with closed canopies. Approximately 31 percent of this PNVT was reset to an early seral state because of the 2011 Wallow Fire. The majority (approximately 76 percent) of the herbaceous understory vegetation within spruce-fir forest is low to moderately departed from desired conditions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 296 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

The natural fire regime is also moderately departed from reference conditions. Historically, principal ecological disturbance factors were insects, disease, and wind followed by infrequent high severity fires. Natural ecological disturbances in this PNVT typically occur at two temporal and spatial scales: large scale infrequent (fire, which occurred every 150 to 400 years and climate variability) and small scale frequent (e.g., fire, insects, disease, and wind).

Aspen: Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) occurs as a species within the conifer forested PNVTs. As a species, aspen is adapted to a much broader range of environmental conditions than most plant species associated with it. This highly variable ecological community can comprise mostly aspen (roughly 24,000 acres) or aspen co-dominating with few to several conifer species (roughly 52,000 acres). Aspen occurs across the forested landscape as a shifting mosaic over space and time. At lower elevations, conifers include ponderosa pine, Rocky Mountain Douglas- fir, and white fir. At middle elevations, conifers include Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, white fir, blue spruce, southwestern white pine, and ponderosa pine. Rocky Mountain juniper can also be present. At higher elevations, conifers include Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, subalpine fir, corkbark fir, and Engelmann spruce.

Relatively pure aspen stands may function as natural firebreaks across the landscape, support watershed stability, and contribute to scenic landscapes. Aspen is a disturbance dependent species requiring fire, windthrow, or cutting to regenerate an over-mature stand into a young stand. Without periodic fire or with high levels of herbivory, conifers will replace aspen. As a result, this PNVT is considerably altered today and may be difficult to identify because of conifer succession. The presence of even a single aspen tree in a conifer stand provides strong evidence that the area historically supported a seral component of aspen. As a direct result of the 2011 Wallow Fire, roughly 33 percent of the aspen overstory was eliminated, and those acres are now being regenerated into the seedling/sapling size class with open canopy characteristics, largely through clonal root sprouting (additional acres, previously unoccupied may be established through seed production and seedling establishment). The majority of trees in the remaining aspen overstory are 10 inches or greater in diameter and exist in a closed canopy condition. This would indicate that most of the remaining aspen on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are mature to overmature trees and are being over-topped by conifers within the individual forested PNVTs.

Aspen exist as single storied or, more commonly, multistoried depending on disturbance history and local stand dynamics. Historically, aspen suckers (root sprouts) were common. Aspen stands are usually closed canopied. The understory structure may be complex with multiple shrub and herbaceous layers, or simple with just an herbaceous layer. The herbaceous layer may be dense or sparse, dominated by grasses and grass-like plants or forbs. Some of the species typically found associated with aspen include bracken fern, Arizona peavine, meadow rue, deer’s ears, yarrow, violet, paintbrush, arnica, and several grasses and sedges. Decaying coarse woody debris is common.

Aspen stands are typically moister and cooler, supporting a greater abundance of plants, fungi, invertebrates, mammals, and cavity-nesting bird species than the surrounding forest. Even small aspen groups provide this unique habitat. Aspen is second only to riparian ecosystems in biological diversity and supports more bird species than other forested areas in the Southwest. For these reasons, aspen is designated as an “ecological indicator” or EI. EIs are selected and monitored as a means to assess management effects to biological diversity; in this case, the diversity of habitats that aspen provides and the associated species.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 297 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Fire regimes for aspen are determined by the adjacent forested PNVT, with fire return intervals ranging from 2 to 20 years at low elevations in ponderosa pine, to 10 to 30 years for mixed conifer at middle elevations, and up to 30 to 400 years for spruce-fir. Both spruce-fir and mixed conifer forested PNVTs have mixed severity fire regimes, experiencing frequent, low intensity surface fires, as well as infrequent, stand replacing crown fires. Overall, aspen is an important successional community in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forested PNVTs. Aspen is primarily affected by fire, wind, insects, disease, pathogens, herbivores, and climate interactions.

The decline in aspen throughout its western range is an ecological concern. This declining trend has been noted for the past 50 years, but aspen mortality has become more pronounced since about 2002. Not only are trees dying, but their clonal root systems are also dying. Several factors have been hypothesized as causal agents in the decline of aspen: fire suppression, conifer competition, ungulate browsing, drought, insects, pathogens, and climate change.

Woodland Vegetation Types Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland: Madrean pine-oak woodlands, at roughly 394,900 acres, cover nearly 20 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and usually occupy foothills and mountain slopes. Elevations range from approximately 4,000 to 7,000 feet. These woodlands consist of an open to closed canopy of evergreen oaks and various conifers, including gray oak, Emory oak, and alligator juniper. Beneath the canopy, there are annual and perennial grasses, forbs, shrubs, and half-shrubs.

This PNVT’s overstory is currently (2011) highly departed from reference conditions. There are too many acres of closed canopy conditions consisting of small, medium, or large trees. Medium to very large trees with herbaceous understory and open canopy are lacking. The herbaceous understory vegetation within the Madrean pine-oak woodland is split, nearly equally, between low to moderately departed and highly to severely departed from desired conditions. The fire regime is also severely departed from reference conditions. Low severity surface fires frequently (every 3 to 8 years) burned through this PNVT maintaining an open stand structure.

Some areas that appear to be Madrean pine-oak woodlands are actually historic semi-desert grasslands that have been encroached by woody species.

Piñon-Juniper Woodland: At roughly 231,049 acres, this woodland PNVT is mostly found on lower slopes of mountains and upland rolling hills at approximately 4,500 to 7,500 feet in elevation. The most common pine is the piñon. The juniper component is a variable mix of one- seed, Utah, alligator, and Rocky Mountain. In addition, annual and perennial grasses, forbs, shrubs, and half-shrubs can be found beneath the more open woodland canopy. Species composition and stand structure vary by location primarily due to precipitation, natural ecological disturbances, elevation, temperature, and soil type.

The piñon-juniper woodland can be divided into two subgroups: savanna and persistent woodland. Savanna, with an herbaceous-dominated understory, generally occurs on flats, basins, gentler east-, south-, and west-facing foothills, gentle uplands, and transitional valleys at generally lower elevations. The soils associated with savanna are moderately deep to deep and biologically productive. The persistent woodland, having a sparse discontinuous understory of some grasses and/or shrubs, generally occurs on flats, ridgetops, rugged uplands, and steep slopes at various elevations, and occurs on soils that are shallow and rocky. Historic records show that

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 298 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

where there were larger interspaces between trees and less ground cover, prairie dog colonies were found across the piñon-juniper woodland on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

This PNVTs overstory is currently (2011) slightly departed from reference conditions. When compared to desired conditions, there are too many medium to very large trees with open and/or closed canopies. While there are too few seedlings, saplings, and small trees with open and/or closed canopies, understory vegetation is lacking in many areas. The majority (91 percent) of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the piñon-juniper woodland is highly to severely departed from desired conditions. The current fire regime is similar to reference conditions.

Many areas that appear to be piñon-juniper woodland are actually historic Great Basin grassland that has been encroached by woody species.

Grassland Vegetation Types Great Basin Grassland: This PNVT is limited to lower elevations due to rain, temperature, and soil constraints. The vegetation consists primarily of grasses and forbs with sparse cover of shrubs. The grasses include Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), threeawn species (Aristida spp.), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), New Mexico feathergrass (Hesperostipa neomexicana), green needlegrass (Nassella viridula), James’ galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). This PNVT is found on gentle to moderate slopes and covers approximately 177,681acres or roughly 8.6 percent of the Forests.

Semi-desert Grassland: This PNVT occurs below the Mogollon Rim at lower elevations (3,200 to 4,500 feet) covering 107,599 acres or 5.2 percent of the Forests. These Grasslands are located between the Chihuahuan Desert at the lowest elevations and either the Madrean Pine-Oak Woodlands or Interior Chaparral at the highest elevations. A variety of Grassland associations compose this PNVT and their location and dominance varies across a broad range of soil and topography. The Grassland associations include black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda) Grassland, blue grama/hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta) Grassland, tobosa (Hilaria mutica) Grassland, giant sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) Grassland, and mixed native perennial Grassland. Shrubs are found interspersed throughout these Grassland associations and include juniper and mesquite (Prosopis spp.).

Montane/Subalpine Grassland: This PNVT contains a mixture of dry and moister environments with the species composition changing accordingly. This PNVT is found on the Forests from 7,500 to 11,000 feet on gentle to steep slopes. Common species of the moister, higher elevation sites include tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), sheep fescue (Festuca ovina), various sedges, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and the non-native Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). The drier, upland sites are characterized by mutton bluegrass (Poa fendleriana), Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), pine dropseed (Blepharoneuron tricholepis), mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), and White Mountain sedge (Carex geophila). Tree stands may occur along the periphery of these Grasslands and include ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir depending on elevation and moisture regime. This PNVT is the smallest Grassland type on the Forests with 56,505 acres or roughly 2.7 percent of the Forests.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 299 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Chaparral Vegetation Type Interior Chaparral: The interior chaparral PNVT, at roughly 56,006 acres, is typically found on mountain foothills and lower slopes where desert landscapes transition into Madrean pine-oak woodlands. Typically, interior chaparral is structurally uniform and dominated by shrubs with thick, stiff, waxy evergreen leaves. Mixed shrub associations include manzanita, desert ceanothus, mountain mahogany, silktassel, Stansbury cliffrose, yerba de pasmo, evergreen oaks, Arizona cypress, sumacs, and various cacti. Grasses are a minor component in chaparral and may include bullgrass and longtongue muhly.

Current (2011) interior chaparral overstory composition and structure and fire regime are similar to reference conditions. However, approximately 40 percent of the herbaceous understory vegetation within this PNVT is highly departed from desired conditions. Nonnative invasive species, such as mullein, are infesting a portion of the interior chaparral PNVT.

Riparian Area/Riparian Forest Vegetation Types Wetland/Cienega: This PNVT is found adjacent to perennial springs or headwater streams, bogs, and fens. This PNVT occurs over the entire elevation range of the Forests (3,500 to 11,000 feet) often on alkaline soils. Vegetation composition varies based on moisture gradient and soil alkalinity. At lower elevations, more alkaline communities are characterized by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica), and bog alkali grass (Puccinellia parishii). At medium and higher elevations soil alkalinity or salinity are not an issue and communities are characterized by tufted hairgrass, manna grasses (Glyceria spp.), non-native Kentucky bluegrass, rushes, sedges, and spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.). Willows (Salix spp.) may also be present in this PNVT. This PNVT covers roughly 11,825 acres or less than 1 percent of the Forests.

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Forest: This PNVT is found along approximately 860 miles of rivers and streams from 3,200 to 7,000 feet. The vegetation is a mix of riparian woodlands and shrublands with a variety of vegetation associations that depend on elevation, soil type, and depth to groundwater. The following tree and shrub species are found in this PNVT: boxelder (Acer negundo), bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Arizona sycamore (Platanus wrightii), velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina), Arizona walnut (Juglans major), and willow spp. The understory is composed of a variety of grasses and forbs. This PNVT encompasses roughly 6,865 acres or less than 1 percent of the Forests.

Montane Willow Shrubland: This PNVT is also found along rivers and streams (approximately 1,130 miles) along the entire elevation range of the Forests (3,500 to 11,000 feet). At lower elevations, this PNVT is found along perennial streams and seasonal or intermittent drainages. The dominant woody species at the lower elevations include Fremont cottonwood, Arizona sycamore, Arizona walnut, velvet ash, and soapberry (Sapindus spp.). Shrubs include willows and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). At higher elevations, this PNVT is characterized by thinleaf alder (Alnus incana), redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and a variety of willows. This PNVT encompasses roughly 5,542 acres or less than 1 percent of the Forests’ total acreage.

Cottonwood/Willow Forest: This PNVT is found at lower elevations along approximately 800 miles of rivers and streams in wider valley bottoms. Dominant trees include narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), and a variety of willows including Bebb’s (Salix bebbiana), greenleaf (Salix lucida), and dewystem (Salix irrorata). A variety of grasses and forbs are present

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 300 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

in the understory. This PNVT encompasses roughly 5,198 acres or less than 1 percent of the Forests’ total acreage.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to all Alternatives

Indirect and Direct Effects Effects to the 21 sensitive (Forest Service agency designation) plant species for the Forests can be found in the following Specialist Report: Terrestrial and Semi-aquatic Wildlife and Rare Plants. Direct impacts such as crushing of foliage or root systems would result from motorized travel within the dispersed camping corridors, within designated Areas, and for MBGR. Impacts from the undercutting of root systems from soil erosion and the burial of vegetation from soil deposition would occur from the above activities and along the open road and trail system. Existing roads and motorized trails remove potential habitat for numerous plant species found adjacent to the route corridors within the Forests.

In terms of indirect TMR effects (at a later time or different place) to vegetation, this is a difficult subject to estimate. Effects expected from road-related impacts are usually immediate, unless species become extirpated or PNVTs convert to different composition. This rarely happens as a result of road-related impacts unless associated with take-over by noxious weeds or fracturing and isolation of habitats. In terms of affecting different locations, such as off-Forest lands, roads have very little impact. It may be conceivable that undesirable weedy species may spread to off- Forest lands as a result of infestations located on-Forest and adjacent to roads. This topic will be further explored under cumulative effects, which has a larger footprint of geographic area considered.

Open Roads and Motorized Trails: Acreage occupied by roads and motorized trails is virtually unvegetated. This lack of vegetation removes the beneficial effects of vegetation on soil stability, soil genesis, and morphology, as well as the provision of habitat and forage for wildlife and domestic animals. Compacted road and trail surfaces reduce or eliminate water infiltration and increase surface runoff. Surface runoff can accumulate and increase the potential for soil erosion and its destructiveness as well as increase sediment loading of the entire drainage network from ephemeral channels to perennial streams. Soil erosion has the potential to remove vegetation adjacent to the unstable soils and the undercutting of root systems results in pedestalled plants with exposed root systems. The accumulation of sediment from runoff has the potential to bury vegetation in areas of deposition (Wilshire et al. 1978).

To maintain this large amount of open roads and motorized trails would cost more to implement than the Forests are currently budgeted for under travel management. Without proper maintenance, these roads and motorized trails could deteriorate to a condition where road drainage systems no longer function properly, increasing the potential for surface runoff and damage to the surrounding vegetation.

Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping and in Designated Areas: Travel to dispersed camping spots within these corridors would directly remove vegetation along the motorized routes to the dispersed camping spots with repeated use. In addition, these motorized routes may receive periodic maintenance. Primitive motorized routes would increase erosion and runoff impacts to the surrounding vegetation. As these short access routes would be designated ML2, they would

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 301 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

receive sporadic maintenance. This motorized travel would be allowed in 17 PNVTs and impact vegetation across the Forests. These dispersed campsites often are near water features or within riparian corridors which are considered sensitive vegetation communities on the Forests. In riparian corridors and wetlands, any ground disturbance, such as roads and motorized trails, generally leaves long-lasting scars on the land and could alter the hydrology of that wetland complex.

Table 140 shows the potential impacts to specific PNVTs by the proposed dispersed camping corridors. Acreage disturbed in alternative 2 approximates 8,559 acres. Alternative 1 would retain the current policy of allowing motorized cross-country travel for dispersed camping throughout the Forests except for designated closure areas across the Forests.

All PNVTs would be impacted by the proposed motorized access for dispersed camping (table 140). Alternative 1 would retain the current policy of allowing motorized cross-country travel for dispersed camping throughout the Forests except for designated closure areas across the Forests. Alternative 2 would impact approximately 70,516 acres of vegetation. Alternative 3 would impact 5,636 acres.

Riparian and wetland vegetation communities would be impacted by some proposed camping corridors. Alternative 1 would impact riparian and wetland vegetation communities. Also, the other three PNVTs (Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland, Spruce-Fir with Wet Mixed Conifer Forest, and the Dry Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire Forests), identified as unique by the Forests, would be impacted by motorized access for dispersed camping. Alternative 3 would impact the least acreage of these three PNVTs.

Table 140. Acres of dispersed camping corridors by potential natural vegetation type Alternative 1 Potential natural vegetation type Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 11,568 466 94 Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 107,508 4,110 1 Great Basin Grassland 174,783 2,750 833 Interior Chaparral 36,117 97 N/A Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 264,037 3,368 916 Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 5,735 74 44 Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3,211 124 N/A Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 42,865 1,426 N/A Pinon-Juniper Woodland 205,866 3,125 80 Ponderosa Pine Forest 522,618 42,710 2,145 Quarry 24 N/A N/A Semi-desert Grassland 94,015 3,331 1,523 Spruce-Fir Forest 6,606 22 N/A Urban or Agriculture 320 N/A N/A Water 1,834 4 N/A Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 133,342 8,669 N/A Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 14,390 240 N/A

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 302 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 1 Potential natural vegetation type Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action TOTALS 1,624,839 70,516 5,636

Off-Road Motorized Travel: Table 141 shows the acres of Motorized Travel Allowed. Alternative 1 allows the most accessible acres since it represents the no-action alternative. These acres are the same acres allowed for Motorized Big Game Retrieval alternative 1 at 1,624,839 acres. Alternative 2 would restrict off-road motorized travel to 17 acres. There would be no off-road travel areas authorized for alternative 3.

No wetland or riparian vegetation communities would be impacted in alternatives 2 and 3. Alternatives 2 and 3 would limit the potential damage to all PNVTs from off-road activities and allow the ecosystems to recover from prior damages. Alternative 1 would continue to potentially degrade almost all PNVTs further without adequate controls.

Currently, cross-country motorized travel is allowed on approximately 1,624,839 acres that span 17 PNVTs found on the Forests, including all riparian and wetland vegetation communities and the three other PNVTs identified as unique. Restricting cross-country motorized travel into the designated Areas (alternatives 2 and 3) would have the beneficial effect of removing ecosystem degrading activities from the remainder of the Forests, allow adequate time for some ecosystem recoveries, reduce the probabilities of spreading invasive species of plants, and allow for more wildlife quiet areas, by way of examples.

Table 141. Acres of motorized travel off-road by potential natural vegetation type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Potential natural vegetation type Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 11,568 0 0 Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 107,508 0 0 Great Basin Grassland 174,783 17 0 Interior Chaparral 36,117 0 0 Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 264,037 0 0

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 5,735 0 0

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3,211 0 0

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 42,865 0 0 Pinon-Juniper Woodland 205,866 0 0 Ponderosa Pine Forest 522,618 0 0 Quarry 24 0 0 Semi-desert Grassland 94,015 0 0

Spruce-Fir Forest 6,606 0 0 Urban or Agricultural 320 0 0 Water 1,834 0 0

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 303 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Potential natural vegetation type Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 133,342 0 0 Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 14,390 0 0 Total 1,624,839 0 0

Motorized Big-Game Retrieval: Not all alternatives allow Motorized Big-Game Retrieval (MBGR) (table 142). Alternative 1 continues the existing access to over 1,624,839 acres. Alternative 2 would designate motorized access for big game retrieval one mile from any road or trail open to motorized use over 1,207,326 acres. Alternative 3 would not designate any motorized access for big game retrieval. Alternative 2 would only designate access for elk in order to remain consistent with Travel Management Rule implementation on other national forests in the Southwestern Region (Arizona and New Mexico). Where off-road motorized big game retrieval is proposed, it would be authorized for retrieving elk killed in accordance with the annual hunting regulations published by the Arizona Department of Game and Fish for elk. Motorized retrieval of other game animals would not be allowed. No motorized big game retrieval would be allowed in wilderness or primitive areas.

Table 142. Acres of motorized big-game retrieval by potential natural vegetation type Alternative 1 Alternative Potential natural vegetation type Alternative 2 No Action 3 Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 11,568 9,534 0 Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 107,508 96,463 0 Great Basin Grassland 174,783 172,077 0 Interior Chaparral 36,117 0 0 Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 264,037 47,305 0 Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 5,735 1,709 0 Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3,211 3,046 0 Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 42,865 42,033 0 Pinon-Juniper Woodland 205,866 187,219 0 Ponderosa Pine Forest 522,618 483,986 0 Quarry 24 24 0 Semi-desert Grassland 94,015 27,136 0 Spruce-Fir Forest 6,606 2,682 0 Urban or Agricultural 320 310 0 Water 1,834 1,804 0 Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 133,342 118,210 0 Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 14,390 13,787 0 Total 1,624,839 1,207,326 0

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 304 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary is the Forests boundary as this area is of sufficient size to encompass the impacts of the implementation TMR on vegetation, sensitive plant species, and the spread of noxious weeds.

Past activities since 1998 on the Forests that have resulted in impacts to vegetation, sensitive plant species, and the spread of noxious weeds include timber management, vegetation management, extensive wildfire, prescribed burns, and fuels management. Livestock grazing has occurred on the Forests for over 100 years and has impacted sensitive riparian areas, potentially increasing the impacts to riparian and wetland plant species and increasing the risk of noxious weeds. Other habitat management activities include the revegetation and effects mitigation of approximately 2,000 acres of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire. Future actions on state and private lands that are likely to occur are increased community development and energy development.

Chance Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives The following four elements could conceivably contribute to a cumulative effect if they happen at a large enough scale to have an impact. Currently, these elements do not contribute to measurable watershed effects at any scale.

• Impacts from erratic climatic events: torrential rainfalls, rain-on-snow events, higher than average flood flows, droughts. These are unpredictable events. Impacts can relate to plant growth conditions, soil erosion, and removal of vegetation. Ground conditions can either exacerbate or mitigate climatic events. Prolonged droughts can seriously reduce the vigor of trees and shrubs leading to early mortality or increased susceptibility to insect infestations and increased probabilities of uncharacteristic fire behavior.

• Effects of wildfires with resulting ash flows, erosion, establishment of early seral vegetation, PNVT site conversions, or complete vegetation removals. These are unpredictable events. Impacts can materialize in the form of total removal of vegetation, establishment of native and non-native weeds, and changes in overall vegetation composition, or site conversion to other vegetative PNVTs. Effects from fires normally peak immediately after the fire and taper off after establishment of vegetation and ground cover. Uncharacteristic wildfires with increasing high severity fire effects can change vegetation recovery and trajectories away from early seral series and establish areas of total type conversion that will either never return to the PNVTs or will recover slowly over many decades. Currently we see these types of high severity fire effects within the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire Complex on the Sitgreaves NF and the 2011 Wallow Fire on the Apache NF. Contrarily, most prescribed fires do not have lasting effects on vegetation and watershed resources and if there are areas of moderate to high fire severity, they occur on small areas that are resilient to change and recover relatively quickly back to their PNVTs.

• Insect infestations (e.g., bark beetles, green spruce aphid, and spruce bark beetle) will continue to have effects on spruce in the Mt. Baldy Wilderness. This area lies upstream of Big Lake and Burke Allotments (East and West Forks of the Little Colorado River), and can conceivably have an impact on water quality and quantity. Years where bark beetles and defoliators are active will have increased needle shed and mortality and pose serious fire hazards and personal injury risks from snag falls.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 305 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• Diseases are present in most vegetative PNVTs and may accelerate tree mortality and cause increased risks for fire or personal injury. Tree root and butt diseases can cause trees to fail without warnings. The impacts of dwarf mistletoes include disease transmission, shortened tree longevity, increased mortality, reduced tree vigor, and links to increase bark beetle susceptibility leading to tree death. Impacts of many diseases of trees, grasses, and shrubs during deep and/or extended droughts are severe and extensive mortality events.

Constant or Chronic Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives The following effects have occurred in the past, are occurring now, and are anticipated to occur well into the future. They may occur at the same time and place as this proposed TMR action adding to total effects. Depending on how one views individual effects, they can be analyzed as direct or cumulative effects.

• Wildlife impacts: Although wildlife impacts are beyond the Forests control, some types of wildlife affect some areas more than others. Wildlife impacts on meadows and riparian wetlands are significant (woody components are being affected by browsing and trampling, plant composition changes are occurring, soil loss and compaction is occurring); however, these impacts can be considered a constant rather than something that is under Forest Service control. Wildlife issues are considered outside of this analysis. • Natural erosion rates are continuous and cannot be reduced by management. This can also be termed the geologic erosion rate, rather than caused or affected by anthropogenic influence. It is a constant varied by specific local conditions: geology, soil types, topography, and climatic influence. Natural erosion rates can also be viewed as a cumulative effect in that natural erosion adds to anthropogenic erosion rates to produce totals which affect downstream sediment loads. • Domestic Grazing Use: The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests have a long history of permitted domestic grazing use. Domestic livestock grazing is an important and valued use of National Forest System lands. Domestic livestock grazing activities are an integral part of the tradition, culture, and social fabric of communities within or surrounding the Forests. Cross-country motorized travel off the designated road system by permitted domestic livestock holders provides for periodic actions needed to implement management direction set forth in the Term Grazing Permit and the Allotment Management Plan. An example of the periodic actions that may be needed include maintenance or reconstruction for range improvements (fences, corrals, pipelines or other water delivery systems, earthen stock tanks) which must be checked, maintained, and repaired on a regular basis; placement of supplements in strategic locations for livestock and grazing management purposes; checking gates potentially left open by other national forest users, and the need to attend to sick or injured livestock. While the level of cross-country travel needed to implement the management direction set forth in term grazing permits is currently not well known it is anticipated that cross-country travel will be minor and would not have a significant impact at the Forests’ scale. • Vegetation Management: Timber sales, pre-commercial thinning, fuels treatments, insect and disease management, forest regeneration and site preparations, riparian plantings all are intended to modify the existing vegetation conditions to either move away from the historically dense forested conditions toward a more sustainable fire adapted ecosystem, or to

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 306 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

modify ecosystems to move them toward a more historical species composition; such as in some riparian habitats. These management activities use existing access or create temporary access that are subsequently closed and returned to native vegetation. The current extent of unauthorized roads connecting to or emanating from vegetation management access roads is accelerating the degradation of many forested habitats and closing or conducting rehabilitation work on these unauthorized roads now exceeds our budget and workforce capacity to execute. • Fuels Management: Returning frequent low-severity fire to many of the Forests’ ecosystems is a high priority activity whether thru prescribed fire (intended ignitions) or wildfire (unintended ignitions) that have resource benefits. Access to all of the forest through National Forest System roads and vegetation management access roads is primary to conduct these vegetation modifying activities. The current extent of unauthorized roads is not necessarily hindering these activities, but does make communication during high risk operations difficult when trying to locate a position that is not currently on the forest systems roads maps. Introduction of invasive species may modify fire behavior in unexpected ways thereby complicating suppression and prescribed fire efforts. Unauthorized roads are one way to introduce and accelerate the spread of undesirable plant species across the Forests.

Summary of Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives Cumulative effects of the implementation of the Forests TMR in conjunction with all other effects going on in the Forests may have a tendency to impact vegetation on a local scale. The actual amount of this increase or decrease in impacts to vegetation may be indistinguishable from natural background levels of disturbance. However, as the designation of open roads and motorized trails and the closure of acreage to cross-country travel that is common to all the action alternatives has the potential to impact vegetation composition, sensitive plant populations, and the spread of noxious weeds, it stands to reason that these actions have the potential to become noticeable as a cumulative effects.

Outside of roads, motorized trails, and cross-country travel, other potential cumulative impacts to vegetation, sensitive plants, and noxious weeds include livestock grazing, vegetation management, fuels management, and fires (both intended and unintended ignitions). Fires are known to significantly alter vegetation on a landscape level.

Table 139 shows the breakdown of the Forests into 14 vegetative PNVTs. None of the alternatives propose the construction of extensive new roads or motorized trails within these PNVTs.

The closure of cross-country travel proposed by alternatives 2 and 3 could potentially reduce the damage to vegetation and vulnerable plant species and reduce the potential for the spread of noxious weeds. All action alternatives would close most of the area currently open to cross- country travel. Within watersheds this would reduce the long-term potential for impacts to vegetation and plants, thereby reducing potential cumulative impacts.

The following list (bulleted, below) summarizes the past, present, and future activities that can potentially add to the total cumulative effects. The current extent of these activities on the Forests was determined from the most up-to-date schedule of proposed projects for the Forests for the period of April 2016 through June 2018 (available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/asnf/landmanagement/projects .

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 307 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

This list of proposed NEPA analyses can be found as Appendix C of this report, along with a list of on-going activities.

As exact impacts of the various project effects are unknown, a description of the anticipated effects is given (below) to the reader as an idea of the significance of the activity type. Since the implementation of the TMR is on a Forests-wide basis, the activities will be discussed in a general sense.

• Rim Country EIS: Landscape-scale restoration on the Coconino, Apache-Sitgreaves, Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests in ponderosa pine ecosystems. These project are designed to maintain, improve, and restore ecosystem structure, pattern, function, and resiliency. This project analyzes mechanical treatments and prescribed fire on up to 540,020 acres on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts. No new roads are planned. No road closures are planned. Temporary roads for mechanical harvesting would be created for operations and closed. Native seed would be used where seeding is needed to rehabilitate temporary roads. Effects to this Motorized Travel Management Plan would be negligible except for operational short term small and occasional road and trail closures or detours for public safety. • Black River Restoration Project EA: The Black River Landscape Restoration Project is a planning effort designed to restore forest resiliency and ecosystem function in the 92,434 acres project planning area on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts of the Apache NF. The Black River Restoration Project includes potential prescribed fire and approximately 44,000 acres of mechanical treatments. No new roads are planned. No road closures are planned. Temporary roads for mechanical harvesting would be created for operations and closed. Native seed would be used where seeding is needed to rehabilitate temporary roads. Effects to this Motorized Travel Management Plan would be negligible except for operational short-term small and occasional road and trail closures or detours for public safety. • Hannagan Farm Bill CE: The Hannagan Farm Bill CE project would mitigate the effects of the introduce Green Spruce Aphid, thin overstocked wet/dry mixed conifer stands, and reduce surface and ladder fuels. In dense stands and in the WUI, slash would be removed, piled and burned, or masticated/chipped. Within the WUI, stands would be more open and dominated by early-seral, fire-resistant species to provide for firefighter safety and encourage fire to burn mostly on the surface. No new roads are planned. No road closures are planned. Temporary roads for mechanical harvesting would be created for operations and closed. Native seed would be used where seeding is needed to rehabilitate temporary roads. Effects to this Motorized Travel Management Plan would be negligible except for operational short- term small and occasional road and trail closures or detours for public safety. • Fuels Management: The current Projects lists fuels reduction projects that span all of the Ranger Districts within the Forests. These projects have the potential to restore the health of forest and woodland communities by reducing the understory tree and fuels density, reducing competition among grass, shrubs, and trees, protect watersheds, reduce hazards of uncharacteristic fire behavior, and reintroduce fire back in the frequent low severity fire ecosystems and return their fire return intervals to within their Natural Range of Variability. These projects are landscape scale and would have direct and cumulative impacts at a Forest- wide scale but with little impacts to the Motorized Travel Management Plan except during periods of operational fire suppression and prescribed burning for public safety. • Livestock Grazing: Grazing livestock have the potential to severely impact riparian areas if not managed properly. The Forests permit livestock grazing in all Ranger Districts. The

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 308 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

current SOPA has 4 Allotment Management Plans listed for re- analysis. These revisions to the grazing allotments have the potential to better manage livestock grazing and potentially reduce the impacts to riparian areas. Grazing occurs all across the Forests and is one of the most influential activities in terms of affecting vegetation, vegetation types, plant succession, and soil and watershed resources on par with prescribed fire and mechanical forest treatments.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk to delicate plant species because it maintains cross- country travel over 1,624,839 acres of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests that include all 17 PNVTs mentioned including the three unique vegetation types. Cross-country travel is allowed anywhere within these acres and directly impacts vegetation and increases soil erosion and sedimentation adjacent to the vehicle tracks. The 21 listed plant species (these plants species are sensitive to impacts and/or vulnerable to vehicular impacts) and their habitats are located in areas open to motorized cross-country travel and are at risk of habitat degradation and destruction of plants from vehicles crushing the plants, disturbing the habitat, and by potentially introducing invasive species to the area. All other alternatives would restrict motorized cross-country travel on large portions of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and reduce the impact that cross-country travel can have on sensitive plant populations and their habitat.

Alternative 1 would maintain all currently open roads and motorized trails on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. These roads and motorized trails are already established; however the open roads and motorized trails remove potential habitat for sensitive plant species. There have been impacts to vegetation adjacent to the open roads and motorized trails from soil erosion and sedimentation and the removal of potential habitat for sensitive plant species adjacent to roadways and motorized trails. This alternative over time would not allow those areas impacted and modified by unauthorized roads/trails to recover or move through time toward their desired conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan (2015). The indirect effects would not improve connectivity of vegetation habitats over larger landscapes, reduce spread of invasive species from point sources around the current high concentration of roads, and not allow unintended ignitions (wildfire) to re-establish a more natural role in most ecosystems or to return closer to its Natural Range of Variability (NRV) as seen in pre-European conditions. Going forward through time would continue to exacerbate conditions and degrade ecosystems.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects The acres of motorized dispersed camping corridors (table 140) is reduced to 70,516 acres in alternative 2, which represents the 300 foot corridors allowed under this alternative. Not having the entire Forests open for dispersed camping and the associated motorized access would reduce the impacts to vegetation, potential invasive plant transport, destructive vegetation/soils disturbances, and eliminate uses on unauthorized roads and trails. The reductions to 17 acres for motorized travel off-road acres would reduce the adverse impacts of these activities to nearly negligible since they would be confined to areas where impacts are mitigated. These reductions in direct effects would, over time, allow those areas impacted and modified by unauthorized roads/trails to recover or move through time toward their desired conditions as outlined in the

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 309 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Forest Plan (2015) significantly faster that in alternative 1 excluding the 70,516 acres still allowing access. The indirect effects would be in improved connectivity of vegetation habitats over larger landscapes, reductions in the spread of invasive species from point sources around the current high concentration of roads, and allowing unintended ignitions (wildfire) to re-establish a more natural role in most ecosystems and to return closer to its NRV as seen in pre-European conditions.

The acres of Motorized Big Game Retrieval in alternative 2 is still comparable to alternative 1 at 1,207,329 acres. The adverse effects of MBGR at this level is slightly reduced when compared to alternative 1, but still substantial. Effects would be of the same manner as seen in alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2 would allow off-road travel on a fraction of the area currently open to off-road travel (95-percent reduction compared to alternative 1) for motorized access for dispersed camping and designated Areas. This would have a beneficial cumulative and long-term effect on vegetation communities within the Forests, including the riparian and wetland and unique upland PNVTs.

The closure of motorized off-road travel proposed by alternatives 2 could substantially reduce the potential for damage to vegetation and potentially vulnerable plant species and reduce the potential for the spread of noxious weeds. This alternative would close most of the area currently open to cross-country travel except 17 acres. Within watersheds this would reduce the long-term potential for impacts to vegetation and plants, thereby reducing potential cumulative impacts and substantially reducing the time for most of these areas to move toward their desired conditions as directed in the Forest Plan (2015).

Allowing MBGR on the Forests would not have a measurable effect on vegetation due to the dispersed and random nature, and the number of annual trips for this activity across 1,207,326 acres (a reduction of 417,513 acres). No other reasonably foreseeable projects within the Forests would be at a large enough scale to change the beneficial effects of the closure of cross-country travel. Access to motorized dispersed camping would be reduced under alternative 2 to the buffers established in the analysis. These action would allow vegetation to recover from excessive motorized travel allowed in alternative 1. Benefits would be derived from recovery of soil compaction, rutting, damage or loss of vegetative cover, reduced campfire hazards, potential riparian damages at illegal watercourse crossing, and overall potential damages to watershed functions.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 reduces the acres available to dispersed camping to the corridors resulting in 5,636 acres of access. The elimination of motorized off-road travel and MBGR across the Forests would maximize the potential for degraded vegetation to fully recover in the shortest period of time. Alternative 3 would prohibit all cross-country motorized travel, except by written authorization. This greatly reduces the direct and indirect impacts to plant species because it would eliminate cross-country travel and the corresponding impacts on sensitive vegetation. Alternative 3 would designate 5,636 acres of motorized routes to access identified dispersed camping sites (table 140) and 79 miles of Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping Corridors. The addition of 79 miles of motorized routes would be dispersed across the entire Forests and

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 310 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

would not have a measurable impact on plants and vegetation types. Since cross-country travel would be prohibited on across the Forests, there would be an overall beneficial impact to vegetation by reducing the direct and indirect effects of cross-country travel. Alternative 3 would also prohibit the retrieval through MBGR across the Forests, and the impacts to vegetation would be negligible.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects would include the cumulative effects common to all alternatives. The cessation of cross-country travel on 1,624,839 acres of the Forests would have an overall beneficial impact on the sensitive plant species of the Forests. The addition of motorized routes greater than 50 inches would not have a measurable cumulative impact when combined with other projects. No other reasonably foreseeable projects within the Forests would offset the beneficial effects of the closure of cross-country travel.

The reductions to motorized travel off-road and MBGR would reduce the adverse impacts of these activities to nearly negligible. These reductions in direct effects would, over time, allow those areas impacted and modified by unauthorized roads/trails to recover or move through time toward their desired conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan (2015) substantially faster that in alternative 1. The indirect effects would be in improved connectivity of vegetation habitats over larger landscapes, reductions in the spread of invasive species from point sources around the current high concentration of roads, and allowing unintended ignitions (wildfire) to re-establish a more natural role in most ecosystems and to return closer to its NRV as seen in pre-European conditions of frequent low-severity fires. Alternative 3 brings more acres closer to the NRV for most ecosystems when compared to alternative 1 or 2. Effects to Noxious Weeds This section examines the potential impacts of the implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR) for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests on noxious weeds. More information is available in the project record including the full noxious weed analysis file, as part of the Vegetation Report.

Summary of Environmental Effects Alternatives 1 and 2 would pose the greatest risk for spreading noxious weeds across the Forests albeit alternative 2 would be slightly lower risk. Alternative 3 would pose the least risk to spreading noxious weeds. Alternative 3 would have the least number of miles designated as dispersed camping corridors and the lowest amount of roads and motorized trails. This alternative also has the least amount of cross-country travel in comparison to the other alternatives.

Affected Environment The terms “noxious weed” or “invasive plant” are often used interchangeably. Generally, a weed is an unwanted plant that grows or spreads aggressively. An invasive noxious weed is one that grows and spreads rapidly, replacing desired plants. These plants are normally introduced from other areas of the world and arrive without their natural enemies (insects and disease) to keep them in check. One of the most serious and fastest growing problems in the West today is the spread and establishment of noxious weeds. Noxious weed infestations have contributed to the loss of agricultural productivity and ecological functions on both public and private lands in the

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 311 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

West (Colorado Department of Agriculture 2000). Noxious weeds can also affect property value as well as tax revenue as Montana and Idaho have experienced.

Since the early 1900s, it is estimated that noxious weeds have invaded 17 million acres of Federal lands in the Western United States. On National Forest System lands, in 2008 there were an estimated 6 to 7 million infested acres with a projected potential for increasing at a rate of 8 to 12 percent per year. Noxious weeds have been increasing at an alarming rate in the Southwestern Region (Region 3) of the Forest Service and they are beginning to appear on the Forests in greater numbers every passing year. On the Forests as shown in table 143, 53 noxious and invasive weeds have been identified as a management concern (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Limited surveys for noxious weeds have been conducted in the Forests, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 26,350 acres have been infested (USDA Forest Service 2008b).

There are no recent surveys but we assume the infestations have increased since 2008. Recent observations indicate an increase in musk thistle following the 2011 Wallow wildfire. There are numerous areas within the footprint of the fire area not associated with roads that have noxious weed infestations. It is not known whether the populations were there prior to the fire and the opening of the forest canopy led to an increase in population size and density or whether the suppression and rehabilitation efforts contributed to the noted increase in this species distribution and density.

Table 144 breaks down the infested areas by potential natural vegetation type. The riparian areas have the greatest percent of acreage affected, with the Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Vegetation Type having the greatest infestation.

Table 143. Noxious and invasive weeds species that are currently of management concern on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, including their approximate infestation size, and management goals (USDA Forest Service 2008b)

Common Name Scientific Name Forests occurrence / Approximate Infestation Size (Acres)

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Known / <20 acres

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica Suspect / < 20 acres

Camelthorn Alhagi pseudoalhagi known / < 20 acres

Red brome Bromus rubens Known / > 1,000 acres

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Known / > 3,000 acres

Whitetop Cardaria draba Known / < 30 acres

Hairy whitetop Cardaria pubescens Suspect / Unknown

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides Suspect / Unknown

Musk thistle Carduus nutans Known / > 1,000 acres

Southern sandbur Cenchrus echinatus Suspect / < 20 acres

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 312 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Common Name Scientific Name Forests occurrence / Approximate Infestation Size (Acres)

Field sandbur Cenchrus incertus Suspect / < 20 acres

Purple starthistle Centaurea calcitrapa Potential / Unknown

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Suspect / < 20 acres

Iberian starthistle Centaurea iberica Potential / Unknown

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Suspect / < 20 acres

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis Known / < 100 acres

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea squarrosa Potential / Unknown

Sicilian starthistle Centaurea suphurea Potential / Unknown

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Suspect / < 10 acres

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Known / < 100 acres

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Known / > 500 acres

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Known / > 1,000 acres

Hounds-tongue Cynoglossum officinale Potential / Unknown

Teasel Dipsacus fullonum Suspect / Unknown

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Known / < 100 acres

Weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula Known / > 3,000 acres

Lehmann lovegrass Eragrostis lehmanniana Known / > 3,000 acres

Redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium Known / > 3,000 acres

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Reported / < 25 acres

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus Suspect / < 100 acres

Texas blueweed Helianthus ciliaris Suspect / < 25 acres

Black henbane Hysocyamus niger Potential / Unknown

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria Potential / Unknown

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Known / < 25 acres

Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Known / < 100 acres

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica Known / < 50 acres

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 313 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Common Name Scientific Name Forests occurrence / Approximate Infestation Size (Acres)

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Known / < 50 acres

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Potential / Unknown

Burclover Medicago polymorpha Known / < 500 acres

White sweetclover Melilotus alba Known / > 2,000 acres

Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis Known / > 2,000 acres

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Suspect / < 25 acres

African rue Peganum harmala Potential / Unknown

Purslane Portulaca oleracea Known / > 2,000 acres

Russian thistle Salsola spp. Known / > 2,000 acres

Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea Suspect / < 25 acres

Carolina horsenettle Solanum carolinense Potential / Unknown

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis Known / < 25 acres

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Known / < 1,000 acres

Salt cedar Tamarix spp. Known / > 500 acres

Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Known / > 100 acres

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila Known / > 100 acres

Mullein Verbascum thapsus Known / > 10,000 acres

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium Known / < 25 acres

Note: Region 3 Noxious Weed Classification System — Plant Status Codes — Treatment Priority 1, Class A noxious weeds are non-native (exotic) to the state and are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in the state and pose a serious threat to agricultural crops, rangelands, plants listed as endangered, threatened or sensitive, and other natural resources in the state. Class A noxious weeds receive the highest priority (1). Management emphasis is complete eradication. Treatment Priority 2, Class B noxious weeds are non-native species that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in a region of the state but are common in other regions of the state. Class B noxious weeds receive second highest priority (2). Management emphasis is to contain the spread, decrease population size, and eventually eliminate the infestation when cost-effective technology is available. Treatment Priority 3, Class C consists of any other noxious weeds. Class C noxious weeds receive the lowest priority (3). Management emphasis is to contain spread to present population size or decrease population (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Table 144. Estimation of infested acres and number of non-native invasive species broken down by potential natural vegetation type (USDA Forest Service 2015) Potential natural vegetation type Number of non-native Number of infested acres by species non-native species Ponderosa Pine Forest 38 8,950-13,450 Dry Mixed Conifer 15 2,650-4,000

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 314 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Potential natural vegetation type Number of non-native Number of infested acres by species non-native species Spruce-Fir with Wet Mixed Conifer 11 500-750 Madrean Pine-Oak 28 850-1,300 Piñon-Juniper 38 2,450-3,700 Great Basin 34 2,050-3,050 Semi-desert 29 350-500 Montane/Subalpine 29 1,100-1,650 Chaparral Interior 22 100-150 Wetland/Cienega 49 250-350 Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 52 500-750 Montane Willow 49 150-250 Cottonwood-willow 52 100-150

Humans, motorized vehicles, heavy equipment, horses, livestock, wildlife, wind, and water can spread noxious weed seed. Seeds can become attached to clothing, hair, or vehicles traveling during wet conditions and be transported to new locations creating new infestations. Once established the weeds can then spread to adjacent undisturbed habitat types. Roads and motorized trails provide corridors for the spread of noxious weeds from adjacent areas. Soil disturbance associated with motorized use and the maintenance and decommissioning of roads and motorized trails create potential habitat for their invasions.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives The categories listed in the following table are analyzed in this section.

Table 145. Categories analyzed for direct and indirect effects

Category Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use 3,484 3,092 2,328 (miles)

Cross-Country Motorized Travel (acres) ~ 1.6 Million 17 0

Dispersed Camping Corridors (miles) 3,484 1,027 79

Motorized Big Game Retrieval (miles) 3,484 2,693 0

Approximately 1.6 million acres of NFS lands are currently open to cross-country motorized travel. While roads and motorized trails serve as conduits for spreading non-native plant species, the motorized vehicle is the primary carrier or transport mechanism. This analysis is relative and based on the level of risk that is related to the extent of road and motorized trail use; the more

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 315 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

roads and motorized trails that are open for use, the greater the potential for noxious weed introduction and spread.

Dispersed camping corridors may increase the potential for spreading noxious weeds through concentrated use and soil disturbance. In addition, any routes developed over time would be primitive and unmaintained, increasing the likelihood for soil erosion and deposition increasing their susceptibility to invasion from noxious weeds. However, designated dispersed camping corridors would concentrate cross-country motorized travel in specific areas and may reduce the potential for spreading noxious weed seed on the remainder of the Forests. Motorized big-game retrieval has the potential to spread noxious weeds to areas that would be difficult to monitor and treat. This would allow noxious weeds to further spread without monitoring or the potential for treatment. However, designation of motorized big-game retrieval corridors may reduce the potential of spreading seed across the remainder of the Forests.

Effects from Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects Currently, approximately 3,484 miles of open roads and motorized trails occur on the Forests (table 145). These roads and motorized trails can serve as conduits for the introduction of nonnative plant species. Also, the effects on vegetation along these road corridors from soil erosion and sedimentation may disturb vegetation and allow noxious weeds to establish. This alternative also allows cross-country motorized travel on approximately 1.6 million acres of the Forests.

Alternative 1 has the greatest amount of roads, motorized trails, and acreage open to motorized travel. This alternative has the highest potential to infest the Forests with weeds. An indirect effect is that this alternative also provides the highest level of efficiency in regard to the use of OHVs to access and treat known weed infestations that are not located along forest system roads or trails.

Effects from Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 is similar to alternative 1 in the miles of roads and trails open to motorized travel however it would prohibit cross-country motorized travel on all but 17 acres in the motorized area located on the Black Mesa Ranger District. This alternative would provide for approximately 1,000 miles of dispersed camping corridors and approximately 2,700 miles of roads open to motorized big game retrieval.

This alternative has a slightly lower potential to spread noxious weeds when compared to alternative 1. If approved, this alternative would authorize motorized big game retrieval out to a mile along 1,027 miles of roads and trails open to motorized travel and would provide for approximately 1.2 million acres of cross country travel within the 1 mile corridor annually from September through December. Many if not all of the noxious weed species would have completed their growth and gone to seed by September and motorized cross-country travel would have the similar potential to spread noxious weeds as alternative 1. It is similar to but slightly lower due to the restricted use only applying to retrieving downed elk, otherwise there is no authorized cross- country travel other than the 17 acre motorized area on the Black Mesa Ranger District.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 316 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

An indirect effect of this alternative is it would reduce OHV use for accessibility to treat known noxious weed infestations that occur away from the roads and trails open to motorized travel. This would reduce the efficiency of personnel treating the infestations and reduce the acreage of annual treatments which may lead to increased distribution and density of those infestations. It would also reduce Forest Service personnel’s ability to conduct surveys away from the authorized roads and trails using motorized vehicles.

Cumulative Effects Past, present, and foreseeable activities that may contribute to cumulative effects common to all alternatives are listed in the Vegetation Specialist Report.

Alternative 2 would allow cross-country travel on less area than currently open to cross-country travel for dispersed camping corridors and motorized big game retrieval. This would have a beneficial cumulative and long-term impact by limiting the spread of noxious weeds within the Forests. Allowing MBGR in the Forests would not have a measurable effect on the dispersal of noxious weeds due to the random nature of this cross-country travel. Alternative 2 would maintain a lower amount (approximately 400 miles less) of open roads and motorized trails than alternative 1, so there would be no additional cumulative impacts. No other reasonably foreseeable activities within the Forests would be at a large enough scale to change the beneficial effects associated with this alternative.

Effects from Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would maintain 2,328 miles of open roads and motorized trails, 79 miles of dispersed camping corridors, no cross-country travel and no motorized big game retrieval. This alternative would have the least potential for spreading noxious weeds on the Forests along the limited open roads and motorized trails and dispersed camping corridors.

Overall, this alternative would authorize the least amount roads and trails and dispersed camping corridors compared to the other alternatives and would have the lowest potential to spread noxious weeds to undisturbed areas of the Forests of any of the alternatives. However this alternative would be the most restrictive for being able to conduct surveys and treat infestations using OHVs and could lead to a much larger noxious weed problem across the Forests.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects would include the cumulative effects of activities listed on page 317 that are common to all alternatives. Alternative 3 would allow cross-country travel on a fraction of the area currently open to cross-country travel for dispersed camping corridors. This would have an overall beneficial impact of limiting the spread of noxious weeds to areas of the Forests outside of the current open road and motorized route network. Alternative 3 would maintain fewer miles of open roads and motorized trails that the other alternatives so there would be a slight decrease in soil erosion and sedimentation along open roads and motorized trails, which would decrease the disturbance and potential for an increase in noxious weed infestation. Motorized big-game retrieval would not be permitted, which would be an additional beneficial impact from the closure of acres to cross-country travel preventing the spread of noxious weeds to previously undisturbed areas. No other reasonably foreseeable activities within the Forests would be at a large enough scale to change the beneficial effects associated with this alternative.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 317 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Law Enforcement Currently, there is access to law enforcement officers and special agents from local cities and counties, the State of Arizona, Forest Service, and forest protection officers. These individuals all have the ability to enforce regulations related to use of motor vehicles on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Under alternative 1, the current access to law enforcement would continue or be increased when possible. With the “open unless posted closed” policy, it is difficult to know if a road is an open system route or an unauthorized route. It has become difficult to keep up with posting closed road signs or constructing closure devices, as they are removed almost as quickly as they are installed.

By implementing the TMR, it would be illegal for motor vehicle drivers to leave the designated system of roads, trails, and corridors or areas per 36 CFR 261.13. The MVUM would be the primary tool for determining whether a person is operating a motor vehicle in an authorized location. It would be essential for the MVUM to be as accurate, detailed, and easy to read as possible to increase the likelihood that people will comply with it. There would be a period of time of educating forest visitors on the new rule. Under the action alternatives, there would be no change in access to law enforcement, so no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. Having the MVUM as a single source to identify where people are allowed to drive would ease enforcement and improve compliance. Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity The NEPA requires considering “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). Short-term uses are those that generally occur for a finite time period. Long- term productivity refers to the ability of the land to produce a continuous supply of a resource.

The change in the designated road system under both action alternatives does not jeopardize the long-term productivity of the lands and resources on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. There would be beneficial impacts to some biological, physical, and cultural resources by prohibiting motorized cross-country travel off the designated system of roads and motorized trails.

The prohibition of cross-country motorized travel would not be noticeable immediately because natural rehabilitation of trampled vegetation and most unauthorized routes would take between one and three years in forested sites and longer in less productive vegetation types (Cole and Monz 2004). The scenic impact from unauthorized routes may be noticeable until these areas naturally rehabilitate within one to five years, although some routes may not return to a ‘natural’ appearance for over a decade. If unauthorized motorized routes intersect the road or highway, a short duration view of a low impact, unauthorized route may be noticeable until the route naturally rehabilitates. In the long term, unauthorized motorized vehicle routes and impact areas would naturally rehabilitate.

More detailed descriptions of impacts by resource is summarized in the Comparison of Alternatives section of chapter 2, and detailed throughout this chapter.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 318 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Unavoidable Adverse Effects Regardless of the alternative, there would be unavoidable adverse effects from the use of motor vehicles on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The severity of the effects would be minimized by adhering to forest plan standards and guidelines as well as the alternative design and mitigation measures built into the alternatives. When management activities occur, some effects cannot be avoided. Some unavoidable impacts include those to soil, vegetation, water, fish and wildlife, among others. Table 146 briefly summarizes these effects, and they are discussed in more detail in each resource area in this chapter.

Table 146. Adverse effects that cannot be avoided for alternatives 2 and 3 Unavoidable Reference Description of Effects Adverse Effect Sedimentation Effects to Soils, Both action alternatives may result in more bare Riparian, and Water ground and thus loss of soil productivity in some Resources portion of the designated dispersed camping corridors and off- road motorized big game retrieval areas. Loss Effects to Watershed of soil productivity is expected to be lower in Alternative 3, because of the exclusion of off- road motorized big game retrieval. Fisheries Effects to Fisheries Adverse effects would occur from both direct and indirect impacts as a result of opening roads and the associated road-stream crossings, MBGR, and camping corridors for alternative 2; and indirect impacts as a result of opening roads and the associated road-stream crossings and camping corridors for alternative 3. Additionally, opening routes, MBGR, and camping corridors increase the risk and potential for the introduction and spread of invasive plant species, nonnative and invasive aquatic species, and native and nonnative diseases and pathogens. Vegetation Effects to Vegetation There may be some short-term unavoidable and unquantifiable environmental consequences with yet Effects to Noxious unspecified site disturbing activities to closing certain Weeds roads and revegetation efforts such as, but not limited to, soil ripping and seeding and invasive plants. Cultural Resources Effects to Cultural Adverse effects would occur from both direct and Resources indirect impacts as a result of designating roads, motorized trails and dispersed camping corridors in areas of high site density for alternative 2. These effects would be less with mitigation measures to avoid sites, protect sites through installing barriers or plating; removing dispersed camping corridors or portions of dispersed camping corridors in areas of high density. Unavoidable adverse effects will occur to any site where data recovery is required to mitigate the effects of existing site impacts or if mitigation of cultural resources is required to designate a road, motorized trail, or dispersed camping corridor (or portion thereof). Indirect adverse effects such as looting may be result of opening roads and designating dispersed camping corridors under both alternatives, but to a much lesser extent under alternative 3.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 319 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources An irreversible effect is a change in a natural resource that cannot be reversed. An irreversible commitment of resources refers primarily to the use of non-renewable resources, such as minerals or the loss of cultural resources, or to the extinction of a wildlife species. An irretrievable effect is a loss of production or use of a renewable natural resource for a period of time, but is reversible, such as the loss of soil productivity or wildlife habitat from the presence of a road.

By definition, cultural resource sites and traditional cultural properties are not renewable, and damage to them cannot be reversed. No action could result in the irreversible loss of cultural resource sites from continued motorized cross-country travel across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The continued use of unauthorized routes would increase the potential of impacting sites. Under the action alternatives, sites would continue to be impacted by motorized vehicle disturbance, but on a much smaller scale than the existing condition, because many areas would be closed to motorized off-road travel. Under all alternatives, the programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office, which is designed to mitigate effects, would be adhered to, resulting in no adverse effects to these resources.

All alternatives would result in the irretrievable commitment of some soil productivity. This effect, however, would be negligible when considered at the forestwide scale, and forest plan standards and guidelines would be met for soil disturbance. Both action alternatives add new and unauthorized roads and trails to the system and designate them for motor vehicle use. These roads and trails inherently remove the soil productivity from the route surface. The action alternatives designate motorized access to dispersed camping corridors, which are expected to result in bare ground in some places. This effect would be negligible at the forestwide scale. See the Effects to Soils, Riparian, and Water Resources section for more details.

The loss or modification of habitat for fish and wildlife species could constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources because it could take decades for the habitat to recover. Under any alternative, there are no anticipated losses of fish or wildlife species populations or an impact to habitats that would lead toward Federal listing for any species not currently listed. See the discussion in the Effects to Fisheries and Effects to Wildlife and Rare Plants sections. Required Disclosures The NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with…other environmental review laws and executive orders.” As a proposed Federal project, the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests’ travel management project is subject to compliance with other Federal and State laws. Chapter 3 addresses compliance with the following laws. This list is not intended to be exhaustive; all the law, regulations and policies guiding this analysis are outlined in individual specialist reports, available in the project record.

• Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice (see Socioeconomics Specialist Report for more information)

• Endangered Species Act (see Wildlife and Fisheries Specialists Reports Effects to Wildlife and Rare Plants and Effects to Fisheries sections for more information)

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 320 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 on migratory birds (see Effects to Wildlife and Rare Plants for more information)

• Clean Water Act (see Effects to Soils, Riparian, and Water Resources and Effects to Watershed sections for more information)

• Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management (see Effects to Soils, Riparian, and Water Resources and Effects to Watershed sections for more information)

• Executive Order 11990 on Protection of Wetlands (see Effects to Soils, Riparian, and Water Resources and Effects to Watershed sections for more information)

• Clean Air Act (see Effects to Air Quality section for more information)

• National Historic Preservation Act (see Effects to Cultural Resources

• section for more information)

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act (see Effects to Cultural Resources

• section for more information)

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (see Effects to Cultural Resources section for more information)

• Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Title VIII: Forestry, Subtitle B - Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority) see Effects to Cultural Resources section for more information)

• Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species (see Effects to Noxious Weeds for more information)

The following actions have been taken to document and ensure compliance with other laws not addressed by the analysis throughout chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The bald eagle was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a federally endangered species in 1978. On July 12, 1995, this species was reclassified to threatened in the lower 48 states. On August 9, 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species. Bald and golden eagles are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c). These Acts require measures to prevent adverse effects resulting from human activities. Following de-listing, the species was put on the Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List.

Direction for management of the bald and golden eagles is found in the Bald and Golden Eagle Act with its most recent amendment (2009) and the 2008 memorandum of understanding between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which provides direction to conserve migratory birds, restore or enhance habitat, and consider them in the planning process. Additionally, management of these species follows the Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive Species

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 321 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

policy as identified in Section 2670 of the Forest Service Manual, therefore, these species will not be analyzed further and this project is fully consistent with this act.

Conflicts with Plans or Policies of Other Jurisdictions The NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with…other environmental review lands and executive orders.”

Based on information received, consultation meetings, and analysis in the EIS, none of the alternatives under consideration would conflict with the plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including the federally recognized tribes. Arizona Game and Fish Department requested that the interdisciplinary team review specific State policies to ensure the EIS was consistent. Specifically, they requested that the team evaluate potential impacts to State policies: A2.10- Recreational Shooting Upon Arizona’s Public Lands, A2.18-Multiple Use Management Of Public Lands, A2.20-Access to and Upon Public and State Trust Land, A2.22-Consideration of Economic Impact, and A2.38-Travel Management and Access Upon Arizona's Public Lands for the Enjoyment of Arizona's Wildlife Resources and Outdoor Recreation. Each specialist report considered relevant State laws pertaining to their resource and identified any conflicts, as required by 40 CFR 1502.16. In many cases, federal laws are more stringent than State laws so other laws were not considered in detail. These reports are available in the project record.

Arizona Game and Fish Department also requested that the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests comply with Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting, Heritage and Wildlife Conservation. This project is fully consistent with this executive order for the following reasons:

• The action alternatives do not change access or policy regarding hunting on NFS lands. The alternatives do change the type of access from motorized to non-motorized in some cases. • The impacts of implementing this travel management project on hunting are fully analyzed and disclosed in the Effects to Transportation System and Effects to Socioeconomics sections of this chapter. • The impacts to wildlife habitat are fully analyzed and disclosed in the Effects to Wildlife and Rare Plants section. The proposed alternatives do not decrease or diminish wildlife habitat. • Arizona Game and Fish Department is a cooperating agency in this planning process. And, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests will complete Tribal consultation on this project. This project does not conflict with any other policies and regulations or laws, including the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Wilderness Act, and National Historic Preservation Act.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information The following incomplete and unavailable information sources were identified during the analysis of effects for alternatives 1, 2 and 3.

• The activities list produced for the cumulative effects analysis is not all-encompassing, but rather a general list of the anticipated activities that may occur, given the scope or nature of the NEPA projects planned.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 322 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

• The current transportation data is a snapshot of the best available information and may contain spatial error and data errors. • Changes in the local economic composition (e.g., sectoral specialization, size of labor market) that may occur throughout the analysis and planning process for this project. For analysis purposes, this was considered constant throughout the process. • The number of visitors that participate in primitive camping as their main recreation activity that are susceptible to being affected by motorized OHV use. For analysis purpose, every visitor was assumed to be impacted. • Information on the occurrence of terrestrial wildlife and rare plant resources on the Forests is incomplete. In particular, we lack information on rare plant species. Where we lack occurrence data, we use the best available knowledge regarding habitat needs for the species and its availability on the Forests and assume presence. Some of the GIS data for these sites and surveys is inaccurate. • Motorized crossings on ephemeral drainages were not field inventoried. These crossings were determined via a GIS analysis. Motorized routes and ephemeral streams (National Hydrography Dataset) were overlaid, with a motorized crossing point being created where the two lines intersected. • This analysis only includes subwatersheds which the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests has Watershed Condition Framework reporting responsibilities. An additional 24 subwatersheds have some of their area in the Forests, but they do not meet the minimum Watershed Condition Classification requirements for analysis. Also, three subwatersheds (East Clear Creek-Clear Creek, Echinique Draw-Clear Creek, and Leonard Canyon) share acreage with the Coconino National Forest. The Forests also share watershed acreage with the Gila National Forest for the: Apache Creek, Big Pine Canyon-San Francisco River, Citizen Canyon, Dry Blue Creek, Keller Canyon, Lower Pueblo Creek, Stone Creek-San Francisco River, Trout Creek, Upper Pueblo Creek, Vigil Canyon, and Wendy Flat-San Francisco River subwatersheds. Lastly, four watersheds share acreage between the Forests and the Tonto National Forest. They are the Christopher Creek, Gordon Canyon, Haigler Creek, and Horton Creek-Tonto Creek watersheds. For these shared watersheds, the other national forests are responsible, so the data is incomplete in this analysis. • The aquatic macroinvertebrate species (i.e., sensitive species) have had very limited surveys across the Apache-Sitgreaves, and known occurrences are very limited. For analyses proposed, these species were assumed to occur throughout the stream(s) where they have been documented. • The Forests’ cultural resources site and survey data is dynamic and new surveys are constantly being completed and new cultural resources recorded. Therefore, new information is constantly being considered. Most sites recorded on the forests are digitized points with a standardized, 60 meter-diameter buffer and therefore do not represent true site boundaries. As such, some sites within dispersed camping corridors or adjacent to roads and trails may have been either included in the analysis that should not have been, or some may have been missed by GIS inquiries because the polygons were smaller than the actual site boundaries. Also, due to a recent migration from one Forest Service database to a new database, there are numerous cultural resource sites and surveys that did not migrate over. Until recently, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests site records did not identify impacts caused by motorized vehicles, project undertakings, cattle, wildlife, etc., and therefore, site disturbances are

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 323 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

probably under-reported. Lastly, protohistoric Apache, Navajo, and Puebloan sites are present in the Forests, but they were not documented in the Forests’ database as such; they were typically lumped in with the prehistoric or historic sites. Due to the incompleteness of the digital data, assumptions for the data gaps had to be made, based on professional observations and random review of site records that identify impacts created by motorized off-road use. • No spatial data is available for traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, or traditional use areas. Due to the nature of these resources, spatial information is not necessarily shared by tribes. In cases where this information is shared, these resources have not been digitized in order to respect tribal requests or concerns.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 324 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Preparers and Contributors The Forest Service consulted the following individuals; Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; and other organizations during the development of this environmental impact statement.

Interdisciplinary Team Members The following staff members were directly involved in preparing this EIS. Additional staff members were involved in preparing the draft EIS in 2010. Numerous other Forest Service employees contributed to the completion of this document through their assistance in review and support functions, and/or by providing Forest Service-level data and other information needs.

Table 147. Interdisciplinary team members Name Position EIS Contribution Jennie O’Connor Card Environmental Coordinator Team Leader, NEPA Tim Gilloon NEPA Program Manager NEPA Gary Strickland Forest Fire Staff Officer Air quality analysis Kenneth Born Regional Social Scientist Air quality analysis Jerry Ward Forest Fisheries Biologist Aquatic wildlife and fisheries analysis Esther Morgan Forest Archeologist Cultural resource and contemporary tribal uses analysis Tom Greene Natural Resource Planner Forest plan interpretation Eric Ege GIS Specialist GIS data analysis and maps Paul Brown Hydrologist Hydrology and soils analysis Stephen James Land Surveyor Lands and minerals input David Evans Rangeland Program Manager Noxious weeds and ranger analysis Steven Johnson Information Assistant Public affairs Shanea Clawson Recreation Program Manager Recreation, scenery, and designated areas analysis Christy Prescott Social Scientist Socioeconomic analysis Joshua Meeks Social Scientist Socioeconomic analysis Suzanne DeRosier District Wildlife Biologist Terrestrial wildlife analysis Amanda Scott Terrestrial Wildlife and Rare Plants Terrestrial wildlife and rare plants Program Manager analysis; Consultation biologist Chris Miller Civil Engineer and Roads Manager Transportation analysis Debbie MacIvor, retired Forest Engineer Transportation and mixed-use analysis Randy Fuller Vegetation Management Staff Vegetation management analysis Officer Pat Goude Writer-editor Writer-editor Dave Dorum Habitat, Evaluation, and Lands Cooperating agency representative Program Manager, Arizona Game and Fish Department Pascal Berlioux Executive Director, Eastern Arizona Cooperating agency representative Counties Organization

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 325 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Federal, State, and Local Agencies Due to the number of Federal, State, and local agencies consulted throughout the planning process, a complete list is not included here. A list, however, is available in the project record, and many are listed in the distribution list in the following section. Briefly, some agencies consulted include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Senators, Arizona State Representatives, County Boards of Supervisors, local fire and police departments, and local mayors.

Cooperating Agencies Arizona Game and Fish Department and Eastern Arizona Counties Organization became cooperating agencies for this planning effort in April 2016. The primary role of the cooperating agencies is to serve as a member of the interdisciplinary team and assist in the NEPA analysis, as well as take part in the public participation opportunities during the NEPA process.

Consultation with Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer To facilitate compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Southwestern Region has developed a standard consultation protocol for travel management route designation as Appendix I the Southwestern Region’s programmatic agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officers (USDA Forest Service 2007). By following the procedures of the programmatic agreement, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Arizona State Historic Preservation Office have agreed that the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests will satisfy legal requirements for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties. The Forests will comply with the protocol for designating roads, trails, corridors, and areas in lieu of standard consultation in the programmatic agreement or the council’s regulations (36 CFR 800). Cultural resource surveys will be phased over a three-year period and Section 106 compliance will be completed before the routes and corridors are added to motor vehicle use maps (MVUM).

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service To comply with the Endangered Species Act, biological assessments for fisheries and wildlife are being prepared for the preferred alternative and will be submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service for consultation. Consultation will be completed prior to signing a record of decision for this project. Effects to any threatened and endangered wildlife and fish species are discussed in the Effects to Wildlife and Rare Plants and Effects to Fisheries sections of chapter 3. The biological assessments and associated specialist reports are found in the project record.

Tribes Nine tribes and one Navajo Chapter House were consulted during the previous travel management planning process. The following 11 Indian Tribes and one Navajo Nation Chapter House will continue to be consulted: Pueblo of Acoma, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, Navajo Nation Ramah Chapter, Pueblo of Zuni, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Forest Apache Indian Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 326 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Glossary All-terrain vehicle (ATV): Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. Also known as an off-highway vehicle (OHV).

Area: A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, than a ranger district (36 CFR 212 and 36 CFR 261). Also see corridor definition.

Camping: The temporary use of National Forest System (NFS) lands for the purpose of overnight occupancy without a permanently fixed structure (36 CFR 261).

Closed road: Also referred to as maintenance level (ML) 1 roads. Intermittent service roads that are closed to vehicular traffic but may be available and suitable for non-motorized uses. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this maintenance level. A closed road is not the same decommissioned road. These roads are not shown on motor vehicle use maps (MVUM).

Closure: As specified in 36 CFR 261.53-57, when provided by an order, it is prohibited to go into or be upon a closed road, trail, wilderness, or other specified area.

Corridor: A specified area that occurs from the centerline of a road or trail in which camping and/or game retrieval is allowed.

Cross-country travel: Used in this document to refer to motorized travel off of the designated system of roads or motorized trails, primarily referring to the existing condition where the forests are open to forestwide motorized cross-country travel. The travel within the proposed designated camping corridors, within the proposed motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) distances, and within the proposed motorized use areas is primarily referred to as off-road travel in this document.

Designated road, trail, or area: A NFS road, a NFS trail, or an area on NFS lands designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 on a motor vehicle use map.

Dispersed campsite: An identified location where camping is occurring outside of developed recreation sites or recreation areas.

Forest transportation atlas: A display of the system of roads and trails of an administrative unit (36 CFR 212).

Inventoried roadless area (IRA): Areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, and any subsequent update or revision of those maps through the land management planning process (36 CFR 294).

Maintenance: The upkeep of the entire forest transportation facility including surface and shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for its safe and efficient utilization (36 CFR 212).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 327 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Motorized trail: A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed for motorized use.

Motor vehicle: Any vehicle that is self-propelled, other than: (1) a vehicle operated on rails; and (2) any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, which is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area (36 CFR 212 and 36 CFR 261).

Motor vehicle use map (MVUM): A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an administrative unit or a ranger district of the National Forest System (36 CFR 212).

National Forest System (NFS): As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, the NFS includes all lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States, all NFS lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the national grasslands and land utilization projects administered under title III of the Bankhead- Jones Farm Tennant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010–1012), and other lands, waters or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system (36 CFR 212).

National Forest System road (NFS road): A forest road other than a road that has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority (36 CFR 212, 36 CFR 251, and 36 CFR 261). Motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR 212).

National Forest System trail (NFS trail): A forest trail other than a trail that has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority (36 CFR 212 and 36 CFR 261). Trails are 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR 212).

Non-motorized trail: An NFS trail that is managed for non-motorized uses, including, but not limited to: hiking, equestrian, bicycling activities, hunting, etc.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV): Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain (36 CFR 212). Also known as an all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

Off-road travel: Used in this document to primarily refer to motorized travel off the system of designated roads and motorized trails, proposed only under the action alternatives (B, C, D, and E), that would be within the 300-foot-wide dispersed camping corridors, within MBGR distances for the purpose of retrieving downed animals, and within the proposed motorized use areas.

Off-road vehicle (ORV): Includes all mechanical means of transportation: passenger cars, 4- wheel drive pickups, trail bikes, snowmobiles or other ground transportation vehicles that are capable of traveling overland where no roads exist (USDA Forest Service 1987).

Temporary road or trail: A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 328 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Unauthorized road or trail: A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212). User-created routes are referred to as unauthorized roads or trails in this document.

Vehicle: Any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported, including any frame, chassis, or body of any motor vehicle, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks (36 CFR 261).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 329 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

References Adams, J.C., and S.F. McCool. 2009. Finite Recreation Opportunities: The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Off-Road Vehicle Management. Natural Resources Journal 49 (1): 45–114 pp.

AIRNow. 2009. Air Quality Index: A guide to air quality and your health. Available at: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=static.aqi. Accessed October 2008.

Albritton, R., and T.V. Stein. 2007. Examining differences between OHV riders: A spatial approach to understanding tolerance, [online]. Available: http://www.safnet.org/fp/documents/ohv_riders_07.pdf [2009, August 12].

Altaha, M. 2010. April 28, 2010 email correspondence to Melissa Schroeder, Heritage Program Manager/Tribal Liaison. MS on file, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville.

Andereck, K.L., C.A.Vogt, K. Larkin, and K. Freye. 2001. Differences between motorized and non-motorized trail users. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19 (3): 62–77.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2008. State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2008. Final Report. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division, Air Assessment Section. Dated June 30, 2008.

ADEQ. 2011. Arizona State Implementation Plan Regional Haze Under Section 308 Of the Federal Regional Haze Rule.

ADEQ. 2016. DRAFT Clean Water Act Assessment (July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report.

Armantrout, N. B., compiler. 1988. Glossary of aquatic habitat inventory terminology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). 1995. Erosion and pollution control manual for highway design and construction. 100 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2005. Hunting and Shooting Sports Recruitment and Retention Team: Final Report. State of Arizona. Unpublished. p. 16.

AZGFD. 2008. Arizona Game and Fish Department Natural Heritage database accessed at: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml Accessed May 5, 2010. Web page on References CD.

AZGFD. 2008b. Arizona Game and Fish Department Hunting Unit Reports. Accessed at: http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting_units.shtml Accessed May 5, 2010. Web page on References CD.

AZGFD. 2009. Estimated annual MBGR trips in game management units on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. Unpublished data. UNAVAILABLE

AZGFD. 2012. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012-2022. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 330 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

AZGFD. 2016. American peregrine falcon conservation guidelines. Final Guidelines. Phoenix, AZ

AZGFD. 2017. Hunt Arizona 2017 Edition Survey, Harvest and Hunt Data for Big and Small Game. Information and Education Division, Information Branch, Publications Section, Phoenix, AZ.

AZGFD (Arizona Game and Fish Department). Referenced in 2017 and 2018. Various species. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ

Arizona Riparian Council. 1995. Fact Sheet #1. Arizona State University. Center for Environmental Studies. Tempe, AZ. 4 pp

Arizona State Parks and Trails. 2018. Arizona 2018-2022, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Prepared by School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Wildlife-Sportsman Magazine, on behalf of the White Mountain Chamber of Commerce. N.D. Brochure: Springerville: Gateway to the White Mountains. MS on file, Springerville Ranger District, Springerville.

Bauman, R.W. and G.Z. Jacobi. 2002. Capnia Caryi, An Interesting New Species of Winter Stonefly from the American Southwest (Plecoptera: Capniidae). Western North American Naturalist 62(4), pp. 484-486.

Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho. Report No. 8, June 1992, 35 pp.

Beschta, R.L. 1997. Riparian Shade and Stream Temperature: An Alternative Perspective. Rangelands 19(2): 25-28.

Bielecki, C. 2008. Travel Analysis Report for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, AZ.

Braunack, M.V. and Williams, B.G. 1993. The effect of initial soil water content and vegetative cover on surface soil disturbance by tracked vehicles. Journal of Terramechanics: 30,299– 311.

Brody, A.J. and Pelton, M.R. 1989. Effects of Roads on Black Bear Movements in Western North Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17(1):5-10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782028. Accessed: 24/06/2008 19:51

Brown, T.L. D.J. Decker, W.F. Siemer, and J.W. Enck. 2000. Trends in hunting participation and implications for management of game species. In Gartner, W.C. and D.W. Lime (eds.), Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure and tourism (pp. 145–154). New York, NY: CAB International.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 331 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Burroughs, E.R.; and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-264. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 21 pp.

Bury, R.L. and E.R. Fillmore. 1974. Design of motorcycle areas near campgrounds—Effects on riders and non-riders. College Station, Texas, Department of Recreation and Parks, Texas A & M University, Technical Report, 72 p.

Bustoz, D., M.A. Bryk, and J.S. Courtright. 2015. A Cultural Resources Survey of 4.335 Acres for the Sundown EMA Project on the Apache-Sitgreaves national Forests, Black Mesa Ranger District, East of Overgaard, Navajo County, Arizona. ASNF Report Number R2014030100037. MS on file, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville.

Central Arizona: The Perry Mesa Archaeological Site Vandalism Study. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region/USDI Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resources Management Report No. 13.

Chambers, C.L. 2012. Apache-Sitgreaves Small Mammal Project Annual Report December 31, 2012. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Chambers, C.L. 2013. Apache-Sitgreaves Small Mammal Project Annual Report December 31, 2013. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Chambers, C.L. 2015. New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse Project – August 2015. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Chambers, C.L. 2016. Apache-Sitgreaves Small Mammal Project Annual Report for 2015. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Chambers, C.L. 2017. Apache-Sitgreaves Small Mammal Project Annual Report for 2016. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Chambers, C.L. 2018. Apache-Sitgreaves Small Mammal Project Annual Report for 2017. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Chavez, D., & Olson, D. 2009. Opinions of Latino outdoor recreation visitors at four urban national forests. Environmental Practice, 11(4), 263–269.

Chhabra, Deepak. 2018. The Economic Impact of off-Highway Recreation in the State of Arizona. Arizona State University. School of Community Resources and Development.

Clevenger, A.P., B. Chruszcz, and K.E. Gunson. 2001. Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29:646-653.

Cole, D.N. and C.A. Monz. 2003. Impacts of camping on vegetation: Response of acute and chronic disturbance on vegetation. Environmental Management 32 (6) 693–705.

Cole, D.N. and C.A. Monz. 2004. Spatial patterns of recreation impact on experimental campsites. Journal of Environmental Management 70 (1): 73–84.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 332 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Colorado Natural Areas Program. 2000. Creating an integrated weed management plan: A handbook for owners and managers of lands with natural values. Volume IV. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Fort Collins, CO. Hardcopy and on References CD.

Cordell, H.K. 2008. The latest trends in nature-based outdoor recreation. Forest History Today, spring 2008.

Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz, G.T. Green, and B. Stephens. 2008a. Off-highway vehicle recreation in the United States and its regions and states: A national report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). USDA Forest Service, Internet Research Report Series. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/IrisRec1rpt.pdf [August 17, 2009].

Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz, and G.T. Green. 2008b. Nature-based outdoor recreation trends and wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness, August 2008, Volume 14, Number 2. 7– 13.

Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz, G.T. Green, and S. Mou. 2009. Recreation demand trends – An update. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Available: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/2009SERRkc.html [2009, August 18].Headwaters Economics. 2018a. Demographic Report for Apache County, Arizona. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. 2005. Title 16, Chapter 28: Wild and Scenic Rivers. Retrieved May 12, 2006 from World Wide Web: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sup_01_16_10_28.html. Webpage in .doc on References CD.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1978. Executive Office of the President. Memorandum for Heads of Agencies [re: wetland & floodplain Executive Orders]. Retrieved 9/17/2007 from World Wide Web: http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/exec32178.html. On References CD.

Courtright, J.S., E.E. Graff, and C. North. 2017. Class III Cultural Resources Survey of 7,545 Acres within the Rodeo-Chediski Burn Area on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Navajo County, Arizona. ASNF Report Number R2016030100061. MS on file, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville.

Crimmins, T. 1999. Colorado Off-highway Vehicle User Survey; Summary of Results. State of Colorado. Colorado State Parks OHV Program. 10 pp.

Delaney, D. K., T. G. Grubb, and P. Beier. 1999. Activity patterns of nesting Mexican spotted owls. Condor 101:42-49

Dissmeyer, D.E., Editor. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands. A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. General Technical Report SRS-39. Asheville, North Carolina: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 246 pp.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 333 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Duda, M.D., S.J. Bissell, and K.C. Young. 1995. Factors related to hunting and fishing participating in the United States - Phase V: Final Report. Responsive Management. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 46 pp.

Elliott, W., D. Hall, and D. Scheele. 2000. Disturbed WEPP: WEPP Interface for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Moscow ID.

English, Donald B.K. 2009. FY2008 national visitation update report. E-mail, dated July 30, 2009.

Flood, J.P. 2006. Just don’t tell me no: Managing OHV Recreational Use on National Forests. In: Peden, J. and R.M. Schuster, comps., eds. Proceedings of the 2005 northeastern recreation research symposium; 2005 April 10-12; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-341. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 130- 134.

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 31-35. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2641901

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual Review of Ecological Systems. 29:207-231. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Warsaw University on 03/24/05.

Francis, J.E. 1978. The Effects of Casual Surface Collection on Variation in Chipped Stone Artifacts. In An Analytical Approach to Cultural Resources Management: The Little Colorado Planning Unit, edited by Fred Plog, pp. 114-132. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 13 Tempe.

Frid, A. and L. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6:1-11

Frost, J.E. and S.F. McCool. 1988. Can visitor regulations enhance recreational experiences? Environmental Management 12(1): 5–9.

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:297-323.

Gagnon, J.W., R.E. Schweinsburg, and N.L. Dodd. 2007. Effects of roadway traffic on wild ungulates: A review of the literature and case study of elk in Arizona. eScholarship Repository, University of California. 12pp. http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/roadeco/gagnon2007a

Gaines, W. L.; P.H. Singleton; and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 79 pp.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 334 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Gibbons, D.R. and E.O. Salo. 1973. An annotated bibliography of the effects of logging on fish in the western United States and Canada. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Portland, Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW–10. 144 pp.

Glassco, G. 2008. Travel Management Rule letter between Greg Glassco, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe Compliance Officer, and Deryl D. Jevons, Acting Forest Supervisor. MS on file, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville.

Gratson, M.W. and C.L. Whitman. 2000. Road closures and density and success of elk hunters in Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(2): 302–310.

Greacen, E.L. and R. Sands. 1980. Compaction of forest soils: a review. Aust. Soil: 18. pp. 163- 189.

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 pp.

Hallo, J.C., R.E. Manning, and P.A. Stokowski. 2009. Understanding and managing the off-road vehicle experience: indicators of quality. Managing Leisure, 14(3): 195–209.

Hammitt, W.E., C.D. McDonald, and M.E. Patterson. 1990. Determinants of multiple satisfaction for deer hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18(3): 331–337.

Headwaters Economics. 2018b. Land Use Report for Apache County, Arizona. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018c. Summary Report for Apache County, Arizona. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018d. Summary Report for Apache County, Arizona. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018e. Demographic Report for Navajo County, Arizona. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018f. Land Use Report for Navajo County, Arizona. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018g. Summary Report for Navajo County, Arizona. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018h. Tourism Report for Navajo County, Arizona. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018i. Demographic Report for Grant County, New Mexico. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018j. Land Use Report for Grant County, New Mexico. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 335 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Headwaters Economics. 2018k. Summary Report for Grant County, New Mexico. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018l. Tourism Report for Grant County, New Mexico. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018m. Demographic Report for Catron County, New Mexico. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018n. Land Use Report for Catron County, New Mexico. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018o. Summary Report for Catron County, New Mexico. Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Headwaters Economics. 2018p. Tourism Report for Catron County, New Mexico. Accessed February 27, 2018. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

Heede, B.H. 1980. Stream dynamics: An overview for land managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-72 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 pp.

Heede, B.H. and J.N. Rinne. 1990. Hydrodynamic and Fluvial Morphologic Processes: Implications for Fisheries Management and Research. North American Journal of Fisheries 10:249-268.

Hill, R. 2018. Email correspondence between Rebecca Hill (PaleoWest Archaeology) and Esther Morgan, July 9, 2018.

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. Univ. Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 602 pp.

Holden, E. 2011. Arizona hunting applications tumble. AZCentral.com, Online: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/08/06/20110806arizona -hunting-applications-down.html#ixzz1UYTQDyaD [Accessed 8/6/2011].

Holliday, V. (editor) 1992. Soils in Archaeology: Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Houghton, D.C. 2001. Caddisfly (Trichoptera) records from the Apache National Forest, Eastern Arizona. Entomological News 112:85-93.

Hughes, J.M. 1999. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), Birds of North America, No. 418. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Hunt, L.M.R.H. Lemelin, and K.C. Saunders. 2009. Managing forest road access on public lands: A conceptual model of conflict. Society & Natural Resources 22(2): 128–142.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Dated November 2007.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 336 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Jakus, P.M., J.E. Keith, L. Liu, and D. Blahna. 2010. The welfare effects of restricting off- highway vehicle access to public lands. Agricultural and Resource Economics 39(1): 89– 100.

Karasin, L.N. 2003. All-Terrain Vehicles in the Adirondacks: Issues and Options. WCS Working Paper No. 21, April 2003. Available for download from http://www.wcs.org/adirondacks.

Keller, E.A. 1985. Environmental Geology (Fourth Edition).Columbus OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Keller, G. and J. Sherar. 2003. Low Volume Roads Engineering; Best Management Practices Field Guide. 158 pp.

Koontz, C. 2005. Recreational trail conflict: achieving equity through diversity. (Master’s thesis). University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation. 7 pp.

Krueper, D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. Pp. 321-330 in Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds, D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (eds); Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229, Fort Collins, CO: U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station: 422 pp.

Krueper, D.J. 1995. Effects of livestock management on Southwestern riparian ecosystem. Pp 281-301 in Desired future conditions for Southwestern ecosystems: Bringing interests and concerns together. Gen. Tech. Rep; RM –GTR-272.

Lackey, R.T. 2001. Values, policy, and ecosystem health. Bioscience. 51: 437–443.

Laing, L., N. Ambos, T. Subirge, C. McDonald, C. Nelson, and W. Robbie. 1987. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. Pp 453.

Levick, L., J. Fonseca, D. Goodrich, M. Hernandez, D. Semmens, J. Stromberg, R. Leidy, M. Scianni, D.P. Guertin, M. Tluczek, and W. Kepner. 2008. The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi- arid American Southwest. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA/ARS Southwest Watershed Research Center, EPA/600/R-08/134, ARS/233046, 116 pp.

Lightfoot, K. and J.E. Francis. 1978. The Impact of Casual Collecting on Archaeological Interpretation through Regional Surface Surveys. In An Analytical Approach to Cultural Resources Management: The Little Colorado Planning Unit, edited by Fred Plog, pp. 91- 113. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 13 Tempe.

Lightfoot, K.G. 1978. An Archaeological Survey of the Nicks Camp Timber Sale. Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests Pinedale Ranger District, Apache County, Arizona. Office of Cultural Resource Management Report No. 36, Department of Anthropology. Tempe: Arizona State University.

Long, R.L., S. Smith, S. Gallagher, and C. Berning. 1999. Off-the-Track: America’s National Parks under Siege. Bluewater Network. Available from the Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 337 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Lord, B.E. 2007. Motorized recreation in Pennsylvania. In: Burns, R. and K. Robinson, comps. Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; 2006 April 9–11; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen Tech Rep. NRS-P-14. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 607–611.

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001, Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment Production. In Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, Nevada. pp. V67–V74. On References CD.

Luce, Charles H., Bruce E. Rieman, Jason B. Dunham, James L. Clayton, John G. King, and Thomas A. Black. 2001. Incorporating Aquatic Ecology into Decisions on Prioritization of Road Decommissioning. Water Resources IMPACT, Volume 3, Number 3, May 2001.

MacArthur, R.A.; R.H. Johnston; and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free- ranging Bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Canadian. Journal of Zoology. Vol. 57, pp. 2010-2021.

MacDonald, L.H. and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: a state-of-the-art review for Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Report No. 196, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 65 pp.

Mann M.E. and R.S. Bradley. 1999. Northern Hemisphere Temperatures during the Past Millenniums: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759–762.

McCaffery, Magnus, T. Adam Switalski, and Lisa Eby. 2007. Effects of Road Decommissioning on Stream Habitat Characteristics in the South Fork Flathead River, Montana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:553–561, 2007.

McCay, R.E. and G.H. Moeller. 1976. Compatibility of Ohio Trail Users. Upper Darby, PA: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; Research Note NE-225. 4 pp.

Meehan, W.R., editor. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland, 751 pp.

Megahan, W.F. and G.L. Ketcheson. 1996. Predicting downslope sediments from forest roads in Idaho. Journal of the American water Resources Association. Volume 32, Issue 2. pp. 371-382, April 1996.

Mehalic, D. 2006. Cothrun's Kiva Road Closure. Cultural Resource Report 2006-01-087. MS on file Apache Sitgreaves National Forest, Supervisors Office. Springerville, Arizona.

Miller, C. 2016. Email discussing costs of plating roads on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. On file, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 338 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Moore, R.J. 2006. The Civilian Conservation Corps in Arizona’s Rim Country: Working in the Woods. University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Morgan, E., Heritage Program Manager. 2018. Professional Communication, Tribal consultation process and issues of concern identified by federally recognized tribes. February 2018.

Morgan, E. 2015. Notes for an over-the-phone discussion with V.J. Grant, San Carlos Apache Tribe Historic Preservation and Archaeology Department, Re: Upper Rocky Arroyo Restoration Project, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Lakeside Ranger District. MS on file, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville.

National Park Service. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38. National Park Service.

Native Plant Society of New Mexico. 2008. Impacts of Off-road Vehicles on Native Vegetation. On References CD

Nickens P.R., S.L. Larralde, and G.C. Tucker, Jr 1981. A Survey of Vandalism to Archaeological Resources in Southwestern Colorado. Cultural Resource Series No 11. Bureau of Land Management Colorado, Denver.

North, C.D., M.S. Foster, and .M. Senior. 2003. The Rodeo-Chediski Survey: Introduction and Background. In Archaeology at the Edge of the Rim: An Area Heritage Resource Survey in the Rodeo-Chediski Burn Area, Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, Navajo County, Arizona, edited by Chris D. North, Michael S. Foster, and Louise M. Senior, pp. 1-18. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 03-56. SWCA, Phoenix.

North, Chris. 2003. Environmental Correlates of Site Distribution: Implications for Regional Settlement Patterns. In Archaeology at the Edge of the Rim: An Area Heritage Resource Survey in the Rodeo-Chediski Burn Area, Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Navajo County, Arizona, edited by Chris D. North, Michael S. Foster, and Louise M. Senior, pp. 55-74. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 03-56. SWCA, Phoenix.

Ouren, D.S., C. Haas, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and Z.H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007- 1353, 225 pp.

Pergams, O.R.W. and P.A. Zaradic. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. USA. 105:2295–2300.

Plog, F. 1981. Cultural Resources Overview: Little Colorado Area, Arizona. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, Albuquerque and Bureau of Land Management Arizona State Office, Phoenix.

Poole, G.C. and C.H. Berman. 2001. An Ecological Perspective on In-Stream Temperature: Natural Heat Dynamics and Mechanisms of Human-Caused Thermal Degradation. Environmental Management 27(6):787–802.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 339 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Reichhart, T. and A. Arnberger. 2010. Exploring the influence of speed, social, managerial and physical factors on shared trail preferences using a 3D computer animated choice experiment. Landscape and Urban Planning: 96. 1–11.

Responsive Management. 2006. Arizona Big Game Hunt Permit Tag Draw Study. Conducted for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Unpublished. 193 pp.

Riley, R. 2018. Personal communication, February 23, 2018.

Rinne, J.N. 1990. The utility of stream habitat and Biota for Identifying Potential Conflicting Forest Land Uses: Montane Riparian Areas. For. Ecol. Manage., 33/34: 363–383.

Russell, J.C. and P.A. Adams-Russell. 2006. Values, Attitudes and Beliefs toward National Forest System Lands: Arizona Tribal Peoples. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 33 pp.

Satterlund, D.R. and P.W. Adams. 1992. Wildland Watershed Management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.

Schroeder, M.R. 2009. Damage Assessment of AR-03-01-07-1363/ASM P:12:227 Cothruns Kiva Site. MS on file Apache Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisors Office Springerville, Arizona.

Schroeder, M.R. 2012. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Alternative Identification Methods for Undertakings. MS on file, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville.

Schroeder, M.R., A.M. Tremblay, J.S. Edwards, and T.M. Roberts. 2010. Cultural Resources Specialist Report for the Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. MS on file, Apache Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisors Office, Springerville, Arizona.

Snyder, S.A., J.H. Whitmore, I.E. Schneider, and D.R. Becker. 2008. Ecological criteria, participant preferences and location models: A GIS approach toward ATV trail planning. Applied Geography 28: 248–258.

Spangler, Jerry D. 2006. Site Condition and Vandalism Assessment of Archaeological Sites, Lower and Middle Arch Canyon, San Juan County, Utah. State Project No. U-06-C1- 0548 Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance Ogden, Utah.

Stauffer, Sara. 2018. July 3, 2018 email to Esther Morgan, ASNF Heritage Program Manager, “377 Fire Archaeology Rehab Recommendations” and attached site location map and rehabilitation plans for ten sites with dozer lines cut through them. MS on file, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisor’s Office, Springerville.

Stokowski, P.A. and C.B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and social effects of ATVs and ORVs: an annotated bibliography and research assessment. School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont. Available: http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/ohvbibliogVT00.pdf [2009, August 12].

Suter, G.W. 1993. Critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.12: 1533–1539.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 340 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and Impacts of Road Removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 2, No. 1. (Feb. 2004), pp.21-28.

Taylor, P. 2006. Indian Tank Archaeological Site Damage Assessment. Cultlural Resource Report 2006-01-057. MS on file Apache Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisors Office, Springerville Arizona.

Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer, and S.A. Thomasma. 1994. Gray Wolf Response to Refuge Boundaries and Roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22(1):61-68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783224 Accessed: 30/01/2013.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30

USDA Forest Service. 1961. Apache National Forest, Arizona New Mexico. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque.

USDA Forest Service. 1962 Multiple Use Management Plan Heber Ranger District Sitgreaves National Forest. Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1964 Apache National Forest Development Transportation Plan Inventory Records. pp 1. Region 3.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701. Available online: http://library.rawlingsforestry.com/fs/landscape_aesthetics/

USDA Forest Service. 2001. 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands. FS-687. Washington, D.C.: Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Transportation Atlas, Records and Analysis. Forest Service Manual 7731. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2003 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation Officer and Arizona Historic Preservation Officer and Texas and Oklahoma and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region 3. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Values, Attitudes and Beliefs toward National Forest System Lands: The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Appendix I: 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. In: First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 341 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

Officer and Arizona Historic Preservation Officer and Texas and Oklahoma and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region 3. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Ecological Sustainability Report, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.

USDA Forest Service 2008. Travel Analysis Report for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. January 30, 2008. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/projects/travel- management.shtml. Accessed June 2009.

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Patterns of Disturbance from Dispersed Camping and Motorized Use, Feb. 2008. From Dispersed Camping Science Quorum of 1-10-2008., Coconino National Forest, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service. Unpublished, project files.

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Environmental analysis for the implementation of the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests integrated Forest-wide noxious or invasive weed management program. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Social and Economic Sustainability Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, AZ. FS Publication No. MB-R3-01-4.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. Forest Service. FS-978. July 2011

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Watershed Condition Classification. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Management Indicator Species Assessment. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Updated February 2014. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Unpublished. 21 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan, Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement. MB-R3-01-10. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Record of Decision for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan. MB-R3-01-10. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 2015c. Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona). USDA Forest Service, MR-R3-01-10, slightly revised October 2016. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd521804.pdf

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 342 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Watershed Condition Assessment Tracking Tool Web-Based Map Viewer Application: https://apps.fs.usda.gov/wcatt/.

USDA Forest Service. 2018. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule – Watershed and Soils Specialist Report. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Springerville, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 2018a. Visitor Use Report: Apache-Sitgreaves NF. Data collected FY 2007. Accessed Feb 13, 2018. .

USDA Forest Service. 2018b. Visitor Use Report: Apache-Sitgreaves NF. Data collected FY 2014. Accessed Feb 13, 2018. .

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2016. American Community Survey, 2012-2016 5-year Estimates. Accessed February 14 and 23, 2018 http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2017a. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Washington, D.C. Accessed February 14, 2018, and reported by Headwaterseconomics.org/eps.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2017b. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office. Accessed February 14, 2018 http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic- profile-system.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, Southwest Region (Region 2), Albuquerque, NM.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl, first revision, (Strix occidentalis lucida). Prepared by: Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Team, Prepared for: Region 2, Southwest Region (Region 2), Albuquerque, New Mexico

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Revision to the Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), Final. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, Southwest Region (Region 2), Albuquerque, NM.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Species Status Assessment Report New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus). Southwest Region (Region 2), Albuquerque, NM. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/docs/NewMexicomeadowjumpingmousefinalSSA.pdf.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Biological Opinion for Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix, AZ

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Final Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, First Revision. Southwest Region (Region 2), Albuquerque, NM.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 343 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Public Motorized Travel Management Plan Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3, Contributors and Preparers, Glossary, and References

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation. Issued August 2017.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

U.S. Department of Labor. 2017. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Washington, D.C., Accessed February 23, 2018 http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources.

Vander-Lee, B., R.Smith, and J. Bate. 2006. Chapters 1, 2, 3, 7, appendix 7a in Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3. The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ.

Virden, Randy J.; Merrill, Bruce D.; Knopf, Richard C.; Cardin, R.J. 1991. The 1990 Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Survey, Final Report: Technical Report, January 1991. Prepared by Arizona State University, College of Public Programs. 124 pp.

Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire. 1983. Environmental Effects of Off-road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. Springer-Verlag. Science, 534 pp.

Wilshire, H.G., S. Shipley, and J.K. Nakata. 1978. Impacts of Off-road Vehicles on Vegetation. Transactions of the 43rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Published by the Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.

Wisdom, M.; R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications, Volume 2 – Group level results. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. pp. 157-434.

Wong, S., H. Parada, and P.M. Narins. 2009. Heterospecific Acoutic Interference: Effects of Calling in Oophaga pumilio. Published in final edited form as: Biotropica. 41(1):74–80. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00452.x.

Woodard, E., and M. Hangan. n.d. African American’s Role in the Northern Arizona Timber Industry. Interpretive panel on file, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Supervisors Office, Springerville.

Yankoviak, B.M. 2005. Off-road vehicle policy on USDA National Forests: evaluating user conflicts and travel management. M.S. Thesis. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 344