Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

plan via watershed improvements, grassland restorations, erosion control and natural
recharge enhancements to protect soil, water and air resources. The Madrean Archipelago
Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (REA) may have data (baseline and projections) that
could inform a plan revision, although the geographic scope of this particular REA is
much smaller than the lands managed under the Safford District RMP. The plan can be
informed by the finalization of current BLM Washington Office climate change guidance
or policy.

¢ Special Area Designations (ACECs, Back Country Byways, Wild and Scenic Rivers,
National Historic Trails, National Landmarks, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics).
The Safford District RMP does not set appropriate desired future conditions (DFC) or
goals and objectives for Special Area Designations. The plan does not designate
monitoring and adaptive management practices, but they are implemented through the
establishment of individual management plans:

o Gila Box RNCA Management Plan

o Muleshoe EMP

o Aravaipa EMP area
Since approval of the Safford District RMP, the Aravaipa EMP has been developed. It is
an activity level plan that addresses three ACECs.

ACEC. The Safford District RMP calls for the preparation of separate ACEC
management plans, but not all have been written. Management prescriptions are
adequately protecting the ACEC resources.

Back Country Byway. The RMP designated the Black Hills Back Country Byway a
designated interpretive vehicle route. Management prescriptions are adequately
protecting the byway.

Nation Scenic and Historic Trails. The Safford-Morenci Trail is eligible for National
Park Service designation as a National Recreation Trail. The designation will go into
effect upon an RMP amendment to implement this action.

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR). Public lands along streams identified as potentially
suitable for Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) designation per the Arizona Statewide Wild
and Scenic Rivers LEIS are as follows:

o Gila River and Bonita Creek — addressed in the Gila Box RNCA Management

Plan

Aravaipa Creek — addressed Aravaipa Ecosystem Management Plan

Middle Gila River (river segment within the Christmas SRMA) — no management

plan has been developed.
Since the Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers LEIS was completed, no new
information or changes in stream conditions that would affect WSR recommendations
have been made. No other streams or tributaries have been identified that should be
reviewed for eligibility.
Wilderness. The RMP does not set DFC or clear goals and objectives for designated
Wilderness or the Wilderness Study Area (WSA). A plan revision should provide goals,
objectives and management actions for both designated Wilderness and the WSA.
Additional management guidance is provided by the Wildemess Act of 1964, National
Wilderness Policy, and Manual 6330 — Management of Wilderness Study Areas.

16
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1 docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Decision # and Page #

Plan
Maintenance

No Change
Needed

Modify
Decision

Drop
Decision

New
Decision
Needed

RMP = Safford District RMP

UG = Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing ES

EA = Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS

WSO09, RMP page 44

x

TAOI, RMP page 18

TAO3, RMP page 27

TA04, RMP page 27 ]

TAOS, RMP page 27

‘VMO09, RMP page 45

WF25, RMP page 34

WF26, RMP page 34

WF30, UG page 4-2

WF32, UG page 4-2

Special Designations

LRO1, RMP Land Tenure Amendment page 2

LR13, RMP page 36. Partial ROD II page 6

LR16, RMP page 37. Partial ROD I page 7

RRO2, RMP page 32. Partial ROD I. page 5

RRO8, RMP page 37. Partial ROD I page 7

RR11, Partial ROD I page 8

RR14, RMP page 38

RRI15, RMP page 38

| SM04, RMP Partial ROD | page 4, Partial ROD

Il pages 1, 2

VRO1, RMP Partial ROD I page 4, Partial ROD
II pages 1, 2



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

ATTACHMENT C
SAFFORD DISTRICT RMP DECISION STATUS
Date: June 12, 2017

New
Plan No Change | Modify Drop | Decision
Decision # and Page # Maintenance | Needed Decision | Decision | Needed
RMP = Safford District RMP UG = Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing ES EA = Easter Arizona Grazing EIS
Desired Outcomes and Goals
CLOI, RMP pages 23, 41. Partial ROD I page 9 rs
CLO2, RMP pages 41-42 x
GMO1I, RMP page 12 x
GM02, UG ROD page | x
GM12, UG page 1-6 x
GM32, UG page 1-9 x
LRO4, RMP Land Tenure Amendment page 3 x
LRO6, RMP Land Tenure Amendment pages 3-4 x
LRO8, RMP Land Tenure Amendment pages 4-5 x
MIO1, RMP Partial ROD I page 8 x
MIO2, RMP Partial ROD I page 8 x
PLO1, ROD page 11 x
PLO6, RMP page 47 x
PLO7, RMP page 47 x
PLO8, RMP page 47. Partial ROD I page 11 x
PLO9, RMP page 47 x
RROI, RMP page 20. Partial ROD | page 5 x
RRO7, RMP Partial ROD I page 7 x

C-1


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

RP22 Continue to manage the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area according to the guidance in the
existing management plan 1/ RMP page 33.

Special Management Areas (SM)

SMO03 The eligible rivers listed above will be afforded adequate interim protection until a final decision is reached
on suitability. Management activities and authorized uses will not be allowed to adversely affect the river's
eligibility or future suitability. 1/ RMP page 19.

SM16 Muleshoe Ranch livestock grazing was previously suspended for a five-year period by the Eastern Arizona
Grazing EIS, This decision was implemented by the signing of a Cooperative Management Agreement between
BLM, the Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Forest Service on December 12, 1988. The purpose of this suspension
was to improve riparian conditions and wildlife habitat on the Muleshoe Cooperative Management Area. 1/ RMP
Partial ROD I page 4.

Vegetation (VM)

M02 Upland vegetation on public lands within the Safford District will be managed for watershed protection,
livestock use, reduction of non-point source pollution, Threatened and Endangered species protection, priority
wildlife habitat, firewood and other incidental human uses. Best management practices and vegetation manipulation
will be used to achievedesired plant community management objectives. Treatments may include various
mechanical, chemical and prescribed fire methods. 1/ RMP page 24 and 45. l/ RMP Partial ROD I page 10.

M04 Public lands will be managed to preserve and enhance the occurrences of special status specics and to
achieve the eventual delisting of threatened and endangered species. 1/ RMP page 45.

Watershed (Soil, Water, Air) (WS)

WS01 The Safford District goal, for all public land within the District, isto minimize soil crosion and rehabilitate
eroded areas to maintain or enhance watershed condition and reduce non-point source pollution that may originate
on public lands, Specific objectives include restoration of the eroding flood plains of the San Simon River and the
Bear Springs flat arca and the reduction of salts entering the Gila River. 1/ RMP Partial ROD I page 10.

WS12 The objective for management of groundwater is to conserve water for prudent resource management
purposes. 1/ RMP page 46. Partial ROD I page 10.

WS13 Water quality necessary to accomplish BLM's programs will be secured through quality monitoring
programs, National Environmental Policy Act evaluations of activities proposed on public lands, and designation and
management under the State of Arizona's Unique Waters Program. 1/ RMP page 25. Partial ROD I

page 10.

selected management practices to reduce non- point source
s on the public lands. 1/RMP page 25. Partial ROD I page 10.

WS14 BLM resource activities will employ the be:
pollution from rangeland management and use activi!

WS20 Water quality will be managed to maintain or enhance water quality at or above established standards for
designated uses to mect management goals for cach water source. BLM will adhere to federal and state water
quality laws and standards. 1/ RMP page 46.

WS29 Manage stream segments on public lands, designated as Unique Waters, to maintain or enhance water quality

standards, protect the associated resources, and use best management practices sclected to reduce non-point source
pollution that could result from rangeland uses. 1/ RMP page 46.

D4


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

SFO collects monitoring data (e.g., PFC, water quality, water quantity, turbidity, etc.)
per the Living Rivers protocol via agreement with Eastern Arizona College funded
through Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) partnership funds.

T&E terrestrial monitoring. Per a USFWS biological opinion, the SFO Wildlife
Biologist conducts annual monitoring of the Arizona ridge-nosed rattlesnake. On-going
monitoring is occurring for the Chihuahua scurfpea, which is currently being petitioned
for listing.

Salt cedar removal. Resource staff observations during field visits are conducted,
although not part of monitoring schedule.

Riparian and associated upland restoration. Photo point data, on-site qualitative
assessments are conducted.

Gila Box RNCA Management Plan implementation. On-site data collection is conducted
by resource staff and STEM partnership interns for each mile of the river (several miles
each summer). This addresses water quality, vegetation, wildlife, and T&E species.
Monitoring protocol fulfill AIM core standards and are coordinated with GIS.
Monitoring also occurs during River Ranger patrols.

Riparian fence exclosures. Visual inspections are conducted by resource staff; noted in
fisheries biologists’ survey field notes.

The following resource programs were not assessed, as they are not present on lands managed
under the Safford District RMP:

Wild Horses and Burros

Indian Trust Resources

Based on meetings and written responses to evaluation questionnaires July through August 2016,
individual resource program conclusions are as follows:

Cultural Resources. Previous plan evaluation recommendations remain valid. A change
to the overall management of cultural resources is not warranted. However, a plan
revision could provide some program management benefits. An RMP revision could
provide more specific direction (i.¢., establish criteria) for avoiding cultural resource
conflicts. Existing or future plan decisions related to traditional cultural importance and
sacred sites may lack specificity as these resources are not shared publicly by tribes.
Tribal consultation for planning and implementation level activities can help minimize
potential resource conflicts for these and other known tribal resources. Development of
tribe-specific programmatic agreements offer a valuable tool to bridge the lack of RMP
specificity and should be considered. Additional Class III inventories are recommended
for acquired parcels resulting from the Ray land exchange and for isolated parcels east of
SPRNCA that could be considered for acquisition and possible special designation. An
update to the Cultural Predictive Model is recommended. Minimization of resource
conflicts resulting from off-highway vehicles (OHV) should be developed in a revised
RMP. The RMP does not address areas of traditional cultural importance areas including
sacred sites. A plan revision should consider management prescriptions or special
designation for such areas on BLM-managed lands. Mineral withdrawals identified in the
RMP specific to four cultural sites (LR18), although never completed, should be

10

C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

3.
4
5.
6

. Wilcox Playa ACEC

. Wilderness studyareas

. Designated wilderness areas

. Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring station

hed as right-of-way avoidance zones. Every attempt will be made to avoid these
areas with major cross-District rights-of-way to minimize or climinate conflicts with sensitive resource values.
1/RMP page 36. Partial ROD | page 7.

1, Muleshoe Ranch
2. Bowie Mountain Scenic ACEC

LR18 Process withdrawals from the public land laws and the mining laws in the following eleven areas. |. Table
Mountain RNA ACEC (1,220acres). 2. BearSprings Badlands ACEC (2,927acres). 3. Bowie Mountain Scenic
ACEC (2,230 acres). 4. Fourmile Canyon Campground (159 acres). 5. Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition
Monitoring Station (10 acres). 6. Yuma Wash Archacological Site (120 acres). 7. Tres Alamos Archacological Site
(160 acres). 8. Midway Cave Archaeological Site (40 acres). 9. Desert Grasslands RNA ACEC (380 acres). 10.
Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC (40 acres). 11, Proposed District Office site (12 acres), Future withdrawals will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. I/ RMP page 37. The proposed decisions in the RMP EIS, Table 2-3, were
modified by Partial ROD IL, page 1 and 2, in that The Gila Box and Coronado Mountain ACECs were not designated.

Riparian Resources (RP)

RPO7 Retain riparian areas in public ownership unless disposal would be in the public interest, as_ determined by
land use planning. 1/ RMP page 20.

1/ RMP - Safford District Resource Management Plan
2/ ‘UG - Upper Gila - San Simon Grazing Environmental Statement

3/ EA - Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental Impact Statement

D-14


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

ACECs include Turkey Creek Riparian ACEC, Table Mountain RNA ACEC, Desert Grasslands RNA ACEC,
Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed ACEC, Bear Springs Badlands ACEC, Guadalupe Canyon ONA ACEC,
Bowie Mountain ACEC, Dos Cabezas Peaks ACEC, Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC, Wilcox Playa NNL, 111 Ranch
RNA ACEC, Saint David Cienega RNA ACEC, San Pedro River RNA ACEC, and San Rafael RNAACEC.

1/ RMP page 4 Partial ROD I. plus page | and 2 Partial ROD II.

Visual Resource Management (VR)

VROI Designate all areas in the District as Visual Resource Management Class I, II III, or 1V. (See RMP pages 38 -
40 and Table 2-4.) I/ RMP Partial ROD I page 8.

VRO2 Class I areas include designated wildemess areas, Bowie Mountain ACEC. I/ RMP page 38.

VRO03 Class [1 areas include: Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area, Turkey Creek ACEC, Aravaipa
Canyon tablelands, Bear Springs Badlands ACEC, Guadalupe Canyon ONA ACEC, Dos Cabezas Peaks ACEC,
Eagle Creek Canyon, Willcox Playa NNL ACEC, 111 Ranch RNA ACEC, Muleshoe Ranch, Babocomari River,
Baker Canyon WSA, and Brandenberg Mountain. 1/ RMP page 39.

VR04 Class III areas include all major highway corridors, public lands north of Morenci, San Francisco River above
and below the Town of Clifton, east of Bowie Mountain around the marble quarry, lands adjacent to the San Pedro
RNCA, Whitlock Mountains, Orange Butte, Gila River at Bonita Creek, Gila Mountains, and Jackson Mountain.

1/ RMP page 39.

VRO5 Class IV areas include the remainder of the District. 1/ RMP page 39

Wilderness (WD)

WDOI Districtwide wilderness studies were completed in 1989. On November 28, 1990, President George Bush
signed into law the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, which created six new wilderness areas in the District, an
expanded Aravaipa Canyon Wildemess and the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Arca. No further analysis
of this issue isnecessary at this time. Baker Canyon WSA will continue to be managed as a study area until New
Mexico addresses Wildemess designation. 1/ RMP page 12 and 13.

Wildlife/Fisheries (WF)

WF28 Designate the following Areas of Critical Environmental Concem for the protection of priority wildlife
species and their habitat. Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed ACEC, Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural
Area ACEC, Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC. 1/ RMP page 34. This decision was modified by Partial ROD II page 1.
Gila Box ACEC was not designated.

LAND TENURE

Grazing Management (GM)

GMB88 All public lands in allotments 4402, 4403, 4406, 4408, 4411, 4415, 4418, 4419, 4420, 4421, and all public
land, except where covered by mining claims, in 4409, 4413, and 4416 has been exchanged to the State of Arizona.
1/ RMP ROD page I.

Lands/Realty (LR)

LRO3 The following areas are identified as Long-Term Management Arcas: See Map 27 as amended. 1/ RMP Land
Tenure Amendment page 3.


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 1/ RMP Partial ROD II page 5.

Watershed (WS)

‘WS09 Continue seasonal livestock grazing in the Bear Springs Flat area. |/ RMP page 44.

Transportation/Access (TA)

TAO1 Through the Resource Management Plan, decisions will be made where legal access for vehicle, horse, and
foot travel is needed across state, other federal and private lands; where construction of roads or trails is needed to
provide access to public lands; and where existingaccess needs to be closed to protect resource values. Upon
completion of the Resource Management Plan, these decisions will be incorporated into the District Transportation
Plan. The plan will also address road and trail maintenance needs. 1/ RMP page 18.

TAO3 Where needed, reserve access across public lands conveyed out of federal administration. 1/ RMP page 27.
TAO4 Obtain public and administrative access to the public lands. 1/ RMP page 27.

TAOS Close roads as needed, to manage visitors, protect resources and meet objectives. 1/ RMP page 27.

Vegetation Management (VM)

VMO09 Four firewood cutting areas arc designated open to the public:
1. San Simon Fan Structure for tamarisk and mesquite
2. West of the San Simon River, on Sonoita soils for mesquite
3. Mesquite Well area, on Sonoita soils for white thorn and mesquite
4. Horse Mountain area for manzanita, juniper and mesquite

\/ RMP page 45.

Wildlife/Fisheries (WF)

WE25 Close the following Arcas to animal damage control activities such as trapping, shooting, acrial gunning, or
use of M-44:

‘Threatened and Endangered Species habitat for those techniques that pose a threat to the species.

Zones around residences and communities and in areas of concentrated recreation use for those techniques that pose
a threat to the visitor or to dogs in areas where they are trained, exercised, or used for hunting.

Wilderness areas, and Research Natural Areas except as individually authorized by the Arizona BLM State Director
or the Distric/Area Manager. 1/ RMP page 34,

WF26 Authorize areas that are open for animal damage control in coordination with the Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service on a yearly basis. 1/ RMP page 34.

WF30 During periods of drought special measures, such as livestock reduction or removal, will be considered,
2/ UG page 4-2.

WF32 Areas of competition between bighorn sheep and livestock in Aravaipa Canyon will be identified and
livestock will be removed. 2/ UG page 4-2.

D-10


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

framework for their RMPs, including the Safford District RMP. While types of work and
priorities were included in the plan, no units of accomplishment were included.

The implementation schedule is supposed to be a living document that is updated by the field
office. However, the Gila District implementation schedule has not been finalized or maintained.
There currently is not an easy way to track over time all the work that has been accomplished to
implement plan decisions in the existing RMP. When a plan revision is undertaken, a new
implementation schedule would need to be completed using the bureau’s latest guidance.

IV. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR TRIBES

There are no known inconsistencies between the SFO RMP and plans of other agencies or tribes.
However, staff is aware that some agency plans have changed since the RMP was approved (see
Section II (G) Wildlife/Fisheries and T&E). Plan revisions are in progress for the Coronado and
Tonto national forests adjacent to BLM lands. A future plan revision would need to consider
local, state, and tribal plans and try to resolve any inconsistences that may surface.

Vv. PLAN CONFORMANCE

Actions not considered due to plan conformance issues have not been identified. The RMP has
been amended a number of times since approved [see Section 1 (D)]. This has allowed the
offices to deal with emerging issues over the life of the plan.

VI. IS A PLAN AMENDMENT OR REVISION NECESSARY?

A revision of the Safford District RMP is warranted, although a multitude of plan amendments
have generally been successful in addressing land management issues as they emerged.

A number of underlying weaknesses with the Safford District RMP that generally affect all
resource programs are evident, including:
© Lack of resource data populated geospatially to better inform the planning process (i.e.,
establish designations and/or resource allocations), develop measurable objective-based
decisions, and determine conformance of implementation-level decisions with the RMP.
¢ Lack of a complete and updated implementation schedule.
© Decisions are primarily broad-based policy conformance statements that lack
measureable objectives. While this can allow for considerable flexibility, this can be
problematic for maximizing beneficial land management decisions and for measuring
RMP effectiveness.

Numerous program policies have been updated since the approval of the Safford District RMP.
The RMP either inadequately addresses, or does not address, the following resource programs as
grouped by Administration priorities:
e Making America Great Through Shared Conservation Stewardship, Serving the
American Family and Getting America Back to Work
o Desired future conditions for resources

o Climate trends

20

C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvaiRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluat

tion Report

New
Plan No Change | Modify Drop | Decision
Decision # and Page # Maintenance | Needed | Decision | Decision | Needed
RMP = Safford District RMP UG = Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing ES EA = Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS

VRO2, RMP page 8

x

VRO3, RMP page 39

‘VRO4, RMP page 39

VRO5, RMP page 39

WDO1, RMP pages 12, 13

WF28, RMP page 34. Modified by Partial ROD
Hl

Land Tenure

GMB838, ROD page 1

LRO3, RMP Land Tenure Amendment page 3

LR10, RMP Land Tenure Amendment pages 6, 7

LR14, RMP page 36

LRI1S5, RMP page 36. Partial ROD I page 7

LR18, RMP page 32, modified by Partial ROD II,
pages 1,2

RPO7, RMP page 20

C46



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

1

SUMMARY INFORMATION

A. Plan Name and Type: Safford District Resource Management Plan (RMP)

B. Record of Decision (ROD) Date: ROD Partial I — September 1992; Partial II — July 1994

C. Five Year Evaluation Number (I, II, III, IV): II!

D. RMP Amendments
Amendment Name Purpose Program Area Decision
1. Restoration Design Energy Project | Identify Renewable Energy Renewable 2013
(RDEP) Environmental Impact Development Areas (REDA) that Energy
Statement (EIS) ROD & RMP. include disturbed sites and identify a
Amendment Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for
Arizona.
2. Solar Energy Development in Six _ | Facilitate utility-scale solar energy Renewable 2012
Southwestern States Programmatic | development. Energy
EIS (PEIS)
3. Section 368 West-wide Energy Designate energy transport corridors | Lands and 2009
Corridors EIS in response to the Energy Policy Act | Realty
of 2005.
4. Geothermal PEIS Facilitate geothermal leasing of the Renewable 2008
federal mineral estate. Energy
5. Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan | Update the RMP to comply with Wildland Fire 2004
Amendment (LUPA) for Fire, current fire policy and guidance and | Management
Fuels, and Air Quality fully integrate fire and fuels
Management management and direction found in
the latest DOI and BLM resource
program guidance for lands
administered by BLM.
6. Statewide LUPA for To allow for full implementation of | Rangeland 1997
Implementation of Arizona Arizona Standards and Guidelines Management

Standards for Rangeland Health
and Guidelines for Grazing
Administration

developed in accordance with the
revised regulations for grazing
administration (43 CFR 4100) of
public lands in consultation with
BLM’s Arizona Resource Advisory
Council.

' A 5-year plan evaluation was initiated in 2011 but was discontinued due to an impending RMP revision. However,
the Safford District RMP revision did not occur in response to shifting state office priorities.

1

C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

$24)

“SLD LL p UONDeS 0) Jejoy BAROAyA USeq erey Seale UALedU Jeyjo puke ‘uoAUeD)
Bdyenesy (49/9 eYUOg PUB JOANY BHD) YONH X0g BHD Uo suORe poyveWesdw) ‘se,

ss}ueWWOD|

2dIN 813 Uy} Pouyep seoB UoRIpUCD

uepedp Bupre}yoe puemo, seafood,
quesjuBjs Bupyeu uy eanooyo)
ueoq suONIE payee] eLN sAEH

‘esuodsal INOA 40} SISeq Ot) SB]
» pue'e % 't LYVd 40 Synsal oY UO)
Peseq uonsenb Bumoyfo} ey] Jemsuy]

vs

Jemsuy OL ON/S8A

“uua}-Bu0})
Pus -TOYS op Uy; SUORDe Burzquoud;
40) (s)wsjueyoou Aue ‘adurexe Joy

suogoy pue suoisjzeq Bujuuejq ueyediy — (3,u09) » LaWd

ey
esuonoe
en ueueds Joy A6aje 8 UoneueWa;dun
isjuawwoo} UB BABY AY SIL S90C]}
somsuy 1X0, ONsSO,

sj808 uoppuco uepedy Guyaajpe piemo} ssasBaid jueoyiubys Burjew suejy jeweBbeuey sunosay jo Uae

120? Gunseey soURWOLIdg UO Bulodey Jo}; joayson,

B-7


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Activity level wilderness plans address site-specific actions to more effectively manage
these areas. Monitoring and adaptive management practices are established in activity-
level plans in conformance with the RMP (e.g., Aravaipa Ecosystem and Gila Box
RNCA management plans, Peloncillo Mountains and Dos Cabezas Mountains wilderness
plans, and Muleshoe Cooperative Management Plan). Management plans are lacking for
the North Santa Teresa and Fishhooks wildernesses. A management plan may also be
needed if the Baker Canyon WSA is designated wilderness. Additionally, the acquisition
of a 600-acre parcel (ET Ranch) that would provide access to the North Santa Teresa
Wilderness is currently under consideration by SFO and, if acquired, consideration of
land management prescriptions should be addressed in the plan. A citizen proposal for a
wilderness area was submitted for the Mescal Mountains area, which is located within the
TFO boundary.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC). LWC is not addressed in the RMP. LWC
inventory needs to be updated for most of the SFO area. Some inventory has been
completed related to the SunZia Southwest and Southline transmission line projects.
External groups, such as the Arizona Wilderness Coalition, are actively conducting new
citizen inventories in southeastern Arizona. These should be considered during a plan
revision.

Significant Cave Resources. In TFO, one small cave feature with petroglyphs is known to
exist near Sombrero Butte, and but it may not constitute a significant cave resource. A
significant cave resource determination per 43 CFR Part 37 should be addressed in a
future plan revision.

e Special Status Species. Special status species are addressed through decisions for
Vegetation Management and Wildlife/Fisheries and TRE.

¢ Travel and Transportation. Plan decisions are valid. The development of a District
Transportation Plan was identified but not implemented. Implementation-level travel
plans have been developed for the Aravaipa ecosystem area and the Gila Box RNCA.
The state office has identified nine independent travel management plans (TMP) to be
developed by fiscal year 2018 for lands addressed by the Safford District RMP. There is a
strong need for updated route inventories primarily within the SFO. This will enable
refinement of OHV limited designations to be accommodated through the TMP planning
processes. OHV open and closed designations are meeting RMP objectives. The RMP
identifies one designated trail, but there are no established Designated Use/Trail
Management objectives. The RMP addresses travel as “limited to existing roads and
trails” but mapping these existing travel facilities has not occurred. In lieu of clearly
stated travel management objectives and prescriptions, they are being defined within
area-specific TMPs per the direction of 43 CFR 8340. As previously noted in Cultural
Resources, minimization of resource conflicts resulting from OHV use should be
developed in a revised RMP.

e Forestry. Addressed broadly in terms of firewood cutting within Vegetation Management
below.

e Vegetation Management. Since the RMP was approved, newly listed species and habitat
have been identified in the planning area. These species should be addressed in a plan
revision. The Safford District RMP does not identify DFC for important vegetation
communities, or characteristics of healthy vegetation communities. These should be

17
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scct docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Amy Corathers, PRES
Sharisse Fisher, GIS Specialist

July 20 — 10-11:00 a.m. (Wednesday)

Soils, Vegetation, Grazing

Jason Martin, Range Management Specialist
Rebecca Dees, Range Management Specialist
Jony Cockman, Lead Natural Resources Specialist
Amy Corathers, P&ES

Sharisse Fisher, GIS Specialist

July 20 ~ 1-2:30 p.m. (Wednesday)
Lands & Realty, Energy

Ron Peru, Realty Specialist
Roberta Lopez, Realty Specialist
Barb Peru, Land Law Examiner
Amy Corathers, P&ES

Sharisse Fisher, GIS Specialist

August 4 — 10:30-11:30 a.m. (Thursday)
Geospatial Data, New Management Considerations

Sharisse Fisher, GIS Specialist
Amy Corathers P&ES

Tucson Field Office ID Team

Riparian Worksheet

Jeff Simms, Fishery Biologist

Ben Lomeli, Hydrologist

Amy Markstein, Planning & Environmental Coordinator

Riparian, Aquatic TRE
Jeff Simms, Fishery Biologist

Lands, Energy
Linda Dunlavey, Realty Specialist

Livestock Grazing
Eric Baker, Range Management Specialist
Karen Simms, Assistant Field Manager

Minerals, Hazardous Materials
Dan Moore, Geologist


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

shiner, Cochise pincushion cactus, desert pupfish, lesser long-nosed bat, ocelot, jaguar,
loach minnow, Mexican spotted owl, razorback sucker, Southwestern willow flycatcher,
spikedace, yaqui catfish, yaqui chub. A recovery plan for roundtail chub has been drafted
but not finalized. Yellow-billed cuckoo and northern Mexican gartersnake have recently
been listed although recovery plans have not yet been written.

The Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan and Arizona Implementation Strategy is being
implemented through project-level decisions.

The plan is silent on the golden eagle. A RMP revision would provide a valuable
opportunity to integrate migratory bird conservation measures per the USFWS-BLM
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Executive Order (EO) 13186. The
identification of specific and measurable objectives for priority habitats should be
provided in order to improve wildlife management. A revision to the RMP should also
take into consideration species’ stressors including drought, climate trends, biological
pathogens (e.g. amphibian chytrid fungus, bat white-nose syndrome), increased habitat
fragmentation and loss of corridor or genetic connectivity, pharmaceutical contaminants,
non-native, invasive species, and ground water diversions.

A plan revision should also consider changes to the Arizona Game and Fish
Department’s Wildlife 20/20 strategic plan and Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan:
2012-2022.

Improved GIS data cataloging of existing and incoming data - including other agencies’
data — could better portray current conditions, models, and landscape trends to inform
wildlife decisions and objectives in a RMP revision.

© Geospatial data. SFO geospatial data is current with all national data standards and
metadata for related data sets are complete. Metadata is lacking for data layers not yet
covered by national data standards. Data layers not yet developed for the current RMP
include land use exclusion/avoidance areas, subsurface mineral estate acreages, and
potential fossil yield. There is a need to reconcile grazing allotment boundaries (acreages)
between the SFO geospatial files, the Range Administration System, and the RMP. Land
health reporting monitoring data need to be geospatially converted.

© Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. The RMP does not take into account the
topics of socioeconomics and environmental justice. Need to conduct a baseline analysis,
and include growth and demographic trends in a RMP revision.

Ill. RMP IMPLEMENTATION

The land use plan implementation schedule provides the field office a method to identify work to
be done to implement RMP planning decisions, and provides a way to prioritize work during the
life of the plan. The bureau’s initial development of a LUP strategy began in the early 2000s.
The intent was to provide BLM with a systematic method for planning and achieving results
based on anticipated funding. Policy on the requirements for what the implementation strategy
should contain has changed over time. BLM’s current policy requires completion of an
implementation schedule within a year of approving an RMP, using a three-step process.

In the mid-2000s, BLM AZ attempted development of implementation strategies for existing
RMPs that were being implemented. The Gila District developed an initial implementation

19
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scct.docx


C VO Ay 91-St-8 nl 18
os



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

supported by baseline route inventories.
Changes experienced in recreation management issues since RMP approval include:

o ATV usage being replaced by UTVs that involve wider body/footprint, which are
affecting soils and vegetation.

o Increasing parking needs at trailheads.

o Increasing recreation use particularly within:

- Aravaipa Canyon (Wildemess).

- Gila Box RNCA. Increased recreation use is driven by public awareness
since the area’s designation as a NCA. SFO addressed this by increasing the
infrastructure available to the recreation users (e.g., campgrounds, trailheads,
and day use areas.)

Public land access is a major concern and is not addressed in the RMP. Numerous acres
of public lands are inaccessible to the public because of historic land ownership patterns,
inadequate entry points, and a failure to remove impediments to tracts of land that should
be open for the enjoyment of all. In recent years, hunters, anglers and other outdoor
recreationists have raised concerns about access—or a lack thereof—to public lands.
Land ownership in SFO is a quilt of federal, state, local, Native American, and private
lands. The patchwork of owners can make it difficult for the public to access public lands
without trespassing through private lands. Alongside hunting, inadequate access to public
lands impacts a range of outdoor recreation activities. According to a General
Accountability Office (GAO) study requested by Congress, federal land managers
identified a laundry list of recreational activities diminished by inadequate access to
public lands, including hunting, hiking, camping, viewing scenery and wildlife,
horseback riding, fishing, wilderness area use, and mountain biking, among others. A
future plan revision should consider any submittals for the designation of Backcountry
Conservation Management areas per Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2017-036.

© Riparian. The Safford District RMP directs the BLM (1) to maintain or improve 75% of

the acreage of riparian vegetation on public lands within the District in good or excellent
_ condition by 1997 (RPO1), and (2) develop a riparian inventory system (RP 13). A

riparian inventory system has not been implemented, however PFC assessments have
been ongoing and conducted on most riparian areas within the RMP boundary, the
categorization of “good” or “excellent” need to be re-categorized into PFC categories
[i.e., PFC, Functional At-Risk (FAR), and Nonfunctional (NF)]. It is unknown if there are
new riparian species to consider subsequent to RMP completion as there has not been any
systematic inventory work done in riparian or wetland systems. The RMP provides little
direction on management of invasive riparian species and the list of these species has
grown quite large since this plan was developed.

There are a number of surface waters with riparian and/or wetland resources associated
with public lands within the TFO. Some of these include the San Pedro River (exclusive
of the SPRNCA) including possible future acquisitions, Gila River, Mescal Creek, and
Mescal Warm Spring, Dripping Springs Mountains, and Mule Mountains. Many have
been not been inventoried and characterized.

Opportunities related to improved riparian management do exist — primarily in
developing more measurable plan objectives as well as considering stream restoration
tools to improve riparian resources. Wetland restoration at Mescal Creek is a tangible

14
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

and was signed into law by President George Bush on November 28, 1990. The Safford District
RMP was modified during the plan’s development to reflect the changes created by the passage
of the Wilderness Act, including the designation of the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation
Area (RNCA).

Due to protests received during the RMP 30-day protest period, two RODs were subsequently
issued:

¢ Partial ROD I, September 1992. Approved portions of the RMP replaced four
Management Framework Plans (MFPs) (Geronimo, 1973; Black Hills, 1975;
Winkelman, 1981; and San Simon, 1973) for the Safford District. This ROD also
provided the basis for managing scattered parcels of Safford District public lands and
resources located in Cochise and southwestern Graham Counties not previously covered
by MFPs. In addition, the Safford District RMP incorporated the decisions of the San
Pedro River Riparian Management Plan (1989), the Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS
(1986), and the Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing ES (1978). This ROD approved the
designation of eight ACECs and deferred five others for further consideration.

e Partial ROD II, July 1994. Resolved the protested portions of the Safford District RMP
EIS. This partial ROD approved several ACECs — Eagle Creek Bat Cave, Desert
Grasslands RNA, and Hot Springs Watershed. Two ACECs previously considered for
designation in the RMP (Gila Box RNCA, Coronado Mountain) were not designated.

As provided in Section I (D) of this report, the Safford District RMP has been amended several
times.

E. Previous Evaluation and Assessment Summary

The previous 5-year evaluation (2001) correctly noted that Safford District RMP “decisions”
were generally broad management objectives that aligned with long-standing BLM policy and
procedures. Most decisions at that time were determined to be valid with ongoing
implementation. An internal reference document that assigned identifiers to RMP decisions was
developed by SFO following RMP implementation. For example, Lands and Realty decisions
were identified by a progression of identifiers “LRO1, LRO2.” It should be noted that since the
SFO RMP was approved, planning regulations and policy have been updated. The current Land
Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 identifies planning level decisions to be considered in RMPs
versus implementation level decisions that should be developed in activity level plans.
Implementation level decisions in the current RMP should be removed in a future plan revision.

A summary of the 2001 evaluation findings follows:

e Emphasis on planning efforts such as [habitat management plans] HMPs and [allotment
management plans] AMPs has changed, but [are] not reflected in any amendments. Field
personnel understand the need to move toward single activity plans for each geographic
area, but the direction is unclear in the RMP.

© Due to reorganizations and boundary adjustments, SFO manages lands under LUPs that
have different histories, management priorities, management techniques, and focus. The
Safford RMP contains references to areas that are beyond the current field office
boundary. The next RMP revision should address this issue.

6

C\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

"gj9A9{ UOReindod soueyue Jo UfE}UjeUL| Tunds uokueg|

0} (‘218 ‘syd ‘uoyereGen veLEdu jem) }EUQeY) Zaulyew ‘uokuEd Buudg ‘Buuds|
“2661 £q uowpuoa| Ut 40 SBInje94 jeroods 40 (sonjunuwoD LonE}eBen) POD ‘Hey Aesog ‘NM PlEMOH ‘YsEM|
ar fe Jeyqey saoads oyipuM Awoud eeuey GOIM| Jay0d ‘MBIQ SpuRg pue ‘suofueD)
qWUaHBOXe Jo Pood wu! OURSIC Oy) edi edn;
UIUPM SpUB] Sqnd UO uORE}e69A) ienesy pue ednyepend) uoneiojsey|
— 1 ‘sued Ayaqoe yBnosy) weweBbeuew! puoyes puewdn payepossy pue uevedyy| bY

ee 40 oGwaroe ou Bale Ueved) U) sabuRYs papeeu yo AueD 0} enU_UCD|

10 %Sz sroiduy 40 UIBWIEU! OL} ee BuucuUOW sjenjene pue Weld aU) JUOWE;AUI
“wajsis Aywoud yueweBbeuew oj Uodn paseq seaue|
veyed pajoajes 40) ued Buvoyvou e ysigesy Stu
“sony uoRwaLcal| PeAOUIDY Jes HES]

UE GY! SY 40) AyediouUd paBevEW pue PsouEy
99 IW 1eIGeY URHEdY aIqIssOd AjjeoIsKyd ssoLyy)

L661 Aq wopipuco| ‘eugey Ueueds 0} uaal6 aq jy Uo_uaye jepeds|

quay80%8 JO pos ur USI] O4)) ‘uOREUaWE;duN dIN'y JO Se6eis jeuY ayy Gung Seay
UIyWA SpuB] DQNd UO UOnEe69A) puoyes vee

ueuedy jo eGeaue ai) Baly UOREISSUOD jeUOTeN UeLed)Y|

10 %Gz dAcudiN! 40 WEWWIEW OL! —XOF BIS BY JO} UAId juOWeBeUAW B dojsAag EZIH

“voueyaBon uaedu jo jewerosdun!
40} uo}eyeBen eaReu-uoU jo jeAowal OY WULed ETdy|
Tenage TP Sh OOUn Waly POON)

109 aw (s)eanoeigo uepednd dive miso er eestticte

‘dN 84} UI peuYep Saanze/qo pue sje06 ey] UEAIG pejveure/duy UeEq BABY jou Pinoys LONE ely J! 10 Seainosel UeLEdU 0} pe}E}E SAA)}98{90
pue $/208 syeudaidde Buquosep ur JusIoyep $1 IY 84} JOYOYM P1098 'O} Pef] Bq UBD LOHIE 64] 184) WY 84) UI {205 pe}eyoosse pue enlj2e/Go
ue JOU Sj asoyT 1 ‘efdwuexe 40.4 “2'p UEd U} Aym ujeidxe eseErd ‘ypy eYf LY PeUYep Sy20B 40 SeA}}oe/90 ely JO BO O} pel} Og OULD LOHR Ue

‘230 ‘se pue jo ‘6urzes6 ‘vonearoas ‘seueysy ‘uauedu ‘B'e ‘seainosas Bur(ve 0} Bunejes

s/205 pue Seasoe{go ciNe P1028 0} peBainooue ale NOA “SBAL}OB{qO 18170 jS1| 0} PEpiAaId are SEU /BUOHIPPY “e/B{8 S°L'E-L LE UI BAOGE /e}SI]
suoyae oyeds ety JO BUOU  UBAS ‘seunose! UBLECL 0} pE}B/e! S105 ciIWYy PE}BIOOSSE PUB SEAnoEIGO JEYIO {f2 Si] 0} B:YeUEG 6q Ose ABw I
0} pay S} UORDe yoBe (s)}805 awH pue ‘(sJannoe/qgo

ANY ‘(s)eare eaunosel Wy YO! 1S pue AujuEp] “Moje j1y-O}Ne UM (S°L'E-L'L'E) € Veg Way SUONOE GUL “We Y) YI pequasep se ‘sje05
pe]8/908S8 Pur SaA/}D8/gO LORIpUCD Buyj}eEW PsEMO} BaINOSA! UELEDL BY] ACW O} WOYe Ue UY UeYBLEPUN 8g PiNOYs SuONIe LOnE}UEWE;dUY

SeAN98[90 dINY 0} suORoY Buyyur]
suopoy pue suoisjseq Buyuuelg Uevediy —» Luvd

1206 uopipuco uepedy Buisaitpe emo} ssaiBoud jueoyrubis Buyyew sugi puswoGeuay aaunosay Jo JURWag
220° Lp aunseaW SIUEWJOLAd UO Buloday Jo} jaaysHJonA

B-5


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

woneaney) “Syed
UojBe:tey jBDA|dS ‘SEUNG WENA 19H “SSOWEPHM|
BdieABIy “VONY 0g BID - wauaGeuEW Uoye@Ioy

eee

Heo “Weis Myeoy oF Pau]
JOU ‘'yeys Areuridrosiprayu) jo jwawsojdwoo |\ny saxinbas
‘ones yeIS:suoHeonddy #) suopeoydde Aem-jo-1y6yy)

cet

(Os Ui SwaIU}Oe Jo #) Sjemaual

vez

weiSolg Bupyoueg Any

(‘016 ‘sjemeues juued Buyze/6 40} sjuewssessy YyJe8}{ pus’ Jo ‘sjoefaid AGseue ajqemeual 10} 40 590 JO} SeouaIeE}D
6'9 wesard Bunjyeueg pue semanoe Aeuud jnoge yur - diL) SenUOUT C4 SiYi UO jOBduUN jUBOYIUBYS jsow ey) BuIABY are }8y) SONNANIE € 1ST

peopyoaa Bupoeduy senranoy

sepeds antseaul

ete

(Aouenbaypisu avy peseeiou; "yBnoip "6 2) eGuey ayewRD

ttt

B-2

(asn uogeasoas Sujsearouy Burpnyou) seunseaid)
soBYe]U! UBQUN/YORE;Ndod BujseaoU! ‘Buu ‘suoqBIEdo YOO}SaAN ‘yedrojUNW ‘auNynayBe) Ayjend 2 |eMeIPYYM JBEMPUNaID pu BoELNS|

bed

“ejqeoydde #1 ‘INN S14} U] pesseippe Ayeyenbepe jou ase Jey) SIOSSeNS esnjny JO Bu/Glews jsy ‘Mojeq BoBds EY} UY
senss] pue siossans BuyBiewy

(peysusjem Uo S}9ay9 AHO) Uoneaoay,

ere

(seounosaz 0} joedwy; soepins) BuzeI5|

che

(Guiujw 'suogerado ypojsany ‘edrojunus ‘eunynouBe) jemepyyM Ja}eMpuNoid pue soepNg:

bre

‘€ do} 8x7 psoDes NOA Jey) Syse JeeysyOM styj YBNOY) ‘voIssnosip Wee} Aleuldlos/pieju) ey) Buunp
palepisuce eq Apu suossays Auey ‘diy Sty} Aq pareaos seainosel ueuedy Bunseduy ese yey] SioSsals sofeus BY) }S1] ‘Mojeq e2eds EY} Uf

suossang

a

SUBAUG PEOPPOAMA PUL SIOSEAHS - Z LUVd

syeo8 uonipuco uevedu Buinayse premo) ssauGold jueowubls Bunjew suejd juawabeuew aounosay jo jwaaag
:40'L'p eunseay soueWOHed Uo Bunloday Joy jeaysoAA,


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

provides management direction on BLM-managed land in the northern portion of SFO and for
BLM-managed land in the TFO not guided by the SFO or other RMPs.

The Safford District RMP incorporates by reference the Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing
Environmental Statement (ES) (1978) and the Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) (1987).

Special area designations managed in conformance within the Safford District RMP include:
e Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

°

oo0o0000 000

°

111 Ranch

Bear Springs Badlands

Bowie Mountain

Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area (RNA)
Dos Cabezas Peaks

Eagle Creek Bat Cave

Guadalupe Canyon

Hot Springs Watershed

Table Mountain

Turkey Creek

Willcox Playa and National Natural Landmark

© National Conservation Area (NCA)

°
°

Gila Box Riparian
San Pedro Riparian?

© Wilderness Areas

°

oo0000

Aravaipa Canyon
Fishhooks

Dos Cabezas Mountains
North Santa Teresa
Peloncillo Mountains
Redfield Canyon
Needle’s Eye

e Wilderness Study Area

°

Baker Canyon

¢ Cooperative Management Area

°

Muleshoe Ranch

e Back Country Byway

°

Black Hills

? This environmental document was officially adopted as an “Environmental Statement” in lieu of “Environmental
Impact Statement.”

3 The San Pedro Riparian NCA is currently administered by the TFO, and is being addressed within the San Pedro
River National Conservation Area RMP currently in development.

3

C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Amendment Name Purpose Program Area Decision
7. Land Tenure Amendment to the Identify additional public lands to be | Lands and 1994
Safford District RMP considered for disposal, lands for Realty

retention, lands desired for
acquisition and deletes some lands
previously identified for acquisition
to facilitate beneficial land
exchanges.

E. Activity Plans and Decision Dates:
1. Aravaipa Ecosystem Management Plan (2015)
Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area Management Plan (1998)
Muleshoe Ecosystem Management Plan (1998)
Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness Management Plan (1995)
Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness Management Plan (1995)
Hot Well Dunes Recreation Area Project Plan (circa 1991)

Dawe fe N

i. EVALUATION

A. Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Safford Field Office (SFO) manages !.4 million acres
of deserts, mountains and grasslands in six eastern Arizona counties and another 118,000 acres
of rangelands in New Mexico in cooperation with the BLM Las Cruces Field Office. The SFO
boundary stretches from the Navajo Nation in the north to the international boundary with
Mexico in the south,

At the time of Safford District RMP approval, the SFO was a district office whose boundaries
aligned with the boundaries identified in the RMP. Administrative changes have occurred since
that time thereby creating the BLM Gila District with two field offices - SFO and Tucson Field
Office (TFO).

Management of SFO public lands are currently guided by two land use plans (LUPs) — the
Safford District RMP (1992, 1994) and Phoenix RMP (1989). TFO public lands are managed
under four RMPs, including the Safford District and Phoenix RMPs. This evaluation addresses
the Safford District RMP. This evaluation excludes those rangelands in New Mexico managed
cooperatively with the Las Cruces District Office because those lands are managed under the Las
Cruces RMP. However, this evaluation includes approximately 188,000 acres located with the
TFO boundary. This evaluation also excludes the approximate 57,000-acre San Pedro Riparian
National Conservation Area (RNCA) within TFO because an RMP is currently being developed
for this area. Decisions related to management of the San Pedro RNCA will not be addressed in
this evaluation. A similar evaluation process will be completed for the Phoenix RMP that

2
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

example of a degraded location that would benefit from this approach. A future plan
revision should consider new recovery plans for the Chiricahua leopard frog, Huachuca
water umbel, and Gila chub.

See Wildlife/Fisheries and T&E concerning aquatic species associated with riparian
resources.

¢ Watershed (Soil, Water, Air). Air quality standards and management practices are in
accordance with State of Arizona Class II standards, unless designated as non-attainment
or redesignated (WS34). Class II standards allow for moderate deterioration of air quality
associated with moderate, well-controlled industrial and population growth. Sulfur
dioxide nonattainment areas are found near large-scale mining operations in Globe,
Mammoth, Hayden-Winkelman, and near the international border area of southern
Cochise County. The Safford-Morenci area was designated as an attainment area in 2012.
The statewide LUPA for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management addresses activities in
special designation areas to some degree but then refers back to the RMP. Since the RMP
was approved, some laws such as the Clean Water Act have changed. A plan revision
would need to consider the most current laws and regulations when developed.

The RMP very generally discusses water quality, water quantity, and current or
foreseeable beneficial uses in the planning area, but specific, measureable objectives
were not established. Impaired waters are located within the planning area but are not
linked to public land use. Area-wide use restrictions and best management practices
addressing water quality are not identified in the RMP — rather, they are addressed
through activity-level plans such as the Gila Box RNCA Management Plan. Increasing
demands on surface flows and aquifers within the planning area, but not necessarily on
public land, needs adequate consideration in a RMP revision (i.e., establishment of
thresholds and/or decision trees.) Water rights inventories may be needed for a future
plan revision.

In the Safford District planning area, public lands containing soil stability and erosive soil
issues are present and dispersed. A number of problem areas whose uses are restricted by
low soil productivity, limited water quality, etc., were specifically identified in the RMP
~ the San Simon area continues to be of particular concern.

In the Safford District RMP, soil survey data is not:

o Described and used to assess the suitability/capability of landscapes to achieve
RMP objectives.

© Used to set priorities for restoration/rehabilitation and to guide development of
site-specific prescriptions.
© Used to identify erosion hazards or erodible classes throughout the planning area.
Soil survey data is used on project-level activities (e.g., land health evaluation conducted
for grazing permit renewals.)

A plan revision may warrant a soil and site stability objective to possibly include
assessment of erosion control structures.

© Climate Trends. The Safford District RMP does not adequately address resource effects
due to changes in climate. A decision was made to initiate studies to determine the effects
of “climate change” on vegetation and other resources (VM12) but was never
implemented. Opportunities exist to integrate resiliency or mitigation strategies into the

15
C,\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scct.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

© Are other/additional decisions needed to resolve an issue?

e Determine the level of new planning needed (Amendment versus Revision), and identify
anticipated issues and associated data needs for any future planning activity.

This evaluation only provides recommendations for future planning efforts. No decision is tied
to this document and no RMP decisions change because of the evaluation.

C. Evaluation Methodology and Scope

The Safford District RMP covers public lands within both the SFO and TFO. Due to the
geographic distance between field offices, an evaluation team comprised of resource specialists
was established for each field office. Responses provided by specialists were based on
professional knowledge and input gathered over time from working with public land users
including members of the public, local and state governments, tribes, and authorized permit
holders. This evaluation report was compiled by SFO in coordination with TFO.

Safford Field Office

Evaluation questionnaires provided by the BLM Arizona State Office, grouped by resource
program, were distributed to the appropriate SFO ID Team resource specialists on July 11, 2016.
Subsequent evaluation meetings by program resource were led by Amy Corathers, SFO Planning
and Environmental Specialist, with the assistance of Sharisse Fisher, GIS Specialist, during the

period of July 12 — August 4, 2016. The evaluation meeting schedule and attendees is provided
in Attachment A.

Additionally, the Worksheet for Reporting on Performance Measure (“Riparian Worksheet”) was
initially drafted by an SFO core team, with subsequent input from TFO. The Arizona State
Office Soil, Water and Air program lead reviewed the worksheet and provided concurrence on
August 25, 2016. See Attachment B for the approved Riparian Worksheet.

Tucson Field Office

The same evaluation questionnaires used by SFO, were distributed to the appropriate TFO ID
Team resource specialists on June 30, 2016. Due to scheduling conflicts and time constraints,
resource specialists were not interviewed. However, resource specialists provided written
evaluation responses between July 21, 2016, and August 29, 2016. Responses were reviewed by
Amy Markstein, Gila District Planning and Environmental Coordinator, and then forwarded to
SFO. A list of the participating TFO resource specialists is provided in Attachment A.

D. Background

The Notice of Intent to prepare the Safford District RMP and EIS was published in September
1987, the draft RMP/EIS was published in August 1990, and the final RMP/EIS published
August 1991. The RMP analyzed multiple uses and allocations within the planning area
including development of minerals, rights-of-ways (ROW), land tenure, recreation opportunities,
access, grazing, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and ACECs. The plan was completed in
accordance with BLM laws and regulations including the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and NEPA, and included public, tribal, and agency involvement. During
the preparation of the proposed plan, the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act was passed by Congress

5

C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

o Relevant data from the Madrean Archipelago Rapid Ecoregional Assessment
(REA)

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Recreation management

Access

Vegetation management and fuels

Land tenure

00000

e Making America Safe Through Energy Independence
o Renewable energy
o Utility Corridors

e Making America Safe-Restoring our Sovereignty
o US-Mexico border issues

A Safford District RMP revision should consider the appropriate geographic scope, as the
administrative boundary has changed since the RMP was approved and implemented.

As previously noted in Section II (G) and documented in Attachment C, the vast majority of the
RMP decisions are valid but in need of modification.

Management in SFO believes the vagueness of some of the plan objectives have provided the
office the flexibility to continue to accomplish work needed to implement the plan. However,
they recognize a plan revision would be helpful for a number of different programs and issues
that have arisen over time. Management felt it would be helpful to consider planning decisions
in a plan revision for utility corridors, land tenure, lands with wilderness characteristics,
recreation management areas and zones, special recreation permits, access, back country
conservation areas, renewable energy, vegetation management, weeds, fuels, and border issues.

Management concerns related to starting a plan revision include the scope of the project and
balancing that with staff availability, workload, and priorities. SFO has a number of new
resource staff members that are not that familiar with BLM and the programs they manage and
feel resource training for those individuals is needed before embarking on a plan revision.
Managers feel that if a revision is started it must be recognized that other workload will not be
accomplished. Consideration should be given to hiring a knowledgeable, dedicated project
manager to oversee the plan revision. Management would prefer to see the effort contracted,
using staff as support for information needs and review.

When a planning revision effort is undertaken, it would follow BLM’s guidance, laws, and
regulations. Management would be based on multiple use and sustained yield, unless otherwise
specified by law, and would involve other federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes,
and interested public.

21
CAUsers\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scct.docx


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
ARIZONA STATE OFFICE
EVALUATION REPORT TITLE PAGE

Date: September 2017

Title/Subject: Safford District Resource Management Plan (RMP) Evaluation

Type of Evaluation: Periodic

Date Conducted: June 2016 through June 2017

Conducted By: Safford Field Office and Tucson Field Office

TEAM MEMBERS
NAME TITLE

Amy Markstein Planning and Environmental Coordinator

Gila District Office
Amy Corathers Planning and Environmental Specialist

Safford Field Office
Jackie Neckels Planning and Environmental Coordinator

Arizona State Office
Submitted by: Signature: Date:
Scott C. Cooke Y
Field Manager MAE, VEZ a 7. 3p 7
Safford Field Office
Approved by: Signature: Date:
Scott Feldhausen
District Manager bi Yi dl; A
Gila District Office
Approved by: Signature: Date:
Roxie Trost,
Deputy State Director, q / 4] /
Renewable Resources and ‘ a0 7
Planning Rife é. A ok



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

ferruginous hawk, Swainson's hawk, javelina, mountain lion, dove, quail, and bat roosts. 1/ RMP page 33.

General management objectives for each of the priority species and their habitats are identified in Appendix 4 of the
RMP. 1/ RMP page 34.

WF14 Manage habitat for optimum wildlife populations, based on ecological conditions, taking into consideration
local, yearly climatic variations. BLM will follow Arizona Game and Fish Department's five-year strategic plans for
the various species and will assist the Department in accomplishing its goals for the various species. 1/ RMP
page 34

WFI7 Continue to maintain and improve wildlife habitat, emphasizing priority habitat. 1/ RMP page 34.

WF18 Protect springs and associated indigenous riparian vegetation for wildlife water, cover, and forage. 1/ RMP
page 34.

LAND USE ALLOCATION DECISIONS

Cultural Resources (CL)

CLO5 Exclude grazing from the Tres Alamos Archacological site (160 acres), 1/ RMP page 43.

Grazing Management (GM)

GM03 Initial adjustments will reduce grazing use from 172,070 AUMs per year to about 114,861 AUMs per year.
Sce Appendix B for information on individual grazing units. 2/ UG ROD page 2.

GMO04 In nine grazing units approximately 15,600 acres will be removed from livestock grazing. Areas proposed for
this deferment of livestock grazing are critical watershed areas along the San Simon River, and critical riparian and
aquatic habitat along Aravaipa Creck, Mescal Creck, Bonita Creek, and the Gila River. Decisions to remove grazing
will be issued as soon as fences are constructed, 2/ UG ROD page 3.

GMO06 Proper stocking is the average number of cattle required to consume 40% of the perennial forage production,
Proper stocking thus leaves 60% of the forage for watershed protection and other non-consumptive uses. Depending
on the degree of slope, 60 to 100 percent of the vegetation produced on steep slopes would be left for watershed
protection and other non-consumptive uses. 2/ UG page 1-5.

GMO07 Allocate 2,128 AUMS (2 percent) of forage for wildlife on the basis of present wildlife population data
supplied by Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2/ UG page 1-6.

GM08 For increases in AUMs expected to result from implementation of the proposed action, forage would be
allocated to wildlife up to Arizona Game and Fish optimum levels before increases in livestock use are allowed.
This would require approximately doubling the present wildlife forage allocation, 2/ UG page 1-6.

GM24 Intensive grazing management is proposed for 87 of the 193 grazing units and would involve 1,040,329 acres
of public lands and 632,978 acres of private and state lands. 2/UG page 1-8.

GM49 The public lands with critical riparian and aquatic habitats, including springs, would be fenced to permit the
necessary specialized management. Alternative livestock water sources would be constructed outside these areas.
‘These areas would be deferred from grazing for a minimum of 3 to 5 years to allow the propagation and
improvement in condition of riparian vegetation. 2/ UG page t- 24.

GM50 Severely eroded areas proposed for deferment would be grazed after rehabilitation and revegetation,
probably after 15 to 25 years. During the deferment period, habitat and vegetation studies would be implemented.

D-6


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

information.

o Paleontological Resources. Decisions from the Safford District RMP provide
overall management guidance as well as any in the State; review paleontological
resources within lands covered by the Phoenix RMP. Consider including an
appendix that describes general location and class of resources. Develop a plan
decision to preserve Class I areas with ACEC designation.

o Recreation & Off-highway Vehicles. Many decisions are valid and have been, or
are being implemented. Complete route inventories to provide a baseline for
existing roads, There was a perceived need by the staff to designate roads.

© Riparian. The Statewide LUPA for Implementation of Arizona Standards for
Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration has given a LUP-
level goal for all planning documents to protect riparian habitat. Revise RMP to
reflect Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) methodology. See section on San
Simon.

o Watershed (Soil, Water, Air). Watershed decisions were valid with some needed
revision. Need to reconcile terminology and policy between the BLM and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding standards. The EPA’s Clean
Water Act (CWA) Action Plan (1998) needs to be addressed. The Statewide
LUPA for Implementation of Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and
Guidelines for Grazing Administration (1997) is being used for watershed
assessment. References to meeting state water quality standards are included in
the appropriate guideline under Standard 3, Desired Future Conditions.
References to controlling erosion and protecting soil surface are included under
Standard 1, Upland Sites. Air quality also needs to be addressed with regards to
the fire program.

o Special Management Areas. Overall decisions are valid, with some need to revise
based on current conditions, including boundary adjustments and other
designations. The Muleshoe Ecosystem Management Plan (EMP) (1998)
supersedes several decisions regarding the Muleshoe area. The Arizona Statewide
Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative EIS (LEIS) (1994) found some rivers in the
SFO suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (WSR),
while others were found not suitable.

o Special Status Species. Special Status Species are addressed through decisions for
Vegetation and Wildlife/Fisheries.

0 Transportation. Plan decisions are valid, although partially implemented
(Transportation Plan not complete). Some legal and physical access needs are
described in the RMP; consider updating.

o Vegetation Management, Forest and Woodland Management. \ncorporate the
Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing
Administration (S&Gs) (1997), biological opinions, and include Desired Plant
Community objectives. Address noxious weeds. Need to address personal use
fuelwood cutting; few desirable areas outside of riparian, which is closed. Little to
no demand in the areas that are open. Need to include language for other
vegetation products such as seeds, decorative material, etc. Include decisions
addressing salvage.

8
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Ecosystem plans suggested:
© San Simon. Current decisions in the land use plan and activity plans are outdated,

unrealistic, unnecessary, or are contradictory to other decisions and/or [BLM]
policy.

Aravaipa. There is a need to develop an ecosystem (or watershed) plan for the
Aravaipa Creek area; this would incorporate the wilderness plan and other activity
plans.

Resource program area evaluation and recommendations:
o Cultural Resources. A plan revision is recommended for areas that contain

cultural resources that were not adequately addressed in the LUPs (e.g., lands in
Navajo and Apache counties acquired by SFO in the boundary adjustment.) A
plan revision is recommended to establish guidance for addressing Native
American Religious Concerns and Native American Pathways and Resources.

Fire Management. Objectives for Fire Management Zones are outdated. The
current fire management plan is not incorporated into the RMP. Need to ensure
fire management is tied to vegetation goals and objectives. Fuels management
objectives and treatments are not discussed. Hazard fuel reduction goals are not
identified. Plan does not address Appropriate Management Response (AMR) and
managing fires for resource benefit for (as directed in the Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy). Due to other LUP guidance, AMR is not allowed for in the
RMP. Wildland Urban Interface issues are not addressed.

Grazing Management. Need to update Range Program Summary. Need to update
maps to reflect current situation. Need to address grazing in Apache, Navajo, and
Cochise counties on lands picked up by the Field Office in the last boundary
adjustment. Need to address issues related to grazing along the Gila River above
the Gila Box. San Simon needs an ecosystem plan to redefine management
direction and to reconcile conflicting and/or outdated decisions for this area. See
section on San Simon. There is a need to revisit the issue of forage allocation
decisions and revise or drop. Consider including ephemeral use criteria.
Recommendations for Outstanding Natural Areas need to be revisited, as this
designation is no longer valid. These areas have been superseded by Gila Box
RNCA, wilderness, grazing retirements and others.

Hazardous Materials Management. Safford and Phoenix RMP documents lack
land use planning level decisions addressing hazardous materials. Future land use
planning efforts should incorporate information pertaining to hazardous materials
and develop LUP decisions if needed.

Lands and Realty. Decisions provide purpose and goals to the program, although
the plans need to be consolidated and updated to reflect boundary adjustments and
current situation. Consideration should be given to including a comprehensive list
of special stipulations in future planning documents so they can be used in land
use authorizations. This may be valuable for authorizations other than those from
the lands and realty program.

Minerals. Issues to be addressed in future planning efforts include the assessment
of mining hazards and related public safety issues. Address the situation where
the field office has acquired acreage and revisit RMP decisions based on new

7

C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Land Tenure (LR)

LRO04 Land Ownership Adjustment - The purpose of the program is to adjust land tenure in the Safford District to
achieve Bureau resource management objectives and improve service to the public. Consolidation of land ownership
within Long-Term Management Areas and disposal of lands outside these areas will be considered to mect these
objectives. Refer to Map 27 (amended) for potential land disposal and Long-Term Management Areas. 1/ RMP Land
Tenure Amendment page 3.

LR06 Land Acquisition - The following are objectives for land acquisition within Long Term Management Areas:

1. Acquire lands with high public values that complement existing management programs within Long Term
Management Areas,

2. Consolidate ownership pattern within Long-Term Management Areas to improve management efficiency.
3. Improve service to the public,

Lands considered for acquisition will possess one or more of the following characteristics:
4. Riparian habitat
5. Watersheds of important riparian areas

6. High value wildlife habitat, including threatened and endangered species habitat and major migration
corridors

7. Administrative sites
8. Land for developed recreation sites
Land providing access to public lands
10. Significant cultural and paleontological properties

11. Other lands with high public resource values such as inholdings in Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern and other types of special management areas.

1/ RMP Land Tenure Amendment pages 3, 4.

LR08 Public Land Disposal - The objectives for disposal of public lands are as follows:

1. Dispose of isolated tracts of public land to improve resource management efficiency and service to the
public.

v

Dispose of suitable parcels of public land to facilitate county and city needs for public purposes (parks,
landfills, etc.).

3. Dispose of parcels of public land through exchange to acquire lands with higher resource values that meet
Bureau management objectives.

4. When lands next to urban areas are disposed of, the resulting boundaries will be manageable, fence able,
and identifiable.

5. Prior to disposal, lands will be inventoried and evaluated for significant cultural, threatened and endangered
species, and other natural resource values.

6. Access to and across public lands is an issue and will be analyzed during disposal actions. Access across
public lands being considered for disposal may be retained by the BLM or transferred to other agencies or
individuals, The decision to transfer or retain access will be made during the analysis of specific disposal
actions.

The order of preference for disposal will be by: 1), exchange, (2), Recreation and Public Purposes Act, (3), sale,
and (4), state indemnity selection. All public lands will be disposed of at fair market value, except for lands disposed
of under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act or state indemnity selection. Disposals are subject to valid existing
rights.

ft is Bureau policy not to dispose of public lands encumbered with properly recorded unpatented mining claims.
These lands, however, may be disposed of if the mining claims are found to be void, a mining claimant relinquishes
the mining claims to the United States, a mining claim is contested and found to be invalid or policy is changed.

D2


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

“S]A9} UORBINdod soUeYus JO UE UeU! upds woke)

01 ( oy ‘Sui ‘voneyeBen Usuedy ‘sojem) yeyQeYy Zeumey ‘uokued Buydg ‘Buds;

i yu) Jo Saunje9} jePeds 40 (SapjuNUUtCD LonEeB9A) PIOD ‘1AM Aesod ‘HEM PIBMOH ‘Yse/y)

2661 Kq uompuca Teygey semads aupum Ayoud aBeueW GOIN Jayog ‘esq Spueg pue ‘suokued|

yssqeans 20 Poo6 uj DUET OU edienesy pue adnjepeno) vojesoysans

UII SPUR] oni hes pgats Bon "sueid AAqoe yGnouy jueweBeuew! puoyes, puejdn payeoossy pue uevedty)
jo Meee Saal so Ueto que uevedu ul seBueya papesu yno Aued 0} enuUuOD)

“eyep Buyoyvow syenjene pue usid e149 juewo;du
“wajsks Aoud juawebeuew ey uodn paseq sae}
luepedy payejes 20) ued Susoyuow e ysHqe)sa STIY)

“SENjeA UOHeSad| TeAoWBY JepsD Hes}
ue ayipyM $}| 10) Apedound peGeuew pue peoue}
2g WM JeNqeY URYEdL aiqissod Ajjenjskyud aay

“266+ Aq uoytpuco| Veyqey uawedu 0} UsA\6 aq iH Uo}UaHE jBDEdS|

quayaoxe Jo poos ui UysiG eu)) ‘voNEUEWa!dw; dWy 30 SaBers jeuy ey) Bung EZdy
vi Spus] 9NQNE UO LO}EIa5aA proyes

ueuedu so Beane oi) “BAY UOIEAIGSUCD (BUOHEN ueuediy|

JO %SZ @roidwy JO WIEWWEW O)) —XOF RII) 94) JO) UBId jroweBeuEW e dojersq E7dY

-uoneye6er ueuedu jo juswenddw)
40} UONE}SBOA SAeU-UOU Jo [BAOWOI BLY YUWad BLdy|
way Tonoge SPF Fe Soult WON peE-OUEY)
leop dw (sjoansef9o ueHediY diWY ‘sanceey uondyosed uonoy

‘dN 64) UI peuyep Sannoefgo pue sje0B ay) Vadi6 pe]ueUre/dus UeEg BABY JOU PInOYS UOTE 4} jf 10 SeAINOSa/ UBUECU 0} PejEfa! SAAs;DE/GO
Pua s/805 ejeudoidde Buiquosep ur E!OYeP 5! iN Bf] JEY;EYM PCDI 'O} PEF} Eq UBD VOID 64] JBL JAY 84) U! /805 psje}oosse pue arlz26/q0
ue jou sy e164) 1 ‘ejdwexe 10-4 *2'y ed uy Aym ujesdxe eseojd ‘We OY) UI peuyep sj205 10 Sanf26/G0 BYy] JO UO 0} Pen Bq JOUUES UONIE Ue i

‘aje ‘se6 pue to ‘6uizei6 ‘uonsasas ‘seueysy ‘veuedu ‘B’e ‘seqnosal Buiésea oj Buyejes
1806 pue senyoe(go ciHy p109el 0} peBeinooue Ble NOA “SeAl}98/qO 16Y}0 }Si] 0} pepiAcud ale SUI] |BUORIPPY ‘8}B// G*t'E-L "LE UI anOge ps}sSY
su0no8 2yj0eds 6Y4] JO GUO’ J UAAS ‘sea/nosas UeUedU 0} paje}es 5/806 JWY Pe|E!00SSe pue SaAsoeIGO 464}0 /J8 }SI] 0} eIQYeUIEG Aq OS[e AeUs yy

0} pan sj vonze YyoRs (s)/805 ci pue ‘(s)anjoe/go
diy ‘(s)eeie eainosel did Yorum Sif pu Ayjuep] “048d /1l}-018 HIM (Sb 'E-L'L'E) & Vedi way SUONOR eYL “WY OY] U) pequosep se ‘sj205
pajeposse pue senyjoefqo uompuos Gujeew psemo} equnosal uBLedU et) BAOW O} YOYS UB UI UeYeYEpUN eq Pinoys suOHoe uOnEjueWEduy

SOARIEIGO de 0} SUORsy Buyury

suopoy puke suojsjoeq Buyuueg uevediy—y Luvd

s1e05 uojipuco uevedy Buagiyoe puemo} ssauBord juroyubys Buyew suejq juawabeuey aunosay jo Weed
:ZO'L'p euNseay] SOUELIONEd UO Bupoday JO) jaaysJOnA

B44


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Subsequent management would depend upon the response and improvement of these areas. Where natural
revegetation does not occur, desirable species would be planted. 2/ UG page 1-24.

GM51 Following an initial deferment period, grazing might be allowed under the following conditions: (I) that
desirable riparian plants be established and maintain, (2) that grazing not occur more often than I year out of 3
during the critical March through October growing period, (3) that grazing not occur for longer than an 8 month
period at a time, and (4) that utilization of desirable species not exceed 40 percent of the current year's growth. A
given watercourse would be divided with fence, where feasible, to prevent livestock from grazing the entire
length at any given time. 2/ UG page 1-24.

GMS2 Grazing units whose public lands have no grazing privileges are referred to as "unallocated". The Safford
District proposes no grazing management on these units and considers any livestock grazing on public lands in these
units as trespassing. A qualified applicant, however, could be allowed to graze livestock on these lands upon the
completion of an Environmental Assessment Record. Eight grazing units are unallocated, affecting 4,014 acres of
public lands and 30,050 acres of private and state lands. 2/ UG page 1-25.

GMB83 Research Natural Areas. The proposed action will allow grazing to continue on the four proposed research
natural areas. The proposal would reduce livestock numbers to improve the vegetation. The areas and their livestock
reductions are: 1) Little Doubtful, grazing unit 45, reduce 60 percent, 2) Dos Cabezas, grazing unit 72, reduce 60
percent, 3) Howell Canyon, grazing unit 73, reduce 73 percent, 4) Government Peak, grazing unit 73, reduce 73
percent. 2/ UG page 3-57.

GM84 Outstanding Natural Areas. The MFP recommendation for the outstanding natural areas (ONA) is to preserve
their riparian habitat and their associated birdlife, fish, and animals:

1. Livestock grazing in the Gila Box (grazing units 3, 7, 16, 17, and 167) and Bonita Creek (grazing units 165,
166 and 167) would be deferred for 3 to 5 years to allow for the propagation and improvement in condition
of the riparian habitat. Afterward livestock grazing would be allowed.

nw

The public lands in Eagle Creek ONA (grazing units 3 and 168) are steep, poorly accessible to livestock,
and contain little riparian habitat. Since the public lands are located in the uplands that would be grazed in
conjunction with the bottomlands, grazing on the public lands would be low.

3. The riparian habitat of the canyon bottoms of Fishhook Canyon (grazing unit 151), Markham Canyon
(grazing units 154 and 158) and Johnny Creek (grazing unit 165) would be grazed in conjunction with the
uplands.

4. The Santa Rita three pasture rotation system proposed for a portion of Markham Canyon (grazing unit 158)

in2to3 years would provide adequate range rest to improve the condition of the existing riparian vegetation,

2/ UG pages 3-57 to3-58.

GMO91 Since the EIS was wniten, a new allotment has been formed due to private land exchanges. The San Pedro
allotment number 5296, not to be confused with the San Pedro Planning Unit, contains 43,400 acres of public lands
with a livestock carrying capacity of 4,068 AUMs. A grazing decision has been issued eliminating grazing upon
expiration of the current lease on December 31, 1987. Future leasing for livestock grazing use will depend upon the
outcome of pending legislation and BLM's land use planning. 3/ EA ROD page 2.

GM93 Land that is presently unleased for livestock use would remain unleased, with vegetation reserved for
wildlife and nonconsumptive use. 3/ EA ROD page 2.

GM94 The alternativeselected, whichis the environmentallypreferredaltemative, isAlternative A-- Rangeland
improvement. 3/EA ROD page 5.

GM96 For each of the four alternatives presented in the EIS, target stocking rates have been set for each allotment.
(Refer to Appendices 13, 14). In reviewing the target stocking rate figures and other recommended changes it is
emphasized that the target Animal Unit Month (AUM) figures are not final stocking rates. Rather, all livestock use
adjustments will be implemented through documented mutual agreement or decision. When adjustments are made

D-7


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

“y LUV 01 poeoold|

Ayp Aq spedus} uevedu jo uoyeziumujus aunsua 0} yeis sounosa Aq S}IS|A ays SUNINOY!

KNOW) Sujpusysiepun yo wnpueioWoY)

“hy ulejexe ‘poubis) €°€
Sem GOU 84) sours pajvewajduil
Byu ueeq evey suonoe Uevedy OU 411
cuoneuRsax3}
BAA
“y LUVd % peered
47900 ued siyedal|
ewiy YONs {HUN seve UeLEdL UWA Bu;ZeJ6 yD0)SeAq PeZLOYINEUN JO) MOE UED su0}e} ‘aquosap pue| _.
BBOUL “aAVIYEA JOJOW JeuoHBE:OG! PSzZLOYINEUN (¢) JO ‘WISyjepueA (Z) ‘Bujpooy jeuosEos (sluone youn secur ‘soa s} 2(‘ayef © ©
woy Guninsey seBeuyeip u) payed) (1) Saunsoyoxe jo juawWeoRdsip aly) OF onp Seale] *pooy ‘auy “9"!) |ujUES INO puokag,
‘@WOS UI SSNS PeonpeL 8] ave\y ‘seuNsopOXe sous) UEUEdU S*}'¢ pue p } ¢ SuipeBey SIUSAD JO SSNEJ|q jnjsseconsuN|
wuoneueydxy suonoe aaoge aun so Aue aenal
pioy Kaains .sisi6o}01q sauaysy U) pa}ou ‘yers sounosas Aq paonpUcD suoLedsuI lensiA| A) seineopxg soueg uoyedh) Site
“sjoned| [uoyenjaxe|
saBuey Jeary yy sindo0 Byuyoyuow ‘osiy "SID YUM PaleUIpIOCD aie PUB SPIEPUEIS (AHO) apiyes AemyBry yo pus]
8109 WIV tiviTy eoojcud BuylopuoW ‘sadeds (391) pers6uepuy pue peusjeeyy SaA} (Saunsopxa Bou) UeLEdY) SO}SEAII]} LC
PUB 'SpIPIM ‘LonE}eGeA ‘Aenb Jojem Sesseuppe Sit “(JowUNE YORo sol [esAa8) UBid JuaWBeuEW Bary UOHBAIesUOD
JOAU 84) Jo B|IWW YORE JOj PaToNpUCD S| diysiaUTEd W3LS Aq UOHDaI}O9 EVP 8118-UO| JeuoyeN UsLediy x0g EHD)
4 “"yEaID ey Ul eUedid
couenee” seal sayem 405 "Zv ‘poyeS Jo AND UWA! e'L'e

Mewssesse aAyenjenb ays-uO ‘elep UIOd OJON

89,

(Buudg uokueo|

Zaumpew ‘vokued Buyds ‘Buuds}

PIOD WM Aasod ‘EM PIEMOH “YseM
JayOd “MBIq Spues pue ‘suokuED
edjenzry pue adnjepend) uojeioysay

zee

pueidn payenossy pus veyediy
‘BINpEYyos BuoyuoW jo Led jou YGnoune ‘sys, pyoy Guunp suoNBAresgo YEIs CuNDSSY| $84) [RAoWaY JBpED Hes] FL
(s}saunog Beg seeusAp aya SupcyuoW eARIOy3 uopdusseg uoRDy

“E'S Hed 03 drys ‘pa|uEtue;duy UeEg BABY SUONIE OU J “UOISNsIUO INO
@}BpH}2A 0} SBIUNOS B}BP BY} js} PUB (xOg UMOP aip BY WOY OU 40 SBX BSCOYD) SUOsIB BSOY) JO SsaUEATIEYS O47 BJENIBAT peubis Sem GOY
84] eours pejuewejduy ueaq saBy Jey) (SemAnoe puncJB-ey}-UO ‘sjueueeN} UONe)e66A “6'8) SuopI UaLadu jUBOYIUE}S ¢ ISi{ ‘Mofeq GoRds oY UY]

suonoy UeLedny Jo ssaueARoeyy pue UOREUOWIE;duy - ¢ LuVd

‘sj208 uonipuco uepedy Guyaaiuoe piemoy ssaBosd jueomubys Gunjew suri juawabeuey aounosay jo jusag
:20'b'p QINSBAW SOUBUO}[ed UO BuNoday Jo} yeySHJoAA

B-3


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

National Register of Historic Places
o Kearny Encampment Site

Wild and Scenic River — consideration for more than 30 miles of stream
o Safford District RMP Partial ROD I:
— Gila River
— Aravaipa Creek
— Bonita Creek
— Hot Springs Canyon
— Turkey Creek
— San Pedro River*
— Swamp Springs Canyon>

© Safford District RMP Partial ROD II:
— Gila River (Gila Box section)
~— Lower San Francisco River

o Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative EIS
— Gila River Study River®

B. Purpose of Evaluation

A periodic evaluation of LUPs and environmental review procedures is required in BLM
planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-9) to determine the status of ongoing plan monitoring
conformance and implementation.

The purpose of a LUP evaluation is to determine whether the LUP decisions and National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analysis are still valid and whether the plan is being
implemented. The LUP is evaluated to:

Determine if decisions are relevant to current issues.
Identify any decisions that need to be revised.
List decisions that need to be dropped from further consideration.

Determine if decisions are effective in achieving (or making progress toward achieving)
desired outcomes.

Identify areas that require new decisions.

Determine if the BLM is managing according to the approved RMP. For example, are
decisions used when preparing annual work plans and associated budgets? Are all project
proposals checked for conformance with plan decisions?

Identify if the issues in the current LUP have been resolved (or progress is being made
towards resolution). If issues were not resolved, identify why e.g., were the issue-specific
decisions implemented? If the decisions were implemented, were they effective?

4.5.6 Stream segment is currently administered by the TFO.

4

C\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

established in a plan revision. A plan revision should also incorporate land health
standards as management common to all alternatives that should be considered by all
resource programs. Vegetation management issues are being achieved by area-specific
plans as needed. Current GIS data, updated regional planning efforts (i.c., Rapid
Ecosystem Assessment, watershed management plans), and available monitoring data,
should be used to inform new RMP objectives. The RMP does not adequately provide
management direction to address the introduction and spread of noxious and invasive
species. Although vegetation treatments such as chemical, fire, and mechanical are
covered under the ROD, there is little specific guidance addressing noxious and other
invasive species (including riparian). The list of these species has grown quite large since
this plan was developed.

SFO references two herbicide programmatic ElSs’ for guidance. See Fire Management
and Fuels above regarding biomass utilization.

e Visual Resources Management (VRM). VRM classes were allocated in the current RMP,
but visual resource inventories (VRI) were not completed or mapped during development
of the plan. The RMP is from the early 1990s and does not completely reflect current
resource demand and public sensitivity to visual changes. A VRI within the SFO was
conducted in 2011 for the Gila area and in 2014 for the upper San Pedro Basin. This data
should be used when considering VRM decisions during a plan revision. The constraints
imposed by the VRM classes for protecting visual values while managing development
generally works well. Some VRM classes need updating. For example:

o VRM Class III is currently designated along federal and State highway corridors
identified as having scenic routes. VRM Class II may be more appropriate for
protecting visual resource values along those routes (SR-177, -77), particularly
SR-77 corridor along the Gila River SRMA. The VRM classes for areas adjacent
to Wilderness should be evaluated in a plan revision to see if the current transition
from a Class J to a Class IV is appropriate. Land abutting the Class I area may
qualify for an intermediate VRM class.

VRM is receiving more public and non-governmental organization interest.

e Wildlife/Fisheries and Threatened & Endangered (T&E). Since Safford District RMP
approval, new priority species and habitat (including T&E listings) have been identified,
and should be reflected in the a plan revision. Some of the T&E listings are addressed in
Biological Opinions (BO) on a project-by-project basis and others District-wide. Activity
plans have been developed to include T&E components in compliance with the RMP
(e.g., Gila Box, Muleshoe, Aravaipa EMP), but activity plans specific to T&E
species/habitats have not been developed. USFWS consultation should be considered for
the most recently listed species and their associated critical habitats. Implementation of
broad-level RMP objectives for special status species has occurred, but are not
measurable, Measureable objectives and management prescriptions should be established.

Since the RMP was finalized, recovery plans pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act have been completed for the following species: Arizona cliffrose, Beautiful

7 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (2006); Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr,
and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (2016).

18
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evalua

tion Report

Decision # and Page #

Maintenance | Needed

Plan. No Change | Modify

Decision

Drop
Decision

New
Decision
Needed

RMP = Safford District RMP. UG = Upper Gila-;

San Simon Grazing ES

EA = Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS

‘WFO9, RMP page 33

x

WF10, RMP page 33

WF11, RMP page 33

WF12, RMP page 33

WF14, RMP page 34

WFI7, RMP page 34

WF18, RMP page 34

Land Use Allocation Decisions

CLO5, RMP page 43

GMO03, UG ROD page 2

GMO04, UG ROD page 3

GMO06, UG page 1-5

GM07, UG page 1-6

GMO08, UG page 1-6

GM24, UG page 1-8

GM49, UG page 1-24

GM5SO, UG page 1-24

GM51, UG page 1-24

GMS2, UG page 1-25

GMB83, UG page 3-57

GM84, UG pages 3-57, 3-58

in part

in part

GM91, EA ROD page 2



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

New
Plan No Change | Modify Drop | Decision
Decision # and Page # Maintenance | Needed | Decision | Decision | Needed
RMP = Safford District RMP UG = Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing ES EA = Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS

GM93, EA ROD page 2

x

GM94, EA ROD page 5

GM96, EA DEIS page 5

GMIO1I, EA DEIS page 6

GM104, EA DEIS page 6

GM108, EA DEIS page 7

MIO04, RMP pages 37, 40 modified by Partial
ROD I page 8, and Partial ROD II page 6

MIO5, RMP pages 37, 40 modified by Partial
ROD I page 8, and Partial ROD II page 6

Mi06, RMP pages 37, 40 modified by Partial
ROD I page 8, and Partial ROD II page 6

RRO3, RMP page 32. Partial ROD I page5

RRO4, RMP page 32. Partial ROD I page5S

RROS, RMP page 32. Partial ROD I page5

RP18, RMP page 33

RP19, RMP page 33

SMO9, RMP Partial ROD II page 3

SM15, RMP Partial ROD II page 4

SM17, RMP Partial ROD II page 4

SM18, RMP Partial ROD II page 4

SM20, Partial ROD II page 5

C4



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

GILA RESOURCE AREA TUCSON RESOURCE AREA
Aravaipa Ecosystem San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area
North Santa Teresa Mule Mountains
Northwest Gila Valley Cascabel
Southwest Gila Valley San Manuel
Gila Box System Mammoth
Cactus Flat Dudleyville
Muleshoe
Copper Creek
SAN SIMON RESOURCE AREA Cienega Creek
San Simon Valley Baboquivari
Dos Cabezas Mountains Silver Bell
Guadalupe Canyon Picacho Mountains
Willcox Playa Tortilita Mountains
Sawtooth Mountains

LR1O0 Disposal Areas - Public lands outside of the 24 Long-Term Management Areas may be considered for
disposal. These public land areas are identified on Map 27 (amended). Public lands qualifying for sale are identified
in Appendix 5 (amended). All identified public lands do not have to be disposed of, unforeseen land management
concems, the presence of significant natural resources, or public concerns raised during the National Environmental
Policy Act process may prevent disposal. Public lands that may be considered for disposal are found in the following
general areas, 1/ RMP Land Tenure Amendment page 6 and 7,

Gila Resource Area

1. Morenci Area (public Lands in and around the Morenci mine)

2. Safford Area (public Lands surrounding Dos Pobres, San Juan, and Lone Star Mines)
Fort Thomas area (south of the Gila River)
Glenbar/Pima area (Cottonwood Wash area)

. York area (tracts near New Mexicoborder)
. Artesia area
. San Simon Cityarea
9. Portal area
10. Dos Cabezas Townsite area
11. SanBernardrino Valley area (scattered tracts)
12. Southern Sulfur Springs Valley area (Swisshelm Mountains)
13. Douglas area
14. Texas Canyonarea

3.

4.
San Simon Resource Arca

6.

7

8.

Tucson Resource Area

15. Tombstone area

16. Bisbee area

17. Red Rock area

18. Friendly Cornersarea

19. San Xavierarea

20. Three Points area

21. Arivaca area

22. All lands previously classified for sale or lease under the Recreation and PublicPurposes Act and Sections
203 and 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

LR14 Six areas are established as right-of-way exclusion areas. These areas are as follows: 1/RMP page 36.
Partial ROD I page6.

1. Dos Cabezas Peaks ACEC
2. Bear Springs Badlands ACEC

D-13


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Vegetation, Fish & Wildlife, TRE
Marcia Radke, Biologist

Soil, Water, Air Quality
Ben Lomeli, Hydrologist

Visual Resources, Special Area Designations, Wild & Scenic Rivers, National Scenic & Historic Trails,
ACECs, Recreation
Francisco Mendoza

Wilderness, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Heather Swanson

Climate Trends

Jeff Simms, Biologist

Linda Dunlavey, Realty Specialist

Eric Baker, Range Management Specialist

Karen Simms, Assistant Field Manager

Dan Moore, Geologist

Francisco Mendoza

Marcia Radke, Biologist

Heather Swanson, Natural Resource Biologist

Amy Markstein, Planning & Environmental Coordinator

A3


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Contents

TL. Summary Information.............ccccccsscessssesseeneseenscnseseeseessnnsseeneensenensesensennenssucansasansnssnssasereers 1
TI. Evaluation ........cce--s--e---cstesssssssesssssccacsrentosenersssecnenusvenstecncnscnrsesesssonsansbersesssoncassnscnsssnensonsssees 2
TIL. RMP Implementation.........ccccccsccsesssesersesssesessseessesenessecsccnneenssanesuennnsaneesnecnsesesaavesnsansessness 19
IV. Consistency with Other Plans of Other Agencies or Tribes ..........:scssesssneeeseeesnneesneesseeceene 20
V..- Plan Comformanscee ......isss.......-oscassssonesesnesosocseransevsiascessutasnceanssnecnecusencostatonssscoucavesseanrevepasoves 20

VI. Isa Plan Amendment or Revision Necessary..

Attachment A _ List of Interdisciplinary Team Members

Attachment B Riparian Worksheet...........cessssscsssssssssseessesssesseensesneensesnecneesscenecnersecenneesvennessne B-1

Attachment C Safford District RMP Decision Status ..........:-ssscsssssssesseestecetereesereneeaennennees C-1

Attachment D Safford District RMP Decisions .............2:ss:ssscsessssseesessneseneeneseneesnennnssnecsneennens D-1
i

C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-sec1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

'WS34 Continue to manage the air shed in accordance with State of Arizona Class [I standards, unless accepted as
non-attainment or redesignated. Class II standards allow for moderate deterioration of air quality associated with
moderate, well-controlled industrial and population growth. 1/ RMP pages 26 and 47. Partial ROD I page 10.

'WS36 When implementing BLM or BLM approved activities, minimize surface disturbances to prevent the addition
of large quantities of dust to the air. When surface disturbances occur, enforce stipulations to mitigate the impacts to
air quality. [/ RMP page 47. Partial ROD I page 10.

WS37 Continue the rehabilitation of erosion in the San Simon Watershed and Bear Springs Flat area to reduce
airborne dust. 1/ RMP page 47. Partial ROD I page 10.

Wildlife/Fisheries (WF)

WFO2 District management will focus on priority species and their associated habitats to maintain or enhance
population levels. Threatened and endangered, proposed, candidate, State-listed and other special status species will
be managed to enhance or maintain District population levels or in accordance with established inter/intra-agency
management plans. District management efforts will be directed towards the enhancement of biological diversity.

l/ ROD Part I page 6.

WF04 Retain in public ownership all habitat essential to the survival or recovery of any Threatened and
Endangered Species, including habitat used historically by these species. 1/ RMP page 21.

WFO05 Maintain and enhance priority species and their habitat. 1/ RMP page 33.

WF06 Focus management actions on a single species only when required by the Endangered Species Act. Actively
promote Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery to achieve eventual delisting. 1/ RMP page 33.

WFO07 Conserve candidate species to ensure that BLM authorized actions do not contribute to the need to list any
species as threatened or endangered. 1/ RMP page 33.

WFO09 Manage priority wildlife species habitat (vegetation communities) or special features of that habitat (water,
riparian vegetation, cliffs, etc.) to maintain or enhance population levels. 1/ RMP page 33.

WFO Focus management efforts on enhancing biological diversity. 1/ RMP page 33.

WF11 Establish the following as priority species and habitats. Federal listed, proposed, and candidate Threatened
and Endangered Species and their habitat; State-listed Threatened and Endangered species and their habitat;
important game species and their habitat; and other sensitive species and their habitat. 1/ RMP page 33.

WF 12 The following are a list of priority species at the time of the SDO RMP publication:

Riparian and aquatic habitat dependent species; Gila topminnow, pupfish, southern bald eagle, loach minnow, spike
dace, Gila chub, Colorado round tail chub, razorback sucker, western yellow-billed cuckoo, gray hawk, Mississippi
kite, common black-hawk, ferruginous pygmy-owl, willow flycatcher, leopard frog, black bear, turkey, and
waterfowl. 1/ RMP page 33.

Oak woodland dependent species; white-tailed deer, turkey, black bear, and Montezuma quail. 1/ RMP page 33.

Species identified for reintroduction in Fish and Wildlife Service plans, aplomado falcon and woundfin.
I/ RMP page 33.

Additional species and habitats; Desert tortoise, Desert and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Mule deer, Pronghorn
antelope, Neotropical migratory birds. I/ RMP page 33.

Other species and habitats of interest; peregrine falcon, red bat, Sanborn's long-nosed bat, Mexican long-tongued bat,

D-5


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Lands identified for disposal will be inventoried for the presence of significant natural and cultural resources,
threatened and endangered plants and animals, flood hazards and other critical factors.

The actual transfer of the land cannot be finalized until these reviews are complete and National Environmental
Policy Act analysis and documentation is complete.

According to The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all lands not identified for disposal must be
retained under federal administration to be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
Unforeseen future land management concems or public demand may necessitate the disposal of other public lands.
Such proposals will require this plan to be amended with the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act
compliance documentation as part of the amendment. 1/ RMP Land Tenure Amendment pages 4, 5.

Minerals/Energy (M1)

MIO1 Consistent with Bureau of Land Management policy the Safford District will encourage and foster the
development of energy and mineral resources located on public land while assuring that undue or unnecessary
degradation on these or nearby lands does not occur. 1/ RMP Partial ROD | page 8.

MIO2 Entry, sale and lease of mineral and energy resources will be managed through the use of appropriate

regulations, withdrawals, and stipulations to avoid undue or unnecessary impacts to other resource values. 1/ RMP
Partial ROD I page 8.

Paleontological Resources (PL)

PLO1 Fossil resources located on public land within the District will be managed for the protection of their scientific
and public values. 1/ RMP Partial ROD I page 11.

PL06 Preserve arepresentativesamp!cofClassI (sce appendix 12) paleontological localities. 1/ RMP page 47.

PLO7 Ensure that BLM actions avoid inadvertent damage to paleontological resources. 1/ RMP page 47.

PLO8 Manage paleontological resources to preserve their scientific and interpretative values. 1/ RMP page 47. Partial
ROD I page 1.

PLO9 Emphasize management of Class I sites. 1/ RMP page 47.

Reereation Resources Management (RR)
RRO1 All public lands within the district will be designated open, closed or limited to off-highway vehicle use to meet

public demand, protect resources, and public health and safety, and minimize conflicts. 1/ RMP page 20. Partial
ROD I page 5.

RRO7 The Safford District will endeavor to provide a variety of recreational opportunities that meets public demand
and arecompatible with the Bureau's stewardship responsibilities. 1/ RMP Partial ROD I page 7.

Riparian Resources (RP)

RPOI_ In accordance with National and State BLM directives, Safford District will manage riparian areas, located on
public lands within the District, to achieve good to excellent condition on 75% of the riparian zone acreage by 1997.
1/ RMP page 20 & 32. Partial ROD I page 5. (See Map 26).

RP20 Maintain and monitor representative relict riparian areas to provide a baseline for future management
decisions. 1/ RMP page 33.

D-3


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

reassessed in a plan revision.

Fire Management and Fuels. Management actions to achieve fire management goals and
objectives do not conflict with the goals and objectives for vegetation or wildlife,
although methods can result in short term impacts to these other resources but are
ultimately beneficial for species and their habitats. Other resource decisions minimally
address fire. Effective fire management would benefit from a RMP revision to include
developing and stating desired future conditions with triggers/thresholds amongst the
other resources (e.g., key species percentage of vegetation canopy cover, grassland
restoration, uplands and watershed measurable objectives). Echoing the 2001 plan
evaluation, a plan revision should fully integrate the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan
Amendment (LUPA) for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management and incorporate the
most current fire policies. A plan revision should consider opportunities for biomass
utilization goals, such as bio-generation of slash. Wildland urban interface (WUI) issues
are not addressed in the Safford District RMP and issues are being achieved by area-
specific plans as needed. Utilizing current GIS data, updated regional planning efforts
(ie., Rapid Ecosystem Assessment, watershed management plans), and available
monitoring data, should be used to inform new RMP objectives.

Grazing Management. Grazing decisions, including lands available and not available for
livestock grazing, were incorporated into the Safford RMP from the Upper Gila-San
Simon Grazing ES and Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS. Allotment selective management
categories (Custodial, Maintain and Improve) per IM 2009-018 need to be revisited and
subsequently incorporated into the RMP. Currently, selective management categories are
not reflective of existing resource conditions in a limited number of cases. The 2001
evaluation noted a need to address grazing issues along the Gila River above the Gila
Box. Since then, implementation of measures identified in the Gila Box RNCA
Management Plan (1998) has occurred, which included administrative and physical
livestock grazing restrictions within the riparian portions of the RNCA. Forage available
to livestock (Animal Unit Months) established in the Upper Gila-San Simon grazing ES
was incorporated into the RMP. Any authorized changes to AUMs since then are not
reflected in the Safford District RMP. Since there has not been a comprehensive
assessment of the grazing management program for SFO since 1978, a RMP revision
should consider such an effort. This can be supported with monitoring data and geospatial
data sets such as NRCS geospatial production layers. An RMP revision may consider
management in periods of drought and use adaptive management for grazing forage
management.

Hazardous Materials. As noted in the 2001 plan evaluation, the Safford District RMP
documents lack land use planning level decisions addressing hazardous materials and
abandoned mine lands. Future land use planning efforts should incorporate information
pertaining to hazardous materials and develop LUP decisions as needed.

Lands and Realty. As noted in the 2001 plan evaluation, the decisions in the Safford
District RMP provide program purpose and goals. Lands identified and mapped for
disposal and acquisition per the Land Tenure Amendment (LTA) need to be digitized into
GIS. These lands identified for disposal have not been evaluated or surveyed for legal
descriptions. Subsequent to the LTA, SFO has identified a number of private in-holdings
for acquisition located within or adjacent to Wilderness areas and the Gila Box RNCA.

II

C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

for mineral materials in the upper San Pedro River Valley located within TFO may
warrant the designation of community pits.

e Paleontological Resources. The Safford District RMP decisions provide broadly stated
management guidance for paleontological resources. Protection measures for
paleontological resources may conflict with measures for cultural resources, and are
addressed case-by-case.

e Recreation, Plan designation and validity of Special Recreation Management Areas
(SRMA) are as follows:
o Aravaipa Canyon/Turkey Creek area - valid
o Gila Box/Bonita Creek area — valid
o Christmas (Gila River below Coolidge dam) - valid
o Red Knolls/Bear Springs Badlands/Watson Wash areas — partially invalid, as
Watson Wash Hot Spring has been decommissioned;
Hot Well Dunes — valid
o Additional lands in the San Pedro RNCA are not included in the existing
management plan for the area. The San Pedro RNCA SRMA designation is
currently being revisited in the SPRNCA RMP planning effort.
RMP validity of additional general recreation areas identified for project planning:
o Gila Mountain Crest Trail - valid
Aravaipa — valid (complete)
Watson Wash Hot Well — invalid (RMP duplication)
Safford-Morenci Trail — valid
Red Knolls — valid
Guadalupe Canyon - valid
Black Hills Rockhound Area - valid
Round Mountain Rockhound Area — valid
Fort Bowie/Helens Dome Trail — valid

The Safford District RMP does not identify recreation opportunity spectrum classes
(ROS) or setting characteristics and/or recreation management zones (RMZ). However, a
ROS inventory and RMA designations would improve recreation management. More
generally, managing public lands within SFO as a SRMA, extended RMA (ERMA), or
land not designated as recreation management area for dispersed recreation should be
considered. Management objectives for producing specific recreation opportunities is
inadequate and the RMP does not place restrictions on recreation use to sustain other
resource values. This should be considered in a future plan revision.

Some recreation management plans for SRMAs designated in the RMP either have been
developed as a stand-alone plan (Hot Well Dunes) or addressed within ecosystem
management plans (Gila Box, Aravaipa— see Special Area Designations, page 16). Other
areas identified in the RMP for SRMA designation warrant re-evaluation to reflect the
current needs of recreation users. As noted in the Minerals section (page 12), two
trockhound areas should be considered for mining claim withdrawal and may warrant
SRMA designation.

Limitations and restrictions on land uses and recreational activities are addressed in the
Safford District RMP, specifically within Wilderness, ACECs, and the Gila Box RNCA.
The RMP needs to incorporate current travel management guidelines (restrictions)

O°

ooo0oo0o00 0

13
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


SAFFORD DISTRICT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Arizona

September 2017

CA\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

New
Plan No Change | Modify Drop | Decision
Decision # and Page # Maintenance | Needed Decision | Decision | Needed
RMP = Safford District RMP UG = Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing ES EA = Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS

RPOI, RMP pages 20, 32. Partial ROD I page 5

x

RP20, RMP page 33

RP22, RMP page 33

SM03, RMP page 19

SM16, RMP Partial ROD II page 4

‘VM02, RMP pages 24, 45. Partial ROD I page 10

‘VMO04, RMP page 45

WSO1, Partial ROD I page 10

WS12, RMP page 46. Partial ROD I page 10

WS 13, RMP page 25. Partial ROD I page 10

WS 14, RMP page 25. Partial ROD I page 10

WS20, RMP page 46

WS29, RMP page 46

WS34, RMP pages 26, 47. Partial ROD I page 10

WS36, RMP page 47. Partial ROD I] page 10

WS37, RMP page 47. Partial ROD I page 10

WFO02, RMP Partial ROD I page 6

WF04, RMP page 21

WFOS, RMP page 33

WFO6, RMP page 33

WFO7, RMP page 33



Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Attachment A

Safford District RMP
5-Year Evaluation

Safford Field Office ID Team & Interview Schedule

July 12 — 10-11 a.m. (Tuesday)

Riparian Worksheet

Heidi Blasius, Fishery Biologist

Jeffery Conn, Natural Resources Specialist

Amy Corathers, Planning and Environmental Specialist (P&ES)

(Subsequent Gila District/TFO contributions: Amy Markstein, Gila District Planning & Environmental
Coordinator; Jeff Simms, Biologist; Ben Lomeli, Hydrologist.)

July 18 — 9-10:30 a.m. (Monday)
Riparian, Fish and Wildlife, T&E

Amy Corathers, Planning and Environmental Specialist (P&ES); Heidi Blasius, Fisheries Biologist; Jeffery
Conn, Natural Resources Specialist; Joneen (Jony) Cockman, Lead Natural Resources Specialist; Sharisse
Fisher, GIS Specialist.

Cultural
Dan McGrew, Archaeologist, on Fire Duty; forwarded responses via email.

July 18 — 3-3:30 p.m. (Monday)
Minerals, Paleontology

Larry Thrasher, Geologist

Amy Corathers, P&ES.

Sharisse Fisher, GIS Specialist

July 19 — 10:30 — Noon (Tuesday)
Travel, Recreation, Wilderness, VRM, ACEC

Todd Murdock, Recreation Planner
Amy Corathers, P&ES
Sharisse Fisher, GIS Specialist

July 19 — 1-2:00 p.m. (Tuesday)
Fire & Fuels

Dan Quintana, Fire Management Specialist
Amy Corathers, P&ES
Sharisse Fisher, GIS Specialist

July 19 - 2:30 — 3:30 (Tuesday)
AQ, Climate Trends, Water

Amelia Taylor, Assistant Field Manager




Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

through mutual agreement, they may be implemented once the Rangeland Program Summary (record of decision)
has been adopted. 3/ EA DEIS page 5.

GM101 Unleased tracts generally will remain available for further consideration for authorized grazing, as provided
in the BLM grazing regulations (43 CFR 4110 and 4130). However, certain tracts totaling 18,635 acres are not
currently authorized for grazing and will remain unleased, These lands are either unsuitable for grazing or have been
scheduled for disposal. 3/ EA DEIS page 6.

GM104 Long-term target AUM figures ({rom increased vegetation production through revision of grazingsystems
alreadyimplemented, additional grazingsystemsand variouslandtreatments) would be 117,790 AUMs to livestock. The
vegetation increases would be distributed on the basis of 4 percent to livestock and 60 percent to non-consumptive
uses. 3/ EA DEIS page 6.

GM108 Stocking additional animals would beallowed inthe good ephemeral years where additional but unquantified
AUMs of forage are available. 3/ EA DEIS page 7.

Energy and Minerals (M1)

MI04 Withdraw the following eleven areas from mineral entry. 1. Table Mountain RNA ACEC (1,220 acres). 2.
Desert Grasslands ACEC (380 acres) 3. Bear Springs Badlands ACEC ( 2,927acres). 4. Bowie Mountain Scenic
ACEC (2,230 acres), 5. Fourmile Canyon Campground (159 acres). 6. Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition
Monitoring Station (10 acres). 7, Yuma Wash Archaeological Site (120 acres). 8. Tres Alamos Archacological Site
(160 acres). 9. Midway Cave Archaeological Site (40 acres), 10, Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC (40 acres).

11, Proposed District Office site (12 acres), Future withdrawals will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 1/ RMP
page 37 and 40 modified by Partial ROD I page 8, and Partial ROD II page 6.

MIO5 Prohibit the sale of mineral matcrials on 9,960 acres to preserve sensitive resource values in the following
areas, Bear Springs Badlands ACEC (2,927 acres). 2. Bowie Mountain scenic ACEC (2,230 Acres). 3. Dos Cabezas
Peaks ACEC (25 acres). 4. Riparian areas other than those located in ACECs (4,458 acres). 5. Tres Alamos
Archacological Site (160 acres). 6, Yuma Wash archaeological Site (120 acres). 7. Eagle Creck Bat Cave ACEC (40
acres). Sale of minerals will be prohibited inarcas with riparian vegetation. 1/ RMP page 40, modified by Partial
ROD I page 9 and Partial ROD II page 6. Gila Box ACEC not designated.

MI06_ Issuc mineral and energy leases with "No Surface Occupancy” on 11,629 acres in the following areas to
preserve sensitive resource values. 1, Bear Springs Badlands ACEC (2,927 acres). 2. Bowie Mountain Scenic
ACEC (3,600 acres). 3. Dos Cabezas Peaks ACEC (25 acres). 4. Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC 40 acres) 5. Riparian
arcas other than those located in ACECs (4,458 acres). 6. Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing Areas (90 acres).

7. Fourmile Canyon Campground (159 acres). 8. Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Station (10
acres). 9. Yumia Wash Archacological Site (120 acres). 10. Tres Alamos Archaeological Site (160 acres).

11, Midway Cave Archacological Site (40 acres) Proposed District Office site (12acres). In addition, surface
occupancy will not be allowed in riparian areas, campgrounds, administrative sites or Bighorn Sheep lambing areas
February | to April 30 each year. 1/ RMP page 40, modified by Partial ROD | page 9 and Partial ROD II page 6.
Gila Box ACEC not designated.

Recreation Resources Management (RR)

RRO3 Designate the following areas as closed to off-highway vehicle use. All designated wilderness areas, Turkey
Creek above Oak Grove Canyon Corral, Oak Grove Canyon, Desert Grasslands RNA ACEC, Wilcox Playa NNL
ACEC, and Hot Springs Canyon Riparian Area. 1/ RMP page 32. Partial ROD | page 5.

RRO4 Off-Highway vehicle usc is limited to designated roads in the San Pedro and Gila Box Riparian National
Conservation Areas. 1/ RMP page 32. Partial ROD I page 5.

RROS5 Designate the remainder of the public lands in the District limited to off-highway vehicle use. Off-highway

D-8


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Ld

Ty Luvd % pesroid)
‘s1805 pue seanooiqo du 0} pan ele suONDE Le JI
zy
“hum wrerdxe ‘1806 payeposse pus exypelgo dW
Ue 0} Pen eq JOU WED PepLAcid @A,NOA suORIe Aue JI]
loney
BLy
aly
Ley
ony
‘SeUNSOpXY SOUay UEUEdIY|
£681 Aq uowpuco “GaNjeA Loeaoal
Wwo1je0x8 4 pOOG u] PINSIC SiN] PUB aIPUM SI} JO} AedpuUd peBeUEW Ue POUR}
UUM spUB] DYGNd UO YONE}eBe4) 2q [1 1eyQey UeLEdy a1qISeod Ayea}shyd asoyM| puoyes| Sty
uauedy jo abeene ey) eugey vEpeds 0} uaA!B aq wm uonUSyE jepeds
10 %S2 SAordul) 40 Ure WEW O4| ‘uONE}UaWEKdu qv Jo BabEYS }euy oY) Bung SZqy|
"WONY na P Eons)
qwouraBe dojenog HO) apiyon AemyGtu yo pue}
te dos ne vay {sainsopxe eousy uauedy) x0}soniI]
ued WowFeueW Bay UOnEAIaSsUOD|
‘suojsoep weweBeuew
49881) bese Scare BuMNy 20) euyasEq @ opmaid oF SeaIE UELEdU| leuoneN uewEd}y xOB BID) ve
qwoweBeuey YONY xoa eHO| youu aanewesauday souOW pues WBIUIEW O2du| =
‘sarquete Guibeuew puey Jaipo um wW9)shs)
94) JO VOR aWE;duy pue juBUUdOaA9p sjeUIPI009)
‘wajehs Aojueau uavedu @ dojeseg ET dy
“Seoue UsTedy jo juoUbEUEL "yoaUD EHUOG ul Suyedid]
“2663 fq uompuca} —_ PUB “Auatlonpaud ‘enjer ay) Uo YoEoNpe epmraid! 29) JO} 'Z¥ "AuOYeS Jo AID YUM
woy20Xe Jo pod ur oUsiC au], PUE 'S@HIATD® s]BU\pLOGD ‘jueWeGevEW jwous}dust Know) Gupusssepun jo wnpuesouroyy|
Ujtqim spue) ognd Uo LoReeban} VONBUUOU) areYys Oo} somed eyenud pue suonezjuebvo| puoyes| arp
weedy jo sBeare ayy) _ “SeLUUEADS je00) pue apEIS 'fex0Po} pajess0 U1 jo}

10 %Sz enosduy 40 Ye JEW O1)

WeWeAfoAu; ayy @Be:NCoUS puE yWM BBEd0RD Body]

‘sye06 uonipuce ueped) Guinanpe puemo) ssasbaid jueoyiubs Buyew suejg juewebeuey sasnosay jo juaueg
:LO'L'p Gunseay soueWoyed UO Guipoday Jo} jaaysony,

B+


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

ATTACHMENT D
SAFFORD DISTRICT RMP DECISIONS

DESIRED OUTCOMES AND GOALS

Cultural Resources (CL)

CLO1 Cultural resources located on public land within the Safford District will be managed for the broad objectives
of information potential, public values and conservation. 1/ RMP page 23 & 41. Partial ROD | page 9. (See Table
2-7 and Appendix 12).

CL02 Prioritize implementation of cultural resource management actions into five categories. 1/ RMP pages 41, 42.

First priority will be given to planned actions protecting threatened and significant cultural resources that would
otherwise be lost.

Second priority will be given to the preparation of management plans directing how the district manages its cultural
resources.

Third priority will be given in cases where there is good reason to believe that cultural resources are being adversely
affected even though they are not located in any area of proposed activity.

Fourth priority will be given to collecting cultural resource field data for planning purposes and for resource
utilization not part of any protection or mitigation measure.

Fifth priority will be given to non-field studies designed to collect data for management or scientific purposes and
for nominating properties to the National Register of Historic Places.

Grazing Management (GM)

GMO! The Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing Environmental Impact Statement wascompleted in 1978 and its decisions
have been implemented since then. Monitoring studies are in place and analysis indicates that rangeland condition is
improving under the present management. Present management has the flexibility to modify grazing levels and
seasons where necessary. In addition, the Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental Impact Statement was completed
in 1987 and the decisions made in that document are beginning to be implemented. The grazing decisions are
incorporated by reference. 1/ RMP page 12.

GM02 It is BLM's decision to implement an intensive grazing management program as described in the proposed
action section of the Final Upper Gila-San Simon ES. 2/ UG ROD page 1.

GM12 The general objective of the proposed action is to permit livestock to utilize a harvestable surplus of palatable
vegetation-a renewable resource-and thereby produce a usable food product. The proposed livestock management
program is based on the multiple-use management concept, which provides for the demands of various resource uses
and minimizes the conflicts among those uses or activities. Although the various uses of the rangeland resources can
be compatible, competition among uses requires constraints and mitigating measures to realize multiple-use resource
management goals. The specific objectives for each grazing unit are shown in Appendix C. 2/ UG page 1-6

GM32 Proper stocking is an essential principle of range management, which should precede or coincide with the
initiation of any grazing management system. With stocking rates in balance with the proposed grazing capacities,
utilization of key forage species in the key areas would average about 40 percent over a period of years, Ata given
stocking rate during years of high forage production (e.g. above normal rainfall) utilization in the use pasture might
be as low as 20 percent. During years of low forage production utilization could be as high as 60 percent. 2/ UG
page 1-9.


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

ATTACHMENT B

‘JeUOHCO S} JaYsHIOM Siu} Jo JapuyeWias a4y Bujajdwoo “ON, $1 FT 40 ST UORS:

Jaye 0} esucdsal ot} §]

88,

“seanoefqo pue sje206 ueuedu uje}u0o

JOU Se0P eNY Sit Aym [789 jueLULuCD

GY} U} EZUEURUNS PUB SSNISIP ON jl)
‘Z Lud 0) pasooud "Sa, J} 9'L

escounosas

en wepedu 0) pejejas sennaeigo

ssuuawwog pue sjeo8 T7ej705 gu eX 820
on NT zooaz seye pubis Gow ‘jewpuouy| st

euauniog) WY U2 10 “dINY 84) SEM

Jomsuy 1x01 ON/SOA

slainBIOD Awy! Joyenjeag pee] jo eweN) pL
SbZbiZ) UORBNBAR jo seg! ¢'}
(1 QOw leued) PEEL Aine pur (1 GOH leMed) Z661 sequiaidas| (Ou) vorst99q 40 piosey jo eq) 21
dW PHISIQ ployeS (diy) Uejd jueweBeuEW sDINOSAY JO BWEN) 1'L

AmarGbua — + Lavd

gjeo6 voypuce uepedy Buraape plemo; ssa/boud jueswubjs Bupyew suety juawobeuey sunosay Jo yadiad
120’ bp SINSBEY,] BOUEUIOLed UO Buoday Jo} JeaysoAA

B-1


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

o Visual Resources Management. Need VRM designations for lands in Navajo and
Apache counties.

o Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers LEIS
(1994) found some rivers in SFO suitable for inclusion in the WSR system, while
others were found not suitable. Overall RMP guidance provides for interim
management to protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

o Wilderness, Guidance lacking in RMP. Consider revising RMP to include recently
designated wilderness areas.

© Wildlife/Fisheries. Need to revise to reflect changes in State law regarding
trapping; incorporate relevant portions of the biological opinions issued by the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (jaguar, southwestern willow flycatcher, etc.)

F. Conclusions from Previous Evaluations

The 2001 evaluation correctly noted that due to reorganizations and boundary adjustments, SFO
manages lands under land use plans that have different histories, management priorities,
management techniques, and focus. The Safford District RMP contains references to areas that
are outside of the current field office boundary. The next revision of the RMP should address this
issue.

G. Results and Recommendations from Current Evaluation

RMP Decision Status

A review of RMP decisions was conducted to determine the status of each (e.g., decision valid,
decision valid but should be modified, drop the decision, or new decision needed.). Decisions
excluded from assessment were implementation or administrative decisions. The review revealed
the vast majority of the RMP decisions are valid but in need of modification which could be
accomplished through a plan revision. The results are provided in Attachment C.

RMP Effectiveness Monitoring of Renewable Resources on BLM Lands

The RMP was developed prior to the bureau’s formalized Assessment, Inventory, and
Monitoring (AIM) principles for determining the status and trend of the terrestrial and aquatic
resources relative to the objectives identified in the plan (IM 2016-139). Nevertheless, it is long-
standing practice for the SFO to monitor and evaluate renewable resources conditions through
the following:

¢ Land health assessments. Long-term monitoring data is collected via an agreement with
the University of Arizona. Section 3 (grazing district) allotments are monitored on five-
year intervals. Data collected include bare ground, canopy cover, and production
percentages to inform Land Health Evaluations (LHE) for processing grazing permit
renewals (GPR). Range management staff assess the 17 indicators for rangeland health,
often supplemented with Interdisciplinary team long-term monitoring (step point, line
intercept). Further, assessments of wildlife and special status species occur with each
LHE/GPR.

© Aquatic monitoring. The SFO Fishery Biologist conducts fish monitoring on regular
basis within the riparian systems of the Gila River, Bonita Creek, Aravaipa Canyon, and
Muleshoe Ranch. Data is reported annually to US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

9
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvaiRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

vehicle use will be limited to roads and trails existing at the time of designation and any new roads approved for
construction during the life of this Resource Management Plan. 1/ RMP page 32. Partial ROD I page 5.

Riparian Resource (RP)

RP18 Do not permit firewood cutting in riparian areas. 1/ RMP page 33.

RP19 Permit the removal of non-native vegetation for improvement of riparian vegetation. 1/ RMP page 33.

Special Management Areas (SM)

SM09 In order to increase management flexibility and to provide for accelerated rehabilitation of uplands and
riparian areas, initiate an immediate 50 percent suspension (2898 Animal Unit Months) of the total preference
(5,796 Animal Unit Months) on South Rim Allotment #4529. Collect utilization data annually for that portion of the
allotment used by allottee until BLM completes carrying capacity determination and first five-year evaluation of the
management prescription for the area. 1/ RMP Partial ROD II page 3.

SMI15 Hot Springs Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern Hot Springs Watershed will be designated as
an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The management prescriptions for livestock grazing will be developed
using the procedures described below. This language replaces the section on page 31 of the Proposed Resource
Management Plan that addresses livestock grazing. Other prescriptions described in the Resource Management Plan
will remain intact. I/ RMP Partial ROD II page 4.

SMI7 Continue the suspension of grazing use on the Hot Springs Watershed Area of Critical Environmental
Concern with the following management actions to be used to determine the final management prescription for the
area. RMP Partial ROD II page 4.

... Determine range suitability through a range evaluation process. Suitability will not be used to establish carrying
capacity.

... Initiate development of a Coordinated Resource Management Plan for the Muleshoe Cooperative Management
Area that includes the Hot Springs Watershed Arca of Critical Environmental Concem using a team of BLM
resource specialists, landowners, permittees, academia and representatives of other stateand federal agencies with
management responsibilities in the area.

«+. Present the resource goals and objectives of the Coordinated Resource Management Plan to The Arizona Nature
Conservancy.

.» The interdisciplinary team will complete the Coordinated Resource Management Plan for the Muleshoe
Cooperative Management Area including the Area of Critical Environmental Concern and propose specific resource
allocations and prescriptions for multiple uses to achieve the identified resource objectives.

... Begin implementation of the coordinated plan in FY 1995 including any activation of suspended grazing
preference at an appropriate level, and in a prescription consistent with achieving the resource objectives.

SM18 Authorize livestock use on the new Soza Mesa allotment at an initial stocking rate of 44 cattle year-long.
Utilization levels will not be permitted to exceed those prescribed in the Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental
Impact Statement (40% average over the full grazing cycle). Allottee will be expected to participate in construction
and maintenance of range improvements necessary to facilitate livestock use ofallotment. Specific livestock
management actions will be identified during the development of an Allotment Management Plan for the area.
Adjustments in carrying capacity will be made as part of the Allotment Management Plan evaluation process.

1 RMP Partial ROD IT page 4.

SM20 Desert Grasslands Area of Critical Environmental Concem The management prescription for the exclusion of

livestock from the Desert Grasslands Area of Critical Environmental Concern affects only lands not currently
accessible to livestock or are not presently being used for grazing. The other prescriptions will be as stated in the

D-9


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Lands and Realty (LR)

LROI Designate 24 Long-Term Management Areas in which the Bureau of Land Management will intensively
manage public lands for their multiple resource values as defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976. (See Table 2-1 and Map 27 (amended)). BLM will retain all public lands (surface and subsurface estate) and
may seek acquisition of state land within these areas. 1/ RMP Land Tenure Amendment page 2.

LR1I3 Five major utility corridors will be designated along existing lines. Any future major cross- District utility
rights-of-way proposals will be encouraged to use these corridors.

Arizona Electric Power Company | mile wide

Tucson Electric Power Company | mile wide

All-American Pipeline 1 mile wide

San Pedro | mile wide except crossing the San Pedro River where it is 660 ft. wide

5. Hayden/Christmas | mile wide

These corridors are RMP page 36. 1/ RMP Partial ROD II page 6.

Bb

LRI16 Three communication sites will be designated. Site plans will be prepared for all communication sites.
Designation of new sites will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. The designated sites are

1, Gutherie Peak

2. Juniper Flatinthe Mule Mountains

3. West end of the Dos Cabezas Mountains
1/ RMP page 37. Partial ROD I page 7.

Recreation Resources Management (RR)

RR02 Designate Hotwell Dunes (1,708 acres as open to off-highway vehicle use. 1/ RMP page 32. Partial ROD 1
page 5.

RR08 Designate six areas as Special Recreation Management Areas to manage current recreation use.

Prepare Recreation Area Management Plans for these areas as needed. These areas include:

1, Aravaipa Canyon/Turkey Creek area. 2. Gila Box/Bonita Creek area. 3. Christmas (Gila River below Coolidge
dam). 4. Red Knolls/Bear Springs Badlands/Watson Wash areas. 5. Hot well Dunes area. 6. Additional lands in the
San Pedro RNCA not included in the existing management plan for the area. RMP page 37. 1/ RMP Partial ROD I
page 7.

RRII The Black Hills Backcountry Byway will be designated as an interpretive vehicle route. An interpretive plan
will be written to manage the developments and activities of the area. 1/ RMP Partial ROD | page 8.

RR14 Continue to exclude livestock from the 159 acres of public land around Fourmile Canyon campground.
1/ RMP page 38.

RRI15 Unless otherwise established, the maximum length of stay for recreation purposes in any one location is 14
days. 1/ RMP page 38.

Special Management Areas (SM)

SM04 Designate 14 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Districtwide. Three of these ACECs are within the
San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (see the San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan and EIS). The

D-11


Safford District RMP 5-Year Monitoring and Evaluation Report

The Safford District RMP does not address Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP)
revisionary clause sales. SFO anticipates Graham County to seek R&PP lands not
accounted for in the current plan. Withdrawals identified in the plan that have been
implemented include the National Guard-Safford and the Fort Huachuca Willcox Playa
bombing range. No withdrawals are currently being processed or proposed. The plan is
currently silent on guidance of relinquished withdrawals. While the plan does identify
avoidance and exclusion areas, general terms and conditions were not developed. The
LTA identified proposed utilities corridors but never officially designated them. A plan
revision should be very clear on formally designating corridors. Existing ROW corridor
locations should be evaluated in light of new renewable energy demands, recent
nationwide EISs, and regional EIS documents that allocate renewable energy focus areas.

The Safford District RMP made land tenure decisions for all of the public lands within
the current RMP boundary. Land tenure decisions need to be re-evaluated based on new
information about resource values present on several key parcels. For example, there are
high resource values on lands currently marked for disposal in the Middle Gila River area
and around TFO’s NCAs, National Monuments, and wilderness areas. These land tenure
decisions also need to be re-evaluated based on recent acquisitions and resource goals
and objectives outlined in NCA and National Monument specific plans. In SFO, the
following ACECs were identified in the RMP for mineral withdrawal, but the
withdrawals were not completed: Bowie Mountain, Bear Springs Badlands, Desert
Grasslands, Eagle Creek Bat Cave, and Table Mountain. There is a need to transfer ROW
data from LR2000 into a geospatial application to inform the RMP and subsequent
implementation level decisions.

© Wind, Solar, and Geothermal Energy. The demand for energy facilities is addressed by
the RDEP EIS, Solar PEIS, Geothermal PEIS, and the Section 368 West-wide Energy
Corridors EIS — all of which amended the Safford District RMP. The Wind Energy PEIS
did not amend the plan; therefore, proposed wind projects are addressed on a case-by-
case basis. The plan addressed USFWS Bald and Golden Eagle Guidelines with respect
to renewable energy development via the RDEP EIS and Solar PEIS. The plan identifies
three communication sites. Renewable energy development should be considered in a
future plan revision.

© Minerals. The Safford District RMP identified 11 areas for withdrawal from mineral
entry that were never completed. Other withdrawals are to be considered on a case-by-
case basis. Although the plan states that mitigation and reclamation measures will be
provided to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation of the environment, no further
guidance is provided for sustainable development associated with mining. Issues to be
addressed in future planning efforts include the assessment of abandoned mine lands
hazards and related public safety issues. An inventory of mine waste repositories and
abandoned mine waste piles may be helpful in determining land use allocations in a
future plan revision. For mineral materials areas of high resource conflicts should be
identified and consideration given to excluding those areas from development. The plan
provides a hypothetical Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario for
leasable minerals although the actual potential for oil and gas resources within the
planning area has never been identified. This could be revisited in the next planning
effort. Two rockhound areas (Black Hills and Round Mountain) should be considered for
mining claim withdrawal. A plan revision should also address split estate. The demand

12
C:\Users\s7willia\Downloads\SFO-RMPEvalRpt_9-13-17-scc1.docx