Final
 

Safford District Resource Management Plan
 and
 Environmental Impact Statement
 

Prepared by 

U.S. Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Safford District
 

Arizona
 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes four alternatives for management of approximately 1,400,000 acres of public land in southeastern Arizona. The alternatives 

analyzed include Alternative A (the Preferred Alternative), Alternative B (a protection oriented 

alternative), Alternative C (a production oriented alternative) and Alternative D (the No Action 

Alternative). 

For further information contact Cindy Alvarez, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Safford 

District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 425 East 4th Street, Safford, Arizona 85546 or call 

(602) 428-4040. 
United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

SAFFORD DISTRICT OFFICE 

425 E. 4TH STREET 

SAFFORD, ARIZONA 85546 IN REPLY REFER TO: 

(602) 428-4040 1615 

(040) 

Dear Public Land User: 

Enclosed is the Final Safford District Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for your information. The draft document was 

published and released for public comment January 5, 1990. After an extension 

was provided to accommodate comments on Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, the comment period concluded June 5, 1990. 

Passage of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Bill of 1990 on November 28, 1990 

required revisions of the final plan and environmental impact statement to 

reflect the changes created by the passage of the wilderness legislation. 

These revisions include boundary changes for some of the Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and the deletion of some areas from designation 

recommendations. 

The resource management planning process includes an opportunity for administrative review via a plan protest to the BLM's Director if you believe the 

approval of a proposed Resource Management Plan would be in error (see 43 CFR 

1610.5-2). Careful adherence to these guidelines will assist in preparing a 

protest that will assure the greatest consideration to your point of view. 

Only those persons or organizations who participated in our planning process 

may protest. If our records do not indicate that you had any involvement in 

any stage in the preparation of the proposed Resource Management Plan, your 

protest will be denied without further review. 

A protesting party may raise only those issues which were submitted for the 

record during the planning process. New issues raised in the protest period 

should be directed to the Safford District, the San Simon Area Manager or the 

Gila Area Manager for consideration in plan implementation, as potential plan 

amendments or as otherwise appropriate. 

The period for filing protests begins when the Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes in the Federal Register its notice of Receipt of the final environmental impact statement containing the proposed Resource Management Plan or 

amendment. The protest period extends for 30 days. There is no provision for 

any extension of time. To be considered "timely" , your protest must be postmarked no later than the last day of the protest period. Also, although not a 

requirement, we suggest that you send your protest by certified mail, return 

receipt requested. 
-2-

Protests must be filed to:	 Director (760) 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 "C" Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

In order to be considered complete, your protests must contain, at a minimum, 

the following information: 

1.	 The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person 

filing the protest. 

2.	 A statement of the issue or issues being protested. 

3.	 A statement of the part or parts of the plan being protested. To the 

extent possible, this should be done by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc., included in the proposed Resource 

Management Plan. 

4.	 A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that you submitted 

during the planning process or a reference to the date the issue or issues 

were discussed by you for the record. 

5.	 A concise statement explaining why the BLM State Director's proposed decision is believed to be incorrect. This is a critical part of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as possible, 

reference or cite the planning documents, environmental analysis documents, available planning records (i.e. meeting minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). A protest which merely expresses disagreement with 

the Arizona State Director's proposed decision, without any data will not 

provide us with the benefit of your information and insight. In this 

case, the Director's review will be based on the existing analysis and 

supporting data. 
Summary 

Purpose and Need 

This final Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement contains several changes 

from the draft version. During the preparation of the 

Final Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement, the Arizona Desert Wilderness bill 

was passed by Congress and on November 28,1990 

was signed into law by President George Bush. The 

Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement has been modified to reflect the changes 

created by the passage of the Wilderness bill. In 

addition, the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation 

Area was so designated by Congress. Other significant changes to alternatives are: 

1. Wild and Scenic River eligibility and classification 

determinations have been made for five additional 

rivers; Aravaipa Creek, Turkey Creek, Swamp SpringsHot Springs Canyon, Bonita Creek and San Pedro 

River. Suitability determinations have been deferred. 

2. Identification of specific tracts of lands deemed 

suitable for acquisition. See Map 27 for locations. 

3. Deletion of mountain bikes from Off -Highway 

Vehicle definition. 

4. During the development of this Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Congressional action created six additional wilderness areas in 

the Safford District (See Map 25). The new wilderness 

areas are: Needles Eye, North Santa Teresa, Fishhooks, Redfield Canyon, DOS Cabezas Mountains and 

Peloncillo Mountains. In addition, the existing Aravaipa 

Canyon Wilderness has been expanded. Some of the 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern described in 

the draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement are entirely within the boundaries of 

a wilderness area. Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern prescriptions will be carried forward into the 

wilderness management plan where appropriate. In 

other cases, some of the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern lands are outside the wilderness boundaries. 

These lands will be carried forward as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern but with adjusted acreages. 

5. The same Wilderness legislation created the Gila 

Box Riparian National Conservation Area which 

includes the Bonita Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern and a large portion of the Gila Box Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern prescriptions will be carried 

forward into the National Conservation Area management plan where appropriate. As with the wilderness 

areas, the remaining Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern lands outside the National Conservation Area 

will be carried forward. 

This Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement has been prepared to guide management of 1,400,000 acres of public land in the 

Safford District (southeastern Arizona) for approximately the next 15 years. The decisions in the approved Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision will determine which use or combination of uses 

will be emphasized in the District. The Resource 

Management Plan will also decide which uses are not 

appropriate. 

The Resource Management Plan will replace four 

existing Management Framework Plans Winkelman, 

Geronimo, Black Hills and San Simon. These plans 

have guided BLM’s management since the early 

1970s. Much of the information used in preparing the 

Management Framework Plans and the decisions of 

those plans that are still valid have been incorporated 

into this Resource Management Plan. Management 

Framework Plans were not prepared for scattered 

parcels of public land in Cochise and southwestern 

Graham Counties. The decisions of the approved 

Resource Management Plan will guide management of 

these areas. 

In 1989, BLM completed a land management plan for 

47,668 acres of public lands along the upper San 

Pedro River. The San Pedro River Riparian Management P/an (BLM 1989) provides direction for management of the natural and cultural resources of that 

property. During the preparation of the plan, Congress 

designated these lands and adjacent public lands as 

the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

This Resource Management Plan incorporates the 

decisions of the San Pedro River Riparian Management P/an and sets management direction for lands in 

the National Conservation Area not covered by that 

plan. 

Planning Issues and Management Concerns 

Decisions in the approved Resource Management 

Plan will resolve significant issues and management 

concerns about specific land management opportunities and problems. Four issues and 10 management 

concerns were identified for analysis in this planning 

process. The issues and concerns were identified by 

BLM managers and specialists and the public. The 

following issues and concerns were analyzed in this 

Resource Management Plan. 

III 
Issue 1 Access 

Land ownership in southeastern Arizona varies from 

large blocks of public, national forest and Indian 

reservation lands to small scattered tracts of public, 

state and private lands. The land pattern restricts 

physical and legal access to some public lands. In this 

Resource Management Plan, BLM identifies areas 

where physical and legal access is needed to or across 

public lands for vehicle and foot or horse travel. The 

Resource Management Plan will also identify areas 

where current access should be restricted. 

Issue 2 Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern and Other Special Management 

Types 

Public lands in the Safford District have a variety of 

important historic, cultural, scenic and natural values. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and wild and 

scenic rivers are special management types that can 

be used to preserve unique and important resource 

values. In this Resource Management Plan, BLM will 

analyze 30 Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

nominations and several river segments including the 

Gila River (Gila Box and lower river below Coolidge 

Dam), the Lower San Francisco, Bonita Creek, 

Aravaipa Creek, San Pedro River, Hot Springs Creek, . . . . Swamp Springs Creek and Turkey Creek for eligibility 

and classification under the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. 

Issue 3 Off-highway Vehicles 

Recreational off-highway vehicle use has increased 

over the years and continues to grow. Off-highway 

vehicles can cause significant damage to the environment if not used in the proper manner and in the 

proper location. BLM manages the public lands for use 

by off-highway vehicles, but their use must be carefully 

managed to prevent adverse impacts to the land and 

its resources. Through this Resource Management 

Plan, BLM will identifies lands that will be opened, 

limited or closed to off-highway vehicle use. 

Issue 4 Riparian Areas 

Riparian areas are valuable because of their importance to watershed protection, water quality, wildlife, 

recreation opportunities and livestock management. 

Special management attention is needed to ensure 

these fragile areas are protected and improved while 

providing for their use. In this Resource Management 

Plan, BLM determines the objectives for management 

of riparian areas and the actions to be taken to implement the objectives. 

Ten management concerns are also addressed in this 

Resource Management Plan: 

Management Concern 1 Wildlife Habitat including 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Management Concern 2 Lands and Realty 

Management Concern 3 Outdoor Recreation and 

Visual Resource Management, including socioeconomic 

Management Concern 4 Energy and Minerals, 

including socio-economic 

Management Concern 5 Cultural Resources 

Management Concern 6 Soil Erosion, especially 

San Simon 

Management Concern 7 Vegetation 

Management Concern 8 Water Resources 

Management Concern 9 Air Quality 

Management Concern 10 Paleontological Resources 

This Resource Management Plan determines management objectives for each of these concerns and identify 

actions that will be taken to implement the objectives. 

Specific planning questions for each issue and concern 

are identified in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need. Evaluation criteria are also found in Chapter 1. 

Issues considered but not addressed include livestock 

grazing, wilderness and herbicides and pesticides. 

Livestock grazing was not addressed because it is 

considered adequately in the Upper Gila-San Simon 

and the Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental Impact 

Statements. Implementation of the decisions of these 

documents is still in the implementation and monitoring 

phases. Present management has the flexibility to 

modify grazing levels and seasons where necessary. 

Wilderness was not addressed because of pending 

legislation which addressed wilderness areas in 

Arizona. The legislation has since been passed by 

Congress and signed into law by President George 

Bush. An Environmental Impact Statement is presently 

being prepared to provide Bureauwide guidance on the 

use of pesticides and herbicides. If chemicals are 

approved for use, site-specific environmental documents will be prepared for each proposal for the use of 

these chemicals. 

iv 
Description of the

Alternatives 

Four alternative plans (including the Preferred Alterntive) have been developed to respond to the issues 

and concerns. Each alternative presents the land-use 

objectives that will guide management of the public 

lands for the next 15 years, and the actions BLM will 

carry out to accomplish those objectives. The following 

alternatives are analyzed in this Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 

This alternative is BLM’s preferred Resource Management Plan. It is designed to respond to the issues and 

management concerns in a manner that provides a 

balanced approach to multiple use management. It 

provides protection to sensitive resources that cannot 

tolerate disturbance from other activities. It also 

provides for the consumptive use and development of 

other resources. 

Alternative B (Protection Oriented) 

This alternative emphasizes management and protection of natural and cultural resources while still providing for use and development of the public lands. More 

restrictions are applied to protect natural and cultural 

resources. This alternative designates the largest 

areas as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern with 

more protective management prescriptions. Priority 

wildlife species include Threatened and Endangered 

species and their habitat, but not game species. 

Actions are proposed to protect water quality and 

quantity and additional management emphasis is given 

to protection and enhancement of riparian areas. The 

protection of cultural resources will be emphasized 

before any area is used. 

Alternative C (Production Oriented) 

This alternative provides more emphasis than Alternative A or B to use and develop public lands . Fewer 

areas are managed to protect natural and cultural 

resources and specific prescriptions are less restrictive 

to use and development activities. While Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern are still designated, 

they are generally smaller and less restrictive on other 

uses. Protection and enhancement of riparian areas 

and Threatened and Endangered wildlife species are 

emphasized as are scientific use and recreational/ 

interpretive development of cultural resources. Most of 

the planning area is open to off-highway vehicles. 

Alternative D (No Action or Current 

Management) 

This alternative continues implementation of the 

current land use plans. The allocation of lands and 

resources would remain unchanged. The analysis of 

the impacts of implementing Alternative D provides a 

basis for comparing the effects of the other three 

alternatives. 

Environmental 

Consequences 

The environmental consequences of implementing 

each alternative are analyzed in this Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. The 

level of detail of the analysis for each element of the 

environment varies with the degree of anticipated 

impact or benefit. The term impact refers to an adverse 

effect whereas the term benefit refers to a beneficial 

effect. The planning team concluded that no significant 

impacts or benefits would occur to topography, air or 

climate with the implementation of any alternative. 

Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 

The selection of this alternative would give moderate to 

high benefits to paleontological and cultural resources 

through the protection measures provided by Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern management. Elsewhere, the construction of Timber Draw detention dam 

would cause high impacts to archaeological sites within 

portions of the project area, and would require intensive mitigation prior to construction. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern management 

would provide moderate benefits to wildlife habitat and 

high benefits to riparian vegetation through implementation of management prescriptions. Restrictions on 

off-highway vehicle use and mining and mineral 

leasing activities would also have increased benefits 

for wildlife habitat by minimizing disturbance of wildlife 

and their habitat. 

Restrictions on mining, mineral leasing activities and 

off-highway vehicle use would provide some benefits to 

soil and water quality by reducing surface disturbing 

activities. Construction or repair of detention dams 

would have a moderate benefit to soil retention in the 

San Simon River channel and the Bear Springs Flat 

area. Upland vegetation would receive some benefits 

from land treatments and restrictions on off -highway 

vehicle use. 

V 
Mineral entry withdrawals, no surface occupancy 

stipulations and restrictions on mineral material sales 

would have a minor adverse impact on segments of 

the local economy dealing with minerals extraction and 

exploration. 

Alternative B (Protection Oriented) 

Because the theme of this alternative stresses management and protection of resources, its implementation would provide high benefits to paleontological 

resources by protecting known fossil deposits. Moderate benefits would be gained for wildlife habitat, 

riparian vegetation, cultural resources and soils 

because of the protective measures described for the 

various actions. Upland vegetation would receive 

some benefits. The construction of Timber Draw 

detention dam would cause high impacts to archaeological sites in part of the project area. Low socioeconomic impacts would result from mineral restrictions. 

Alternative C (Production Oriented) 

Management of Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern would provide moderate benefits to riparian 

vegetation and cultural and paleontological resources. 

Off-highway vehicle use, however, would cause 

moderate impacts to riparian areas, wildlife habitat and 

cultural and paleontological resources due to disturbance caused by vehicles. The construction of Timber 

Draw detention dam would result in high impacts to 

archaeological sites but moderate benefits to soils by 

regrading a highly eroded area. 

Mineral entry withdrawals, no surface occupancy 

stipulations for mineral leasing and restrictions on 

mineral material sales would provide low benefits to 

riparian vegetation, wildlife and their habitat and 

cultural and paleontological resources through reductions of surface disturbing activities. 

That portion of the local economy providing goods and 

services for off-highway vehicle users would receive 

some increased benefits from the implementation of 

this alternative through increased opportunities created 

by an expanded use area. The mineral industry and 

that part of the local economy providing goods and 

services to primitive recreation users would suffer a low 

impact due to decreased opportunities. 

Alternative D (No Action/Current

Management) 

Continuation of current management practices would 

provide some benefits to water resources by controlling 

Off-Highway Vehicle activity that causes soil erosion 

and sedimentation of streams and rivers. This alternative would also provide moderate benefits to soil, 

wildlife habitat, riparian vegetation and cultural and 

paleontological resources by designation of Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. The construction of 

Timber Draw detention dam would result in high 

impacts to archaeological sites in the project area. 

Mining and mineral leasing restrictions would cause 

some impacts to the economy. Designation of Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern would provide some 

benefits to the economy of local tourism industries. 

Mitigating Measures 

No specific mitigating measures have been identified in 

this Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement that would reduce the anticipated 

impacts of implementing the Preferred Alternative. 

Mitigation will be incorporated when BLM begins 

implementing the specific actions identified in the 

Resource Management Plan. At that time, an environmental assessment will be prepared to analyze the 

specific impacts of each project and identify any 

needed mitigating measures to deal with those impacts. 

vi 
Abbreviations
 

Abbreviations have been limited to a few which are found in some of the tables and in the headings on some of the 

maps. Those are defined below. 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

NNL National Natural Landmark 

NSO No Surface Occupancy 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

ONA Outstanding Natural Area 

RNA Research Natural Area 

R/W Right-of-Way 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

vii 
 

Introduction 

The purpose of this Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement is to guide BLM 

Safford District’s management of public lands and 

resources for the next 15 years. The decisions resulting from the approved Resource Management Plan/ 

Record of Decision will determine which use or combination of uses will be emphasized by the District. 

Decisions will also indicate which uses are not appropriate. In certain cases, the decisions will be specific 

and immediately implementable. In other instances, 

more specific activity plans and environmental analyses will be prepared before decisions can be implemented. Mitigating measures will be developed prior to 

implementation of the Resource Management Plan. 

Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 7976 requires the Secretary of the Interior 

to develop, maintain and revise land use plans for 

management of the public lands. To comply with that 

act, this Resource Management Plan was prepared by 

the Safford District. The approved plan will be reviewed, in accordance with monitoring plans, to 

determine its effectiveness and need for revision. 

High voltage power lines carrying electricity across public lands. 

Monitoring is a critical and never-ending step in the 

planning process. Resource Management Plans are 

generally designed to have a planning horizon of about 

15 years. 

The Resource Management Plan will replace four 

existing Management Framework Plans. Much of the 

information collected for use in preparing the Management Framework Plans was used in preparation of 

the Resource Management Plan. Similarly, many of 

the Management Framework Plan’s decisions are still 

valid and are carried forward and incorporated into the 

Resource Management Plan. Two of the District’s 

Planning Units have never had a land use plan developed. One, the Cochise Planning Unit, is located in 

Cochise County west of the DOS Cabezas and 

Chiricahua Mountains and is part of the San Simon 

Resource Area. The other, the San Pedro Planning 

Unit, is located in northern Cochise and southwestern 

Graham counties and is part of the Gila Resource 

Area. These two units are contiguous to one another 

and comprise scattered tracts of public lands among 

large blocks of State or private lands. 

In 1989 BLM completed a land management plan for 

47,668 acres of public land along the upper San Pedro 

River. The San Pedro River Riparian Management 

P/an and Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1989) 

provides direction for management of the natural and 

cultural resources of the property. During the preparation of the San Pedro plan, Congress designated these 

lands and adjacent public lands (54,189 acres) as the 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

Management direction for the adjacent lands was not 

determined in the San Pedro plan, but will be made in 

the approved Resource Management Plan, consistent 

with legislation and the San Pedro plan. The management decisions and mitigations of the San Pedro River 

Riparian Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement are incorporated into this Resource Management Plan. 

Description of the Planning

Area 

The Safford District manages for over 1,400,000 acres 

of public land in southeastern Arizona. It encompasses all of Graham, Greenlee and Cochise counties 

and portions of Pinal, Pima and Gila counties. 

The District is in a sparsely populated part of the state. 

Larger communities include Sierra Vista, Safford/ 

Thatcher, Clifton/Morenci, Duncan, Willcox, Douglas, 

Bisbee, Benson and Winkelman. 
’

SAFFORD DISTRICT RMP/EIS AREA
 

WINKELMAN 

I 

SIERRA 

MEXICO 

PHOENIX 

0 10 20 SCALE 

TUCSON �
The public lands managed by the District lie within the 

Basin and Range Physiographic Province south of the 

Colorado Plateau. The area’s northwesterly trending 

mountain ranges reach elevations of almost 11,000 

feet. Separating these mountain ranges are broad, flat 

or gently sloping basins. Public lands range in elevation from about 1,900 feet to 7,500 feet. 

The Safford District administers a variety of programs 

on public lands in the planning area. Historically, 

management emphasis has been on livestock grazing, 

mining, wildlife habitat, recreation, watershed and land 

and realty actions. Increasing demands for management of cultural resources, wilderness, and other 

multiple-use programs necessitates BLM maintain upto-date land use plans. 

Planning Process Overview 

Resource Management Plans are prepared to resolve 

significant issues and management concerns about 

specific land management opportunities and problems. 

Issues and concerns are identified by BLM specialists 

and managers and the public at the onset of the 

planning process. Various alternatives to resolve the 

issues and concerns are developed and analyzed in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The approved Resource Management Plan that 

results from this process will provide the District 

Manager with solutions to the issues and concerns and 

specific guidance for management of all resources on 

public lands throughout the District. 

Under the planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4) the 

preparation and implementation of an Resource 

Management Plan is completed in nine steps as 

described below (see Figure 1). 

Step 1- Identification of Issues 

This step is intended to identify resource management 

problems or conflicts that can be resolved through the 

planning process, Issues are identified by the public 

and BLM specialists. 

Step 2- Development of Planning Criteria 

During this step, preliminary decisions are made 

regarding the kinds of information needed to resolve 

the issues, the kinds of alternatives to be developed 

and the factors to be considered in evaluating alternatives and selecting a preferred resource management 

plan. 

Collection of Inventory Data

an Information

This step involves the collection of resource, environmental, social, economic or institutional data needed 

for completion of the process. 

Step - Analysis of the Management Situation 

This step calls for an assessment of the current 

situation. It includes a description of current Bureau 

management guidance, discussion of existing problems and opportunities to resolve them and consolidation of existing data that is needed to analyze and 

resolve the identified issues. 

Step Formulation of Alternatives 

During this step, several resource management 

alternatives are prepared, including one for no action 

and others that strive to resolve the issues while 

emphasizing either environmental protection or resource production or a balance between the two 

extremes. 

Step Estimation of the Effects of 

Alternatives 

The physical, biological, economic and social effects of 

implementing each alternative are estimated in order to 

allow for a comparative evaluation of impacts. 

Coatis are racoon-like mammals found in rocky wooded 

canyons such as Guadalupe Canyon. 

5 
Step Selection of the Preferred 

Alternative 

Based on the information generated during Step 6, the 

District Manager identifies a preferred alternative. The 

draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement document is then prepared and 

distributed for public review. 

Step Selection of the Resource 

Management Plan 

Based in part on the results of public review and 

comment, the District Manager will select a proposed 

resource management plan and publish it along with a 

final Environmental Impact Statement. A final decision 

can then be made after a 30-day protest period on the 

final Environmental Impact Statement. The final 

decision is documented in a Record of Decision 

prepared by the District Manager. Unresolved protests 

are not included in the Record of Decision and a 

decision will be deferred until the protested portions are 

resolved. The Record of Decision is a separate 

environmental document and is not considered as a 

part of the Final Resource Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement document. 

Step 9 - Monitoring and Evaluation 

This step involves the collection and analysis of longterm resource condition and trend data to determine 

the effectiveness of the plan in resolving the identified 

issues. Monitoring will also assure that implementation 

of the plan is achieving the desired results. Monitoring 

continues from the time the Resource Management 

Plan is adopted until changing conditions require a 

revision of the plan. 

Planning Issues and Management

Concerns 

The BLM planning process relates resource management planning to solving land use problems. Significant or controversial land use problems are referred to 

as issues. An issue may be general, such as a 

particular program, or more specific, such as how that 

particular program affects a specific area. Some 

issues cannot be resolved through the planning 

process, but require policy changes or even legislation 

for a solution. In addition to the major issues, other 

less controversial land use problems are also evaluated. These are referred to as management concerns 

and are resolved in the same manner as planning 

issues to improve management of the public lands. 

Issues and management concerns are identified by 

BLM specialists and the public. 

Issue-driven planning means that only those parts of 

current management direction that are believed to be 

at issue are analyzed through the formulation and 

evaluation of alternatives. Alternatives are not developed for those parts of current management believed 

to be satisfactory. 

Issues Addressed 

Four issues and 10 management concerns are addressed in this document. These issues and management concerns were identified based on the judgment 

of Bureau planning team members, interagency 

consultation, public input and review by BLM managers. 

Issue I -Access 

Land ownership in southeastern Arizona varies from 

large blocks of public, national forest and Indian 

reservation lands to small scattered tracts of public, 

state and private lands. Public use of state, national 

forest and public lands is often limited by the lack of 

physical or legal access. In some cases, no roads or 

trails exist to provide access. More often, however, 

roads exist, but the public has no legal right to use 

them because they cross private properly or other 

lands where use is not permitted without the appropriate authorization. Access problems also prevent BLM 

from administering the public lands. The following 

questions were analyzed in the planning process. 

� Where should BLM provide access to or across 

public lands and what type of access is needed? 

� What actions should BLM take to provide access to 

or across public lands? 

Fences are used to divide pastures to facilitate livestock 

management and to exclude grazing from sensitive areas. 

6 
STEPS IN THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS
 

Figure 1 

Analysis of the 

Management Situation 

Life of the plan would 

be about 15 years. 

Formulation of 

Alternatives The plan would be 

amended as needed. 

Selection of the 

Resource Management Plan 

Monitoring and 

1 
� How should BLM coordinate with other land and 

resource management agencies and private landowners to ensure access to state, national forest 

and public lands? 

Issue 2 - Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and Other 

Types of Special Management 

The public lands in the Safford District have a variety of 

important historic, cultural, scenic and natural values. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern designations 

may be used to protect these values. They may also 

be used to identify and manage areas that are hazardous to human life and property. Members of the public 

and BLM resource specialists have made 30 nominations for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

(See Appendix 2) 

Other types of special management may also be used 

to protect important resource values. These include 

wild and scenic rivers, and resource conservation 

areas. As required by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 and the subsequent Guidelines for Fulfilling Requirements of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, BLM must study those rivers which qualify 

for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. Two rivers in this area (the Gila and 

San Francisco) were identified by the National Park 

Service in 1982 as needing further study, and will be 

addressed in this document as well (see Appendix 3). 

The Wild and Scenic River study process involves 

making an eligibility, classification and suitability 

determination. This Resource Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement addresses only 

eligibility and classification as required by the Guidelines and will defer the suitability determination of all 

eligible rivers until a later date due to the need for 

further public involvement. It will only be through the 

detailed suitability assessment and further public 

involvement that BLM will make a recommendation 

through the Secretary of the Interior to Congress on 

suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers. Only Congress has 

the authority to designate a Wild and Scenic River 

through this process. 

Resource conservation areas can be designated to 

give management emphasis to protect special resource values. The following questions were analyzed 

in the planning process. 

� Which public lands, if any, should be designated as 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern? How 

should they be managed? 

Which rivers and streams, if any, are eligible for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River 

System and how should they be managed? 

Which public lands, if any, should be designated as 

Resource Conservation Areas? How should they 

be managed? 

Issue 3 - Off-highway Vehicles 

The use of off-highway recreational vehicles (three and 

four-wheeled all terrain vehicles, four-wheel drive pickups, dirt bikes, etc.) has increased over the years and 

continues to grow. BLM manages the public lands for 

use by off-highway vehicles, but their use must be 

carefully controlled to prevent unacceptable changes to 

the land and its resources. Through this planning 

process, public lands will be designated as open, 

limited or closed to off-highway vehicle use. The 

following questions were analyzed in the planning 

process. 

� Which public lands should be open to off-highway 

use by vehicles? Which should be closed? 

� On which public lands should Off-Highwy Vehicles 

be limited to existing or designated roads and trails 

(including washes), by type of vehicle or by season 

of use? 

An open area is an area where all types of vehicle use 

is permitted, at all times and anywhere in the designated area. Conversely, a closed area is an area 

where vehicle use is prohibited even if roads or trails 

exist within the designated area. 

Issue 4 - Riparian Areas 

Riparian areas are valuable because of their importance to watershed protection, water quality, aquatic 

and terrestrial wildlife, threatened and endangered 

species, cultural resources, recreation opportunities 

and livestock management. Special management 

attention is needed to ensure these fragile areas are 

protected and improved while providing for their use. 

The following questions were analyzed in the planning 

process. 

� What management objectives should BLM establish 

for riparian areas to provide for the various public 

demands for use, yet still protect and enhance these 

areas? 

� What actions should BLM take to achieve these 

objectives? 

8 
Management Concern 1- Wildlife 

Habitat 

Public lands in the Safford District provide habitat for a 

variety of wildlife species. Other uses of the public 

lands can be damaging to wildlife habitat if not properly 

managed. Special attention is needed to restore, 

maintain or enhance priority species and habitats (see 

Appendix 4). Integration of habitat management with 

other resource programs requires careful planning to 

minimize impacts to these species and habitats while 

still providing for other uses of the public lands. The 

following questions were analyzed in the planning 

process. 

.	 What species and habitats should receive management priority? What maintenance, improvement and 

expansion objectives should BLM establish for those 

species and habitats? 

� For which priority areas should Habitat Management 

Plans be prepared? 

.	 What actions should BLM take to achieve the 

objectives for priority species and habitats? 

� What monitoring objectives should BLM establish for 

priority habitat? 

� What management objectives should BLM establish 

for state and federally listed threatened and endangered species? What actions should BLM take to 

improve habitat conditions and resolve resource 

conflicts for listed, proposed and candidate species? 

� Where, by what methods, and at what times of the 

year should animal damage (predator) control 

activities be authorized? 

Management Concern 2 - Lands and 

Realty 

Over the past three years, BLM has been very active in 

a land ownership adjustment, or exchange program. 

The purpose of the program was to consolidate land 

ownership to improve resource management and 

service to the public and to bring into public ownership 

lands with significant multiple resource values. Over 

250,000 acres of state land and large areas of private 

land have come into public ownership through exchanges or adjustments. 

The public lands are used by the private sector for a 

variety of purposes, including powerlines, oil pipelines 

and telecommunication sites. Authorization of these 

activities takes careful planning to ensure that significant adverse impacts to other resource values and 

uses do not occur. The following questions were 

analyzed in the planning process. 

Which public lands should be sold or exchanged to 

improve BLM land and resource management 

efficiency and to provide for the future needs of the 

public and local communities? 

What types of lands should BLM acquire through 

purchase or exchange to support its resource 

management programs (see Appendix 5)? 

Which lands should be retained in public ownership 

to be managed for their various values in a combination that will best serve the needs of the public? 

Which public lands should be designated right-ofway corridors, communication sites, avoidance 

areas and exclusion areas? 

What terms and conditions should be applied to 

right-of-way grants for corridors and communication 

sites and for uses outside corridors and communication sites? 

Which existing public land transportation and utility 

corridors should not be designated as right-of-way 

corridors upon plan approval? 

9 
Management Concern 3 - Outdoor 

Recreation and Visual Resource 

Management 

Recreation on public lands continues to increase. 

Demand for developed recreation sites and open 

space for more dispersed activities can, at least in part, 

be satisfied through management of outdoor recreation 

use of the public lands. Recreation opportunities also 

contribute to tourism in Arizona, benefitting the economies of communities, counties and the state. BLM also 

manages visual resources to maintain the scenic 

quality of the public lands. The following questions 

were analyzed in the planning process. 

� Which public lands should be managed with emphasis on outdoor recreation opportunities? 

� What recreation settings should be maintained and 

what recreation activities, services or facilities 

should BLM provide? 

� What recreation management strategies should be 

developed, and what actions should BLM take to 

maintain or improve established recreation settings? 

.	 What recreation activity planning priorities should 

BLM establish for the District? 

.	 Which public lands should be identified and managed for interpretation of natural and cultural 

resources and for public education? 

� Which roads, sites, signs and facilities should be 

signed to provide for public information, interpretation and safety? 

� What visual resource management objectives 

should BLM establish for recently acquired lands? 

Existing public lands? 

Management Concern 4 - Energy and

Minerals 

Bureau policy and Department regulations to foster 

and encourage the development of energy and mineral 

resources while protecting public lands from undue or 

unnecessary degradation of the environment. Careful 

consideration is given to mitigate, where possible, 

potential impacts of mining operations on other resource values. BLM also has the authority to include 

stipulations with energy and mineral leases to avoid 

adverse impacts to other resource values. Utilization 

of energy and mineral resources, while providing for 

environmental protection, requires careful analysis. 

The following questions were analyzed in the planning 

process. 

� Which public lands should be open to oil and gas 

and geothermal energy development subject to the 

terms and conditions of the standard lease form, 

minor constraints such as seasonal restrictions or 

major constraints such as no surface occupancy? 

Which public lands should be closed to oil and gas 

and geothermal energy leasing (see Appendix 8)? 

� What management direction should Safford District 

establish for existing leases, lease stipulations, 

stipulation waivers and geophysical exploration? 

- Which public lands should be closed to the operation of the mining laws (see Appendix 7)? 

� Which public lands should be ooen to mineral 

material (sand, gravel, etc.) disposal? Which should 

be closed? 

Remains of historical buildings can be seen along Guadalupe 

Canyon in extreme southeastern Arizona. 

10 
6-

� What terms, conditions or special stipulations should 

be applied to open areas that may constrain mineral 

material disposal activities? 

Management Concern 5- Cultural 

Resources 

Cultural resources are an important link to our past. 

Understanding this link will help BLM as well as public, 

state and local historians or archaeologists in planning 

for the future. BLM manages cultural resources for 

their scientific, historic and management information; 

sociocultural, educational, recreational or other public 

values; or to maintain them in their present condition. 

The resource management plan presents an opportunity to set direction for management of cultural resources on the public lands. The following questions 

were analyzed in the planning process. 

� What management objectives should BLM establish 

for cultural resources on public lands in the District? 

.	 What actions should BLM take to achieve these 

objectives? 

Management Concern 6- Soil 

Erosion 

Measures to control soil erosion in the San Simon 

Watershed and to reclaim eroded land have been 

underway since the 1930s. Since the 1950s BLM has 

built structures on the main and side channels of the 

San Simon River and reseeded over 12,000 acres of 

the watershed for that same purpose. While channel 

structures have produced the desired results, seedings 

have met with minimal success. Special attention is 

needed to determine if further structural work will be 

required to complete rehabilitation of the watershed. 

Rolling hills around Ft. Bowle National Historic Site provide 

hiking opportunities, and contain parts of the historic 

Butterfield State Route. 

The following questions were analyzed in the planning 

process. 

� What objectives should BLM establish for management of soils in the San Simon Watershed, and what 

actions should be taken to achieve those objectives? 

� What objectives should the District establish to 

reduce the salinity of water and what actions should 

be taken to achieve those objectives? 

Management Concern 7 - Vegetation 

Vegetation is an integral part of an ecosystem and how 

BLM manages that resource on public land will affect 

the health of the environment. Careful consideration 

needs to be given about how BLM should manage 

firewood cutting, threatened and endangered plant 

species, re-establishment of vegetation and land 

treatments for enhancement of vegetation. The 

following questions were analyzed in the planning 

process. 

Which public lands should be available for firewood 

cutting and what terms and conditions should be 

applied to a permit to cut firewood? 

What management objectives should BLM develop 

to re-establish upland vegetative species, and what 

actions should be taken to achieve those objectives? 

What management objectives should BLM establish 

to protect and enhance threatened and endangered 

species, and what actions should be taken to 

achieve those objectives? 

On which public lands should land treatments 

(vegetation manipulation) be used to protect, 

restore, establish or enhance vegetation species? 

What types of treatments should BLM use (root 

plow, herbicides, prescribed fire, etc.)? 

Management Concern 8 - Water 

Resources 

In the dry environment of the Southwest, water is often 

the limiting factor to biological resources and use of the 

public lands. Maintenance of water quality and quantity is critical to the well-being of the environment, the 

public and many of BLM’s programs (see Appendix 9). 

The following questions were analyzed in the planning 

process. 

11 
What groundwater management objectives should 

BLM establish for the public lands managed by the 

District and what actions should be taken to achieve 

those objectives? 

For which public lands should water management 

plans be prepared? 

What water quality objectives should BLM establish 

for the public lands within the District and what 

actions should be taken to achieve those objectives? 

Where should Unique Waters nominations be 

made? How should BLM manage these areas if 

designated? 

Where should BLM focus its efforts to secure 

instream flows for riparian, wildlife and recreation 

purposes? 

Management Concern 9 - Air Quality 

Under the Clean Air Act, public lands in the Safford 

District were given Class II air quality status. This 

classification allows for moderate deterioration of air 

quality associated with moderate, well-controlled 

industrial and population growth. Some activities that 

take place on public lands may have created impacts 

on air quality, but the activities must comply with the 

Clean Air Act standards. The following questions were 

analyzed in the planning process. 

� What management objectives should BLM establish 

for maintenance of air quality on public lands within 

the District? 

� What actions should BLM take to achieve these 

objectives? 

Management Concern 10 ­ Paleontological Resources 

Southeastern Arizona contains many paleontological 

resources. This Resource Management Plan gives the 

Bureau an opportunity to set direction for how these 

resources should be managed on the public lands for 

the public benefit. The following questions were 

analyzed in the planning process. 

What management objectives should BLM establish 

for paleontological resources? 

�

� What actions should BLM take to achieve these 

objectives? 

Issues Considered But Not 

Analyzed 

The following issues were identified early in the 

process, but were not analyzed in detail: 

Livestock Grazing The Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing 

Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 

1978 and its decisions have been implemented since 

then. Monitoring studies are in place and analysis 

indicates that the 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. 

Wilderness Districtwide wilderness studies were 

completed in 1989. On November 28, 1990, President 

George Bush signed into law the Arizona Desert 

Hikers above Oak Grove Canyon view the Goat Corral amphitheater In the canyon below. 

12 
Wilderness Act which created six new wilderness 

areas in the District, an expanded Aravaipa Canyon 

Wilderness and the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area. No further analysis of this issue is necessary at this time. Baker Canyon WSA will continue to 

be managed as a study area until New Mexico addresses Wilderness designation. 

Herbicides and Pesticides An environmental impact 

statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands is 

being prepared to provide Bureauwide guidance on the 

use of pesticides and herbicides. If chemicals are 

approved for use, site specific environmental analyses 

will be prepared for each project proposing the use of 

herbicides or pesticides. 

Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria were developed and revised at 

several points during the planning process to assure 

that the planning steps focused on the issues and 

concerns. Planning criteria are factors BLM will 

evaluate when developing resolutions to the issues 

and management concerns. They help establish the 

limits of the analysis needed to resolve the issues and 

concerns. The analyzed criteria can be reviewed at 

the Safford District Office, 425 East Fourth Street, 

Safford, Arizona 85546. 

13 
Introduction 

Four alternative land use plans, including the Preferred 

Alternative, are described in this chapter. Each 

alternative contains land use objectives that could 

guide management of the public lands for the next 15 

years and the actions BLM could implement to carry 

out those objectives. A section is also included that 

identifies general management guidance common to 

all alternatives. General management guidance is 

based on the laws, regulations and policies that guide 

BLM’s management of the public lands regardless of 

the alternative chosen for implementation through this 

Resource Management Plan. 

Decisions concerning management of livestock on 

public lands and management of the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area have been 

developed through the Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing 

environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1978), Eastern 

Arizona Grazing Environmental Impact Statement 

(BLM 1986) and San Pedro River Riparian Management P/an and Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 

1989). Through the above authorizing documents, 

BLM will continue to issue grazing permits and licenses, implement, monitor and modify allotment 

management plans and increase or decrease grazing 

authorizations as determined through the allotment 

evaluation processes. As necessary, National Environmental Policy Act compliance documents will be 

prepared prior to any action being implemented. The 

grazing decisions are incorporated into this Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement by 

reference and are common to all alternatives. 

To provide the public and decisionmaker with a tool for 

comparing impacts and reaching conclusions, Chapter 

2 ends with a summary of the environmental consequences of implementing each alternative. 

Alternative Formulation 

Both the National Environmental Policy Act and BLM 

planning regulations require the formulation of a range 

of alternatives. Each alternative represents a complete 

and reasonable plan for management of the public 

lands and resources in the Safford District for the next 

15 years. One alternative must represent no action, 

meaning current management. Other alternatives 

must provide a reasonable range of choices for 

management of the public lands. The range usually 

varies from resource protection to resource production. 

The following criteria, using governing regulations, 

applicable state, local and other Federal regulations 

were used in the development of the alternatives. 

1. Each alternative will provide for protection of 

proposed and listed Threatened and Endangered 

species and their habitat and efforts to recover 

those species, as required by the Endangered 

Species Act, Memorandums of Understanding and 

BLM Manual. 

2.	 Each alternative will provide for protection of 

significant cultural resources as required by the 

National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

3.	 Each alternative will comply with all existing state, 

federal and local regulations. 

4.	 Each alternative will assume a continuation of 

existing interagency cooperative agreements. 

5.	 Each alternative will be reasonable and attainable. 

6.	 At least one alternative will comply with the No 

Action requirement of the Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). 

The goal of any alternative is to propose guidance that 

responds to the issues and management concerns 

identified for resolution in the Resource Management 

Plan. 

The four alternatives analyzed in this Environmental 

Impact Statement were developed around the following 

general themes: no action (Alt. D); resource protection 

(Alt. B); resource production (Alt. C); and a balance of 

multiple uses between production and protection of 

lands and resources (The Preferred Alternative Alt. A.) 

Outcrops of white diatomaceous earth are visible in portions of 

the 111 Ranch. 

17 
Alternatives Considered But 

Not Analyzed 

No other specific alternatives were considered for 

analysis in this Environmental Impact Statement. 

Variations of the four basic themes were considered, 

but none were carried forward. The Bureau believes 

the four themes present a full and reasonable range of 

alternatives for management of the public lands and 

comply with the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act and BLM regulations and policies. 

Alternative Evaluation 

Criteria 

The following criteria are considered in the 

evaluation of each alternative. 

1.	 Significant social and economic effects. 

2.	 Consistency with federal, state and local plans. 

3.	 Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 

4.	 Implementation requirements. 

5.	 Significant impacts to resource values such as 

wildlife habitat condition, watershed and water 

quality/quantity, recreation opportunities, historic 

and prehistoric archaeological sites and threatened 

and endangered species. 

Management Guidance 

Common to All Alternatives 

It is not feasible to discuss every law, regulation, policy 

or decision that affects management of the public lands 

and resources in this document. This section does, 

however, summarize significant guidance and identify 

legally protected categories that affect BLM’s management of the public lands. Further information about the 

development of the alternatives can be found in the 

Gila Resource Area Management Situation Analysis 

(BLM 1989) and San Simon Resource Area Management Situation Analysis (BLM 1989). The Management Situation Analyses, prepared in the early stages 

of the planning process, included an analysis of the 

issues and management concerns and led to the 

development of the Resource Management Plan 

alternatives. They are incorporated into this Environmental Impact Statement by reference but can be 

reviewed in the Safford District Office. 

Future strategic plans and changes in policy will be 

incorporated into Bureau actions where compatible 

with the approved Resource Management Plan or the 

Resource Management Plan will be revised to bring it 

into compliance with other Bureau actions. 

BLM will evaluate any action proposed on the public 

lands to determine the impacts it will have on the 

environment. An environmental assessment (to the 

appropriate level of detail) will be conducted for every 

considered proposal on the public lands. In addition, 

all actions proposed in specific activity plans (allotment 

management plans, habitat management plans, 

wilderness management plans, etc.) will be coordinated with other programs. 

Fire management policy within the Safford District will 

be in accordance with Departmental Manual 910 and 

Bureau Manuals 9200 and 8560. Essentially, the 

policy states that every wildland fire is either a wildfire 

or a prescribed burn and that all wildfires will be 

suppressed unless a pre-approved prescribed burn 

plan exists and the fire meets all the prescription 

criteria. 

Any wildfire escaping initial attack suppression efforts 

will be dealt with through the Escaped Fire Situation 

Analysis process to determine further suppression 

actions. Wildfires occurring within designated wilderness areas will be handled in accordance with Bureau 

Wilderness Management Policy (BLM Manual 8560). 

Suppression actions in the wilderness must be executed to minimize surface disturbance, alterations to 

the natural landscape and fire suppression costs while 

being consistent with management objectives and 

constraints. Fire management methods and equipment which least alter the landscape or disturb the land 

are considered to be the best. 

Over 11,000 cattle graze public rangelands in the Safford 

District. 

18 
Issue 1 - Access 

BLM Manual 9110 provides for transportation planning. 

A transportation plan portrays the transportation 

system (roads and trails), the access needs identified 

in the Resource Management Plan and subsequent 

activity and project plans. 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 existing access 

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. 

BLM’s policy provides private property owners reasonable means of access across public lands to their 

property. This may vary from foot or horse travel to 

construction of a road, depending on the need for 

access. 

Issue 2 - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Other Types of

Special Management 

Individual management plans will be written for each 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern designated 

through the approved Resource Management Plan. 

These management plans will identify the actions BLM 

will take to implement the specific management 

prescriptions. The complexity of the issues surrounding a particular Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

will determine the detail of the management plan. 

The three Research Natural Areas Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concerns recommended in the San 

Pedro River Riparian Management Plan and Environmental lmpact Statement (BLM 1989) will be designated in this plan under all alternatives. Management 

plans will be prepared for each area following designation. 

As required by The Federal Land Po/icy and Management Act of 7976 and the subsequent Guidelines for 

Fulfilling Requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, BLM must study those rivers which qualify as 

potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. Two rivers in this area (the Gila and 

San Francisco) were identified by the National Park 

Service as needing further study and are addressed in 

this document as well (see Appendix /3). 

The Wild and Scenic River study process involves 

making an eligibility, classification and suitability 

determination. This Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement addresses only 

eligibility and classification as required by the Guidelines and will defer the suitability determination until a 

later date due to the need for further public involvement. Only through the detailed suitability assessment 

and further public involvement will BLM make a 

recommendation through the Secretary of Interior to 

Congress on suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers designations. Only Congress has the authority to designate a 

Wild and Scenic River through this process. 

Appendix 3 includes a discussion of the eligibility and 

classification criteria used to evaluate rivers in the 

Safford District. Those waterways which demonstrated 

individual outstandingly remarkable hydrologic values 

include the Gila and San Francisco Rivers within the 

Gila Box, the Gila River below Coolidge Dam, Aravaipa 

Creek, Turkey Creek, Swamp Springs, Hot Springs 

Canyon, Bonita Creek and the San Pedro River. All 

other areas have been determined ineligible under the 

criteria. 

The above rivers which have been determined eligible 

for consideration under the requirements of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act will be afforded adequate 

interim protection until a final decision is reached on 

19 
suitability for designation. Management activities and 

authorized uses will not be allowed to adversely affect 

the rivers’ eligibility or future suitability. Subject to valid 

existing rights, outstandingly remarkable values of the 

river must be protected and enhanced if possible. 

Issue 3 - Off-highway Vehicles 

BLM Manual 8340 defines acceptable off -highway 

vehicle use as an acceptable use of the public lands 

wherever it is compatible with established resource 

management objectives. The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 7976, Executive Orders 11644 and 

11989 and BLM Manual 8342 also state that all public 

lands will be designated as open, closed or limited to 

off-highway vehicle use to meet public demands, 

protect resources and public safety and minimize 

conflicts. 

Issue 4 - Riparian Areas 

Bureau policy sets the following direction for management of riparian areas. 

1.	 Achieve riparian area improvement and maintenance objectives through the management of 

existing uses, wherever feasible. 

2.	 Ensure that new resource management plans and 

activity plans, and revisions of existing plans 

recognize the importance of riparian values and 

propose management to maintain, restore or 

improve them. 

3.	 Prescribe management of riparian values based on 

site-specific characteristics and settings. 

4.	 Give special attention to monitoring and evaluating 

management activities in riparian areas and revise 

management practices where site-specific objectives are not being met. 

5.	 Cooperate with and encourage the involvement of 

interested federal, State and local governments, 

organizations and private parties to share information, implement management, coordinate activities, 

and provide education on the value, productivity and 

management of riparian areas. 

6.	 Retain riparian areas in public ownership unless 

disposal would be in the public interest, as determined by land use planning. 

7.	 Identify, encourage and support research and 

studies needed to ensure that riparian area management objectives can be properly defined and 

met. 

8. Provide environmental education materials to 

schools and other publics relating to riparian management. 

Arizona BLM has developed a strategic plan that 

outlines the overall riparian wetland management. The 

“Arizona Riparian- Wetland Area Management Strategy” (BLM 1990) uses the Bureauwide policy presented above to develop more site-specific goals, 

objectives and actions to maintain or improve these 

valuable areas. One of the primary goals is to improve 

water quality and riparian areas to good or better 

ecological conditions by 1997 for 75 percent of the 

BLM-administered streams by implementing grazing 

systems and strategically planned enhancement 

projects. 

From 1986 to 1988, BLM acquired 47,668 acres along 

the upper San Pedro River between the Mexican 

border and St. David. In 1987, BLM began preparing 

the San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan (BLM 

1989) to protect and enhance the significant natural 

and cultural resources of the property. The plan was 

completed in 1989. In 1988, during preparation of the 

plan, Congress designated 54,189 acres of public land 

as the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area. The additional 6,521 acres were acquired from 

the State of Arizona by exchange and are subject to 

existing livestock grazing leases. 

Since this designation came in the middle of the 

planning process, BLM decided to complete its plan for 

management of the 47,668 acres and address the 

remaining 6,521 acres of the National Conservation 

Area in this Resource Management Plan. 

The San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan 

provides management direction for the riparian corridor 

and the adjacent uplands in the National Conservation 

Remains of historic homesteads can be seen along lower 

Bonita Creek. 

20 
Area. Generally, the plan provides a framework for 

protection of the National Conservation Area, allowing 

those uses that are compatible with preservation of the 

National Conservation Area. Energy and mineral uses 

are not permitted, nor are sand and gravel operations. 

According to the San Pedro Plan, livestock grazing has 

been prohibited for the life of the plan on the original 

acreage. Dispersed and developed recreation is being 

carefully planned to avoid impacts to the abundant 

natural, cultural and paleontological (fossil) resources. 

Vehicles will be restricted to designated roads. Discharge of firearms is being restricted to ensure visitor 

safety. Many actions will be implemented to maintain 

and enhance the quality and quantity of the water, 

riparian vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources and 

paleontological resources. Administrative and visitor 

contact facilities are also planned. 

The decisions of the San Pedro River Riparian Management P/an will apply to the 6,521 acres of the 

National Conservation Area not covered in the plan, 

with the following exceptions. 

Livestock grazing will continue on the added 6,521­

acre area in accordance with the State exchange 

agreements. This area includes state lands acquired through exchange; state grazing leases will 

be recognized for the term of these leases. 

Allotment categorization will be changed from 

“Maintain” to “Improve” to intensively manage 

livestock on all allotments in the 6,521 -acre area. 

Allotment management plans will be prepared for all 

allotments in the 6,521 -acre area to provide for 

continued livestock grazing and protection of the 

riparian values of the National Conservation Area. 

Management Concern 1 - Wildlife 

Habitat 

Wildlife and their habitat are managed cooperatively by 

BLM and Arizona Game and Fish Department under a 

Memorandum of Understanding (1987). Federally 

listed or proposed threatened and endangered wildlife 

are protected under provisions of the Endangered 

Species Act (1973, as amended). BLM Manual 6840 

outlines the conservation of Threatened and Endangered species and the ecosystems they depend upon; 

ensures that all actions authorized, funded or carried 

out by BLM are in compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act; cooperates with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in 

planning and providing for the recovery of Threatened 

and Endangered species; and retains in public ownership all habitat essential to the survival or recovery of 

any Threatened and Endangered species, including 

habitat used historically by these species. It is also 

BLM policy to manage candidate species and their 

habitat to prevent the need to list them as threatened 

or endangered. 

Management Concern 2 - Lands and 

Realty 

Land Ownership Adjustment Lands identified for 

disposal by sale must comply with Section 203 of The 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

Section 203 states that lands offered for sale must 

meet one of the following criteria: they are difficult and 

uneconomical to manage and not suitable for management by another agency; they are no longer needed for 

the original purpose for which they were acquired; or 

they will serve an important public purpose. If lands, 

because of their location or other characteristics, meet 

one of the above criteria, they may be offered for sale 

(see Appendix 5). 

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. 

It 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. 

State Indemnity Selection is another method of disposal of public lands. Upon statehood the government 

granted Arizona four sections of land per township. 

Much of this land had already been appropriated and, 

therefore, was unavailable to the state. Other state 

lands may have been appropriated by federal projects 

and require compensation to the state. Thus, a “bank” 

of public lands has accrued to the state from which it 

may select desired, unappropriated public lands. All 

public lands identified for disposal will also be available 

for state selection. 

Lands identified for disposal will be reviewed 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. 

21 
BLM may acquire lands and interests in lands needed 

to manage, protect, develop, maintain and use resources on public lands. Land may also be acquired to 

provide access for public use and enjoyment. 

Public lands are often repositioned under the exchange 

authority of Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976. Exchanges are negotiated 

with the state, as well as with private landowners. 

Exchange is the preferred method of land disposal, as 

it provides an opportunity to acquire desired tracts of 

nonpublic land. Land purchase is the second preferred 

method of acquisition due in part to the loss of private 

lands to a federal agency and thereby a portion of the 

tax base. Condemnation of lands by the government 

for acquisition under the authority of Public Law 91646 

Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition 

Policy Act of 1970 is the least preferred method. Refer 

to Map 27 for potential land disposal and acquisition 

areas. 

Land Use Authorizations Rights-of-way, leases and 

permits will be considered on a case-by-case basis, in 

accordance with the decisions of this Resource 

Management Plan. Major rights-of-way, however, will 

be directed to designated corridors where possible. 

Communication Sites Communication site right-of-way 

grants will be issued for newly designated communication sites. Where designated sites do not meet public 

needs, additional new sites will be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Communications site user groups will be encouraged 

and supported at the designated sites. Right-of-way 

applications will be approved when consistent with site 

plans and found to be technically compatible with the 

existing uses. 

Agaves cling to cliffs along Turkey Creek, a popular picnicking 

spot just outside Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness. 

Recreation and Public Purpose Leases/Patents 

Recreation and Public Purposes applications for public 

parks, building sites and other public purposes will 

continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

Leases and patents will be issued in accordance with 

the decisions of the approved Resource Management 

Plan and Record of Decision and evaluated following 

the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act. 

New landfills may be authorized under the Recreation 

and Public Purposes Amendment Act of 1988 upon 

promulgation of its regulations by the Secretary of the 

Interior. Land exchanges will not be executed for later 

conveyance of land under the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act. 

Public Land Withdrawals and Classifications BLM will 

continue its withdrawal review process to determine 

the need for existing withdrawals and classifications. 

Future needs for withdrawals will be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis, in accordance with the decisions 

of the final approved plan. 

Hazardous Materials The laws that provide guidance 

for management of hazardous materials include the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Superfund Amendment 

Reauthorization Act (Executive Order 12580, 1986). 

BLM responsibilities under these acts include conformance with state enforcement regulations pertaining to 

the storage, handling and disposal of hazardous 

materials and the reporting of unpermitted hazardous 

materials discharges under the provisions of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The District’s hazardous materials emergency contingency plan provides procedures 

for responding to hazardous materials incidents on 

public lands. Inventories of the public lands will be 

used to identify areas possibly contaminated with 

hazardous materials. Identified sites will be further 

evaluated by preliminary assessments, site investigations and expanded site investigations, as appropriate. 

Management Concern 3 - Outdoor 

Recreation and Visual Resource 

Management 

The Bureau’s primary recreation management goal is 

to provide continued outdoor recreation opportunities 

that the public seeks and that are not readily obtainable 

from other public and private entities. BLM’s primary 

recreation role is to provide dispersed and resourcedependent types of outdoor recreation, and to deal with 

the few situations where special or more intensive 

types of recreation management are required. 

22 
 

Section 102 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 states that “... the public lands be 

managed in a manner that will protect the quality of the 

... scenic . . . values ...". BLM Manual 8400 states that 

BLM ‘"... has a basic stewardship responsibility to 

identify and protect visual values on public lands.” 

Every action BLM authorizes, funds or carries out will 

be evaluated for its effects on the scenic qualities of 

the public lands. Adverse impacts will be mitigated. 

Management Concern 4 - Energy and

Minerals 

The Bureau’s policy is to foster and encourage the 

development of energy and mineral resources. Overall 

guidance on management of energy and mineral 

resources comes from the Mining and Minerals Policy 

Act, Section 102 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, National Materials and 

Minerals Policy, Research and Developmenf Act and 

BLM’s Mineral Resources Policy. 

Locatable Minerals Development of locatable minerals 

(copper, gold, silver, etc.) is regulated by BLM’s Code 

of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 3802 and 43 CFR 

3809). The 3809 regulations provide for mineral entry, 

Many unusual rock formations can be seen at Black Rock RNA 

ACEC. 

exploration, location and operations, pursuant to the 

mining laws, that will prevent unnecessary and undue 

degradation of other resources. The 3802 regulations 

were implemented to provide for mining in lands under 

wilderness review in a manner that protects claimants’ 

rights and the values of wilderness study areas. 

Mining activities will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis during the life of this plan. 

Salable Minerals Mineral materials are administered 

by BLM and will be disposed of on a case-by-case 

basis. Mineral materials are usually sold at fair market 

value, but BLM may provide free-use permits to 

federal, State and local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations. 

Leasable Minerals BLM regulations 43 CFR 3100 

3500 provide the authority to issue mineral (oil, gas, 

geothermal, etc.) leases. Stipulations are attached to 

leases to protect the natural and cultural resources in a 

lease area. 

Management Concern 5 - Cultural 

Resources 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

is the primary basis for BLM’s management of cultural 

resources. Many other laws and regulations, however, 

provide specific protection of these resources, the most 

important being the National Historic Preservation Act 

and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

Under National Historic Preservation Act, activities that 

may affect existing sites or eligible National Register 

sites are evaluated and potential impacts are analyzed 

and evaluated in consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation. National Historic Preservation 

Act also gives BLM the responsibility to inventory the 

cultural resources on public land and to preserve 

significant resources. The Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act prohibits looting and vandalism of 

archaeological resources. Severe penalties may be 

assessed for actions in violation of the conditions of the 

Act. Several laws provide for the consideration and 

protection of traditional lifeway values including those 

of Native Americans. 

Regardless of the alternative selected, cuttural resources will be managed under three broad objectives: 

manage for information potential; manage for public 

values; and manage for conservation. See Appendix 

11 for the definition of each objective.The degree to 

which BLM manages each category varies among the 

alternatives, according to whether the emphasis is on 

protecting values (Alternative B), utilizing values 

(Alternative C) or balanced management (Preferred 

Alternative). 

23 
BLM’s cultural resource management program is 

designed as a comprehensive system for identifying, 

planning the appropriately using and managing cultural 

resources on public lands and in areas of BLM responsibility other than public lands. The following are the 

cultural resource management program objectives. 

1.	 Respond legally and professionally to: (a) the 

various statutory authorities concerning historic 

preservation and cultural resource protection, and 

(b) the principles of multiple use. 

2.	 Recognize the potential public and scientific uses of, 

and the values attributed to, cultural resources on 

the public lands, and manage the cultural resources 

so that these uses and values are not diminished 

but rather are maintained and enhanced. 

3	 Contribute to land use planning and the multiple use 

management of the public lands in ways that make 

optimum use of the thousands of years of land use 

history inherent in cultural resource information, and 

that safeguard opportunities for attaining appropriate 

uses of cultural resources. 

4.	 Protect and preserve, in-place, representative 

examples of the full array of cultural resources on 

public lands for the benefit of scientific and public 

use by present and future generations. 

5.	 Ensure that proposed land uses, initiated or authorized by BLM, avoid inadvertent damage to federal 

and non-federal cultural resources. 

Management Concern 6 - Soil 

Erosion 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act defines 

BLM’s multiple use management mission to include 

protection of watersheds. In all alternatives in the 

Resource Management Plan, the overall goal is to 

minimize soil erosion and rehabilitate eroded areas to 

maintain and enhance watershed condition and reduce 

non-point source pollution that could result from 

rangeland management and use activities. Corrective 

measures include construction of erosion control 

structures, allocation of proper levels of vegetation use 

by livestock and wildlife, land treatment measures and 

control or mitigation of activities that may contribute to 

soil erosion and degradation of watershed condition. 

Activities proposed in areas prone to erosion are 

evaluated through the National Environmental Policy 

Act process to determine anticipated impacts and 

mitigating measures needed to approve the project. 

Copper mines and smelters, such as Phelps-Dodge in Morenci, 

provide jobs for many people in Graham and Greenlee 

Counties. 

Management Concern 7 - Vegetation 

BLM’s authority for management of upland vegetation 

(vegetation outside riparian zones) comes from the 

Endangered Species Act (1973), Taylor Grazing Act 

(1934), Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1978) 

and The Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

/1976). These laws require BLM to manage vegetation 

for its use while maintaining sufficient ground cover to 

maintain and enhance watershed condition and reduce 

non-point source pollution from rangeland management and use activities. Best management practices 

would be selected from available grazing management 

systems, livestock management practices and BLM 

standards for range improvements to ensure ground 

cover and reduce non-point pollution (to Arizona’s 

waters sediment production and fecal contamination) 

resulting from grazing activities. 

Under the Endangered Species Act, BLM will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of any species 

listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and to actively promote species conservation 

and recovery. BLM will also manage candidate 

species to prevent listing as threatened or endangered. 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an injunction that prohibits use of chemicals for vegetation 

manipulation on public lands. BLM is preparing an 

environmental impact statement assessing the use of 

chemicals. Several actions in this Resource Management Plan involve the use of herbicides. Herbicides 

will be used only if permit-led upon completion of the 

Environmental impact Statement, Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 13 Western States (BLM 1989, 

in preparation) and relief from the 9th Circuit Court. 

If chemicals are approved for use, site-specific 

24 
environmental analyses will be prepared for each 

project proposing the use of chemicals. 

The Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing Environmental 

lmpact Statement (BLM 1978) and Eastern Arizona 

Grazing Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1986) 

provide direction for management of livestock on public 

lands. These Environmental Impact Statements set 

the direction for livestock numbers, grazing systems, 

class of livestock, etc. The decisions of these Environmental Impact Statements are still valid and will be 

incorporated by reference in all alternatives evaluated 

in this Environmental Impact Statement. 

The Safford District Fire Management Activity Plan 

(BLM 1989, in preparation) sets direction for management of wild and prescribed fire. Wildfires will be put 

out. Prescribed fire (either a natural start or a planned 

ignition) will be used to accomplish resource management objectives. Prescribed fire will be used only with 

a “pre-approved” burning plan. 

Management Concern 8 - Water 

Resources 

The Water Qualify Act (1987) and Arizona Environmental Qualify Act (1986) provide direction on management and maintenance of water quality. Water is 

allocated in Arizona under the Surface Wafer Code, 

the Groundwafer Code (1980) and applicable federal 

laws. Executive Order 11988 gives BLM guidance on 

management of floodplains. Specifically, the Executive 

Order prohibits use of federal funds for construction in 

floodplains. Acquisition of water rights for the quantities of water needed to accomplish BLM’s programs 

will be obtained through the State of Arizona’s appropriation procedure and adjudication process. 

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. BLM resource 

activities will employ the best selected management 

practices to reduce non-point source pollution from 

rangeland management and use activities on the public 

lands. 

Management Concern 9 - Air Quality 

Under the Clean Air Act (1977, as amended), public 

lands within the Safford District were given Class II air 

quality classification. This classification allows for 

25 
The large entrance to Eagle Creek bat cave, a maternity care 

for Mexican free-tailed bats, was gated when the cave was 

used as a source of commercial guano. 

moderate deterioration of air quality associated with 

moderate, well-controlled population and industrial 

growth. Public lands will be managed as Class II areas 

unless excepted as non-attainment areas or their 

classification is changed as a result of state procedures 

prescribed under the Clean Air Act. Air quality reclassification is the responsibility of the state, not BLM. 

impacts to air quality resulting from activities on public 

lands will be prevented or reduced to acceptable levels 

through mitigation prescribed in National Environmental Policy Act evaluations. 

Management Concern 10 ­ Paleontological Resources 

The Bureau’s authority for management and protection 

of fossils comes from a variety of laws, regulations and 

policies, most recently the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976. Section 102 requires that 

scientific values be protected while Section 103 

requires scientific values be addressed in the management of public lands and resources. Potential impacts 

of activities on public lands will be evaluated through 

the National Environmental Policy Act review process. 

Paleontological collection permits from the Safford 

District will be required for scientific studies on public 

lands within the District. 

Description of the

Alternatives 

This section provides details on each alternative 

considered in this Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement. Most of the actions 

identified in the Resource Management Plan can be 

implemented when the State Director signs the Record 

of Decision. Other actions identified in the Resource 

Management Plan require further approval before they 

can be implemented. Some decisions like withdrawals 

must be made by the Secretary of the Interior, with 

BLM only making recommendations through this 

Resource Management Plan. BLM intends to pursue 

all recommendations made in the approved Resource 

Management Plan. 

Alternative A (Preferred

Alternative) 

This alternative is BLM’s preferred Resource Management Plan. It is designed to respond to the issues and 

management concerns in a manner that provides a 

balanced approach to multiple use management. It 

provides protection to important resources that cannot 

tolerate disturbance from other activities. It also 

provides for the consumptive use and development of 

other resources. 

Issue 1 - Access 

With Alternative A, the following actions would be 

implemented to resolve the Access Issue. 

1. Prepare a District Transportation Plan that includes 

identification of access needs and closures, a 

road and trail numbering system, sign needs, 

26 
maintenance needs and coordination with other 

agencies and landowners. 

2. Where needed, reserve access across public lands 

conveyed out of federal administration. 

3. Obtain public and administrative access to the 

public lands. 

4.	 Close roads, as needed, to manage visitors, protect 

resources and to meet objectives. 

5. Obtain legal access, for public and/or administrative 

use, across private lands in 39 locations Districtwide 

(see Appendix 1) and across other state and private 

lands as determined in the future. 

6. Reconstruct the following roads at the locations 

noted below to provide or improve vehicle access 

for the administration and use of the public lands. 

a. Left Fork of Markham Creek Road, about three 

miles T. 3 S., R. 24 E., Sec. 36; T. 4 S., R. 24 E., 

Secs. 1, 12; and T. 4 S., R. 25 E., Secs. 6, 7, 18. 

b. Military Trail, about three miles T. 3 S.,	 R. 16 E., 

Secs. 13, 14, 23. 

c. Virgus Canyon Road, about a half mile T. 6 S.,	 R. 

18 E., Secs. 27,34,35. 

d. Jackson Cabin Road, about five and a half miles 

T. 11 S., R. 20 E., Secs. 22, 26, 27, 35, 36; T. 12 

S., R. 20 E., Secs. 1, 2, 11, 24; and T. 12 S., R. 

21 E., Secs. 30,31. 

e. Buckeye Canyon Road, about one mile T. 13 S., 

R. 27 E., Secs. 26,27,34 and T. 14 S., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 9. 

f. Other roads as determined in the future and
 

included in the District Transportation Plan.
 

7. Obtain legal administrative and public access across 

private, state and Indian lands on existing foot and 

horse trails. 

a. Safford-Morenci Trail where it crosses the San 

Carlos Indian Reservation T. 4 S., R. 28 E., Sec. 

31. 

b. Safford-Morenci Trail where it crosses Bonita 

Creek T. 5 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 10,11. 

c. Hell Hole Canyon Trail and trailhead at Dry Camp 

T. 6 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 7. 

d. Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Trail from the west 

trailhead (at the administrative site) to the west 

boundary of the wilderness T.6 S., R. 17 E., 

Secs. 13, 24. 

e. Babocomari River Trail T. 20 S.,	 R. 20 E., Sec. 

13 and T. 20 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 18. 

Issue 2 - Area of Critical Environmental Concerns and Other Types of

Special Management Areas 

Under Alternative A, the following actions will be 

implemented to resolve the Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Other Types of Special Management Areas Issue. 

27 
Table 2-1. Areas Designated as Area of Critical Environmental Concerns-Alternative A 

Proposed Federal, State & Values or Management 

Name Private Acres Hazards Prescription 

Gila Box F 2,411 Desert rivers, Mineral withONA ACEC S 0 riparian habi­ drawal, NSO for 

P 210 tat, T&E spe­ mineral leasing, 

2,621 ties, bighorn no sand/gravel 

sheep, scenery, sales, limit OHVs, 

recreation no new R/Ws, no 

use, cultural woodcutting, 

resources. acquire private lands if 

available, VRM Class II. 

Turkey Creek F 2,326 Two riparian Limit OHV use, 

Riparian S 0 woodlands. close Oak Grove 

ACEC P 0 Canyon to OHVs, 

2,326 close upper part of 

Turkey Cr. to OHVs, 

require a mining plan, 

manage livestock, no 

woodcutting, monitor 

water quality, rehabilitate riparian area, 

develop cooperative 

agreements. 

Table Mtn. F 1,220 Plant Limit OHV use, no 

RNA ACEC S 0 community. woodcutting, minP 0 eral withdrawal, 

1,220 no vegetative sales, 

prescribed fire plan. 

Desert Grass- F 530 Relict desert Mineral withdrawal 

lands RNA ACEC S 240 grasslands. (part of ACEC), 

P 70 closed to OHVs, 

840 acquire state/ 

private lands if available, 

no livestock, prescribed 

fire plan. 

Swamp Springs- F 10,838 Riparian areas, Limit OHV use, 

Hot Springs S 967 T&E species, close Hot Springs 

Watershed ACEC* P 4,958 bighorn sheep, Canyon to OHV use, 

16,763 native fish, require mining 

cultural plans, no woodcutresources. ting, rehabilitate 

upland and riparian 

vegetation, no livestock, acquire legal 

access, acquire state/ 

private lands if available. 

28 
Table 2-1. Areas Designated as Area of Critical Environmental Concerns-Alternative A (continued) 

Proposed 

Name 

Feder

Private Acres 

al, State & Values or 

Hazards 

Management 

Prescription 

Bear Springs 

Badlands ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

2,927 

320 

0 

3,247 

Paieontologicai 

(fossil) 

resources, 

scenery. 

Scientific studies, 

VRM Class II, no 

road construction, 

inventory, limit 

OHV use, mitigate 

livestock and soil 

erosion impacts, mineral 

withdrawal, NSO for 

mineral leasing, no 

sand/ gravel sales. 

Guadalupe Cyn. 

ONA ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

2159 

0 

778 

2,937 

Riparian habitat, T&E species, scenery, 

recreation 

values. 

Limit OHV use, 

prescribed fire 

plan, no woodcutting, VRM Class 

II. 

Bowie Mtn. 

Scenic ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

4,190 

0 

100 

4,290 

Scenic backdrop 

to Ft. Bowie 

National Historic 

Site. 

Mineral withdrawal, 

and NSO for mineral 

leasing in 

Ft. Bowie viewshed, 

limit OHV use, suppress 

wildfire, no woodcutting, 

VRM Class I, no R/Ws, 

acquire private lands if 

available. 

Coronado Mtn. 

RNA ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

120 

0 

0 

120 

Unique plant 

association. 

Mineral withdrawal, 

no woodcutting, 

VRM Class II, prescribed fire plan, no R/ 

ws. 

DOS Cabezas 

Peaks ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

25 

0 

0 

25 

Scenic, historic 

landmark. 

Require mining 

plan, limit OHV 

use, no woodcutting, prescribed fire plan, 

no R/Ws, VRM Class II. 

Eagle Creek 

Bat Cave ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

40 

0 

10 

50 

Mexican freetailed bat 

maternity cave. 

Mineral withdrawal, NSO for 

mineral leasing, 

no sand/gravel sales, no 

guano extraction, 

monitor the cave, 

acquire private lands if 

available, VRM Class II. 

29 
Table 2-1. Areas Designated as Area of Critical Environmental Concerns-Alternative A (continued) 

Proposed 

Name 

Federal, State & 

Private Acres 

Values or 

Hazards 

Management 

Prescription 

Willcox 

NNL 

Playa F 

S 

P 

2,475 

803 

400 

3,678 

Pleistocene 

Epoch lakebed 

Close to OHV use, 

acquire state/ 

private lands 

if available, no 

woodcutting, no 

R/Ws, VRM Class II. 

111 Ranch 

RNA ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

2,688 

0 

0 

2,688 

Paleontological 

(fossil) 

resources 

Limit OHV use, no 

wood-cutting, 

VRM Class II, 

inventory. 

** Includes Muleshoe Riparian Area of Critical Environmental Concern from Alternative C. 

Source: Safford District Files 

1. Designate 13 Area of Critical Environmental Concerns totalling 40,805 acres (31,949 acres of public 

land) to protect important natural and cultural 

resources. Table 2-l describes the specific areas, 

acreages, values and management prescriptions. 

Maps 1 through 22 and Map 24 show the location of 

each proposed Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. 

Appendix 2 includes a detailed discussion of each Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern nomination, including a determination of relevance and importance, 

rationale for designation, management prescriptions 

and alternatives considered. 

2. Develop Coordinated Resource Management Plans 

to direct the management of BLM’s multiple use 

programs on public lands in the Aravaipa Creek 

Watershed, Muleshoe Ranch and Bear Springs Flat. 

The purpose of the plans is to establish management objectives that directs the development of 

future program activities toward maintenance and 

enhancement of watershed condition (see Maps 24 

and 26). A Cooperative Management Agreement 

for the Muleshoe Ranch area has been prepared 

between the BLM and The Nature Conservancy 

(19--) to facilitate accomplishment of the joint 

management objectives for public lands in the 

Muleshoe area. A Cooperative Management 

Agreement between BLM and The Nature Conservancy will also be prepared for the Aravaipa area. 

These Cooperative Management Agreements will 

be incorporated into the Coordinated Resource 

Management Plans for the Aravaipa and Muleshoe 

areas scheduled to be prepared after the Resource 

Management Plan is approved. 

Management goals for the Aravaipa Creek Watershed 

and Muleshoe Ranch are designed to maintain or 

restore the natural ecological processes, biological 

communities and cultural resource values as practicable while allocating and actively managing the full 

spectrum of compatible multiple uses. These goals will 

be achieved through the following management 

actions. 

a. Aravaipa Creek Watershed ­

(1) In order to increase management flexibility 

and to provide for acceleration of uplands 

and riparian areas, initiate an immediate 50 

percent suspension (2890 Animal Unit 

Months) of total preference on South Rim 

Allotment 4529. 

(2) Determine livestock carrying capacity and 

complete a Range Suitability Study for South 

Rim Allotment prior to development of a 

Coordinated Resource Management Plan for 

the area. 

(3) Implement monitoring studies and evaluate 

success of current South Rim Allotment 

Management Plan (dated 1989). 

30 
(4) As part of the Coordinated Resource Management Plan process, reevaluate existing 

Allotment Management Plan, and implement 

a monitoring plan in order to measure 

progress toward resource management goals 

and objectives for the area. 

(5) Since active use currently constitutes 50 

percent of the new preference, changes in 

current active use will be justified by monitoring studies and consistency with management goals and objectives for the area. 

Changes in active use in excess of 10 

percent will be implemented over a five year 

period, unless otherwise negotiated with the 

allottee. 

(6) Suspension of preference as well as deferments will be evaluated at a minimum of five 

year intervals to determine progress toward 

and achieving management goals and 

objectives. Changes in preference, in either 

direction, may be made as a part of this 

process. 

(7)	 Improve watershed conditions on the upland 

areas by vegetative manipulation through a 

fire management plan and by stabilization of 

active erosion areas. 

b. Muleshoe Ranch Livestock grazing on this 

allotment was previously suspended for a fiveyear period (by the Eastern Arizona Grazing 

Environmental Impact Statement, which was 

implemented upon signing of a Cooperative 

Management Agreement between BLM, The 

Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service) 

beginning December 12, 1988. The purpose of 

this suspension was to improve riparian conditions and wildlife habitat on the Muleshoe Ranch. 

In order to continue progress toward the management goals for the Muleshoe, BLM will: 

(1)	 Implement a suspension of grazing use on 

the Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern to 

provide for accelerated rehabilitation of 

uplands and riparian areas. Suspension will 

be evaluated at a minimum of five year 

intervals to make progress toward meeting 

the management objectives. 

(2)	 Allow livestock use on the Soza Mesa area. 

Livestock forage use will not be permitted to 

exceed an average of 40 percent over a full 

grazing cycle (averaging three to five years 

duration). Specific livestock management 

actions will be developed during the Coordinated Resource Management Plan stage of 

planning. 

(3)	 Improve watershed conditions on the upland 

areas by vegetation manipulation through a 

Fire Management Plan and by studies to 

evaluate progress in meeting the desired 

goals and objectives. A monitoring plan will 

be developed and implemented in concert 

with the Coordinated Resource Management 

Plan. 

Management goals for the Bear Springs Flat are 

designed to protect sensitive Class I fossils and 

protection of scenic values with impressive erosional 

features in the area. These goals will be achieved 

through the following management actions. 

a. Allow livestock use in the Bear Springs Flat area, 

consistent with a livestock management plan to 

mitigate the adverse impacts on fossils of the 

area. Livestock forage use will not be permitted 

to exceed an average of 40 percent over a full 

grazing cycle (averaging 3 to 5 years duration). 

Specific livestock management actions will be 

developed at the activity plan level. 

b. Evaluate progress in meeting the desired goals 

and objectives through appropriate monitoring 

studies 

5. Revise the San Simon River Coordinated Resource 

Management Plan. The purpose of this plan is to 

direct development of program activities to maintain 

and enhance watershed condition. 

6. Following completion of the approved Resource 

Management Plan cooperative livestock and 

watershed management studies will be conducted to 

restore native grasslands and improve the condition 

of the Aravaipa Watershed. These studies will 

investigate the best management techniques. 

Killdeer are a common site around stock ponds throughout the 

Safford District. 

31 
Issue 3 - Off-highway Vehicles 

Under the Preferred Alternative the following actions 

will be implemented to resolve the off-highway vehicles 

Issue. 

1. Initiate procedures to designate 1,708 acres at Hot 

Well Dunes as open to off-highway vehicle use. An 

open area is an area where all types of vehicle use 

is permitted, at all times and anywhere in the area. 

2. Designate the following areas closed to off-highway 

vehicle use. 

a.	 Turkey Creek, above Oak Grove Canyon corral 

and Oak Grove Canyon 102 acres. 

b.	 Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern 530 acres. 

C . 	 Willcox Playa NNL Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern 2,475 acres. 

d.	 The riparian area of Hot Springs Canyon 140 

acres. 

e.	 Any areas designated wilderness (84,632 acres 

currently designated). 

A closed area is an area where off -highway vehicle use 

is prohibited, even if roads or trails exist within the 

closed area. 

3. Off-highway vehicle use within the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area (54,189 acres) 

is limited to designated roads. Vehicle use within 

the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area 

(20,900 acres) will be determined during preparation 

of the management plan for the area. 

4. Designate the remainder of the public lands within 

the District (1,310,713 acres) limited to off-highway 

vehicle use. Off-highway vehicle use will be limited 

to existing roads and trails occurring at the time of 

designation and any new roads approved for 

construction during the life of this Resource Management Plan. Existing roads and trails have been 

identified and can be reviewed in the Safford District 

Office. Table 2-2 identifies the acres designated in 

each category. 

5. Off-highway vehicle designations and management 

will apply to motorized transportation only. 

Table 2-2. Acres Designated for Off-highway Vehicle Use-Alternative A 

Off-hlghway Vehicle 

Designation 

Approximate 

Acres 

Open 1,708 

Limited 1,310,713 

Closed 87,879 

Source: Safford District Files 

Issue 4 - Riparian Areas 

If this alternative is approved, the following objective 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Riparian 

Areas Issue. 

The objective for management of riparian areas is to 

maintain or improve 75 percent of the acreage of 

riparian vegetation on public lands within the District in 

good or excellent condition by 1997 (see Map 26). 

To accomplish this objective, the following actions will 

be implemented. 

1.	 Incorporate riparian area objectives into existing 

and future activity plans. 

2.	 In cooperation with Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, develop and implement a system to 

prioritize needed riparian area management. The 

priorities will be based on management objectives, 

resource condition, resource conflict and the 

potential or capability of a riparian area to respond 

to treatment. 

3.	 Develop a riparian inventory system. Coordinate 

development and implementation of the system 

with other land managing agencies. 

4.	 In cooperation with Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, complete the inventory of all riparian 

areas on public lands in the District to establish 

baseline condition. 

5.	 Establish a monitoring plan for selected riparian 

areas based upon the management priority 

system. Implement the plan and evaluate monitor32 
ing data. Continue to carry out needed changes in 

riparian area management through activity plans. 

6.	 Continue to file for in-stream flow water rights on 

perennial streams or rivers and water rights on 

springs and ponds to protect and maintain riparian 

vegetation. 

7.	 Continue to develop grazing systems and modify 

existing allotment management plans, as necessary, to best manage livestock use for the improvement of riparian areas and reduce non-point 

source water pollution. 

8.	 Do not permit firewood cutting in riparian areas. 

9.	 Permit the removal of non-native vegetation for 

improvement of riparian vegetation. 

1 0 	 Maintain and monitor representative relict riparian 

areas to provide a baseline for future management 

decisions. 

11. Build Timber Draw Dam on the San Simon River to 

reestablish stream channel and floodplain conditions to promote the redevelopment of the riparian 

ecosystem. 

12. Continue to manage the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area according to the 

guidance in the existing management plan, and 

develop a management plan for the Gila Box 

Riparian National Conservation Area. 

13. Develop an environmental education program for 

schools and the public for riparian management. 

Management Concern 1 - Wildlife 

Habitat 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Wildlife 

Habitat Management Concern. 

1.	 Maintain and enhance priority species and their 

habitats. 

2.	 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. 

3.	 Conserve candidate species to ensure that BLMauthorized actions do not contribute to the need to 

list any species as threatened or endangered. 

4. Manage state-listed species to meet state objectives. Other special status species will be managed 

in accordance with inter and intra-agency management plans. 

5. Manage priority wildlife species habitat (vegetation 

communities) or special features of that habitat 

(water, riparian vegetation, cliffs etc.) to maintain or 

enhance population levels. 

6. Focus management efforts on enhancing biological 

diversity. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish these objectives. 

1. Establish the following as priority species and 

habitats. Priority species and habitats in the District 

include federally 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. 

a. Riparian/aquatic habitat and species dependent 

on riparian/aquatic habitat Gila topminnow, desert 

pupfish, southern bald eagle, loach minnow, 

spikedace, Gila chub, Colorado roundtail 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. 

b.	 Species identified for reintroduction in Fish and 

Wildlife Service plans are the aplomado falcon 

and woundfin. 

c.	 Desert tortoise. 

d.	 Desert and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. 

e.	 Mule deer. 

f .	 Pronghorn antelope. 

9.	 Oak woodlands and species dependent on oak 

woodland habitat white-tailed deer, turkey, black 

bear and Montezuma quail. 

h. Neotropical migratory birds. 

i.	 Other species and habitats of interest peregrine 

falcon, red bat, Sanborn’s long-nosed bat, 

33 
Mexican long-tongued bat, ferruginous and 

Swainson’s hawks, javelina, mountain lion, dove, 

quail and bat roosts. 

General management objectives for each of the priorly 

species and habitats are identified in Appendix 4. 

2.	 Inventory public lands within the District to determine the presence and abundance of priority 

species and their habitat. 

3.	 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 fiveyear strategic plans for the various species and will 

assist the Department in accomplishing its goals 

for the various species. 

4.	 Transplant and augment populations of priority 

wildlife species within historic ranges, if necessary, 

to reach management objectives. 

5.	 Monitor priority habitat to determine condition and 

changes in condition. Conduct inventories to 

determine the impacts of other activities on wildlife 

populations and habitat prior to preparation of 

Habitat Management Plans. Identify opportunities 

in Habitat Management Plans to mitigate adverse 

impacts and implement the actions needed to 

correct the problems. 

6.	 Continue to maintain and improve wildlife habitat, 

emphasizing priority habitat. 

Protect springs and associated indigenous riparian 

vegetation for wildlife water, cover and forage. 

Develop prescribed burning plans in fire-dependent vegetation communities to improve habitat 

conditions for priority wildlife species. 

Suppress wildfire in sensitive vegetation communities (like palo Verde/saguaro) to reduce the detrimental effects on priority wildlife dependent on 

those communities. 

10. Existing Habitat Management Plans address all 

public lands in the District except scattered parcels 

in Cochise County. Two Habitat Management 

Plans were completed prior to substantial land 

exchanges, and were not based on realistic 

ecological boundaries. To improve site-specific 

habitat management direction, redefine all Habitat 

Management Plan area boundaries. Develop 

Sikes Act Habitat Management Plans with Arizona 

Game and Fish Department for the following 

areas: Geronimo, Gila Box, Aravaipa Muleshoe, 

Peloncillo, DOS Cabezas, San Simon, Cochise and 

San Pedro. Priorities for revisions will be determined in coordination with Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. 

11. Provide input into livestock Allotment Management 

Plans to ensure sufficient vegetation in bighorn 

sheep lambing areas for food and cover. 

12. Provide input into Allotment Management Plans in 

oak-woodland habitat to ensure perennial grasses 

are available to provide adequate cover for priority 

species. 

13. Close the following areas to animal damage 

control activities such as trapping, shooting, aerial 

gunning or use of M-44. 

a. Threatened and Endangered species habitat for 

those techniques that pose a threat to the 

species. 

b. 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. 

c. Wilderness areas and Research Natural Areas 

except as individually authorized by the Arizona 

BLM State Director or the District/Area Manager. 

Authorize areas that are open for animal damage 

control in coordination with the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service on a yearly basis. 

The tree-lined canyon along Aravaipa Creek provides cool 

share for hikers and pleasant areas for primitive camping. 

34 
14. Inventory and categorize desert tortoise habitat by 

1992. In the interim, place about 26,000 acres of 

public land in the San Pedro River basin from 

Cascabel to Winkelman and parts of the Dripping 

Spring and Pinal Mountains in Category 3. Place 

about 3,000 acres east of San Manuel in Category 

2 (see Appendix 10 for goals and criteria for 

categorization of habitat). 

15. Designate the following Area of Critical Environmental Concerns for the protection of priority 

wildlife species and their habitat: Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area, Swamp Springs-Hot 

Springs Watershed, Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area and Eagle Creek Bat Cave . 

Management Concern 2 - Lands and 

Realty 

If this alternative is approved the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Lands 

and Realty Management Concern. 

1. The following are objectives for disposal of public 

lands. 

- The order of preference for disposal will be by 

exchange, Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

or sale. 

- Isolated tracts of public land may be disposed of 

to improve resource management efficiency and 

service to the public. 

- When lands next to urban areas are disposed of, 

the resulting boundaries will be manageable, 

fenceable and identifiable. 

.	 Prior to disposal, lands will be evaluated for 

significant cultural and natural resource values. 

Dispose of 105,523 acres of public lands in the following areas to accomplish these objectives. 

a. Texas Canyon area. 

b. Gila Valley area. 

c. El Capitan and southern Pinal Mountain area. 

d. Dripping Spring Wash area. 

e. Swisshelm Mountain area. 

f. Bisbee area, excluding the Juniper Flats block. 

g. Tombstone area. 

h. Douglas area. 

i. Greenlee County Area. 

j. San Simon area. 

k. Portal area. 

I. Recreation and Public Purposes sanitary landfill 

leases. 

The public land areas have been identified for disposal 

by sale or exchange and are within the disposal area 

identified on Map 27. However, all public lands within 

these areas do not have to be disposed of. Unforeseen future land management concerns or public 

demand may also necessitate the need for other public 

lands to be sold or exchanged which are not in the 

identified disposal area. The parcels considered at that 

time would be subject to BLM’s planning process and 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Appendix 5 shows the lands that meet the the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 criteria for 

sale. Although these lands qualify for sale, BLM’s 

preferred method of disposal is by exchange or 

through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Map 

27 shows where disposals of land may take place. 

2. The following are objectives for land acquisition: 

� Acquire lands with high public values that 

complement existing management programs. 

� Consolidate ownership pattern to improve 

management efficiency. 

� Improve service to the public. The rugged volcanic clifs of Doubtful Canyon in the Peloncillos 

are home to desert bighorn sheep. 

35 
To accomplish these objectives, acquire State of 

Arizona and private land in the areas shown on Map 27 

if they become available. These lands would have one 

or more of the following characteristics, generally within 

or adjacent to public lands shown on the map. 

a. riparian habitat. 

b. watersheds of important riparian areas. 

c. high value wildlife habitat, such as Threatened 

and Endangered species areas and major 

migration corridors. 

d. administrative sites. 

e. land for developed recreation sites. 

f. land providing access to public lands. 

g. significant cultural and paleontological properties. 

h. other lands with high public resource values such 

as inholdings in Area of Critical Environmental 

Concerns and other types of special management areas. 

i.	 other private lands that will accomplish BLM’s 

acquisition objectives. 

3.	 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 concerns 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 documents 

as part of the amendment. 

4.	 Designate the following existing utility lines as 

corridors for future utility needs across the District. 

a. Arizona Electric Power Company line 1-mile 

wide. 

b. Tucson Electric Power Company line 1-mile 

wide. 

c. All American pipeline (San Simon Resource 

Area only) 1-mile wide. 

d. San Pedro 1-mile wide (660 ft. wide where it 

crosses San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area). 

e. Hayden/Christmas 1 -mile wide. 

Any future major cross-District utility rights-of-way 

proposals will be encouraged to use these corridors 

(see Map 27). 

5.	 Establish the Muleshoe Ranch and the Bowie 

Mountain Scenic Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern as right-of-way avoidance. Every attempt 

will be made to avoid these areas with major 

cross-District rights-of-way to minimize or eliminate 

conflicts with sensitive resource values. 

6.	 Attach needed site-specific environmental protection stipulations to all rights-of-way. 

7.	 Establish the following areas as right-of-way 

exclusion areas. 

a. Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. 

b. Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

c. DOS Cabezas Peaks Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

d. Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

e. Willcox Playa National Natural Landmark Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern. 

f. wilderness study area. 

g. designated wilderness areas. 

The Oliver Knoll atmospheric deposition monitoring station is 

part of a nationwide network that measures the acidity and 

particulate content of precipitation. 

36 
h. Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring 

Station 

8.	 Designate Guthrie Peak, Juniper Flat in the Mule 

Mountains and the west end of DOS Cabezas 

Mountains as communication sites (see Map 27). 

Site plans will be prepared for all communication 

sites, and designation of new sites will be analyzed 

on a case-by-case basis. 

9.	 Complete the withdrawal review process. Revoke 

all withdrawals determined to no longer serve their 

original or intended purpose. 

10.	 Withdraw 12 acres for the proposed Safford 

District Office administrative site (T. 7 S., R. 25 E., 

Sec. 24, that part of the W1/2NW1/4NE1/4 lying 

north of Golf Course Road) from the public land 

laws and the mining and mineral leasing laws, 

11.	 Withdraw 10 acres for the Oliver Knoll atmospheric 

deposition monitoring station (T. 4 S., R. 24 E., 

Sec. 22, SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4 

SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4, NE1/ 

4NW1/4NE1/4SE1/4) from the public land laws 

and the mining laws. Mineral leasing will be 

permitted with a “No Surface Occupancy” stipulation. Area will be established as an administrative 

site. 

12.	 Withdraw 9,829 acres, including administrative 

sites and campgrounds, from mineral entry to 

preserve important resource values. Table 2-3 

identifies the areas and acreages to be withdrawn, 

Appendix 7 lists the legal descriptions of the areas 

to be withdrawn. 

Table 2-3. Areas/Acres To Be Withdrawn 

From Mineral Entry-Alternative A 

Area Withdrawn Acres Withdrawn 

Gila Box ONA ACEC 2,411 

Table Mountain RNA ACEC 

Desert Grassland RNA ACEC 

1,220 

380 

Bear Springs Badlands 

Bowie Mountain Scenic 

ACEC 

ACEC 

2,927 

2,230 

Coronado Mountain RNA ACEC 

Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC 

120 

40 

Fourmile Canyon Campground 

Oliver Knoll Atmospheric 

Deposition Monitoring Station 

District Off ice Site proposed 

159 

10 

12 

Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 

Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 

Midway Cave Archaeological Site

120 

160 

40 

Total 9,829 

Source: Safford District Files 

Management Concern 3- Outdoor 

Recreation and Visual Resource 

Management 

If this alternative is approved the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Outdoor Recreation and 

Visual Resource Management Concern. 

1. Designate the following areas as Special Recreation 

Management Areas to manage current recreation 

use. 

a. Aravaipa Canyon/Turkey Creek 

b. Gila Box/Bonita Creek. 

c. Christmas (Gila River below Coolidge Dam). 

d. Red Knolls/Bear Springs Badlands/Watson
 

Wash.
 

e. Hot Well Dunes. 

37 
f. additional lands in the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area not previously included in the San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan (BLM 1989). 

Prepare Recreation Area Management Plans for 

designated Special Recreation Management Areas, 

as needed. Manage the remainder of the public lands 

within the District as an Extensive Recreation Management Area for dispersed recreation use. 

2.	 In the Recreation Area Management Plans, 

determine which public lands will be managed for 

interpretation and education, and which sites will 

have signs added for public interpretation, safety 

and education. 

3.	 Continue to manage Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness 

following the guidance of the Aravaipa Canyon 

Wilderness Management P/an (BLM 1988). 

4.	 Prepare project plans for the following areas that 

need some recreation planning and development. 

a. Gila Mountain Crest Trail, in cooperation with 

the San Carlos Apache Tribe. 

b. Galiuro/AravaipaSanta Teresa Trail, in cooperation with the Forest Service. 

c. Watson Wash Hot Well. 

d. Safford-Morenci Trail. 

e. Red Knolls. 

f. Guadalupe Canyon. 

g. Black Hills Rockhound Area. 

h. Round Mountain Rockhound Area. 

i.	 Fort Bowie/Helen’s Dome Trail, in cooperation 

with the National Park Service. 

5.	 Evaluate new road construction for possibilities to 

enhance recreation experiences. Evaluate possible closure of some existing roads for the same 

possibilities. (See Access issue for additional 

information.) 

6.	 Continue to exclude livestock from 159 acres of 

public land around Fourmile Canyon Campground. 

7.	 Unless otherwise established, the maximum length 

of stay for recreation purposes in any one location 

is 14 days. 

8.	 Develop a District sign plan to determine which 

roads, sites and facilities will be signed for interpretation, education, information and public safety. 

9.	 Designate the following as Visual Resource 

Management Class I areas to preserve the scenic 

quality. (See Appendix 6 for classification definitions.) 

a. designated wilderness areas. 

b. Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

A BLM archaeologist examines fossilized bones at the Bear 

Springs Badlands ACEC. 

38 
i. Willcox Playa National Natural Landmark Area 

Management Class II areas to preserve their 

10.. Designate the following as Visual Resource 

of Critical Environmental Concern.
 

scenic quality and to allow for some modification of
 

the landscape.
 j.	 111 Ranch Research Natural Area Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. 

a. Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area
 

and adjacent lands.
 k. Muleshoe Ranch. 

I. Babocomari River.
 

mental Concern.
 

b. Turkey Creek Riparian Area of Critical Environm. Gila River Canyon (below Coolidge Dam). 

c. Aravaipa Canyon tablelands. 

n. Baker Canyon wilderness study area. 

d. Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
 o. Brandenburg Mountain 

11. Designate the following as Visual Resource 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

e. Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area 

Management Class III areas to preserve their 

scenic quality while providing for management 

activities that are evident but do not dominate the 

mental Concern. 

f. DOS Cabezas Peaks Area of Critical Environlandscape. 

g. Eagle Creek Canyon.	 a. all major highway corridors. 

h. Coronado Mountain	 b. public lands north of Morenci. 

C .	 San Francisco River above and below the Town 

of Clifton. 

d.	 Government Peak and Happy Camp Canyon 

area of the DOS Cabezas Mountains. 

e.	 east of Bowie Mountain around the marble 

quarry. 

f . 	 lands adjacent to the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area. 

9. Whitlock Mountains.

h. Orange Butte. 

i.	 Gila River at Bonita Creek. 

j. Gila Mountains. 

k. Mescal Mountains. 

I.	 Jackson Mountain. 

12. Designate the remainder of the District as a Visual 

Resource Management Class IV area. Appendix 6 

explains the Visual Resource Management management class objectives. The following table 

identifies the number of acres designated by Visual 

Resource Management class. 

39 

Prickly pear cactus are a favotire food of javelina and other 

wildlife species. 
Table 2-4. Acres by Visual Resource 

Management Class-Alternative A 

VRM Class 

Acres 

Designated 

I 90,582 

II 47,156 

III 

IV 

386,849 

874,413 

Source: Safford District Files 

Management Concern 4 - Energy and Minerals 

The following actions will be implemented to resolve 

the Energy and Minerals Management Concern. 

1. Review mining notices and plans of operation 

received under the surface management regulations 

(43 CFR 3809) for impacts to other resources. 

Mitigation and reclamation measures will be provided to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

of the environment. Reclamation bonds will be 

required consistent with current BLM policy. 

2. Withdraw 9,829 acres from mineral entry to preserve important resource values. Table 2-3 identifies the areas and acreages to be withdrawn. 

Appendix 7 lists the legal descriptions of the areas 

to be withdrawn. 

3. Withdraw administrative sites and campgrounds 

(Table 2-3) from entry under the mining laws (see 

Appendix 7 for legal descriptions). 

4. Prohibit the sale of mineral materials (sand, gravel, 

etc.) on 12,371 acres to protect sensitive resource 

values. Table 2-5 identifies the areas and acreages 

where mineral materials will not be sold. 

5. Sale of mineral materials (sand, gravel, etc.) will not 

be permitted in areas with riparian vegetation (see 

Map 26). 

6. The standard list of environmental protection 

stipulations will be attached to all mineral material 

Table 2-5. Areas/Acres Where Mineral 

Materials Will Not Be Sold-Alternative A 

Area Acres 

Gila Box ONA ACEC 2,411 

Bear Springs Badlands ACEC 2,927 

Bowie Mountain Scenic ACEC 2,230 

DOS Cabezas Peaks ACEC 25 

Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC 40 

Riparian areas other than 

those located in ACECs above 4,458 

Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 160 

Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 120 

12,371 

Source: Safford District Files 

sale authorizations. Any needed site-specific
 

stipulations will also be added.
 

7. Energy and other leasable minerals will be leased 

subject to the following conditions. 

a. Standard environmental protection stipulations 

will be applied to all leases in open areas. 

b. Surface occupancy will not be permitted in
 

riparian areas (see Map 26).
 

c. Surface occupancy will not be permitted in
 

campgrounds or administrative sites.
 

d. Surface occupancy will not be permitted in 

established bighorn sheep lambing areas from 

February 1 to April 30 of each year. 

e. Surface occupancy will not be permitted at Tres 

Alamos, Yuma Wash or Midway Cave archaeological sites. 

8. Issue mineral and energy leases with a “No Surface 

Occupancy” stipulation on 14,052 acres to protect 

sensitive resource values. Table 2-6 identifies the 

areas and acreages to which this stipulation will 

apply. 

40 
� 

� 

Table 2-6. Areas/Acres to be Leased With 

a “No Surface Occupancy” StipulationAlternative A 

NSO Area NSO Acres 

Gila Box ONA ACEC 2.411 

Bear Springs Badlands ACEC 2,927 

Bowie Mountain Scenic ACEC 3,600 

DOS Cabezas Peaks ACEC 25 

Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC 40 

Riparian Areas other than those 

located in ACECs above 4,458 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing Areas 90 

Fourmile Canyon Campground 159 

District Office Site proposed 12 

Oliver Knoll Atmospheric 

Deposition Monitoring Station 10 

Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 120 

Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 160 

Midway Cave Archaeological Site 40 

Total 14,052 

Source: Safford District Files 

Management Concern 5 - Cultural 

Resources 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Cultural 

Resources Management Concern. 

Manage for Information Potential. 

� Manage for Public Values.
 

Manage for Conservation.
 

Table 2-7 identifies the actions that will be implemented to achieve each objective. Appendix 12 

defines each objective. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the cultural resource management objectives. 

Critical protection will be considered more important 

than planning or field studies of threatened resources 

involving non-critical protection. This does not mean, 

however, that all critical protection work will be done 

before any planning or other actions. 

1. Prioritize implementation of planned cultural resource actions according to the degree of need as 

defined below. 

a. First priority will be given to planned actions 

protecting threatened and significant cultural 

resources that would otherwise be lost. This 

includes obtaining important data from individuals 

(ethnographic information) that may not be 

available in the future. 

b. Second priority will be given to the preparation of 

management plans directing how the District 

manages its cultural resources. 

c. 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. 

Planned actions in these instances will seek to 

determine the nature and extent of the impacts 

and to identify corrective management actions. 

Third priority will also be given to planned actions 

protecting significant threatened cultural resources where the degree of damage or threat of 

damage is low (non-critical). 

Bobcats can be found in rocky, brushy habitat along desert 

washes throughout the Safford District. 

41 
cf. 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 (for example, to allow a 

cultural property to be excavated solely for 

scientific research purposes or to allow a property 

to be interpreted to the public). 

e. Fifth priority will be given to non-field studies 

designed to collect data for management or 

scientific purposes and for nominating cultural 

properties to the National Register of Historic 

Places. These studies and nominations will not 

be designed primarily to meet immediate management needs. Instead, they will be done to 

provide supplemental management information or 

to highlight cultural properties by nominating 

them to the National Register of Historic Places 

as requested by the general public or other 

interested parties. 

2. Use the following administrative and physical 

measures to protect cultural properties: 

a. Signing place antiquity or interpretive signs on 

cultural properties being looted or vandalized. 

b. Withdrawal withdraw areas from locations under 

the mining laws to protect significant cultural 

properties. Retain significant cultural properties 

in public ownership to conserve them for the 

future. 

c. Access install fences or other barriers to restrict 

or eliminate public access to cultural properties 

that are being looted or vandalized. Prohibit 

firewood cutting for public use in areas with high 

cultural resource values. 

d. Patrol patrol threatened cultural properties with 

personnel from the Arizona Site Steward Program, BLM’s Cultural Resource Assistants and 

Law Enforcement Rangers and community 

volunteers. 

e. Fire Control provide input to the development of a 

fire management plan to protect cultural resources. Assign a Cultural Resource Advisor to 

all extended attack fires whenever heavy equipment is used. 

f. Stabilization stabilize deteriorating standing 

architectural structures on significant cultural 

properties. 

g.	 Detailed Recording record all known prehistoric 

cliff dwellings and related structures in the District 

and the Yuma Wash and Midway Cave sites. 

h. Public Education develop and implement annual 

Public Affairs Action Plans for cultural resources. 

42 
3.	 Complete a Class III cultural resource inventory Civilian Conservation Corps camps and project 

and intensive testing in and adjacent to the Timber areas and Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness and 

Draw project area. adjacent lands. 

4.	 Eliminate livestock grazing on the Tres Alamos 6. Revise the Safford District Rock Art Cultural 

site. Resource Management Plan. 

5.	 Conduct ethnographic studies of Bonita Creek, 7. Conduct a records search inventory and personal 

Muleshoe Ranch, Pima Mormon Canal System, 

Table 2-7. Management Objectives Achieved by Planned Actions-Alternative A 

Actions 

Manage for 

Information 

Potential 

Manage for 

Values Manage for Conservation 

1. Use protection measures X X X 

2. Inventory and test at 

Timber Draw X 

3. Eliminate grazing - Tres Alamos X 

4. Conduct ethnographic 

studies ­

Bonita Creek 0 

Muleshoe Ranch 0 

Mormon Canals 

CCC camps and projects

Aravaipa area 

0 

0 

5. Revise Rock Art CRMP 0 

6. Study vandalism 

7. Conduct Class II 

inventories -

Aravaipa area X 0 0 

Muleshoe Ranch 

Mormon Canals X 0 0 

CCC camps and projects X 0 0 

8. Conduct Class III 

inventory ­

Bonita Creek X 0 0 

Timber Draw 

9. Inventor 

6 and manage the DOS Ca ezas mining area X 0 0 

10. Research trails, roads, etc. X 0 

11. Develop regional research 

design X 

12. Promote scientific use X 

13. Promote development of 

predictive model 

14. Interpret Aravaipa area 

15. Interpret -

Safford Airport CCC Camp 

Bonita Creek properties 

16. Study San Simon erosion 

X Primary Objective 0 Secondary Objecfive N/A Nor Applicable 

Source: Safford Dtsfrict files. 

43 
interviews to determine the extent of looting and 

vandalism to cultural resources. 

8.	 Conduct Class II archaeological inventories in 

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness and adjacent lands, 

Muleshoe Ranch, Pima Mormon Canal System 

and Civilian Conservation Corps camps and 

project areas to enhance knowledge of cultural 

resources for future management decisions. 

9.	 Conduct a Class III archaeological inventory in 

Bonita Creek Canyon to enhance knowledge of 

cultural resources for future management decisions. 

10. Conduct a judgemental cultural resource field 

inventory and archival research to increase 

knowledge of the DOS Cabezas historical mining 

area on public lands. Develop cooperative management agreements for the inventory of the 

mining area on adjacent non-federal lands. 

11. Conduct archival research to identify historic trails, 

roads, telegraph lines and other forms of historic 

transportation and communication. 

12. Develop a regional research design to help identify 

the specific scientific and public values of individual 

cultural properties. 

13. Actively promote scientific investigations on District 

cultural resources through the development of 

information packets, brochures and other measures. 

14. Promote the development of a rigorous predictive
 

model for the occurrence of cultural resources.
 

15. Develop a comprehensive interpretive and educational program depicting the geological, cultural 

and wildlife values of Aravaipa Canyon. 

16. Develop and implement a management plan for 

interpretive use of the Civilian Conservation Corps 

Base Camp near the Safford Airport and selected 

cultural properties along Bonita Creek. 

17. Conduct a cooperative study with the Soils Program to determine the effects of soil erosion on
 

cultural properties in the San Simon drainage.
 

Management Concern 6 - SoiI
 Erosion
 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives
 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Soil
 

Erosion Management Concern.
 

- Reduce accelerated erosion. 

- Restore eroded floodplains of the San Simon 

River and in the Bear Springs Flat area (see Map 

26). 

� Reduce silt and salts entering the Gila River from 

the San Simon River. 

- Reduce non-point source pollution that could
 

result from rangeland management and use
 

activities.
 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the soil erosion and salinity management objectives. 

1. Develop activity plans, where needed, to initiate 

rehabilitation of eroded areas. 

2. Construct Timber Draw Dam to continue efforts to 

rehabilitate eroded areas of the San Simon River 

(see Map 26). 

3. Continue reseeding grasses and riparian vegetation 

on restored areas behind erosion control structures. 

Manage livestock with fencing or other methods to 

protect these areas. 

4. Protect the eroded floodplain of the San Simon 

River through appropriate livestock management. 

5. Establish soil erosion studies at Hot Well Dunes to 

determine the effects of off-highway vehicle use. 

Limit off-highway vehicle use if erosion becomes 

unacceptable. 

6. Repair Oso Largo Detention Dam (see Map 26) in 

the Bear Springs Flat area to continue rehabilitation 

of eroded lands. Assess the land upstream of Oso 

Largo Dam to determine the need for maintenance 

of existing structures or the need for additional 

structures. Make all structures functional without 

adverse impacts to the Area of Critical Environmental Concern located in the upper end of the eroded 

area. 

7. Investigate methods to increase vegetation cover in 

the Bear Springs Flat area, without adversely 

affecting the Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

8. Continue seasonal livestock use in the Bear Springs 

Flat area. 

9. Cap or contain the flowing wells in the San Simon 

Watershed if salinity exceeds 3,000 ppm. 

44 
A unique plant community of Arizona cypress, Mexican pinyon, 

pointleaf and pringle’s manzanita and netleaf oak atop 

Coronado Mountain is managed by BLM and USFS. 

Management Concern 7- Vegetation 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Vegetation Management Concern. 

1. The objective for management of upland vegetation 

is to restore and maintain plant communities for 

wildlife, watershed condition and livestock. The 

desired plant communities will be determined in the 

preparation of activity plans (allotment management 

plans, habitat management plans, etc.). An ecological site inventory will be completed as new allotment 

management plans are prepared or existing plans 

revised. 

2. The objective for management of threatened, 

endangered and special status plant species is to 

manage the public lands to preserve and enhance 

occurrences of special status species and to 

achieve the eventual delisting of threatened and 

endangered species. BLM will assist the Fish and 

Wildlife Service in the development of Threatened 

and Endangered species recovery plans. Implementation of recovery plans will be accomplished 

through activity plans. 

To accomplish the Threatened and Endangered 

plant species management objectives, inventory and 

develop Habitat Management Plans or include 

Threatened and Endangered plants in other Habitat 

Management Plans in the following priority order. 

a. Listed threatened Coryphantha robbinsorum. 

b. Candidate category I species	 Aster lemonii and 

Rumex orthoneurus. 

C.	 Reinventory and monitor other candidate species 

known to occur on public lands. 

d.	 Reinventory and monitor listed endangered
 

species. Echinocereus triglochicfiatus
 

3.	 Land treatments (vegetation manipulation) will be 

used to decrease invading woody plants and 

increase grasses and forbs for wildlife, watershed 

condition and livestock. Public lands, where vegetation condition is less than desired to meet management objectives, will be identified for treatment 

through activity plans. Treatments may include 

various artificial (mechanical, chemical or prescribed 

fire) methods. Management objectives for riparian 

vegetation can be found under Issue 4 Riparian 

Vegetation. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the land treatment objective. 

a. Implement those best management practices and 

methods that will increase vegetation cover and 

decrease soil erosion and non-point source 

pollution to streams from sedimentation. 

b. Study the methods and effects of reducing rodent 

and rabbit populations on selected upland areas 

to improve vegetation cover. 

4. Make the following firewood cutting areas available 

to the public (see Map 26). 

a. San Simon Fan Structure area for tamarisk and 

mesquite. 

b. West of the San Simon River, on Sonoita soils for 

mesquite. 

c. Mesquite Well area, on Sonoita soils for
 

whitethorn and mesquite.
 

d. Horse Mountain area for manzanita, juniper and 

mesquite. 

Permit up to 500 cords per year on public lands 

Districtwide, but do not allow cutting in major desert 

washes, wilderness areas or some special management areas. 

5. Determine other areas appropriate for firewood 

cutting and the quantities available. 

6. Issue permits for vegetation products, other than 

firewood, as determined by public demand and onsite evaluation. 

45 
7. Initiate a study of the effects of climatic changes on 

vegetation communities as well as on other resources. 

Management Concern 8 - Water Resources 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Water 

Resources Management Concern. These objectives 

are designed to support on-going programs (range, 

riparian, recreation, wildlife, etc.) while providing data 

to be used for future management decisions. 

1.	 The objective for management of groundwater is to 

conserve water for prudent resource management 

purposes. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the groundwater management objective. 

a. Cap unusable or unsuitable wells to prevent 

contamination of aquifers and to contain highly 

saline water. 

b. Restrict artesian flow to meet specific program 

needs. 

c. Inspect and maintain water systems to prevent 

unnecessary loss of water. 

Further, initiate a groundwater study for the San Simon 

Watershed to determine the depth of the various 

aquifers, changes in the quantities of individual aquifers, the water quality of each aquifer and availability of 

groundwater for BLM’s resource management programs. Prepare a management plan for the use and 

conservation of water (quality and quantity). 

2. The objective for management of water quality is to 

maintain or enhance water quality at or above 

established standards for designated uses to meet 

management goals for each water source. BLM will 

adhere to federal and state water quality laws and 

standards. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the water quality management objective. 

a. Support other resource programs in the implementation of this plan and monitor the effectiveness of planning decisions. 

b. Continue the existing water quality testing
 

program in the District (see Appendix 9).
 

c Initiate data collection where there is a suspected 

or known pollution threat or hazard to water 

quality. 

d.	 Develop an activity plan and initiate management 

actions needed to mitigate water quality degradation detected through monitoring. 

e.	 Develop a District Water Quality Monitoring Plan, 

including recommendations for Unique Waters 

nominations. 

f . 	 Share data with other water quality managing 

agencies. 

3.	 Evaluate Aravaipa Creek, Mescal Creek, Redfield 

Canyon, Swamp Springs Canyon, Hot Springs 

Canyon and Bass Canyon to determine their 

suitability for Unique Waters designation. Nominate 

those that meet the required standards. 

4.	 Evaluate Turkey Creek, Deer Creek and the Left 

Fork of Markham Creek (intermittent streams) for 

Unique Waters designation, if their flow becomes 

perennial. Nominate those that meet the required 

standards. 

5.	 Manage stream segments through public lands 

designated as Unique Waters to maintain or enhance water quality standards, protect the associated resources, and use best management practices selected to reduce non-point source pollution 

that could result from rangeland management uses. 

6.	 Evaluate the long-term Districtwide resource 

management needs for ground and surface water. 

7.	 Evaluate Gila River, San Francisco River, Redfield 

Canyon, Hot Springs Canyon, Swamp Springs 

The winding canyonlands of Aravaipa, as view from atop the 

Pilares, are habitat for desert bighorn sheep. 

46 
Canyon, Bass Canyon, Bonita Creek and Mescal 

Creek to determine the quantities of in-stream flow 

(water rights) needed to meet resource management objectives. File with the state on the quantities 

needed to meet resource management objectives. 

8. Evaluate Turkey Creek, Deer Creek, Left Fork of 

Markham Creek and Guadalupe Canyon (intermittent streams), if their flow becomes perennial, to 

determine the quantities of instream flow (water 

right) needed to meet resource management 

objectives. File with the state on the quantities 

needed to meet resource management objectives. 

9. Purchase water rights, when necessary, to protect 

threatened resource values. 

Management Concern 9 - Air Quality 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Air 

Quality Management Concern. 

1. Continue to manage the airshed in accordance with 

State of Arizona Class II standards, unless redesignated. Class II standards allow for moderate 

deterioration of air quality associated with moderate, 

well-controlled industrial and population growth. 

2. Comply with all federal and State statutes pertaining 

to air quality and cooperate with the State of Arizona 

in carrying out the State Implementation Plan. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish these objectives. 

a. 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. 

b. Continue the rehabilitation of erosion in the San 

Simon Watershed and the Bear Springs Flat area 

(see Map 26) to reduce airborne dust. 

c. Conduct prescribed fire with prior approval of the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

Office of Air Quality. 

d. Continue operation of the Oliver Knoll atmospheric deposition monitoring station as part of a 

nationwide network. 

Management Concern 10 ­ Paleontological Resources 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Paleontological Resources Management Concern. 

1. Preserve a representative sample of Class I (see 

Appendix 12) paleontological localities. 

2. Ensure that BLM actions avoid inadvertent damage 

to paleontological resources. 

3. Manage paleontological resources to preserve their 

scientific and interpretive values. 

4. Emphasize management of Class I sites. 

5. Provide opportunities for education and interpretation. 

6. Provide opportunities for scientific research. 

Implement the following actions to accomplish the 

objectives for management of paleontological resources: 

a. Continue inventories in areas of proposed 

activities to identify the presence of paleontological resources and determine measures needed to 

mitigate anticipated impacts. 

b. Conduct field studies at Bear Springs Badlands, 

111 Ranch and Hot Well Dunes. 

(1) Provide data on the nature, extent and 

scientific significance of fossils. 

(2) Determine the condition of exposures and 

factors that may be affecting them. 

(3)	 Determine the suitability of these areas for 

inclusion in the National Natural Landmarks 

program. Nominate qualifying areas. 

3. Prepare a Paleontological Resources Management 

Plan for the District. 

4. Write a detailed overview of the biological and 

geological history of the District emphasizing 

paleontological resources important to scientific 

research. 

5. Study, evaluate and monitor off-highway vehicle use 

at the Hot Well Dunes to determine the effect on 

paleontological resources. 

47 
 

 

Alternative B b. Military Trail, about three miles T. 3 S., R. 16 E.,

Secs. 13, 14, 23. 

This alternative emphasizes management and protec- Buckeye Canyon Road, about one mile T. 13 S., tion of natural and cultural resources while still provid- R. 27 E., Secs. 26, 27,34 and T. 14 S., R. 27 E., ing for use and development of the public lands. More Sec. 9. restrictions are applied, compared to the other alternatives, to protect natural and cultural resources. This d. Jackson Cabin Road, about five and a half miles alternative designates larger areas in some Areas of T. 11 S., R. 20 E., Secs. 22, 26, 27, 35, 36; T. 12 Critical Environmental Concern with more protective S., R. 20 E., Secs. 1, 2,11, 24; and T. 12 S., R. management prescriptions. Priority wildlife species 21 E., Secs. 30,31. include Threatened and Endangered species and their 

habitat but no game species. Actions are proposed to e. other roads as determined in the future. protect water quality by using best management 

practices to reduce non-point pollution from rangeland 8. Obtain legal access, for public and administrative management activities and uses. Additional manage- use, on existing foot and horse trails across private ment emphasis is given to protection and enhance- lands in the following locations. ment of riparian areas. The protection of cultural 

resource values (scientific, public and conservation) a. Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Trail from the west will be emphasized before the use of these values. trailhead (at the administrative site) to the west 

boundary of the wilderness T. 6 S., R. 17 E., Issue 1- Access	 Secs. 13, 24. 

The following actions will be implemented to resolve b. Babocomari River Trail T. 20 S., R. 20 E., Sec. 

the Access Issue. 13 and T. 20 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 18. 

1. Prepare a District Transportation Plan that includes c. Safford-Morenci Trail where it crosses Bonita 

identification of access needs and closures, a road Creek T. 5 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 10, 11. 

and trail numbering system, sign needs, maintenance needs and coordination with other agencies d. Safford-Morenci Trail where it crosses the San 

and landowners. Carlos Indian Reservation T. 4 S., R. 28 E., Sec. 

31. 

2.	 Minimize the impact from existing and proposed 

access routes on natural and cultural resources. e. Hell Hole Canyon Trail and trailhead at Dry Camp 

T. 6 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 7. 

3.	 Reserve, as needed, access across public lands 

that are disposed of by sale, exchange or other 

means. 

4.	 Obtain public and administrative access to the
 

public lands.
 

5.	 Roads may be closed, as needed, for visitor use
 

management, resource protection and to accomplish resource management objectives.
 

6.	 Obtain legal access, for public and administrative
 

use, across private lands in 29 locations Districtwide
 

(see Appendix 1) and across other state and private
 

lands as determined in the future.
 

7.	 Reconstruct the following roads to provide vehicle
 

access for the administration and use of the public
 

lands.
 

a. Virgus Canyon Road, about one half mile T. 6 S., 

R. 18 E., Secs. 27,34,35. Desert baileya, a common desert flower, is poisonous to 

livestock. 

48 
lssue 2 - Area of Critical 

Environmental Concerns 

and Other Types of Special

Management 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Area of Critical Environmental Concerns and Other Types of Special Management Issues. 

1. Designate 13 Area of Critical Environmental Concerns totalling 122,102 acres (97,057 acres of public 

land) to protect important natural and cultural 

resources. Table 2-8 describes the specific areas, 

acreages, values and management prescriptions. 

Maps 1 through 22 and Map 24 show the location of 

each proposed Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. 

Appendix 2 includes a detailed discussion of each Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern nomination, including a determination of relevance and importance, 

rationale for designation, management prescription and 

alternatives considered. 

2. Develop a Coordinated Resource Management Plan 

for the Bear Springs Flat area to direct the management of BLM’s multiple use programs. The purpose 

of the plan will be to establish management objectives that direct development of future programs 

activities toward maintenance and enhancement of 

watershed condition (see Map 26). When developing the plan, livestock forage use will not be permitted to exceed an average of 40 percent over a full 

grazing cycle (averaging three to five years in 

duration). 

3. Revise the San Simon River Coordinated Resource 

Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to 

direct development of program activities to maintain 

and enhance watershed condition. 

4. Cooperative livestock and watershed management 

studies will be conducted with the Forest Service, 

The Nature Conservancy and state universities to 

restore native grasslands and improve the condition 

of the Aravaipa Watershed. District studies will 

explore various “best management” techniques. 

Issue 3 - Off-highway Vehicles 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Off-highway Vehicles 

Issue. 

1. Initiate procedures to designate 1,708 acres at Hot 

Well Dunes closed to off-highway vehicle use. 

2. Designate the following areas closed to off-highway 

vehicle use. 

a. That part of Turkey Creek and Oak Grove 

Canyon in the Aravaipa Watershed Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern above the Oak 

Grove Canyon corrals 102 acres. 

b. Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern 530 acres. 

c. Willcox Playa National Natural Landmark Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern 2,475 acres. 

d. The riparian area of Hot Springs Canyon 140 

acres. 

3. Designate wilderness areas closed to off-road 

vehicle use. (84,632 acres currently designated). 

4. Off-highway vehicle use within the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area (54,189 acres) 

is limited to designated roads. Vehicle use within 

the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area 

(20,900 acres) will be determined during the preparation of the management plan for the area. 

5. Designate the remainder of the District (1,309,646 

acres) Limited to off-highway vehicle use. Off 

highway vehicle use will be limited to existing roads 

and trails occurring at the time of designation and 

any new roads approved for construction during the 

life of the Resource Management Plan. Existing 

roads and trails have been identified and are 

available for review in the District Office. Table 2-9 

identifies the acres designated in each category. 

6. Off highway vehicle designations and management 

will apply to motorized transportation only. 

Issue 4 - Riparian Areas 

If Alternative B is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Riparian 

Areas Issue. 

The objective for management of riparian areas is to 

maintain or improve 75 percent of the acres of riparian 

vegetation on public lands within the District in good or 

excellent condition by 1997 (see Map 26). 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish this objective. 

49 
Table 2-8. Areas Designated as Area of Critical Environmental Concerns-Alternative B 

Proposed Federal, State 

Values or Management Values or 

Name & Private Acres Hazards Prescription 

Gila Box F 2,994 Desert rivers, Mineral withdrawal, 

ONA ACEC S 0 riparian habi- NSO for mineral 

P 360 tat, T&E spe­ leasing, no sand/­

3,354 ties, bighorn gravel sales, 

sheep, scenery, limit OHVs, no OHVs 

recreation in canyon bottoms, 

use, cultural suppress wildfire 

resources. in riparian zones, acquire 

private lands if available, no 

R/Ws outside the designated 

corridor, no woodcutting, VRM 

Class II. 

Aravaipa F 50,290 Valuable water- Limit OHV use, 

Watershed S 0 shed, including close Oak Grove 

ACEC* P 8,028 a wilderness, Cyn. and upper part 

58,318 riparian zones, of Turkey Cr. to 

T&E wildlife, OHV use, NSO for 

bighorn sheep, mineral leasing or 

native fish, no mineral material perennial 

streams, recrea­ waters, sales in riparian 

tion opportu­ zones. Require a 

nities mining plan, no 

livestock after 

expiration of current lease, 

monitor water quality, rehabilitate riparian and upland 

vegetation, develop cooperative agreement. 

Table Mtn. F 1,220 Plant Limit OHV use, 

RNA ACEC S 0 community. no woodcutting, 

P 0 mineral withdrawal, 

1,220 no vegetative sales, prescribed fire plan, NSO for 

mineral leasing, no sand/ 

gravel sales, exclude livestock. 

Desert F 530 Relict Mineral withdrawal, 

Grasslands S 240 desert no sand/gravel 

RNA ACEC P 70 grasslands. sales, closed to 

840 OHV use, acquire State/ 

private lands if available, 

prescribed fire plan. 

50 
Table 2-8. Areas Designated as Area of Critical Environmental Concerns-Alternative B 

(continued) 

Proposed Federal, State 

Values or Management Values or 

Name & Private Acres Hazards Prescription 

Muleshoe 

ACEC** 

F 

S 

P 

19,400 

967 

6,320 

26,687 

Riparian 

areas, T&E 

species, bighorn sheep, 

native fish, 

cultural 

resources, 

valuable 

watershed. 

Limit OHV use, 

close Hot Springs 

Canyon to OHVs, 

require mining 

plans, rehabilitate riparian 

and upland vegetation, exclude 

livestock except 

on Soza Mesa and peripheral 

areas, acquire legal access, 

acquire State/private land if 

available. 

Bear Springs 

Badlands ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

4,127 

320 

0 

4,447 

Paleontological 

(fossil) 

resources, 

scenery. 

Scientific studies, 

VRM Class II, no 

road construction, 

limit OHV use, mitigate 

livestock and soil erosion 

impacts, mineral withdrawal, 

NSO for mineral leasing, no 

sand/gravel sales, 

extensive inventory. 

Guadalupe 

Canyon 

ONA ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

5,838 

0 

1,146 

6,984 

Riparian 

habitat, T&E 

species, scenery, recreation 

values. 

Limit OHV use, 

prescribed fire 

plan, no woodcutting, VRM Class 

II, no R/Ws. 

Bowie Mtn. 

Scenic ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

4,190 

0 

100 

4,290 

Scenic backdrop to Ft. 

Bowie National 

Historic Site. 

Require mining 

plan, limit OHV 

use, suppress wildfire, no woodcutting, VRM Class I, no R/Ws, 

acquire private lands if 

available. 

Coronado Mtn. 

RNA ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

120 

0 

0 

120 

Unique 

plant 

association. 

Mineral withdrawal 

no woodcutting, 

VRM Class I, 

prescribed fire plan, no R/Ws. 

51 
Table 2-8. Areas Designated as Area of Critical Environmental Concerns-Alternative B 

(continued) 

Proposed Federal, State 

Values or Management Values or 

Name & Private Acres Hazards Prescription 

DOS Cabezas 

Peaks ACEC 

Eagle Creek 

Canyon 

ONA ACEC*** 

Willcox Playa 

NNL ACEC 

111 Ranch 

RNA ACEC 

F 25 

S 0 

P 0 

25 

F 3,160 

S 1,341 

P 4,950 

9,451 

2,475 

803 

400 

3,678 

F 2,688 

S 0 

P 0 

2,688 

Scenic, 

historic 

landmark. 

Require mining 

plan, limit OHV 

use, no woodcutting, prescribed fire plan, no 

R/Ws, VRM Class II. 

Mexican 

free-tailed 

bat maternity 

cave, scenery, 

T&E wildlife, 

raptors. 

Mineral withdrawal, 

NSO for mineral 

leasing, acquire 

State/private lands 

if available, 

VRM Class II, 

prohibit guano extraction, 

monitor bat cave. 

Pleistocene 

Epoch lakebed. 

Close to OHV use, 

acquire 

State/private lands 

if available, no woodcutting, 

no R/Ws, VRM Class Il. 

Paleontological 

(fossil) 

resources. 

No wood-cutting, 

no R/Ws, VRM 

Class II, paleonto 

logical clearances. 

‘Includes Turkey Creek Rlparian Area of Crltical Environmental Concern from AlternatIve A and South Rim Area of Critlcal Environmental Concern from Alternative C. 

“Includes Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern from Alternative A and Muleshoe Riparian Area of Critical Environmental Concern from 

Alternative C. 

“‘Includes Eagle Creek Bat Cave Area of Critical Environmental Concern from Alternatives A and C. 

Source: Safford District Files 

1. Incorporate riparian area objective into existing and 

future activity plans. 

2. Develop and implement a system to prioritize 

needed riparian area management. The priorities 

will be based on management objectives, resource 

condition, resource conflicts and the potential or 

capability of a riparian area to respond to treatment. 

3. Develop a riparian inventory system. Coordinate 

development and implementation of the system with 

other federal and state land managing agencies. 

4. Complete the inventory of all riparian areas on 

public lands in the District to establish baseline 

conditions. 

5. Establish a monitoring plan for selected riparian 

areas based on the management priority system. 

Implement the plan and evaluate monitoring data. 

Continue to carry out needed changes in riparian 

area management through activity plans. 

6. Continue to file for in-stream flow rights on perennial 

streams or rivers and water rights on springs and 

ponds to protect and maintain riparian vegetation. 

52 
Table 2-9. Acres Designated for Offhighway Vehicle Use-Alternative B 

Off-highway Vehicle 

Designation 

Approximate 

Acres 

Open 0 

Limited 1,309,646 

Closed 89,587 

Source: Safford District Flies 

7. Continue to develop grazing systems and modify 

existing allotment management plans, as necessary, 

to manage livestock use for the improvement of 

riparian areas. 

8. Except for tamarisk, do not permit firewood cutting 

in riparian areas. 

9.	 Permit the removal of non-native vegetation for 

improvement of riparian vegetation. 

10. Maintain and monitor representative relict riparian 

areas to provide a baseline for future management 

decisions. 

11. Build Timber Draw Dam on the San Simon River to 

re-establish stream channel and floodplain conditions to promote the redevelopment of the riparian 

ecosystem. 

12. Continue to manage the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area following the guidance 

in the existing management plan and develop a 

management plan for the Gila Box Riparian 

National Conservation Area. 

13. Develop an environmental education program for 

riparian management. 

Management Concern 1- Wildlife 

Habitat 

If Alternative B is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Wildlife 

Habitat Management Concern. 

1.	 Maintain and enhance priority species and their 

habitats. 

2 . 	 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 of the 

species. 

3 . 	 Conserve candidate species to ensure BLM authorized actions do not contribute to the need to list any 

species as threatened or endangered. 

Mining claims for locatable mineals can be filled on most Power and telephone poles provide perching and nesting sites 

public lands in the Safford District under the proposed RMP. for many birds. 

53 
 

4. Manage State listed species to meet State objectives. Other special status species will be managed 

in accordance with inter and intra-agency management plans. 

5. Manage priority wildlife species habitat (vegetation 

communities) or special features of that habitat 

(water, riparian vegetation, cliffs, etc.) to maintain or 

enhance population levels. 

6. Focus management efforts on enhancing biological 

diversity. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish these objectives. 

a. Establish the following as priority species and 

habitats. Priority species and habitats in the 

District include federally listed, proposed and 

candidate Threatened and Endangered species 

and their habitat, state-listed Threatened and 

Endangered species and their habitat, and other 

sensitive species and their habitat. 

(1)	 Riparian/aquatic habitat and species dependent on riparian/ aquatic habitat Gila topminnow, desert pupfish, southern bald eagle, 

loach minnow, spikedace, Gila chub, Colorado roundtail chub, razorback sucker, 

western yellow-billed cuckoo, gray hawk, 

Mississippi kite, common black-hawk, 

ferruginous pygmy-owl, willow flycatcher and 

leopard frog. 

(2)	 Species extirpated from the Safford District 

aplomado falcon, woundfin, grizzly bear, 

wolf, ocelot, jaguar, Colorado River squawfish, black-tailed prairie dog and river otter. 

(3)	 Saguaro/palo verde owls, desert tortoise, 

songbirds and Harris hawk. 

(4)	 Desert and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. 

(5)	 Desert grasslands songbirds, reptiles, small 

game and pronghorn antelope. 

(6)	 Oak woodlands and species dependent on 

oak woodland habitat white-tailed deer, 

turkey, black bear and Montezuma quail. 

(7)	 Wetlands waterfowl, shore birds and leopard 

frog. 

(8)	 Neotropical migratory birds 

(9)	 Other species and habitats of interest 

peregrine falcon, red bat, Sat-born’s longnosed bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, 

ferruginous and Swainson’s hawks and bat 

roosts. 

General management objectives for each of the priority 

species and habitats are identified in Appendix 4. 

b. Inventory the District to determine the presence 

and abundance of priority species and their 

habitat. 

c. Manage habitat for optimum wildlife populations, 

based on ecological conditions, taking into 

consideration climatic changes and the goals and 

objectives of Arizona Game and Fish Department 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service (for Threatened 

and Endangered species). 

d. Transplant and augment populations of priority 

wildlife species, if necessary, to reach management objectives. 

e. Monitor priority habitat to determine condition and 

changes in condition. Inventory the impacts of 

other activities on wildlife populations and habitat 

prior to preparation of Habitat Management 

Plans. Identify opportunities in Habitat Management Planss to mitigate adverse impacts and 

implement the actions needed to correct the 

problem. 

f. Continue to maintain and improve wildlife habitat, 

emphasizing priority habitat. 

Saquaros are common in the Lower Sonoran Desert. Large 

individuals are over 200 years old. 

54 
g. Protect springs and associated riparian vegetation for wildlife water, cover and forage. 

h. Develop prescribed burning plans in fire-dependent vegetation communities to improve habitat 

conditions for priority wildlife species. 

i.	 Suppress wildfire in sensitive vegetation communities (like palo Verde/saguaro) to reduce any 

detrimental effects on priority wildlife dependent 

on those communities. 

j. Existing Habitat Management Plans address all 

public lands in the District except scattered 

parcels in Cochise County. Two Habitat Management Plans were completed prior to substantial 

land exchanges and were not based on realistic 

ecological boundaries. Redefine all Habitat 

Management Plan area boundaries to improve 

site-specific habitat management direction. 

Develop Sikes Act Habitat Management Plans, 

with Arizona Game and Fish Department for the 

following areas: Geronimo, Gila Box, AravaipaMuleshoe, Peloncillo, DOS Cabezas, San Simon, 

Cochise and San Pedro. Revision priorities will 

be determined in coordination with Arizona Game 

and Fish Department. 

k. Provide input into livestock Allotment Management Plans to ensure sufficient vegetation for 

cover and food in bighorn sheep lambing areas. 

I. Provide input into Allotment Management Plans 

in oak-woodland habitat to ensure perennial 

grasses are available to provide adequate cover 

for priority species. 

m. Close the following areas to animal damage 

control activities. 

Facilities for handling livestock are scattered throughout the 

Safford District. 

(I)	 Threatened and Endangered species habitat 

for those techniques that pose a threat to the 

species. 

(2) 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. 

(3) Wilderness areas and Research Natural 

Areas except as individually authorized by 

the Arizona BLM State Director or the 

District/Area Manager. 

n. Authorize areas that are open for animal damage 

control in coordination with the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service on a yearly basis. 

0.	 Inventory and categorize desert tortoise habitat 

by 1992. In the interim, place about 26,000 acres 

of public land in the San Pedro River basin from 

Cascabel to Winkelman and parts of the Dripping 

Spring and Pinal Moun tains in Category 3. 

Place about 3,000 acres east of San Manuel in 

Category 2 (see Appendix 10 for goals and 

criteria for categorization of habitat). 

p. Designate Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area, 

Muleshoe, Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding 

Natural Area, Eagle Creek Canyon and Aravaipa 

Watershed Outstanding Natural Area Areas of 

Critical Environmentat Concern for the protection 

of priority wildlife species and their habitat. 

Management Concern 2 - Lands and 

Realty 

-If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Lands 

and Realty Management Concern. 

1. The following are objectives for disposal of public 

lands. 

The order of preference for disposal will be by 

exchange, Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

or sale. 

Isolated tracts of public land may be disposed of 

to improve resource management efficiency and 

service to the public. 

When lands next to urban areas are disposed of, 

the resulting boundaries will be manageable, 

fenceable and identifiable. 

55 
ct. Prior to disposal, lands will be evaluated for 

significant cultural and natural resource values. 

To accomplish these objectives, dispose of 73,569 

acres of public lands in the following areas. 

(1)	 Gila Valley area. 

(2)	 southern Pinal Mountain area. 

(3)	 Dripping Spring Wash area. 

(4)	 Bisbee area, excluding the Juniper Flats 

block. 

(5) Tombstone area. 

(6) Douglas area. 

(7)	 Greenlee County Area. 

(8) San Simon area. 

(9)	 Three-Way Recreation and Public Purposes. 

(10) Recreation and Public Purposes sanitary 

landfill leases. 

These areas have been identified for disposal and are 

within the disposal area identified on Map 27. However, all public lands within these areas do not have to 

be sold or exchanged. BLM may retain certain lands 

within the disposal areas. Upon evaluation of future 

land disposals, BLM may identify resource values 

worthy of retention in public ownership. Unforeseen 

future land management concerns or public demand 

may also necessitates disposal of other public lands 

not currently identified. The parcels considered at that 

time would be subject to BLM’s planning process and 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Appendix 5 shows the lands that meet The federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 criteria for 

sale. Although these lands qualify for sale, BLM’s 

preferred method of disposal is exchange or through 

the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Map 27 

shows the areas where disposals of land may take 

place. 

The Turkey Creek cliff dwelling is one of the most intact 

prehistoric structures of its kind in southeastern Arizona. 

2.	 The following are objectives for land acquisition. 

� Acquire lands with high public values that 

complement existing management programs. 

� Consolidate ownership pattern to improve 

management efficiency. 

� Improve service to the public. 

To accomplish these objectives, acquire, if they 

become available, state and private lands in the same 

areas as depicted in Alternative A and displayed on 

Map 27. These lands are of the following types and 

are located within or adjacent to public lands. 

a. riparian habitat. 

b. watersheds of important riparian areas. 

c. high-value wildlife habitat, such as Threatened 

and Endangered species areas and major 

migration corridors. 

d. administrative sites. 

e. land providing access to public lands. 

f. significant cultural and paleontological properties. 

g. other lands with high public resource values 

such as inholdings in Area of Critical Environmental Concerns and other types of special 

management areas. 

h. other private lands that will accomplish BLM’s 

acquisition objectives. 

3.	 According to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 all lands not identified for disposal must be retained in federal ownership to be 

managed under the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield. 

Unforeseen future land management concerns or
 

public demand may necessitate the disposal of other
 

public lands. Such proposals will require this plan to
 

be amended.
 

4.	 Designate the following existing utility lines as
 

corridors for future utility needs on public lands
 

across the District.
 

a. Arizona Electric Power Company line one mile 

wide. 

b. Tucson Electric Power Company line one mile 

wide. 

56 
Guadalupe Canyon has a unique overlap of Chihuahuan, 

Rocky Mountain and Sierra Madrean vegetation communities. 

c. All American pipeline (San Simon Resource 

Area only) one mile wide. 

cf. San Pedro one mile wide (660 ft. wide where it 

crosses the San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area. 

e. Hayden/Christmas one mile wide. 

Any future major cross-District utility rights-of-way 

proposals will be encouraged to use these corridors 

(see Map 27). 

5.	 Establish the Muleshoe Area of Critical Environmental Concern, the Aravaipa Watershed Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern, the Bear Springs 

Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

and the Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern as right-of-way avoidance 

areas. Every attempt will be made to avoid these 

areas with major cross-District rights-of-way to 

minimize or eliminate conflicts with sensitive 

resource values. 

6.	 Attach needed site-specific environmental protection stipulations to all rights-of-way. 

7.	 Establish the following areas as right-of-way 

exclusion areas. 

a. Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. 

b. Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

C.	 Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

d.	 DOS Cabezas Peaks Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

e.	 Willcox Playa National Natural Landmark Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern. 

f . 	 Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

111 Ranch Research Natural Area Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. 

h. wilderness study areas. 

i. designated wilderness areas. 

i.	 Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring 

Station 

8.	 Designate Guthrie Peak, Juniper Flat in the Mule 

Mountains and the west end of DOS Cabezas 

Mountains as communication sites (see Map 27). 

Site plans will be prepared for all communication 

sites, and designation of new sites will be analyzed 

on a case-by-case basis. 

9.	 Complete the withdrawal review process. Revoke 

all withdrawals determined to no longer serve their 

original or intended purpose. 

1 0 	 Withdraw 12 acres for the proposed Safford 

District Office administrative site (T. 7 S., R. 25 E., 

Sec. 24, that part of the W1/2NW1/4NE1/4 lying 

north of Golf Course Road) from the public land 

laws and the mining and mineral leasing laws. 

11. Withdraw 10 acres for the Oliver Knoll atmospheric 

deposition monitoring station (T. 4 S., R. 24 E., 

Sec. 22, SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4 

SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4, NE1/ 

4NW1/4NE1/4SE1/4) from the public land laws 

and the mining laws, Mineral leasing will be 

permitted with a “No Surface Occupancy” stipulation. Area will be established as an administrative 

site. 

12.	 Withdraw 17,220 acres, including administrative 

sites and campgrounds, from mineral entry to 

preserve important resource values. Table 2-10 

identifies the areas and acreages to be withdrawn. 

Appendix 7 lists the legal descriptions of the areas 

to be withdrawn. 

57 
Table 2-10. Areas/Acres to be Withdrawn 

From Mineral Entry-Alternative B 

Area Withdrawn	 Acres Withdrawn 

Gila Box ONA ACEC 2,994 

Table Mountain RNA ACEC 1,220 

Desert Grassland RNA ACEC 530 

Bear Springs Badlands ACEC 4,127 

Coronado Mtn. RNA ACEC 120 

Eagle Creek Canyon ONA ACEC 3,160 

Fourmile Canyon Campground 159 

Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition 

Monitoring Station 10 

District Office Site proposed 12 

Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 120 

Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 160 

Midway Cave Archaeological Site 40 

Total	 12,652 

Source: S&ford District Files 

Management Concern 3 - Outdoor 

Recreation and Visual Resource 

Management 

If Alternative B is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Outdoor Recreation and 

Visual Resource Management Concern. 

1.	 Designate the following areas as Special Recreation Management Areas to manage current 

recreation use. 

a. Aravaipa Canyon/Turkey Creek. 

b. Gila BotiBonita Creek. 

c. Christmas (Gila River below Coolidge Dam. 

d. Red Knolls/Bear Springs Badlands/Watson 

Wash. 

e. additional lands in the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area not previously 

included in the San Pedro River Riparian 

Management P/an (BLM 1989). 

Prepare Recreation Area Management Plans for 

designated Special Recreation Management Areas, 

as needed. Manage the remainder of the public lands 

within the District as an Extensive Recreation Management Area for dispersed recreation use. 

2.	 In the Recreation Area Management Plans, 

determine which public lands will be managed for 

interpretation and education, and which sites will 

be signed for interpretation, safety and education. 

3.	 Continue to manage Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness 

following the guidance of the Aravaipa Canyon 

Wilderness Management Plan (BLM 1988). 

4.	 Prepare project plans for the following areas that 

need some recreation planning and development. 

a. Gila Mountain Crest Trail in cooperation with the 

San Carlos Apache Tribe. 

b. Galiuro/Aravaipa/Santa Teresa Trail, in cooperation with the Forest Service. 

c. Watson Wash Hot Well. 

d. Saff ord-Morenci Trail. 

e. Red Knolls. 

f. Guadalupe Canyon. 

g. Black Hills Rockhound Area. 

h. Round Mountain Rockhound Area. 

i.	 Fort Bowie/Helen’s Dome Trail, in cooperation 

with the National Park Service. 

5.	 Continue to exclude livestock from 159 acres of 

public land around Fourmile Canyon Campground. 

6.	 Unless otherwise established, the maximum length 

of stay for recreation purposes in any one location 

is 14 days. 

7.	 Develop a District sign plan to determine which 

roads, sites and facilities will be signed for interpretation, education, information and public safety. 

8.	 Designate the following as Visual Resource
 

Management Class I areas to preserve scenic
 

quality.
 

58 
a. designated wilderness areas. c. San Francisco River above the Town of Clifton. 

b. rivers designated as “Wild” under the Wild & 

Scenic Rivers Act. 

d. Government Peak and Happy Camp Canyon 

area of the DOS Cabezas Mountains. 

c. Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern. e. east of Bowie Mountain around the marble 

quarry. 

d. Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

f. lands adjacent to the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area. 

9. Designate the following as Visual Resource 

Management Class II areas to preserve scenic 

quality and to allow some limited modification of 

the landscape. 

a. Bonita Creek Canyon in the Bonita Creek 

Watershed. 

b. Gila Box. 

g. Whitlock Mountains. 

h. Orange Butte. 

i. Gila Mountains. 

j. uplands surrounding Bonita Creek Canyon in 

the Bonita Creek Watershed Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. 

C. Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

d. Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

k. Mescal Mountains. 

I. uplands surrounding Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness in the Aravaipa Watershed Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. 

e. DOS Cabezas Peaks Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

f. 

cl. 

Eagle Creek Canyon. 

Willcox Playa National Natural Landmark Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern. 

11. Designate the remainder of the District as a Visual 

Resource Management Class IV area. Appendix 6 

explains the Visual Resource Management management class objectives. The following table 

identifies the acres designated by Visual Resource 

Management class. 

h. 111 Ranch Research Natural Area Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. 

i. Muleshoe Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. 

j. Babocomari River. 

Table 2-11. Acres by Visual Resource 

Management Class-Alternative B 

k. 

I. 

Gila River Canyon (below Coolidge Dam). 

Baker Canyon wilderness study area. 

VRM Class 

Acres 

Designated 

m. Brandenburg Mountain I 90,991 

10. Designate the following as Visual Resource 

Management Class III areas to preserve scenic 

quality while providing for management activities 

that are evident but do not dominate the landscape . 

II 

III 

IV 

82,043 

409,145 

817,811 

a. all major highway corridors. Source: Safford District Files 

b. public lands north of Morenci. 59 
Many fossils, such as this 350-million-year-old coral, can be 

found in the Mescal Mountains. 

Management Concern 4 - Energy and Minerals 

1. Mining notices and plans of operation received 

under the surface management regulations (43 CFR 

3809) will be reviewed for impacts to other resources. Mitigation and reclamation measures will 

be provided to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the environment. Reclamation bonds 

will be required consistent with current BLM policy. 

2. Withdraw 12,652 acres from mineral entry to 

preserve important resource values. Table 2-l 0 

identifies the areas and acreages to be withdrawn. 

Appendix 7 lists the legal description of the area to 

be withdrawn. 

3. Withdraw administrative sites and campgrounds 

(Table 2-l 0) from entry under the mining laws (see 

Appendix 7 for legal descriptions). 

4. Lease energy and other leasable minerals subject to 

the following conditions. 

a.	 Standard environmental protection stipulations 

will be applied to all leases in open areas. 

b.	 Surface occupancy will not be permitted in 

riparian areas (see Map 26). 

C .	 Surface occupancy will not be permitted in 

campgrounds or administrative sites. 

d.	 Surface occupancy will not be permitted in 

established bighorn sheep lambing areas from 

February 1 to April 30 of each year. 

e.	 Surface occupancy will not be permitted at Tres 

Alamos, Yuma Wash or Midway Cave archaeological sites. 

Table 2-12. Areas/Acres to be Leased With 

a “No Surface Occupancy” Stipulation 

Alternative B 

NSO Area	 NSO Acres 

Gila Box ONA ACEC 3,340 

Aravaipa Watershed ACEC 537 

Table Mountain RNA ACEC 1,220 

Desert Grasslands RNA ACEC 790 

Bear Springs Badlands ACEC 4,127 

Bowie Mountain Scenic ACEC 3,600 

DOS Cabezas Peaks ACEC 25 

Eagle Creek Canyon ONA ACEC 3,642 

Riparian Areas other than those 

located in ACECs or wilderness 3,797 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing Areas 90 

Fourmile Canyon Campground 159 

District Office Site proposed 12 

Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition 

Monitoring Station	 10 

Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 120 

Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 160 

Midway Cave Archaeological Site 40 

Total	 21,669 

Source: Saflord District Files 

60 
� 

5. issue mineral and energy leases with a “No Surface 

Occupancy” stipulation on 21,669 acres to protect 

sensitive resource values. Table 2-12 identifies the 

areas and acreages to which the NSO stipulation 

will apply. 

6. Prohibit the sale of mineral materials (sand, gravel, 

etc.) on 21,948 acres to protect sensitive resource 

values. Table 2-13 identifies the areas and acreages where mineral materials will not be sold. 

7. Sale of mineral materials (sand, gravel, etc.) will not 

be permitted in areas with riparian vegetation (see 

Map 26). 

8. The standard list of environmental protection 

stipulations will be attached to all mineral material 

sale authorizations. Any needed site specific 

stipulations will also be added. 

Table 2-13. Areas/Acres Where Mineral
 

Materials Will Not Be Sold Alternative B
 

Area	 Acres 

Gila Box ONA ACEC 3,340 

Aravaipa Watershed ACEC 537 

Table Mountain RNA ACEC 1,220 

Desert Grasslands RNA ACEC 790 

Bear Springs Badlands ACEC 4,127 

Bowie Mountain Scenic ACEC 4,190 

DOS Cabezas Peaks ACEC 25 

Eagle Creek Canyon ONA ACEC 3,642 

Riparian Areas other than those 

located in ACECs or wilderness 3,797 

Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 160 

Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 120 

Total	 21,948 

Source: Safford District Files 

Management Concern 5- Cultural

Resources 

If Alternative B is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Cultural 

Resources Management Concern. 

Manage for Information Potential. 

� Manage for Public Values.
 

m Manage for Conservation.
 

Table 2-14 identifies the actions that will be implemented to achieve each objective. Appendix 12 

defines each objective. 

To accomplish the cultural resource management 

objectives, the following actions will be implemented. 

Critical protection will be given a higher priority for 

action than either planning or field studies of properties 

that are not critically threatened. This does not mean, 

however, that all critical protection work will be done 

before any planning or other actions. 

1	 Prioritize implementation of planned cultural resource actions according to the degree of need as 

defined below: 

a. First priority will be given to planned actions 

protecting threatened and significant cultural 

resources that would otherwise be lost. This 

includes obtaining important data from individuals 

(ethnographic information) that may not be 

available in the future. 

b. Second priority will be given to the preparation of 

management plans directing how the District 

manages its cultural resources. 

c. 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. 

Studies of plan actions in these instances will 

seek to determine the nature and extent of the 

impacts and identify corrective management 

actions. Third priority will also be given to 

planned actions protecting significant threatened 

cultural resources where the degree of damage 

or threat of damage is low (non-critical). 

d. Fourth priority will be given to non-field studies 

designed to collect data for management or 

scientific purposes, This priority will also be given 

to nominating cultural properties to the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

61 
e. Fifth 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 (for example, to allow a 

cultural property to be excavated solely for 

scientific research, or to allow a property to be 

interpreted to the public). 

2.	 Use the following administrative and physical 

measures to protect cultural properties: 

a. Signing place antiquity or interpretive signs on 

cultural properties being looted or vandalized. 

b. Withdrawal withdraw areas from location under 

the mining laws to protect significant cultural 

properties. Retain significant cultural properties 

in public ownership to conserve them for the 

future. 

c. Access install fences or other barriers to restrict 

or eliminate public access to cultural properties 

that are being looted or vandalized. Disallow 

firewood cutting for public use in areas with high 

cultural resource values. 

d. Patrol patrol threatened cultural properties with 

personnel from the Arizona Site Steward 

Program, BLM’s Cultural Resource Assistants 

and Law Enforcement Rangers and community 

volunteers. 

e. fire Control provide input into the development 

of a fire management plan to protect cultural 

resources. Assign a Cultural Resource Advisor 

to all extended attack fires whenever heavy 

equipment is used. 

f. Stabilization stabilize deteriorating standing 

architectural structures on significant cultural 

properties. 

g. Detailed Recording record all known prehistoric 

cliff dwellings and related structures in the 

District and the Yuma Wash and Midway Caves 

sites. 

h. Public Education develop and implement annual 

Public Affairs Action Plans for cultural resources. 

3.	 Complete a Class III cultural resource inventory 

and intensive testing in and adjacent to the Timber 

Draw project area. 

4.	 Nominate at least six eligible cultural properties in 

the District to the National Register of Historic 

Places within the lifespan of the approved Resource Management Plan. 

5.	 Eliminate livestock grazing on the Tres Alamos 

site. 

6.	 Conduct ethnographic studies in Bonita Creek, 

Muleshoe Ranch, Pima Mormon Canal System, 

Civilian Conservation Corps camps and project 

areas and Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness and 

adjacent lands. 

7.	 Revise the Safford District Rock Art Cultural 

Resource Management Plan. 

8.	 Conduct a records search inventory and personal 

interviews to determine the extent of looting and 

vandalism to cultural resources. 

9.	 Conduct Class II archaeological inventories in 

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness and adjacent lands 

and Muleshoe Ranch to enhance knowledge of 

cultural resources for future management decisions. 

10. Conduct a Class III archaeological inventory in 

Bonita Creek Canyon to enhance knowledge of 

cultural resources for future management decisions. 

11. Conduct a cooperative study with the Bureau Soils 

Program to determine the effects of soil erosion on 

cultural resources in the San Simon drainage. 

62 
Table 2-14. Management Objectives Achieved by Planned Actions-Alternative B 

Actions 

Manage for 

information 

Potential 

Manage for 

Public 

Values 

Manage for 

Conservation 

1. Use protection 

measures X X X 

2. Inventory and test at 

Timber Draw X 

3. Nominate properties 

to National Register 0 0 X 

4. Eliminate grazing -

Tres Alamos X 

5. 

6. 

Conduct ethnographic 

studies -

Bonita Creek 

Muieshoe Ranch 

Mormon Canals 

CCC camps & projects 

Aravaipa area 

Revise Rock Art CRMP 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7. Study vandalism X 

8. Conduct Class ii 

inventories -

Aravaipa area 

Muieshoe Ranch 

X 

X 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9. Conduct Class iii 

inventory -

Bonita Creek 

Timber Draw 

X 0 0 

10. Study San Simon erosion X 

X - Primary Objective 0 - Secondary Objective N/A - Not Applicable 

Source: Safford District Files 

63 
Riparian areas provide nesting habitat for many species of 

birds. 

Management Concern 6 - Soil 

Erosion 

The following objectives and actions will be implemented to resolve the Soil Erosion Management 

Concern. 

- Reduce accelerated erosion. 

- Restore eroded floodplains of the San Simon 

River and in the Bear Springs Flat area (see Map 

26). 

- Reduce silt and salts entering the Gila	 River from 

San Simon River. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish these objectives. 

1. Develop activity plans, where needed, to initiate 

rehabilitation of eroded areas. 

2. Construct Timber Draw Dam to continue efforts to 

rehabilitate eroded areas of the San Simon River 

(see Map 26). 

3. Continue reseeding grasses and riparian vegetation 

on restored areas behind erosion control structures. 

Manage livestock with fencing or other methods to 

protect these areas. 

4. Protect the eroded floodplain of the San Simon 

River through appropriate livestock management. 

5. Repair Oso Largo Detention Dam (see Map 26) in 

the Bear Springs Flat area to continue rehabilitation 

of eroded lands. Assess the land upstream of Oso 

Largo Dam to determine the need to maintain 

existing structures or the need to build additional 

structures. Make all structures functional without 

adverse impacts to the Area of Critical Environmental Concern located in the upper end of the eroded 

area. 

6. Investigate methods to increase vegetation cover in 

the Bear Springs Flat area without adversely 

affecting the Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

located in the upper end of the eroded area. 

7. Continue seasonal livestock use in the Bear Springs 

Flat area. 

8. Cap or contain flowing wells in the San Simon 

Watershed if salinity exceeds 3,000 ppm. 

Management Concern 7- Vegetation 

If Alternative B is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Vegetation Management Concern. 

A gnarled juniper is contrasted aganist the jagged cliffs of the 

highly scenic Peloncillo Mountains. 

64 
1. The objective for management of upland vegetation 

is to restore and maintain plant communities for 

wildlife, watershed condition and livestock. The 

desired plant communities will be determined in the 

preparation of activity plans (allotment management 

plans, habitat management plans, etc.). An ecological site inventory will be completed as allotment 

management plans are prepared or existing plans 

revised. 

2. The objective for management of threatened, 

endangered and special status plant species is to 

manage the public lands to preserve and enhance 

occurrences of special status species and to 

achieve the eventual delisting of threatened and 

endangered species. BLM will assist the Fish and 

Wildlife Service in the development of Threatened 

and Endangered species recovery plans. Implementation of recovery plans will be accomplished 

through activity plans. 

a. Listed threatened	 Coryphantha robbinsorum and 

Vauquelinia pauciflora. 

b. Candidate category I species	 Aster lemonii and 

Rumex orthoneurus. 

c. Re-inventory and monitor other candidate
 

species known to occur on public lands.
 

d. Re-inventory and monitor Echinocereus
 

triglochidiatus-listed endangered species.
 

3. Land treatments (vegetation manipulation) will be 

used to decrease invading woody plants and 

increase grasses and forbs for wildlife, watershed 

condition and livestock. Public lands, where vegetation condition is less than desired to meet management objectives, will be identified for treatment 

through activity plans. Treatments may include 

various artificial (mechanical, chemical or prescribed 

fire) methods. Management objectives for riparian 

vegetation can be found under Issue 4 - Riparian 

Vegetation. To achieve the objective for vegetation 

manipulation, implement those desirable treatment 

methods that increase vegetation cover and decrease soil erosion. 

Pronghorn were released on semi-desert grasslands wast of the Peloncillo Mountains through efforts of the BLM and Arizona Game 

and Fish Department. 

65 
4. Do not provide firewood or other vegetation products for public use. 

Management Concern 8 -Water 

Resources 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Water 

Resources Management Concern. These objectives 

are designed to support on-going programs (range, 

riparian, recreation, wildlife, etc.) while providing data 

to be used for future management decisions. 

1. The objective for management of groundwater is to 

conserve water for prudent resource management 

purposes. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the groundwater management objectives. 

a. Cap unusable or unsuitable wells to prevent 

contamination of aquifers and to contain highly 

saline water. 

b. Restrict artesian flow to meet specific program 

needs. 

c. Inspect and maintain water systems to prevent 

unnecessary loss of water. 

Further, initiate a groundwater study for the San Simon 

Watershed to determine the level of the various 

aquifers, changes in the level of the aquifers, the water 

quality of the aquifers and availability of groundwater 

for BLM’s resource management program. Prepare a 

management plan for use and conservation of water 

(quality and quantity). 

2. The objective for managing water quality is to 

maintain or enhance water quality at or above 

established standards for designated uses to meet 

management goals for each water source. BLM will 

adhere to federal and State water quality laws and 

standards. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the water quality management objective. 

a. Support other resource programs in the implementation of this plan and monitor the effectiveness of planning decisions. 

b. Continue the existing water quality testing
 

program in the District (see Appendix 9).
 

c. Initiate data collection where there is a suspected 

or known pollution threat or hazard to water 

quality. 

d. Develop an activity plan and initiate management 

actions needed to mitigate water quality degradation detected through water quality monitoring. 

e. Develop a District Water Quality Monitoring Plan, 

including recommendations for Unique Waters 

nominations. 

3. Evaluate Aravaipa Creek, Mescal Creek, Redfield 

Canyon, Swamp Springs Canyon, Hot Springs 

Canyon, Bass Canyon, Wildcat Canyon and Double 

R Canyon to determine their suitability for Unique 

Waters designation. Nominate those that meet the 

required standards. 

4. Evaluate Turkey Creek, Deer Creek, Left Fork of 

Markham Creek and Grapevine Creek (intermittent 

streams) for Unique Waters designation, if their flow 

becomes perennial. Nominate those creeks that 

meet the required standards. 

5. Manage stream segments designated by the state 

as Unique Waters to maintain or enhance water 

quality standards and protect the associated resources. 

6. Evaluate the long-term Districtwide resource 

management needs for ground and surface water 

across public lands. 

7. Evaluate the Gila River, San Francisco River, 

Redfield Canyon, Hot Springs Canyon, Swamp 

Springs Canyon, Bass Canyon, Wildcat Canyon, 

Double R Canyon, Bonita Creek and Mescal Creek 

to determine the quantities of in-stream flow (water 

rights) needed to meet resource management 

objectives. File with the state for the quantities of 

water needed to meet management objectives for 

those streams where no instream flow filings have 

been made. 

8. Evaluate Turkey Creek, Deer Creek, Left Fork of 

Markham Creek, Guadalupe Canyon and Johnny 

Creek (intermittent streams), if their flow becomes 

perennial, to determine the quantities of instream 

flow (water right) needed to meet resource management objectives. File with the state for the quantities 

needed to meet management objectives. 

9. Purchase water rights, when necessary, to protect 

threatened resource values. 

66 
Management Concern 9 - Air Quality 

The following objectives and actions will be implemented to resolve the Air Quality Management Concern. 

.	 Continue to manage the airshed in accordance 

with State of Arizona Class II standards, unless 

redesignated. 

� Comply with all federal and state statutes pertaining to air quality and cooperate with the State of 

Arizona in carrying out the State Implementation 

Plan. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish these objectives. 

1. 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, require appropriate 

stipulations to mitigate the impact to air quality. 

2. Continue the rehabilitation of erosion in the San 

Simon Watershed and the Bear Springs Flat area 

(see Map 26) to reduce airborne dust. 

3. Conduct prescribed fire with prior approval of the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Office 

of Air Quality. 

4. Continue operation of the Oliver Knoll atmospheric 

deposition rnonitoring station as part of the nationwide network. 

Management Concern 10 ­ Paleontological Resources 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Paleontological Resources Management Concern. 

1. Preserve a representative sample of Class I paleontological localities. 

2. Ensure that BLM actions avoid inadvertent damage 

to paleontological resources. 

3. Manage paleontological resources to preserve their 

scientific and interpretive values. 

4. Emphasize management of Class I and II sites. 

5. Provide opportunities for education, interpretation 

and scientific research. 

Implement the following actions to accomplish the 

objectives for management of paleontological resources. 

1. Continue inventories in areas of proposed activities 

to identify the presence of paleontological resources 

and determine measures needed to mitigate 

anticipated impacts. 

2. Conduct field studies at Bear Springs Badlands, 111 

Ranch and Hot Well Dunes. 

a. Provide data on the nature, extent and scientific 

significance of fossils. 

b. Determine the condition of exposures and factors 

that may be affecting them. 

c. Determine the suitability of these areas for 

inclusion in the National Natural Landmarks 

Program. Nominate qualifying areas. 

3. Prepare a Paleontological Resources Management 

Plan for the District. 

4. Write a detailed overview of the biological and 

geological history of the District emphasizing the 

paleontological resources important to scientific 

research. 

Alternative C 

This alternative provides more emphasis on use and 

development of the public lands than Alternatives A or 

B. Fewer areas are managed to protect natural and 

cultural resources and specific prescriptions are less 

restrictive to use and development activities. While 

Area of Critical Environmental Concerns are still 

Harris Hawks nest in large mesquites and saguaros in the 

Safford District. 

67 
 

 

designated, they are generally smaller and less 

restrictive on other uses. Protection and enhancement 

of riparian areas and Threatened and Endangered 

wildlife species are emphasized as are scientific use 

and recreational/interpretive development of cultural 

resources. Most of the planning area is open to offhighway vehicles. 

Issue 1 - Access 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Access Issue. 

1.	 Prepare a District Transportation Plan that includes 

identification of access needs and closures, a road 

and trail numbering system, sign needs, maintenance needs and coordination with other agencies 

and landowners. 

2.	 Minimize the impact of existing and proposed 

access routes on natural and cultural resources. 

3.	 Reserve, as needed, access across public lands 

that are disposed of by sale, exchange or other 

means. 

4.	 Obtain public and administrative access to the 

public lands. 

5.	 Roads may be closed as needed for visitor use 

management, resource protection and to accomplish resource management objectives. 

6. Obtain legal access for public and administrative 

use across private lands in 39 locations Districtwide 

(see Appendix 1) and across other State and private 

lands as determined in the future. 

7.	 Reconstruct the following roads to provide vehicle
 

access for the administration and use of the public
 

lands.
 

a. Virgus Canyon Road, about one half mile T. 6 S., 

R. 18 E., Secs. 27,34,35. 

b. Military Trail, about three miles T. 3 S., R. 16 E., 

Secs. 13, 14, 23. 

c. Buckeye Canyon Road, about one mile T. 13 S., 

R. 27 E., Secs. 26, 27,34 and T. 14 S., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 9. 

d. Left Fork of Markham Creek Road, about three 

miles T. 3 S., R. 24 E., Sec. 36; T. 4 S., R. 24 E., 

Secs. 1, 12; and T. 4 S., R. 25 E., Secs. 6, 7, 18. 

Jackson Cabin Road, about five and one half 

miles T. 11 S., R. 20 E., Secs. 22,26, 27,35, 36; 

T. 12 S., R. 20 E., Secs. 1,2,11,24; and T. 12 

S., R. 21 E., Secs. 30,31. 

Other roads as determined in the future. 

8.	 Obtain legal access, for public and administrative 

use, on existing foot and horse trails across private 

lands in the following locations. 

a.	 Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Trail from the west 

trailhead (at the administrative site) to the west 

boundary of the wilderness T. 6 S., R. 17 E., 

Secs. 13, 24. 

b.	 Babocomari River Trail T. 20 S., R. 20 E., Sec. 

13 and T. 20 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 18. 

C . 	 Safford-Morenci Trail where it crosses Bonita 

Creek T. 5 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 10, 11. 

d.	 Safford-Morenci Trail where it crosses the San 

Carlos Indian Reservation T. 4 S., R. 28 E., Sec. 

31. 

e.	 Hell Hole Canyon Trail and trailhead at Dry Camp 

T. 6 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 7. 

Issue 2 - Area of Critical 

Environmental Concerns and Other 

Types of Special Management 

If Alternative C is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Area of Critical Environmental Concerns and Other Types of Special Management Issue. 

1. Designate 10 Area of Critical Environmental Concerns totalling 42,988 acres (35,362 acres of public 

land) to protect important natural and cultural 

resources. Table 2-15 describes the specific areas, 

acreages, values and management prescriptions. 

Maps 1 through 22 and Map 24 show the location of 

each proposed Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. 

Appendix 2 includes a detailed discussion of each Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern nomination, including a determination of relevance and importance, 

rationale for designation, management prescription and 

alternatives considered. 

2. Develop Coordinated Resource Management Plans 

to direct the management of BLM’s various multiple 

use programs on public lands in the Aravaipa Creek 

68 
Table 2-15. Areas Designated as Area of Critical Environmental Concerns-Alternative C 

Proposed Federal, State & Values or Management
 

Name Private Acres Hazards Prescription
 

South Rim 

ACEC* 

Table Mtn. 

RNA ACEC 

Desert 

Grasslands 

RNA ACEC 

Muleshoe 

Riparian 

ACEC 

Bear Springs 

Badlands 

ACEC 

F 22,510 

S 0 

P 6,268 

28,778 

F 1,220 

S 0 

P 0 

1,220 

F 530 

S 240 

P 70 

840 

F 2,556 

S 0 

P 160 

2,716 

F 2,007 Paleontological 

S 0 (fossil) 

P 0 resources, 

2,007 scenery. 

Valuable watershed, including 

a wilderness, 

T&E species, 

native fish, 

recreation opportunities, bighorn sheep, 

riparian vegetation 

Plant 

community. 

Relict 

desert 

grasslands. 

Riparian 

areas, T&E 

species, bighorn sheep, 

native fish, 

cultural 

resources. 

Limit OHV use, 

close Oak Grove 

Canyon to OHV use, 

NSO for mineral 

leasing in riparian zones, require 

mining plan, no 

livestock after 

expiration of 

lease, monitor 

water quality, rehabilitate riparian and upland 

vegetation, VRM Class 

II. 

Limit OHV use, 

no woodcutting, 

require mining 

plan, no vegetative 

sales, prescribed fire 

plan, manage livestock. 

Require a mining 

plan, no livestock, 

closed to OHV use, 

acquire State/ 

private lands if available, 

prescribed fire plan 

Require mining 

plan, rehabilitate 

riparian vegetation, exclude 

livestock, acquire 

legal road access, 

acquire private land if 

available, limit OHV use, 

close Hot Springs 

Canyon to OHV use, 

monitor water quality, 

develop cooperative 

agreements. 

Inventory fossils, 

VRM Class II, no 

road construction, limit OHV use, 

require a mining plan. 

69 
Table 2-15. Areas Designated as Area of Critical Environmental Concerns-Alternative C (continued) 

Proposed Federal, State & Values or Management
 

Name Private Acres Hazards Prescription
 

Guadalupe 

Canyon 

ONA ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

2,159 

0 

778 

2,937 

Riparian 

habitat, T & E 

species, scenery, recreation 

values. 

Limit OHV use, 

no woodcutting, 

VRM Class II, 

no R/Ws, acquire 

private land if available, 

pre- scribed fire plan. 

Bowie Mtn. 

Scenic ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

2,562 

0 

100 

2,662 

Scenic backdrop 

to Ft. Bowie 

National 

Historic Site. 

Mineral withdrawal, 

NSO for mineral 

leasing, limit OHV 

use, prescribed fire plan, 

acquire private land if 

available, no woodcutting, VRM Class I, no 

R/Ws. 

Coronado Mtn. 

RNA ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

50 

0 

0 

50 

Unique 

plant 

association. 

Require mining 

plan, no woodcutting, VRM 

Class II, prescribed fire 

plan, no R/Ws. 

Eagle Creek 

Bat Cave 

ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

40 

0 

10 

50 

Mexican 

free-tailed 

bat maternity 

cave. 

Require mining 

plan, NSO for 

mineral leasing, 

no guano extraction, 

monitor the bat cave, 

acquire private lands if 

available, VRM Class II. 

111 Ranch 

RNA ACEC 

F 

S 

P 

1,728 

0 

0 

1,728 

Paleontological 

(fossil) 

resources. 

Require mining 

plan, limit OHV 

use, no woodcutting, VRM Class Ii, 

paleontological clearances. 

’ Includes Turkey Creek Riparian Area of Critical Environmental Concern from Alternative A. 

Source: Safford District Files 

70 
Watershed, Muleshoe Ranch, Bear Springs Flat and 

Bonita Creek Watershed. 

The purpose of the plans is to establish management 

objectives that directs the development of future 

program activities toward maintenance and enhancement of watershed condition (see Map 26). When 

developing Coordinated Resource Management Plans, 

livestock forage use will not be permitted to exceed an 

average of 40 percent over a full grazing cycle (averaging three to five years). 

3. Revise the San Simon River Coordinated Resource 

Management Plan. The purpose of this plan is to 

direct development of program activities to maintain 

and enhance watershed condition. 

4. Cooperative livestock and watershed management 

studies will be conducted with the Forest Service, 

The Nature Conservancy and universities to restore 

native grasslands and improve the condition of the 

Aravaipa Watershed. The District will study various 

best management techniques. 

Issue 3 - Off-highway Vehicles 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Off-highway Vehicles 

Issue. 

1. Designate the following areas closed to off-highway 

vehicle use. (85,384 acres) 

a. Oak Grove Canyon above the Oak Grove 

Canyon corrals in the South Rim Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern 82 acres. 

b. Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern 530 acres. 

c. The riparian area of Hot Springs Canyon 140 

acres. 

d. Any area designated wilderness. (84,632 acres 

currently designated.) 

A closed area is where off -highway vehicle use is 

prohibited, even on roads or trails that exist within the 

closed area. 

2. Designate the following areas limited to off-highway 

vehicle use. (34,742 acres) 

a. South Rim Area of Critical Environmental Concern 22,510 acres. 

b. Table Mountain Research Natural Area Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern 1,220 acres. 

c. Muleshoe Riparian Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern 2,556 acres. 

d. Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2,007 acres. 

e. Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2,159 

acres. 

f. Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2,562 acres. 

g. 111 Ranch Research Natural Area Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern 1,728 acres. 

Off-highway 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 the 

Resource Management Plan. Existing roads and ,trails 

in these areas have been identified and the lists are 

available for review at the Safford District Office. 

3. Off-highway vehicle use within the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area (54,189 acres) 

is limited to designated roads. Vehicle use within 

the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area 

(20,900 acres) will be determined during preparation 

of the management plan for the area. 

4. Initiate procedures to designate the remainder of the 

District (1,257,513 acres) open to off-highway 

vehicle use. An open area is where all types of 

vehicle use is permitted, at all times and anywhere 

in the area. Table 2-l 6 identifies the acres designated in each category. 

Table 2-16. Acres Designated for Offhighway Vehicle Use--Alternative C 

Off-highway Vehicle Approximate
 

Designation Acres
 

Open 1,257,513 

Limited 88,931 

Closed 85,384 

Source: Safford District Files 

71 
5. Off-highway vehicle designations and management 

will apply to motorized transportation only. 

Issue 4 - Riparian Areas 

The following objective and actions will be implemented to resolve the Riparian Areas Issue. 

The objective for management of tiparian areas is to 

maintain or improve 75 percent of the acres of riparian 

vegetation on public lands within the District in good or 

excellent condition by 1997 (see Map 26). 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish this objective. 

1.	 Incorporate riparian area objectives into existing 

and future activity plans. 

2.	 Develop and implement a system to prioritize 

needed riparian area management. The priorities 

will be based on management objectives, resource 

condition, resource conflicts and the potential or 

capability of a riparian area to respond to treatment. 

3.	 Develop a riparian inventory system. Coordinate 

development and implementation of the system 

with other land managing agencies. 

4.	 Complete the inventory of all riparian areas on 

public lands within the District to establish baseline 

condition. 

5.	 Establish a monitoring plan for selected riparian 

areas based upon the management priority 

system. Implement the plan and evaluate monitoring data. Continue to carry out needed changes in 

riparian area management through activity plans. 

6.	 Continue to file for in-stream flow rights on perennial streams or rivers and water rights on springs 

and ponds to protect and maintain riparian vegetation. 

7.	 Continue to develop grazing systems and modify 

existing allotment management plans, as necessary, to manage livestock use for the improvement 

of riparian areas. 

8.	 Do not permit firewood cutting in riparian areas. 

9.	 Permit the removal of non-native vegetation for
 

improvement of riparian vegetation.
 

10. Maintain and monitor representative relict riparian 

areas to provide a baseline for future management 

decisions. 

11. Build Timber Draw Dam on the San Simon River to 

re-establish stream channel and floodplain conditions to promote the redevelopment of the riparian 

ecosystem. 

12. Continue to manage the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area following the guidance 

in the existing management plan and develop a 

management plan for the Gila Box Riparian 

National Conservation Area. 

13. Develop an environmental education program for 

riparian management. 

Management Concern 1 - Wildlife 

Habitat 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Wildlife 

Habitat Management Concern. 

1.	 Maintain and enhance priority species and their 

habitats. 

72 
2.	 Focus management actions on a single special 

species, only when required by the Endangered 

Species Act. Actively promote Threatened and 

Endangered species recovery to eventually delist 

the species. 

3.	 Conserve candidate species to ensure BLMauthorized actions do not contribute to the need to 

list any species as threatened or endangered. 

4.	 Manage state-listed species to meet state objectives. Other special status species will be managed in accordance with inter- and intra-agency 

management plans. 

5.	 Manage priority wildlife species habitat (vegetation 

communities) or special features of that habitat 

(water, riparian vegetation, cliffs, etc.) to maintain 

or enhance population levels. 

6.	 Focus management efforts on enhancing biological 

diversity. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish these objectives, 

1.	 Establish the following as priority species and 

habitats. Priority species and habitats in the 

District include federally listed, proposed and 

candidate Threatened and Endangered species 

and their habitat, state-listed Threatened and 

Endangered species and their habitat, and other 

sensitive species and their habitat. 

a.	 RipariarVaquatic habitat and species dependent 

on riparian/ aquatic habitat Gila topminnow, 

desert pupfish, southern bald eagle, loach 

minnow, spikedace, Gila chub, Colorado 

roundtail chub, razorback sucker, western 

yellow-billed cuckoo, gray hawk, Mississippi 

kite, common black hawk, ferruginous pygmyowl, willow flycatcher and leopard frog. 

b.	 Species identified for reintroduction in Fish and 

Wildlife Service plans - aplomado falcon and 

woundfin. 

C.	 Desert tortoise. 

d.	 Other species and habitats of interest - peregrine falcon, red bat, Sanborn’s long-nosed 

bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, ferruginous 

hawk and Swainson’s hawk. 

General management objectives for each of the priority 

species and habitats identified in Appendix 4. 

2.	 Inventory public lands across the District to 

determine the presence and abundance of priority 

species and their habitat. 

3.	 Manage habitat for optimum wildlife populations, 

based on ecological conditions, taking into consideration climatic changes and the goals and objectives of Arizona Game and Fish Department and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service (for Threatened and 

Endangered species). 

4.	 Transplant and augment populations of priority 

wildlife species, if necessary, to reach management objectives. Prescribe management through 

Endangered Species Act recovery plans. 

5.	 Monitor priority habitat to determine condition and 

changes in condition. Inventory the impacts of 

other activities on wildlife populations and habitat 

prior to preparation of habitat management plans. 

Identify opportunities to mitigate adverse impacts 

and implement the actions needed to correct the 

problem. 

6.	 Continue to maintain and improve wildlife habitat, 

emphasizing priority habitat. 

7.	 Protect springs and associated riparian vegetation 

for wildlife water, cover and forage. 

8.	 Develop prescribed burning plans in fire-dependent vegetation communities to improve habitat 

conditions for priority wildlife species. 

9.	 Suppress wildfire in sensitive vegetation communities (like palo Verde/saguaro) to reduce the detrimental effects on priority wildlife dependent on 

those communities. 

Allotment management plans are implemented to manage 

livestock use on grazing allotments. 

73 
10. Close the following areas to animal damage 

control activities. 

a. Threatened and Endangered species habitat for 

those techniques that pose a threat to the 

species. 

b. Zones around residences and communities in 

areas of concentrated recreation use for those 

techniques that pose a threat to visitors or to 

dogs in areas where they are trained, exercised 

or used for hunting. 

c. Wilderness areas and Research Natural Areas 

except as individually authorized by the BLM 

State Director or the Area Manager. 

Authorize areas that are open for animal damage 

control in coordination with the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service on a yearly basis. 

11. Inventory and categorize desert tortoise habitat by 

1992. In the interim, place about 26,000 acres of 

public land in the San Pedro River basin from 

Cascabel to Winkelman and parts of the Dripping 

Springs and Pinal Mountains in Category 3. Place 

about 3,000 acres east of San Manuel in Category 

2 (see Appendix 10 for goals and criteria for 

categorization of habitat). 

12.	 Designate Muleshoe Riparian, Guadalupe Canyon 

Outstanding Natural Area and Eagle Creek Bat 

Cave Area of Critical Environmental Concerns for 

the protection of priority wildlife species and their 

habitat. 

Management Concern 2 - Lands and 

Realty 

If Alternative C is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Land 

and Realty Management Concern. 

1.	 The following are the objectives for disposal of 

public lands. 

� The order of preference for disposal will be by 

exchange, Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

or sale. 

� Isolated tracts of public land may be disposed of 

to improve resource management efficiency 

and service to the public. 

� When lands next to urban areas are disposed 

of, the resulting boundaries will be manageable, 

fenceable and identifiable. 

- Prior to disposal, lands will be evaluated for 

significant cultural and natural resource values. 

To accomplish these objectives, dispose of 105,523 

acres of public lands in the following areas. 

a. Gila Valley area. 

b. El Capitan and southern Pinal Mountain area. 

c. Dripping Spring Wash area. 

d. Texas Canyon area. 

e. Swisshelm Mountain area. 

f. Douglas area. 

g. Bisbee area, excluding the Juniper Flats block. 

h. Greenlee County area. 

i. Tombstone area. 

j. San Simon area. 

k. Recreation and Public Purposes sanitary landfill 

leases. 

I. Portal area. 

The Safford District plans to file for lnstream flow water rights 

on Hot Springs Canyon to protect its perennial flow. 

74 
These public lands have been identified for disposal 

and are within the disposal area identified on Map 27. 

However, all public lands within these areas do not 

have to be sold or exchanged. BLM may retain certain 

lands within the disposal areas. Upon evaluation of 

future land disposals, BLM may identify resource 

values worthy of retention in public ownership. Unforeseen future land management concerns or public 

demand may also necessitate the disposal of other 

public lands for sale or exchange which are not 

currently identified. The parcels considered at that 

time would be subject to BLM’s planning process and 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1976. 

Appendix 5 shows the lands that meet The Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 criteria for 

sale. Although these lands qualify for sale, BLM’s 

preferred method of disposal is exchange or through 

the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Map 27 

shows the areas where land disposal may occur. 

2.	 The following are the objectives for land acquisition. 

� Acquire lands with high public values that 

complement existing management programs. 

� Consolidate ownership pattern to improve 

management efficiency. 

� Improve service to the public. 

To accomplish these objectives, acquire, if they 

become available, state and private lands in the same 

areas depicted in Alternative A and shown on Map 27. 

These lands shall have one or more of the following 

characteristics and will generally be within or adjacent 

to public lands. 

a. riparian habitat. 

b. watersheds of important riparian areas. 

c. high value wildlife habitat, such as Threatened 

and Endangered species areas and major 

migration corridors. 

d. administrative sites. 

e. land for developed recreation sites. 

f. land providing access to public lands. 

g. significant cultural and paleontological properties. 

h. other lands with high public resource values 

such as inholdings in Area of Critical Environmental Concerns and other types of special 

management areas. 

Rights-of-way are granted for communication sites on public 

lands. 

i.	 other private lands that will accomplish BLM’s 

acquisition objectives. 

3.	 According to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all lands not identified for 

disposal must be retained in Federal administration 

to be managed under the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield. Unforeseen future land 

management concerns or public demand may 

necessitate other lands for disposal. Such proposals will require plan amendments and environmental documentation. 

4.	 Designate the following existing utility lines as 

corridors for future utility needs across the District. 

a. Arizona Electric Power Company one mile wide. 

b. Tucson Electric Power Company one mile wide. 

c. All American Pipeline (San Simon Resource 

Area only) one mile wide. 

d. San Pedro one mile wide (660 ft. wide where it 

cross San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area). 

e. Hayden/Christmas one mile wide. 

Any future major cross-District utility rights-of-way will 

be encouraged to use these corridors (see Map 27). 

75 
5.	 Establish the Muleshoe Ranch and Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

as right-of-way avoidance areas. Every attempt 

will be made to avoid these areas with major 

cross-District rights-of-way to minimize or eliminate 

conflicts with sensitive resource values. 

6.	 Attach needed site-specific environmental protection stipulations to all rights-of-way. 

7.	 Establish the following areas as right-of-way 

exclusion areas. 

a. Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

b. Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

c. Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

d. wilderness study areas. 

e. designated wilderness. 

f. Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring 

Station. 

8.	 Designate Guthrie Peak, Juniper Flat in the Mule 

Mountains and the west end of the DOS Cabezas 

Mountains as communication sites (see Map 27). 

Site plans will be prepared for all communication 

sites and designation of new sites will be analyzed 

on a case-by-case basis. 

9.	 Complete the withdrawal review process. Revoke 

all withdrawals determined to no longer serve their 

original or intended purpose. 

10.	 Withdraw 12 acres for the proposed Safford 

District Office administrative site (T. 7 S., R. 25 E., 

Sec. 24, that part of the W1/2NW1/4NE1/4 lying 

north of Golf Course Road) from the public land 

laws and the mining and mineral leasing laws. 

1 1 	 Withdraw 10 acres for the Oliver Knoll atmospheric 

deposition monitoring station (T. 4 S., R. 24 E., 

Sec. 22, SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/ 

4SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4, NE1/ 

4NW1/4NEl/4SE1/4) from the public land laws 

and mining laws. Establish it as an administrative 

site. 

12.	 Withdraw 2,743 acres, including campgrounds and 

above administrative sites, from mineral entry to 

preserve important resource values. Table 2-17 

identifies the areas and acreages to be withdrawn. 

Appendix 7 lists the legal descriptions of the areas 

to be withdrawn. 

Management Concern 3 Outdoor 

Recreation and Visual Resource 

Management 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Outdoor Recreation and 

Visual Resource Management Concern. 

1.	 Designate the following areas as Special Recreation Management Areas to manage current 

recreation use. 

a.	 Aravaipa Canyon/Turkey Creek. 

b.	 Gila Box/Bonita Creek. 

C . 	 Christmas (Gila River below Coolidge Dam). 

d . 	 Red Knolls/Bear Springs Badlands/Watson 

Wash. 

e.	 Hot Well Dunes. 

f . 	 additional lands in the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area not previously 

included in the San Pedro River Riparian 

Management Plan (BLM 1989). 

Table 2-17. Areas/Acres to be Withdrawn 

From Mineral Entry 

Alternative C 

Area Withdrawn	 Acres Withdrawn 

Bowie Mountain Scenic ACEC 2,562 

Fourmile Canyon Campground 159 

Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition 

Monitoring Station 10 

District Off ice Site - proposed 12 

Total 2,743 

Source: Safford District Files 

76 
Prepare Recreation Area Management Plans for 9. Designate the following as Visual Resource 

designated Special Recreation Management Areas, as Management Class II areas to preserve scenic 

needed. Manage the remainder of the public lands quality and to provide for limited modification of the 

within the District as an Extensive Recreation Manage- landscape. 

ment Area for dispersed recreation use. 

a. Gila Box. 

2.	 In the Recreation Area Management Plans, 

determine which public lands will be managed for b. Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environinterpretation and education and which sites will mental Concern. 

be signed for interpretation safety and education. 

c. Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area 

3.	 Continue to manage Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

following the guidance of the Aravaipa Canyon 

Wilderness Management Plan (BLM 1988). d. Eagle Creek Bat Cave Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

4.	 Prepare project plans for the following areas that 

need some recreation planning and development. e. Coronado Mountain, 

a. Gila Mountain Crest Trail in cooperation with the f. 111 Ranch Research Natural Area Area of 

San Carlos Apache Tribe. Critical Environmental Concern. 

b.	 Galiuro/Aravaipa/Santa Teresa Trail, in coop- g. Babocomari River.
 

eration with the Forest Service.
 

h. Baker Canyon wilderness study area. 

c. Watson Wash Hot Well. 

10. Designate the following as Visual Resource 

d. Safford-Morenci Trail. Management Class III areas to preserve scenic 

quality while providing for management activities 

e. Red Knolls. that are evident but do not dominate the landscape . 

f. Guadalupe Canyon. 

a. all major highway corridors. 

g. Black Hills Rockhound Area. 

b. San Francisco River above and below the Town 

h. Round Mountain Rockhound Area. of Clifton. 

i.	 Fort Bowie/Helen’s Dome Trail, in cooperation c. DOS Cabezas Peaks.
 

with the National Park Service.
 

d. lands adjacent to the San Pedro Riparian 

5.	 Evaluate plans for new road construction for National Conservation Area. 

possibilities to enhance recreation experiences. 

e. Eagle Creek Canyon. 

6.	 Unless otherwise established, the maximum length 

of stay for recreation purposes in any one location g. Gila Box outside the Area of Critical Environis 14 days. mental Concern. 

7. Develop a District sign plan to determine which f. Gila Mountains, including Bonita Creek. 

roads, sites and facilities will be signed for interpretation, education, information and public safety. g. Mescal Mountains, 

8. Designate the following as Visual Resource h. Gila River Canyon (below Coolidge Dam). 

Management Class I areas to preserve scenic 

quality. i. Aravaipa tablelands including the South Rim 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern, 

a. designated wilderness areas. 

j. Muleshoe Ranch. 

b. Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

77 
11.	 Designate the remainder of the District as a Visual 

Resource Management Class IV area. Appendix 

6 explains the Visual Resource Management 

management class objectives. The following table 

identifies the acres designated by Visual Resource 

Management class. 

Management Concern 4 - Energy and

Minerals 

If Alternative C is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Energy and Minerals 

Management Concern. 

1	 Mining notices and plans of operation received 

under the surface management regulations (43 CFR 

3809) will be reviewed for impacts to other resources. Mitigation and reclamation measures will 

be provided to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the environment. Reclamation bonds 

will be required consistent with current BLM policy. 

2	 Withdraw 2,743 acres from mineral entry to preserve important resource values. Table 2-17 

identifies the areas and acreages to be withdrawn. 

Appendix 7 lists the legal descriptions of the areas 

to be withdrawn. 

3 .	 Administrative sites and campgrounds (Table 2-17) 

will be withdrawn from entry under the mining laws 

(see Appendix 7 for legal descriptions). 

4 .	 Energy and other leasable minerals will be leased 

subject to the following conditions. 

a. Standard environmental protection stipulations 

will be applied to all leases in open areas. 

Table 2-18. Acres by Visual Resource 

Management Class-Alternative C 

VRM Class 

Acres 

Designated 

I 80,295 

II 11,746 

III 369,807 

IV 938,152 

Source: Safford District Files 

b.	 Surface occupancy will not be permitted in 

riparian areas (see Map 26). 

C.	 Surface occupancy will not be permitted in 

campgrounds or administrative sites. 

d. Surface occupancy will not be permitted in 

established bighorn sheep lambing areas from 

February 1 to April 30 of each year. 

e. Surface occupancy will not be permitted at Tres 

Alamos, Yuma Wash or Midway Cave archaeological sites. 

5.	 Issue mineral and energy leases with a “No Surface 

Occupancy” stipulation on 7,525 acres to protect 

sensitive resource values. Table 2-19 identifies the 

areas and acreages to which the No Surface 

Occupancy stipulation will apply. 

6.	 Sale of mineral materials will not be permitted in 

4,316 acres of riparian vegetation (see Map 26) on 

public lands throughout the District. 

7.	 The standard list of environmental protection 

stipulations will be attached to all mineral material 

sale authorizations. Any needed site-specific 

stipulations will also be added. 

Management Concern 5 - Cultural 

Resources 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Cultural 

Resources Management Concern. 

� Manage for Information Potential. 

- Manage for Public Values. 

� Manage for Conservation. 

The abundant grass on Sombrero Butte provides an excellent 

area for studies of native vegetation. 

78 
cultural property to be excavated solely for 

scientific research purposes or to allow a Table 2-19. Areas/Acres to be Leased With property to be interpreted to the public).

a “No Surface Occupancy” StipulationAlternative C C . 	 Third priority will be given to non-field studies 

designed to obtain information through archival 

research on cultural resources not currently 

NSO Area NSO Acres	 having management needs or emphasis. They 

will, instead, be designed to produce documenSouth Rim ACEC 

Bowie Mountain Scenic ACEC 

Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC 

Riparian Areas - other than those 

located in ACECs or wilderness 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing Areas 

Fourmile Canyon Campground 

District Office Site - proposed 

Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 

Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 

Midway Cave Archaeological Site 

Total 

tation on issues relevant to current scientific 

358 questions or potential future management 

2,230 concern. 

40 

d. Fourth priority will be given to the preparation of 

management plans directing how the District 

4,316 manages its cultural resources. 

90 

159 e. Fifth priority will be given in cases where there is 

12 good reason to believe that cultural resources 

are being adversely effected even though they 

120 are not located in any area of proposed activity. 

160 Studies of plan actions in these instances will 

40 seek to determine the nature and extent of the 

impacts and to identify corrective management 

7,525 actions. Fifth priority will also be given to 

planned actions protecting significant threatSource: Safford District Files	 ened cultural resources where the degree of 

damage or threat of damage is low (noncritical). 

Table 2-20 identifies the actions that will be imple­ 2. Use the following administrative and physical 

mented to achieve each objective. Appendix 11 measures to protect cultural properties. 

defines each objective. 

a. Signing - place antiquity or interpretive signs on 

To accomplish the cultural resource management cultural properties being looted or vandalized. 

objectives, the following actions will be implemented. 

Critical protection needs will be given a higher priority b. Withdrawal -withdraw areas from location under 

for action than either planning or field studies of the mining laws to protect significant cultural 

properties that are not critically threatened. This does properties. Retain significant cultural properties 

not mean, however, that all critical protection work will in public ownership to conserve them for the 

be done before planning or other types of studies. future. 

1. Prioritize implementation of planned cultural c. Access - install fences or other barriers to 

resource actions according to the degree of need restrict or eliminate public access to cultural 

as defined below: properties that are being looted or vandalized. 

Disallow firewood cutting for public use in areas 

a. First priority will be given to planned actions with high cultural resource values. 

protecting threatened and significant cultural 

resources that would otherwise be lost. This d. Patrol - patrol threatened cultural properties with 

includes obtaining important data from individu­ personnel from the Arizona Site Steward 

als (ethnographic information) that may not be Program, BLM’s Cultural Resource Assistants 

available in the future. and Law Enforcement Rangers and community 

volunteers. 

b. Second priority will be given to collecting cultural 

resource field data for planning purposes and e. fire Control - provide input to the development 

for resource utilization not part of any protection of a fire management plan to protect cultural 

or mitigation measure (for example, to allow a resources. Assign a Cultural 

79 
Table 2-20. Management Objectives Achieved by Planned Actions-Alternative C 

Manage for	 Manage for Information Public Manage for Actions Potential Values Conservation 

1. Use protection measures X X X 

2. Expand inventory and
 testing of Timber Draw X
 

3. Conduct ethnographic

studies ­

Bonita Creek 0
 Muleshoe Ranch
 

Mormon Canals
 CCC camps & projects

Aravaipa area
 

DOS Cabezas area
 

4. Revise Rock Art CRMP	 X 

5.	 Conduct Class II 

inventories -

Aravaipa area 

Muleshoe Ranch 0 

Mormon Canals 0 

CCC camps and projects 

DOS Cabezas historic sites 0 

San Simon riparian areas 0 

6. Conduct Class III 

inventory ­ Bonita Creek X 0 0 

Conduct extensive 

inventory and manage

DOS Cabezas Mining Area X 0 0 

Research trails, roads, etc. X	 0 

Develop regional research
 

design X
 

Promote and fund
 

scientific use X
 

Develop predictive

model X
 

Interpret -

Aravaipa area
 Bonita Creek
 Muleshoe Ranch
 

Gila Box
 

Interpret -

Safford Airport CCC Camp

Bonita Creek properties

DOS Cabezas mining
 

properties 

X Primary Objective 0 . Secondary Objective N/A - Not Applicable 

Source: Safford District files. 

80 
Resource Advisor to all extended attack fires 

whenever heavy equipment is used. 

f. Stabilization - stabilize deteriorating standing 

architectural structures on significant cultural 

properties. 

g. Detailed Recording - record all known prehistoric cliff dwellings and related structures in the 

District and the Yuma Wash and Midway Cave 

sites. 

h. Public Education -develop and implement 

annual Public Affairs Action Plans for cultural 

resources. 

3.	 Expand and complete a Class III cultural resource 

inventory and intensive testing in and adjacent to 

the Timber Draw project area. 

4.	 Conduct ethnographic studies in Bonita Creek, 

Muleshoe Ranch, Pima Mormon Canal System, 

Civilian Conservation Corps camps and project 

areas, Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness and adjacent 

lands and DOS Cabezas Mountains area. 

5.	 Revise the Safford District Rock Art Cultural 

Resource Management Plan. 

6.	 Conduct Class II archaeological inventories in 

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness and adjacent lands, 

Muleshoe Ranch, Pima Mormon Canal System, 

Civilian Conservation Corps camps and project 

areas, DOS Cabezas Mountains historic sites and 

culturally sensitive riparian areas bordering the 

San Simon Valley to enhance knowledge of 

cultural resources for future management decisions. 

Desert bighorn ewes inhabit the rocky cliffs of Araviapa 

Canyon. 

7.	 Conduct a Class III archaeological inventory in 

Bonita Creek Canyon to enhance knowledge of 

cultural resources for future management decisions. 

8.	 Conduct extensive archival research on public 

lands to increase knowledge of the DOS Cabezas 

historical mining area. Develop cooperative 

management agreements for the inventory of the 

mining area on adjacent non-federal lands. 

9.	 Conduct archival research to identify historic trails, 

roads, telegraph lines and other forms of historic 

transportation and communication. 

10. Develop a regional research design to help identify 

the specific scientific and public values of individual 

cultural properties. 

11. Actively promote and fund scientific investigations 

on District cultural resources through the development of information packets, brochures and other 

measures. 

12. Develop a rigorous predictive model for the 

occurrence of cultural resources. 

13. Develop a comprehensive interpretive and educational program depicting the geological, cultural 

and wildlife values of Aravaipa Canyon, Bonita 

Creek, Muleshoe Ranch and Gila Box. 

14. Interpret the Civilian Conservation Corps Base 

Camp near the Safford Airport, selected cultural 

properties along Bonita Creek and the DOS 

Cabezas mining properties for public use. 

Management Concern 6- Soil . 

If Alternative C is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Soil 

Erosion Management Concern. 

. Reduce accelerated erosion. 

.	 Restore eroded floodplains of the San Simon 

River and in the Bear Springs Flat area (see Map 

26). 

.	 Reduce silt and salts entering the Gila River from 

the San Simon River. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the soil erosion and salinity management objectives. 

81 
1.	 Develop activity plans, where needed, to initiate 

rehabilitation of eroded areas and to provide more 

forage for livestock. 

2. Construct Timber Draw Dam to continue efforts to 

rehabilitate eroded areas of the San Simon River 

(see Map 26). 

3. Continue reseeding grasses and riparian vegetation 

on restored areas behind erosion control structures. 

Manage livestock with fencing or other methods to 

protect these areas. 

4. Protect the eroded floodplain of the San Simon 

River through appropriate livestock management. 

5. Repair Oso Largo Detention Dam (see Map 26) in 

the Bear Springs Flat area to continue rehabilitation 

of eroded lands. Assess the land upstream of Oso 

Largo Dam to determine the need for maintenance 

of existing structures or the need for additional 

structures. Make all structures functional without 

adversely affecting the Area of Critical Environmental Concern located in the upper end of the eroded 

area. 

6. Investigate methods to increase livestock forage in 

the Bear Springs Flat area, without adversely 

affecting the Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

located in the uppper end of the eroded area. 

7. Continue seasonal livestock use in the Bear Springs 

Flat area. 

8. Cap or contain the flow of flowing wells in the San 

Simon Watershed if salinity exceeds 3,000 ppm. 

Management Concern 7- Vegetation 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Vegetation Management Concern. 

1. The objective for management of upland vegetation 

is to restore and maintain plant communities for 

wildlife, watershed condition and livestock. The 

desired plant communities will be determined in the 

preparation of activity plans (allotment management 

plans, habitat management plans, etc.). An ecological site inventory will be completed as new allotment 

management plans are prepared or existing plans 

revised. 

2. The objective for management of threatened, 

endangered and special status plant species is to 

manage the public lands to preserve occurrences of 

special status species and to eventually delist 

threatened and endangered species. To accomplish these objectives, continue inventories in areas 

of proposed activities. 

3. Land treatments (vegetation manipulation) will be 

used to decrease invading woody plants and 

increase grasses and forbs for wildlife, watershed 

condition and livestock. Public lands, where vegetation condition is less than desired to meet management objectives, will be identified for treatment 

through activity plans. Treatments may include 

various artificial (mechanical, chemical or prescribed 

fire) methods. Management objectives for riparian 

vegetation can be found under Issue 4 Riparian 

Vegetation. 

4. Make the following firewood-cutting areas available 

to the public. 

a. San Simon Fan Structure area for tamarisk and 

mesquite. 

b. West of the San Simon River, on Sonoita soils for 

mesquite. 

c. Mesquite Well area, on Sonoita soils for
 

whitethorn and mesquite.
 

d. Horse Mountain area for manzanita, juniper and 

mesquite. 

Permit up to 500 cords per year Districtwide, but do not 

allow cutting in major desert washes. 

5. Determine other areas appropriate for firewood 

cutting and the quantities available. 

Examples of prehistoric Salado adobe structures can be found 

on public lands in the Safford District. 

82 
6. Issue permits for vegetative products, other than 

firewood, as determined by public demand and onsite evaluation. 

Management Concern 8 - Water 

Resources 

If Alternative C is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Water 

Resources Management Concern. 

1. The objective for management of groundwater is to 

efficiently use available water for on-going resource 

management purposes. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the groundwater management objective. 

a.	 Cap unusable or unsuitable wells to prevent 

contamination of aquifers and to contain highly 

saline water. 

b.	 Inspect and maintain water systems to prevent 

unnecessary loss of water. 

Further, initiate a groundwater study for the San Simon 

Watershed to determine the level of the various 

aquifers, changes in the level of the aquifers, the water 

quality of the aquifers and availability of groundwater 

for BLM’s resource management programs. Prepare a 

management plan for use of water. 

2. The objective for managing water quality is to 

maintain or enhance water quality at or above 

established standards for designated uses to meet 

management goals for each water source. BLM will 

adhere to federal and state water quality laws and 

standards. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the water quality management objective. 

a.	 Support other resource programs in the implementation of this plan and monitor the effectiveness of planning decisions. 

b.	 Continue the existing water quality testing
 

program in the District (see Appendix 9).
 

C.	 Initiate data collection where there is a suspected 

or known pollution threat or hazard to water 

quality. 

d.	 Develop an activity plan and initiate management 

actions needed to mitigate water quality degradation detected through water quality monitoring. 

e. Develop a District Water Quality Monitoring Plan. 

f . 	 Share data with other water quality managing 

agencies. 

3.	 Manage stream segments nominated or state 

designated as Unique Waters to maintain or enhance water quality standards and protect the 

associated resources. 

4.	 Evaluate the long-term Districtwide resource 

management needs for ground and surface water. 

5.	 Evaluate the Gila River, Redfield Canyon, Hot 

Springs Canyon, Bass Canyon and Bonita Creek to 

determine the quantities of in-stream flow (water 

right) needed to meet resource management 

objectives. File on the quantities needed to meet 

those objectives. 

6.	 Evaluate Turkey Creek, Deer Creek, Left Fork of 

Markham Creek and Guadalupe Canyon (intermittent streams), if their flow becomes perennial, to 

determine the quantities of in-stream flow (water 

rights) needed to meet resource management 

objectives. File with the state on the quantities 

needed to meet resource management objectives. 

7	 Consider purchasing water rights when resource 

values are threatened. 

Management Concern 9 - Air Quality 

The following objectives and actions will be implemented to resolve the Air Quality Management Concern. 

1. Continue to manage the airshed in accordance with 

State of Arizona Class II standards, unless 

redesignated. 

2. Comply with all federal and State statutes pertaining 

to air quality and cooperate with the State of Arizona 

in carrying out the State Implementation Plan. 

The following actions will be implemented to accomplish these objectives. 

1. 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 appropriate 

stipulations to mitigate the impact to air quality. 

2. Continue the rehabilitation of erosion in the San 

Simon Watershed and the Bear Springs Flat area 

(see Map 26) to reduce airborne dust. 

83 
3. Conduct prescribed fire with prior approval of the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Office 

of Air Quality. 

4. Continue operation of the Oliver Knoll atmospheric 

deposition monitoring station as part of the nationwide network. 

Management Concern 10 ­ Paleontological Resources 

If this alternative is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Paleontological Resources Management Concern. 

1. Preserve a representative sample of Class I paleontological localities. 

2. Ensure that BLM actions avoid inadvertent damage 

to paleontological resources. 

3. Manage paleontological resources to preserve their 

scientific and interpretive values. 

The following action will be implemented to accomplish 

these objectives. 

1. Continue inventories in areas of proposed activities 

to identify the presence of paleontological resources 

and determine measures needed to mitigate 

anticipated impacts or whether proposed activity 

should be allowed. 

Alternative D (No Action) 

This alternative continues implementation of the 

current land use plans. The allocation of lands and 

resources would remain unchanged. The analysis of 

Agaves were an important food of Native Americans, who 

cultivated is using dryland farming techniques near Safford. 

the impacts of implementing Alternative D provides a 

basis for comparing the effects of the other three 

alternatives. 

Issue 1 - Access 

If this alternative is approved, the following action will 

be implemented to resolve the Access Issue. 

1. Develop a plan to determine physical and legal 

access needs in the District. Close roads determined to be unnecessary. 

Issue 2 - Area of Critical 

Environmental Concerns and Other 

Types of Special Management 

If Alternative D is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Area of Critical Environmental Concerns and Other Types of Special Management Issue. 

1	 Consider the following areas for Area of Critical
 

Environmental Concern designation or other types
 

of special management.
 

a.	 Coronado Mountain. 

b.	 Bear Spring Paleontological Area. 

C.	 Little Doubtful Canyon. 

d.	 Howell Canyon. 

e.	 Gila River, below Coolidge Dam. 

f . 	 Turkey Creek. 

9. DOS Cabezas Peaks.

h.	 Mescal Creek. 

i.	 riparian areas. 

Government Peak. i. 

k.	 springs. 

I.	 Bonita Creek 

m. Eagle Creek 

n. Gila Box 

o. Fishhooks 

84 
p. Johnny Creek 

q. Markham Creek 

2. Manage the following areas to maintain the primitive 

character, scenic quality, recreation opportunities 

and research potential. 

a.	 Peloncillo Mountains. 

b . 	 Bowie Mountain. 

C.	 Bonita Creek. 

d.	 DOS Cabezas Mountains. 

e. Jackson Mountain. 

f . 	 Eagle Creek. 

3 . 	 Determine the preliminary suitability of the Gila and 

San Francisco Rivers, through the Gila Box, for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River 

System. 

The Narrows, located in Hot Springs Canyon in the Muleshoe 

Ranch, is subject to flash flooding. 

Issue 3 - Off-Highway Vehicles 

The following actions will be implemented to resolve 

the Off-highway Vehicles Issue. 

1.	 Manage off-highway vehicle use on lands designated as wilderness or under wilderness review 

according to the Interim Management Policy and 

Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review to 

preserve the wilderness values of these areas. 

2 . 	 Designate the remainder of the District limited to 

existing roads and trails. 

3 . 	 Inventory and analyze the District to determine 

possible locations for open off-highway vehicle 

areas. 

Issue 4 - Riparian Areas 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented or continued to resolve the Riparian 

Areas Issue. 

Manage desert washes to minimize soil erosion, 

maintain or increase vegetation ground cover, 

maintain or improve wildlife habitat and protect 

cultural values. 

Suppress wildfires with as little surface disturbance 

as possible with the following limitations. 

a. Prohibit use of heavy equipment in riparian and 

aquatic habitat along the Gila and San Francisco 

rivers, except as a last resort. 

b. Keep surface disturbance to an absolute minimum in the remainder of the Gila Box. 

3 . 	 Manage livestock grazing in riparian and aquatic 

habitat in the Gila Box. Allow only periodic prescribed use for vegetation control and management. 

4 . 	 Enhance riparian habitat in the Geronimo Planning 

Unit by the following prescription. 

a. Eliminate or manage livestock grazing. 

b. Intensively inventory fish, raptors and songbirds. 

c. Eliminate vehicular travel from all or part of the 

riparian areas or seasonally restrict travel based 

on information collected in the riparian inventory. 

d. Prohibit unnatural destruction or removal of
 

vegetation unless it benefits wildlife.
 

85 
e. Prohibit construction of any project that disrupts 2. Contract or develop cooperative agreement with 

wildlife. range users to provide water for wildlife at wells, 

springs and pipelines when livestock are not on the 

f. Prohibit any high-intensity human use. range or pasture. 

g. Retain all public lands. Acquire new lands with 3. Provide artificial quail and javelina cover, artificial 

riparian values. raptor nests, big game water developments and 

study the feasibility of waterfowl habitat developh. Classify all or part of the riparian areas as ment projects. 

Outstanding Natural Areas. 

4. Conduct intensive wildlife inventory and analysis in 

Management Concern 1 ­ Wildlife 

Habitat 

cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. Give full consideration to nongame 

species and special attention to threatened and 

If Alternative D is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Wildlife Habitat Manendangered species and those proposed for 

listing. 

agement Concern. 5. Manage livestock to minimize competition with 

1. Provide additional permanent and/or seasonal 

water developments for wildlife and livestock. 

wildlife and to enhance wildlife habitat where 

feasible. 

Make access to water available to wildlife yearlong 

in accordance with wildlife and livestock activity 

plans. 

6 Vegetation manipulation will be coordinated with 

the wildlife program to determine and mitigate 

potential impacts to wildlife and their habitat. 

The Bear Springs Badlands contain many fossilized bones and tracks of prehistoric animals. 
7.	 Protect, enhance and establish vegetation cover at 

water sources. 

8.	 Erosion control structures will include specific 

design features to provide better habitat for wildlife 

and fish. 

9.	 Use prescribed fire to improve wildlife habitat. 

Keep bulldozer work to a minimum to reduce 

impacts to wildlife habitat and minimize additional 

access to the area. 

10. Conduct an inventory, in cooperation with the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, to determine 

the feasibility of reintroducing or supplementing big 

game populations. 

11. Focus management in upper elevations to protect 

and enhance wildlife habitat. 

12. Develop a grazing management program that 

more closely meets the needs of desert bighorn 

sheep in cooperation with state and local grazing 

lessees. 

13. Monitor the distribution and numbers of native and 

non-native fish in the Aravaipa watershed and 

prevent non-native fish from becoming established. 

14. Establish at least one 100-acre range and wildlife 

study exclosure in each of the major standard 

habitats. 

15. Conduct a comprehensive terrestrial and aquatic 

inventory, using the Integrated Habitat Inventory 

Classification System . Evaluate the potential for 

endangered fish reintroductions and Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern recommendations. 

16. Study ephemeral rangelands to determine the 

relationship between livestock forage use and 

wildlife densities and diversities. 

17. Manage riparian areas to protect their values. 

18. Prevent tamarisk from establishing itself in Mescal 

Creek and Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness. 

19. Coordinate with Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, The Nature Conservancy and local landowners to acquire protective 

easements for selected parts of the San Pedro 

River to protect this diverse and highly productive 

riparian area. 

habitat on the Gila River below Coolidge Dam. If 

this is not feasible, construct small exclosures on 

public lands with the highest potential for rehabilitation of riparian vegetation. Rehabilitate the riparian 

community by removing tamarisk and planting 

cottonwoods and willows. 

21. Acquire baseline terrestrial and aquatic biological 

data on the condition and trend of all riparian 

habitat and perennial streams. 

22. Prohibit the removal of all native live and dead 

trees greater than 6 inches diameter at breast 

height (DBH) in the Winkelman Planning Unit. 

Potential firewood-cutting areas will be evaluated 

to determine impact on wildlife. 

23. Study white-tailed deer and elk distribution and 

habitat use. 

24. Study the potential for introduction of beaver into 

Aravaipa Creek and the river otter into the Gila 

River below Coolidge Dam. 

25. Predator control activities, other than sport hunting, 

should be permitted only in areas where there is 

documented evidence of extreme depredation of 

livestock. Aim control measures only at offending 

animals. 

26. Coordinate with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department to establish predator concentration 

areas, habitat preferences and population trends. 

27. During nesting season, prohibit activities within 

one fourth mile radius of active raptor nests in 

wooded areas and one half mile radius in open 

country unless consideration has been given to 

minimizing disturbance to nesting raptors. Manage 

raptors to enhance nesting success. 

28. Assist the Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona 

Game and Fish Department by monitoring the Gila 

River for use by wintering bald eagles to determine 

the extent and period of use. 

29. Determine the distribution, population status and 

habitat relationships of the desert tortoise and Gila 

monster. 

30. Restrict off-highway vehicles to existing roads, 

except in designated areas currently receiving 

regular use where no wildlife conflicts exist. Areas 

designated for unrestricted use should exclude 

major washes, riparian zones, forest, chaparral 

20. Coordinate with the San Carlos Apache Tribe to and saguaro-palo verde habitats. 

prohibit livestock grazing from 18 miles of riparian 

87 
Saguaros are found along canyons In the foothills of the Gila 

Mountains northwest of Safford. 

Management Concern 2 - Lands and 

Realty 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Lands and Realty 

Management Concern. 

1.	 Consider public land disposal proposals in the 

following use priority: to assure public access; for 

other public purposes (such as Recreation and 

Public Purposes); exchanges that benefit BLM 

programs; and Bureau-motion sales. 

2.	 Lands in urban, suburban, residential, commercial 

and industrial expansion areas will be disposed of 

on the the merit of the application, as it would 

benefit BLM programs or be of benefit to the public 

for public purposes. 

3.	 Provide through Recreation and Public Purposes 

lease or by exchange, 80 acres of public land in T. 

8 S., R. 16 E., Sec. 24, E1/2NE1/4 for the future 

expansion of the Town of Mammoth. 

4.	 Provide through Recreation and Public Purposes 

lease or by exchange, 20 acres of public land in 

the Dripping Spring Valley in T. 4 S., R. 16 E., for 

disposal to Gila County for a sanitary landfill. 

5.	 Provide through Recreation and Public Purposes 

lease or by exchange, 40 acres of public land in T. 

8 S., R. 17 E., Sec. 19, NE1/4SW1/4 for disposal 

to Pinal County for use as a medical health 

building. 

6.	 Retain isolated tracts of public lands in the BowieSan Simon area, that have agricultural potential, 

until adequate information is obtained concerning 

the effect new wells will have on the groundwater 

table. 

7.	 Conduct a feasibility study of, and implement 

accordingly, a land exchange and acquisition 

program to provide better control of range administration and improve management practices. 

8.	 Acquire State and private lands in the same areas 

described in Alternative A and shown on Map 27. 

9.	 Acquire 680 acres of private land along Aravaipa 

Creek, east and west of the wilderness. 

A lone tree is silhouetted against the sheer canyon walls of 

Araviapa Canyon Wilderness. 

88 
9 

10. Retain public lands in the following areas. Managemsnt Concern 3 - Outdoor 

Recreation and Visual Resource 

a.	 DOS Cabezas Mountains. 

b.	 Gila Box. 

C .	 Jackson Mountain. 

d.	 small tracts of public lands adjacent to the Gila 

River. 

e.	 the National Guard Withdrawal, in T. 7 S., 

R. 25 E., Sec. 23, S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4, Sec. 26, 

NE1/4. 

f . 	 T. 8 S., R. 17 E., Sec. 29 for the future recreation and public purposes in the next 10 years 

all lands in the Winkelman Planning Unit that 

have perennial water or riparian habitat. 

11.	 Grant rights-of-way to public and private utility 

interests in established or proposed alternative 

primary corridors. Secondary or distribution line 

rights-of-way will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 

12.	 Consider the existing concentration of rights-ofway through the Dripping Spring, Gila and San 

Pedro valleys right-of-way corridor. Attempt to 

confine all future rights-of-way to this corridor. 

13.	 Develop site plans for all existing and future 

communication site developments prior to granting 

additional rights-of-way. 

14.	 Following completion of the withdrawal review, 

authorize the following withdrawals along the Gila 

River below Coolidge Dam, by cooperative agreements with the withdrawing agency. 

a. San Carlos Indian Irrigation Project. 

b. Power Site Reserve 150. 

c. Power Site Reserve 590 and Secretarial Order 

Water Power Designation 4. 

15.	 Complete the U.S. Geological Survey revocation 

request for Power Project AR-730, Water Power 

Designation 5, and Power Site Reserve 602 

included in Power Site Restoration A-760, located 

along the Gila River below Coolidge Dam, and 

within the Needles Eye Wilderness Area. Close 

the land included in these revocations to all 

Management 

If Alternative D is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Outdoor Recreation and 

Visual Resource Management Concern. 

1.	 Retain, as possible, existing scenic qualities on 

lands along Interstate 10, U.S. Highways 666 and 

70, the Apache Pass Road and around Ft. Bowie 

National Historic Site. Exclude activities, where 

possible, that detract from open space values. 

2.	 Review project proposals to determine their impact 

on scenic values. Prescribe needed mitigation 

measures. 

3.	 Conduct a thorough inventory and evaluation of 

geologic features and develop a plan for interpretation and/or management of those determined to be 

of value for outdoor recreation opportunities. 

4.	 Prepare activity plans to consider type and location 

of recreation facilities needed for visitors to accommodate and enhance recreation experiences while 

providing control and minimal impact on other 

activities. 

5.	 Review new road construction proposals to
 

determine the impacts on primitive values and
 

opportunities for providing wayside stops, scenic
 

overlooks, turnouts, interpretive signs, etc.
 

6.	 Conduct a thorough inventory to determine the 

location of unique ecological communities. Develop activity plans to provide for the management 

and interpretation of these areas. 

7.	 Develop an activity plan for private lands adjacent 

to each end of Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness that 

may be acquired in the future. 

appropriations when the withdrawals are revoked. The lOOO-foot cliffs above the Gila River afford spectacular 

views of the rugged Gila Box. 

89 
8.	 Develop a comprehensive interpretive and education program depicting the biological, cultural and 

geological values of the Aravaipa Canyon area. 

9.	 Provide day-use facilities along the Gila River near 

Winkelman, including a single picnic site about one 

mile below Coolidge Dam. 

10. Inventory all Visual Resource Management Class I 

areas that fall outside the Wildernesses and 

Wilderness Study Area. Manage those areas 

identified as Class I to provide primarily for natural 

ecological changes. 

11. Manage Visual Resource Management Class II 

areas. Changes in any of the basic landscape 

elements caused by a management activity should 

not be evident in the landscape. Contrasts may be 

seen but should not attract attention. 

12. Manage Visual Resource Management Class III 

areas. Management activities that cause changes 

to the basic landscape elements may create 

contrasts that are evident and begin to attract 

attention but the changes should remain subordinate to the existing landscape. 

13. Manage Visual Resource Management Class IV 

areas. Contrasts in the landscape, caused by 

management activities, may attract attention and 

be a dominant feature in terms of scale but the 

contrast should repeat the basic landscape 

elements. 

Management Concern 4 - Energy and

Minerals 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Energy and Minerals 

Management Concern. 

1.	 Continue to make public lands available to mineral 

entry. 

2.	 Allow common material (sand and gravel) sales in 

material pits to be established as needed. Refer 

applicants first to commercial sources. 

3.	 Allow free use of common material sites, as 

needed, by public agencies. Inventory existing 

sites to determine management compatibility and 

suitability for continued use. 

4.	 Withdraw the Gila Box from all forms of appropriation, including mineral entry under the mining laws 

and material sales acts. Permit mineral leasing. 

Issue mineral leases with the following restrictions. 

a. Lease only those minerals that do not require 

surface excavation for exploration or development (oil, gas or geothermal resources). 

b. Prohibit leasing in riparian and aquatic habitat 

and needed buffer areas, pending studies to 

determine the feasibility and effects of leasing 

activities. 

c. Prohibit surface occupancy in riparian and 

aquatic habitat and the buffer areas except as 

may be determined allowable by an environmental assessment. 

d. Prohibit surface occupancy in all wilderness 

areas. 

5.	 Withdraw the Black Hills Rockhound Area, Round 

Mountain Rockhound Area and Eagle Creek 

Canyon from all forms of appropriation, including 

mineral entry under the mining law, but allow 

mineral leasing. 

6.	 Withdraw 40 acres containing the Eagle Creek Bat 

Cave from all forms of appropriation, including the 

mining and mineral leasing laws. 

7.	 Give management emphasis to mineral development in the following areas, 

a. zeolite deposits in the San Simon Valley. 

b. Gila Mountains north of Safford and Ft. Thomas. 

c. Black Rock. 

The tops of the Pilares are lnaccessable to livestock, providing 

an excellent opportunity to study native plants. 

90 
� 

� 

d. the Gila River between Bonita Creek and Spring 

Canyon. 

8.	 Lease geothermal resources with environmental 

stipulations to protect other resource values. 

9.	 Keep the lands adjacent to the Gila River in the 

Safford Valley open to mineral entry. 

10. Review all lands closed to mineral entry and 

determine withdrawals that should be revoked. 

11. Provide 640 acres for the future expansion of 

Christmas Mine. 

Management Concern 5 - Cultural 

Resources 

If Alternative D is approved, the following objectives 

and actions will be implemented to resolve the Cultural 

Resources Management Concern. 

Manage for Information Potential.
 

. Manage for Public Values.
 

Manage for Conservation.
 

Table 2-21 identifies the actions that will be implemented to achieve each objective. Appendix 12 

defines each objective. 

1.	 Conduct an intensive archaeological site inventory 

and analysis on the public lands within the District 

to determine location of sites and management 

needs. 

2.	 Direct archaeological site inventory emphasis to 

areas subject to disturbance or which are endangered by a specific action. 

3.	 Thoroughly inventory and evaluate archaeological 

sites and develop a plan for their interpretation, 

restoration and protection. 

4.	 Consider protective withdrawals as a viable means 

to attain protection of highly significant archaeological sites from disturbing actions, when other 

protective alternatives are inadequate. 

5.	 Provide interim and long-term protection of selected cultural resources threatened by agents of 

deterioration such as wind, and rain. 

6.	 Implement the Safford District Cultural Resources 

Patrol Plan and initiate a public information and 

education campaign. 

7.	 Conduct studies to identify and evaluate sociocultural values held by the public, and locate and 

evaluate cultural resource properties and areas 

possessing socio-cultural values. 

8.	 Allocate a select sample of cultural resources to 

Management Use. Prepare a cultural resource 

management plan on these properties. Plan and 

implement studies to determine the effects of other 

programs and uses on cultural resources. 

9.	 Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of 

cultural resource protection measures. 

10. Allocate select cultural resource sites and areas to 

scientific use and initiate studies directed at filling 

the primary cultural resource data gaps. 

11. Develop an interpretive program on the	 San Simon 

Restoration Project. 

Management Concern 6 - Soil 

Erosion 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Soil Erosion Management Concern. 

1.	 Provide watershed protection by establishing 

grazing systems that meet vegetation needs and 

ensure sufficient ground cover to protect t he soil 

surface from erosion. 

2.	 Provide prompt wildfire control. 

3.	 Construct water control structures to provide 

additional erosion control. 

4.	 Conduct land treatments to increase vegetation 

cover and reduce soil erosion. 

5.	 Limit watershed practices, in the upper elevations of 

the Gila Mountains north of Pima, to check dams 

and other small water control structures. 

Management Concern 7- Vegetation 

If Alternative D is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Vegetation Management Concern. 

1. Remove or sell vegetation products as a salvage
 

measure on project areas or other areas where
 

surface disturbance is imminent.
 

91 
Table 2-21. Management Objectives Achieved by Planned Actions-Alternative D 

Manage for Manage for 

Information Public Manage for 

Actions Potential Values Conservation 

1. Inventory District	 X 0 0

2. Inventory proposed projects X 

3. Manage cultural resources X 0	 0 

4. Protect through withdrawal 0 0	 X 

5. Protect selected 

cultural resources X X X 

6. Patrol sites and 

educate the public X X X 

7. Identify public values 0	 X 

8. Conduct impact 

studies of selected 

cultural resources X 

9. Evaluate existing 

protection measures X 0 0 

10. Conduct studies to 

fill data gaps X 

X Primary Objective 0 - Secondary Objective 

Source: Safford District Files 

2.	 Consider applications for vegetation products 

(jojoba nuts, cactus fruits) on a case-by-case 

basis. 

3.	 Authorize firewood cutting in cases of emergency 

energy shortage or other extreme situations 

requiring special use considerations. 

4.	 Review and make needed revisions to all existing 

Allotment Management Plans. Develop Allotment 

Management Plans and grazing systems, consistent with BLM’s allotment categorization and 

management policy, for the remainder of the 

allotments. 

5.	 Manage vegetation at watering sites to improve or 

provide habitat (cover), protect cultural resources, 

decrease erosion, increase forage and protect 

Threatened and Endangered species. 

6.	 Use land treatment practices to increase forage 

production and improve range condition. 

7.	 Use vegetation manipulation treatments to increase forage production and improve range 

condition in the Bear Springs Flat and Ashurst 

areas. Apply treatments only on suitable sites 

likely to respond. 

92 
8.	 Use prescribed fire to increase grass production. 

9.	 Use water control and watershed treatment 

practices to increase vegetation. 

10. Control cockleburs by maintenance spraying. 

11. Manage livestock to increase forage production 

and improve range condition in the Gila Mountains 

and at Black Rock. 

12. Reactivate plant material studies, concentrating on 

suitable species for watershed rehabilitation and 

wildlife and recreation needs. 

13. Prohibit harvest of ponderosa pine on public lands. 

Management Concern 8 - Water 

Resources 

If Alternative D is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Water Resources 

Management Concern. 

1. Inventory water resources in the DOS Cabezas 

Mountains to obtain additional information for 

management of wildlife, particularly Threatened and 

Endangered species. 

2. Manage the Bonita Creek area primarily for water 

yield and quality. 

3. Intensively manage livestock in Bonita Creek to 

protect vegetation cover, maintain water quality, 

reduce run-off and increase water percolation for 

storage to allow for continued discharge flow during 

dry periods. 

A thick cover of native grasses grows atop Sombrero Butte 

east of Mammoth. 

4. Sample Aravaipa Creek weekly for bacterial analysis during peak recreation use. When pollution 

exceeds established standards for Primary Contact 

Water, notify the public of the problem so they can 

decide whether they want to use the area. 

5. Enforce state and federal water quality standards for 

mining operations, in coordination with the state. 

6. Collect water quality data at specific locations in 

response to management concerns. 

Management Concern 9 - Air Quality 

No management actions are planned. 

Management Concern 10 ­ Paleontological Resources 

If this alternative is approved, the following actions will 

be implemented to resolve the Paleontological Resources Management Concern. 

1. Prohibit any proposal that would disturb any object 

of antiquity or affect the integrity of lands in the 111 

Ranch Paleontological Area. Retain lands in public 

ownership at least until the significance of the area 

has been evaluated by specialists. 

2. Inventory and evaluate geologic features and 

develop a plan for the interpretation and management of those features of interest to the public. Give 

particular attention to paleontological sites in the 

“Breaks” and eroded slopes of Bear Springs Badlands. 

3.	 Develop a sensitivity map of fossil-bearing geologic 

formations on public lands in the District. 

Summary of Environmental Effects 

The following Table 2-22 is a summary of the anticipated environmental effects anticipated through 

implementation of the various alternatives. 

93 
Table 2-22. Summary of Environmental Effects 

Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Proposed Action) (No Action) 

1. ACEC management 

2. Restrictions 

on mining and 

mineral material 

sales 

3. OHV designations 

1. Construction 

and/or repair of 

detention dams 

2. OHV designations 

1. ACEC management 

2. OHV designations 

3. Disposal and 

acquisition of 

lands 

WATER 

Low benefits to water Low benefits to water Low benefits to water No significant effects. 

quality and quantity quality and quantity quality and quantity 

by management of 4 by management of 4 by management of 3 

ACECs on 17,734 ACECs on 78,522 ACECs on 27,225 acres. 

acres. acres. 

Low benefits due Moderate benefits No significant effects, No significant effects. 

to lower water sedi­ to water quality 

mentation on the from mining restric2,411 acres with tions on 11,316 

restrictions. acres. 

Low benefits to water Low benefits to water Low impacts to water Low benefits to water 

quality from OHV quality from OHV quality from increased quality by restricrestrictions on restrictions on sedimentation due to ting OHV use to 

1,310,713 acres by 1,400,000 acres by OHV use on 1,257,513 existing roads and 

reducing sediment in reducing sediment in acres. trails District-wide. 

water. water. 

SOIL 

Moderate benefit. Moderate benefit. Moderate benefit. Moderate benefit. 

Save 500 ac. feet Save 500 ac. feet Save 500 ac. feet Save 300 ac. feet 

of soil per year. of soil per year. of soil per year. of soil per year. 

Designition of Restrictions to 88,931 acres as Restrictions on OHVs 

1,310,713 acres as OHVs on 1,400,000 “limited” and 85,384 of 1,400,000 acres 

“limited” and 87,879 acres would give a acres as “closed” would provide a low 

acres as “closed” - low benefit to would give low bene- benefit to soil by 

low benefits. 1,708 soil by reducing fits by reducing soil reducing disturbance 

acres “open” - low soil disturbance and erosion caused by and erosion. 

impacts. erosion. vehicles. 

RIPARIAN VEGETATION 

High benefits on High benefits to Moderate benefits to Moderate benefits on 

1,500 acres and 40 8,455 acres of ripar­ 460 acres of riparian 60 riparian areas 

miles of riparian ian vegetation due areas in 3 ACECs. covering 1,267 acres. 

vegetation in to management of 

5 ACECs. 4 ACECs. 

Low benefits from Restrictions on OHV Designation of most Designation of most 

limiting vehicle use would provide of the District as of the District as 

disturbance. low benefits by “open” would cause “limited” would give 

minimizing vegetation moderate impacts to low benefits to 

disturbance. 35 riparian areas that riparian areas that 

would be used by OHVs. would be used by OHVs. 

Disposal of less Acquisition of Acquisition of Acquisition of riparthan 25 acres - riparian vegetation riparian vegetation ian vegetation 

low impact. - moderate benefit. - moderate benefit. - low benefit. 

Acquisition of other 

riparian areas -

moderate benefit. 

94 
Table 2-22. Summary of Environmental Effects (continued) 

Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Proposed Action) (No Action) 

4. Acquisition of 

instream flow 

water rights and 

water rights 

5. Restrictions on 

mineral leasing 

1. Prescribed land 

treatments 

2. ACEC management 

3. OHV designations 

1. ACEC managemenl 

2. OHV designations 

Moderate benefits 

to 5 riparian 

areas on 350 acres. 

Low benefits to 2,411 

acres of riparian 

habitat through 

NSO stipulations. 

Low benefits from 

seedings, prescribed 

fire, etc. 

No significant effect. 

“Limited” or “closed” 

OHV designation on 

1,398,592 acres 

would provide low 

benefits by protecting vegetation 

from vehicular 

disturbance. 

Management of 26,861 

acres in 9 areas 

would give moderate 

benefits for wildlife by protecting 

unique habitats and 

riparian ecosystems. 

Management of 4,717 

acres in 4 areas 

would give low benefits by protecting 

necessary habitat. 

Closure of bighorn 

sheep lambing areas 

would give high benefits to bighorn 

sheep. “Limited” 

and “closed” areas 

would give high 

benefits to 17 

priority wildlife 

species and their 

habitat. 

Moderate benefit by Moderate benefit by 

assuring continual assuring continual 

necessary flow to necessary flow to 

riparian areas. riparian areas. 

Low benefits to 2,397 Low benefits to 570 

acres of riparian acres of riparian 

habitat through habitat through 

NSO stipulations. NSO stipulations. 

UPLAND VEGETATION 

Low benefits from Low benefits from 

seedings, prescribed seedings, prescribed 

fire, etc. fire, etc. 

Low benefits from No significant effect. 

management of 3 ACECs 

(72,684 acres) by 

increasing vegetation 

density and diversity. 

“Limited or “closed” Designation of 

OHV designation on 1,257,513 acres as 

1,400,000 acres would “open” would create 

provide low benefits low impacts from 

by protecting vegeta- vehicular disturbance. 

tion from vehicular 

disturbance. 

WILDLIFE HABITAT 

Management of 32,447 Management of 42,988 

acres in 9 areas acres in 10 areas 

would moderately would give moderate 

benefit wildlife benefits to wildlife 

habitat by protecting habitat by protecting 

and enhancing and improving habitat. 

habitat. 

Closure of bighorn “Open” OHV areas 

sheep lambing areas would moderately 

would give high bene- impact wildlife 

fits to bighorn habitat. 

sheep by reducing 

human harassment 

during critical 

periods. “Limited” 

and “closed” areas 

would give high benefits to 36 priority 

species and their 

habitat. 

No action. 

Low benefits to 274 

acres of riparian 

habitat through NSO 

stipulations and mineral 

withdrawal. 

Low benefits from 

seedings, prescribed 

fire, etc. 

No significant effect. 

“Limited or “closed” 

OHV designation on 

1,400,000 acres would 

provide low benefits by 

protecting vegetation 

from vehicular 

disturbance. 

Designation of riparian 

areas as ACECs would 

provide moderate beneto wildlife by protecting riparian habitat. 

Management of Gila 

River and Mescal Creek 

would give moderate 

benefits to 17 priority 

species. 

“Limited” and “closed” 

areas would give high 

benefits to wildlife 

habitat. 

95 
Table 2-22. Summary of Environmental Effects (continued) 

Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Proposed Action) (No Action) 

3. Disposal and Acquisitions would Disposal actions would Disposal of lands in Acquisitions would give 

acquisition of provide high benefits provide low impacts 9 locations provides high benefits by 

lands by acquiring wild- to wildlife by loss low impacts due to acquiring wildlife 

life habitat. of habitat. Acquisi­ loss of habitat. habitat. 

tions would give high Acquisitions would 

benefits by acquiring give high benefits by 

wildlife habitat. acquiring wildlife 

habitat. 

4. Restrictions Withdrawal of 9,829 Withdrawal of 12,652 Withdrawal of 2,411 No significant impact. 

on mining and acres from mineral acres from mineral acres from mineral 

mineral material entry, NSO stipula­ entry would highly entry, NSO stipulations 

sales tions on 14,052 acres benefit wildlife habi­ on 7,525 acres and no 

and no mineral mate- tat. No mineral mineral materials sales 

rials sales on material sales on on 4,316 acres would 

12,371 acres would 11,31 6 acres would give low benefits to 

give high benefits moderately benefit 17 1 1 priority species by 

to wildlife by pro- species. NSO protecting their 

tecting their habi­ stipulations (21,669 habitat. 

tat. acres) have moderate 

benefits for 15 species. 

5. Acquisition of Moderate benefit by Moderate benefits Acquisition of instream Management of Bonita 

instream flow providing continued for 17 species by flow water rights on Creek for Safford’s 

water rights and water on 5 streams, increased water 5 perennial streams water supply would 

water rights giving protection quality protection. and 4 intermittent moderately benefit wildto 15 priority streams would give low life by ensuring 

species. benefits to 3 priority continued water 

species. supply. 

CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

1. Restrictions Restrictions on Restrictions on NSO stipulations would Withdrawal from mineral 

on mining and Bear Springs Bear Springs provide low benefits entry and NSO stipulamineral material Badlands (2,927 Badlands (4,127 to three archaeological tions would moderately 

sales acres) would pro- acres) would pro- sites totaling 320 benefit cultural 

vide high benefits vide high benefits acres. resources. 

to paleontological to paleontological 

resources by pro- resources by protecting them from tecting them from 

disturbance. disturbance. Moderate benefits to 

cultural resources 

from mining and 

material sales 

restrictions on 

other areas. 

2. ACEC management ACEC management on ACEC management on ACEC management on 4 Designating riparian 

6 ACECs for 14,716 7 ACECs for 35,899 ACECs for 8,853 acres areas as ACECs would have 

acres would provide acres would provide would provide moderate moderate benefits to culmoderate benefits by moderate benefits by benefits by protec­ tural resources by proprotective actions. protective actions. tive actions. tecting the condition of 

these areas. 

96 
Table 2-22. Summary of Environmental Effects (continued) 

Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Proposed Action) (No Action) 

3. OHV designations	 Closure of 2 ACECs 

to vehicular use 

would moderately 

benefit cultural 

resources by preventing damage 

associated with 

vehicular use. 

4. Construction High impacts to 37 

and/or repair of archaeological 

detention dams sites on 1,300 acres. 

1. Restrictions Mineral withdrawals 

on mining and on 9,829 acres, NSO 

mineral material stipulations on 

sales 14,052 acres and 

no mineral material 

sales on 12,371 acres 

would have a low 

economic impact by 

precluding mineral 

exploration. 

2. ACEC management	 Low benefits to the 

local economy due to 

increased primitive 

recreation use. 

3. OHV designations	 No significant 

impact. 

4. Disposal of	 Low impacts to the 

lands	 economy from loss 

of PILT payments. 

Closure of 2 ACECs to Desianation of 

vehicular use would 1,257,513 acres as 

moderately benefit “‘open” would give 

cultural resources moderate impacts to 

by preventing damage cultural resources by 

associated with increasing damage by 

vehicular use. vehicles. 

High impacts to 37 High impacts to 37 

archaeological sites archaeological sites 

on 1,300 acres. on 1,300 acres. 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC 

Mineral withdrawals Withdrawal of 2,411 

on 12,652 acres, NSO acres from mineral 

stipulations on entry, NSO stipula21,669 acres, no tions on 7,525 acres 

mineral material and no mineral mate21,3168 acres rials sales on 4,316 

would have a low acres would have a 

economic impact on low impact to the 

the economy. economy. 

Low benefits to the Low impacts to local 

local economy due to economy by decreased 

increased primitive primitive recreation 

recreation use. use. 

No significant Low benefit to the 

impact. local economy that 

provides goods and 

services to OHV 

enthusiasts. 

Low impacts to the Low impacts to the 

economy from loss economy from loss 

of PILT payments. of PILT payments. 

Designation of 

1,393,301 acres as 

“limited” to OHVs would 

provide moderate 

benefits by protecting 

cultural resources from 

damage by vehicular 

use. 

High impacts to 37 

archaeological sites on 

1,300 acres. 

Withdrawal from mineral 

entry would have a low 

impact on the economy. 

Low benefits to the 

local economy due to 

increased primitive 

recreation use. 

No significant impact. 

No significant impact. 

Source: Satford District Files. 

97 


















 

WILLCOX NNL ACEC
 

MAP 19 

N 

D 

SCALE IN MILES 

Dept. of Trans. 

117 
 * h - .

*

- - -

111 RANCH RNA ACEC
 

MAP 20 

1 

. . . 

h 

N
 

ALTERNATIVES A B
 

ALTERNATIVE C
 

SCALE IN MILES 

Dept. of Trans. 

118 
)

 

ST. DAVID CIENEGA RNA ACEC
 

SAN PEDRO RIVER RNA ACEC
 

MAP 21 

SAN PEDRO RIVER 

ALTERNATIVES A,B,C D
 

SCALE IN MILES 

Dept. of Trans. 
-

SAN RAFAEL RNA ACEC
 

MAP 22 

t 

ALTERNATIVES D
 

SCALE IN MILES 

Dept. of Trans. 

120 
MINING PLANS AND NOTICES BY TOWNSHIP
 

MAP 23 

THE NUMBER OF MINING PLANS 0
 

AND NOTICES RECEIVED FROM 

JANUARY 1981 JULY 1989, SCALE IN MILES BY TOWNSHIP 

Dept. of Trans. 121 




Introduction 

Chapter 3 describes the resources that may be affected by implementing any of the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. Descriptions are only as 

detailed as needed for the reader to understand the 

effects of implementation. Where impacts are slight or 

nonexistent (climate, topography, natural history) 

descriptions are brief or omitted. More detailed 

descriptions of the resources in the planning area are 

available at the Safford District Office. Additional 

details on some of the resources may be found in the 

Appendix section of this document. 

Setting 

The Safford District is located in southeastern Arizona. 

See the Safford District Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement area map in this 

document for the location of the District and its boundaries. The planning area for this Resource Management Plan includes all public lands administered by 

BLM within the District boundary. 

The Resource Management Plan area lies within the 

Basin and Range Physiographic Province south of the 

Colorado Plateau. The area’s northwesterly trending 

mountain ranges reach elevations of nearly 11,000 feet 

and are separated by broad, flat or gently sloping 

basins. The Gila Mountains and the mountainous area 

near Clifton represent the transition zone between the 

Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range Provinces. 

Among the numerous topographic units are the San 

Simon, Gila, Sulfur Springs and San Pedro valleys and 

the Pelloncillo, DOS Cabezas, Gila, Santa Teresa, 

Chiricahua, Mescal, Galiuro, Dragoon and Mule 

mountains. 

The entire District is drained by the Gila River and its 

tributaries with the exception of three areas. These 

three areas are on the south side of the DOS Cabezas 

Mountains, the Sulfur Springs Valley and the San 

Bernardino Valley in the extreme southeastern part of 

the District. 

A limited amount of water quality data has been 

collected at a number of locations. Water from springs 

and wells is generally considered suitable for human 

contact and consumption except where livestock have 

access to the source. Water in the perennial streams 

is generally not suitable for human consumption 

because of high bacterial counts but is usable for 

human contact (recreation). Most of the reservoirs are 

used as livestock waters and are not suitable for either 

human contact or consumption. The Bureau of Water 

Quality Control, Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, has repeatedly tested the Gila and San 

Francisco rivers for violations of state water quality 

standards from mining-related activities. Water quality 

standards have occasionally been exceeded. 

Climatic conditions in the planning area are similar to 

those throughout the desert Southwest. Alternating 

lowlands and mountains create abrupt climatic 

changes over short distances. Higher elevations have 

cooler temperatures and more precipitation than 

valleys. Summer days are hot (often above 100 

degrees) but usually not unbearable. Average minimum winter temperatures in the higher elevations fall 

below freezing, and snow is common. Winters in the 

valleys are relatively mild. Annual precipitation averages 7 to 16 inches in the valleys and 15 plus inches in 

the mountains, with most of the rainfall in the late 

summer. Dry conditions are most common from April 

to July and less severe in the fall. Long, severe 

droughts occur irregularly and usually last two to five 

years. 

The northern oriole is a common bird in may plant 

communities in the Safford District. 

125 
Affected Resources 

Air Quality 

Air quality over the planning area is generally good and 

the ambient air quality is rated Class II by the State of 

Arizona. Class II standards allow for moderate deterioration of air quality associated with moderate, controlled industrial and population growth. Sulfur dioxide 

nonattainment areas are found in the vicinity of 

Morenci, Globe, Mammoth, Hayden-Winkleman and 

near the border area of southern Cochise County. The 

District monitors air quality at a monitoring station 

located in the Gila Valley. Precipitation samples are 

collected weekly and have consistently been measured 

at pH 4.7 over a six-year period. This indicates a fairly 

strong acid rain condition. The District does not 

manage any Class I air quality areas. Four Class I 

areas, however, lie within or are adjacent to the 

Resource Management Plan area. The designated 

areas are the Forest Service’s Galiuro and Chiricahua 

wildernesses and the National Park Service’s Saguaro 

National Monument Wilderness East and Chiricahua 

National Monument Wilderness. 

Soil Resource 

About 95 percent of the public lands in the Resource 

Management Plan area are included in modern, 

published soil surveys conducted by the Soil 

Conservation Service. The Soil Survey of San Simon 

Area, Arizona, 1980 and the Soil Survey of GilaDuncan Area, Arizona, 1981, cover the areas of 

blocked federal lands in the District. Soil Conservation 

Service surveys not yet completed that include some 

federal lands are: Graham County, Arizona, southwestern part; eastern Pinal and southern Gila Counties, Arizona; Cochise County, Arizona, northwestern 

part; and Cochise County, Arizona, Douglas-Tombstone part. Lands acquired as part of the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area were surveyed by 

Soil Conservation Service in 1987 under contract with 

BLM. Information on this survey, although not published, is available from either the local Soil Conservation Service or BLM offices. 

A total of 35 soil series were mapped in the San Simon 

Area survey and 42 in the Gila-Duncan survey. These 

soils ranged from shallow soils on hills and mountains 

to deep alluvial soils on the valley plains. 

Salinity The San Simon Area soil survey identified 

three soil series, Bluepoint, Gothard and Pridham, on 

24,167 acres that are affected by either excess salts or 

sodium. These soils all occur in the San Simon Valley. 

Ocotillo and agave are two of the many plant species on 

hillsides surrounding Helen’s Dome near Bowie Mountain. 

The Gila-Duncan Area soil survey, which covers the 

Gila Resource Area and the northern portion of the 

San Simon Resource Area, identified no soils with 

excess salt or sodium problems, although areas too 

small to delineate on a map do occur. 

Soils information received on the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area described no soils with salt 

or sodium problems. Springs in the St. David Cienega 

area, however, do produce saline waters that affect or 

will ultimately affect nearby soils. 

Watershed condition in the areas of saline/alkaline 

soils is generally poor. The soils are generally bare of 

vegetation cover or plant cover is so sparse that little 

protection is provided to the soil surface from water or 

wind erosion. Portions of the Gothard soil unit support 

a cover of alkali sacaton grass that provides some 

erosion protection. Gothard soils with this type of plant 

cover are estimated at 1,000 acres. 

According to the soil surveys (covering 95 percent of 

the public land in the Resource Management Plan 

126 
area), salinity problems are focused on the San Simon 

Valley. The only realistic solution to soil salinity 

problems seems to be to reduce soil erosion and 

improve watershed conditions to prevent soil salts from 

migrating downstream. 

Erosion The two published soil surveys identified 

49,680 acres of severely eroded soils. These soils are 

the Glendale, Gila, Guest and Hantz soil series. 

The vast majority of the acreage, about 40,000 acres, 

is in the San Simon Valley from just upstream of the 

town of Solomon to the town of San Simon at Interstate 

10. This area has been recognized since the 1930s as 

an example of severe erosion. Other areas of major 

erosion are on Railroad Wash southwest of the town of 

Duncan and Bear Springs Flat west of the town of 

Pima. The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area contains a few hundred acres of eroded soils on 

the north end, south of St. David. 

The published soil surveys identified 221,030 acres of 

soils in the San Simon and Bear Springs Flat Watersheds with high susceptibility to wind and water 

erosion. About 150,000 acres occur on public lands 

and the remaining acreage is on state and private land. 

About 100,000 acres of the easily erodible soils are in 

a poor watershed condition. Vegetation cover is 

absent or so sparse it doesn’t adequately protect the 

soil surface from wind or water erosion. The remaining 

50,000 acres of these soils are in good or excellent 

watershed condition. Numerous small swales and 

larger drainages support a healthy cover of tobosa 

grass providing adequate protection for these soils. If 

native cover is removed or the soil is disturbed on 

these acres, severe wind and water erosion may occur. 

All of these soils occur in a bottom or floodplain 

position that floods frequently. 

The Railroad Wash area, outside of Duncan, is currently improving in watershed condition. Structural 

treatments and livestock grazing management are 

improving conditions and further structural treatments 

are not necessary at this time. 

The San Simon drainage has been the scene of 

erosion control efforts, beginning in 1936 with designation of the San Simon Watershed as a critical watershed . Water-spreading dikes, range seedings and 

detention dams, both on the main channel and on side 

channels, have contributed to continuing decreases in 

soil erosion. Three main-channel and 16 side-channel 

detention dams, designed to catch soil and fill eroded 

channels, have been built on the San Simon Watershed. Historically, the Fan Structure has retained an 

average of 5,500 acre feet of sediment per year. 

Comparison of aerial photographs taken in 1935, 1953, 

1972 and 1978 show that gully formation has decreased on the San Simon watershed as a whole. 

Over 20,000 acres of rangeland seedings on upland 

areas have not been successful due to the low rainfall 

of the areas. Seedings on reclaimed bottomlands have 

been very successful in terms of erosion control, 

livestock forage and wildlife habitat development. 

With the implementation of livestock management 

decisions resulting from the Upper Gila-San Simon 

Grazing Environmental Statement (BLM 1978) and the 

implementation of the Eastern Arizona Grazing Statement (BLM 1986), vegetation cover is improving on the 

watersheds of the Safford District. With an increase in 

vegetation cover, soil erosion decreases. 

The Upper Gila-San Simon Grazing Environmental 

Statement proposed the building of two soil-saving 

detention dams on the San Simon Watershed. One of 

these, the Barrier Detention Dam, was built in 1980. 

The proposed Timber Draw Detention Dam needed to 

continue rehabilitation of the river channel will be 

constructed as funds become available. 

The Barrier Detention Dam has already had significant 

effects on the San Simon channel. The old eroded 

channel has been regraded to the natural contour for 

about one and a half miles and is continuing to build up 

the channel farther upstream. Vegetation, both natural 

and reseeded, is increasing the biomass due to the 

water spreading effects of the dam. Cattle are currently excluded from about 300 acres above the dam to 

allow for vegetation improvement. 

The Bear Springs Flat area in the Gila Resource Area 

contains highly erosive soils and numerous headcuts. 

Rangeland seeding, construction of contour dikes and 

large detention dams have been built to control soil 

erosion. Each of these approaches has been only 

minimally successful. The rangeland seeding was a 

failure and much of the area only supports annual forbs 

and grasses to hold the soil. The Oso Largo Detention 

Dam failed in the floods of October 1983 and funds 

have not been available for its repair. 

127 
A young bighorn traverses the rocky ledges of Aravaipa 

Canyon. 

The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area 

has two areas of accelerated erosion. One is in the 

northwest part of the National Conservation Area near 

St. David and the other is in the southern part of the 

National Conservation Area near Palominas. Watershed activity plans will be written and work implemented to mitigate the impacts of erosion. Removal of 

livestock from the National Conservation Area for a 15­

year period will also help vegetation recover and gullies 

heal. 

Throughout the remainder of the Resource Management Plan area, watersheds are in generally fair to 

good condition. Surface rock and vegetation cover 

protect the soil from erosion. Other actions, such as 

prescribed burning and livestock and riparian area 

management, are designed to maintain or improve 

watershed conditions by increasing vegetation cover. 

These actions are used where rough topography or 

high costs make structural treatments impractical. 

Water Resources 

Surface Waters The principal surface waters in the 

District are the Gila, San Francisco and San Pedro 

rivers. The Gila and its tributaries drain most of the 

District except for small parts that drain into the Willcox 

Playa (a closed basin) near Willcox, Whitewater Draw 

north of Douglas and the San Bernardino Valley 

northeast of Douglas. 

Tributaries of importance to other resource programs 

are Redfield, Hot Springs and Bass canyons and 

Bonita and Aravaipa creeks. These tributaries are 

significant because they are free-flowing, unregulated, 

high quality streams that sustain high quality riparian 

and aquatic habitat. They also possess significant 

recreational values. The three rivers and Aravaipa 

Creek provide water for agriculture (including livestock 

grazing), local communities, recreation facilities and 

mining operations. The other streams have their origin 

on public lands or the San Carlos Apache Indian 

Reservation where grazing and dispersed recreation 

are the major activities affecting water. Except during 

floods, surface waters in these major tributaries 

maintain their high quality. 

The riparian areas represent rare and unique habitat in 

the Desert Southwest. Human development, overgrazing and extended droughts have significantly reduced 

the size and number of riparian areas that existed 100 

years ago. Riparian areas provide valuable wildlife 

habitat (including for fish), recreation opportunities, 

flood control, water quality, nutrient recycling, oxygen 

production and scenic values. Riparian areas also 

promote on-site groundwater recharge, improved 

watershed and channel conditions and reduced 

erosion. Riparian areas further serve as migration 

corridors for wildlife by providing habitat continuity 

between territories. 

There are numerous drainages and springs in the 

District that provide water for wildlife, livestock and 

riparian vegetation. Some of these are intermittent 

streams or have perennial flow for only a short part of 

their entire length. There are also several thousand 

stock ponds that provide water for wildlife and livestock 

throughout the District. 

Groundwater Discussion of groundwater will be 

restricted to the artesian wells in the San Simon 

Resource Area because of their diminishing flows and 

importance to resource management. Ten artesian 

wells are located in the northern half of the San Simon 

watershed north of the towns of Bowie and San Simon. 

Several wells have ceased flowing and most of the 

remaining wells have diminished flow. Five of the wells 

were drilled during the mid-to late 1920’s. Of these five, 

one has ceased to flow. The flow data for all the 

remaining wells, except for Salt Well, indicates a 

reduction in flow. 

Water Quality Arizona Department of Health Services 

in 1984 and the University of Arizona in 1985 investigated and documented the quality of water statewide. 

128 
That documentation indicated that surface quality is 

generally good. However, the lack of adequate data is 

cited as a major hinderance to assessment of water 

quality in Arizona. Some state and federal surface 

water quality standards are occasionally violated, due 

primarily to intense or long-duration storms, resulting in 

non-point pollution sources. 

The District has established an on-going water quality 

testing program within the study area. Data collection 

supports other management programs including state, 

by providing information to base decisions on current 

or future management actions, such as Unique Waters 

nominations, monitoring mining pollution, livestock 

management and reintroduction of extirpated fish. The 

testing program involves laboratory analysis of 

samples from selected sites, Water quality data is 

collected from various streams, springs and wells and 

are analyzed for variances from established water 

quality standards. See Appendix 9 for water quality 

testing sites. 

Unique Waters Unique Waters is a special designation program of the State of Arizona designed to 

protect high-quality waters associated with exceptional 

recreational, ecological and wildlife values. The 

designation requires the submission of a nominating 

petition with rationales for the nomination and proof of 

the ability to monitor, maintain and manage the stream 

segment. The designation is approved by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

The District, in coordination with the City of Safford, 

submitted a nomination for a segment of Bonita Creek 

for designation as Unique Waters. The rationale 

centered on the protection of the City of Safford’s water 

supply and the maintenance and enhancement of the 

associated unique and unusual attributes, such as 

riparian habitat, native fish populations, recreational 

use and wildlife. Over the life of the Resource Management Plan, data will be collected and analyzed from 

the remaining streams to determine their suitability as 

Unique Waters. The streams that meet the criteria will 

be formally nominated. 

In-stream Flow Water Rights In-stream flow water 

rights refers to those rights that can be obtained by 

submitting an application to appropriate a specified 

quantity of surface water through the Arizona Department of Water Resources. The application requires 

specific rationales for granting an in-stream flow water 

right, such as the maintenance of fisheries, riparian 

habitat, recreational use or wildlife. Also required are 

the establishment of minimum flows and the development of a hydrologic assessment to demonstrate that 

the requested quantity of water is available. 

In 1981, the District submitted an application to appropriate an in-stream flow water right for a segment of 

Aravaipa Creek. The Arizona Department of Water 

Resources issued a permit in March 1989. The 

Department of Water Resources is prepared to issue a 

Certificate of Water Right after submission of five 

additional years of streamflow monitoring data. Since 

1985 the District has submitted nine additional applications for instream flow water rights. These were for 

segments of the Gila and San Francisco rivers; 

Apache, Mescal and Bonita creeks; and Hot Springs, 

Redfield, Bass and Swamp Springs canyons. The 

rationale for the instream flow water rights for all these 

streams was to protect riparian habitat, native fish 

populations, wildlife and recreational use. The District 

has also acquired an application for an instream flow 

water right for the San Pedro River from the Huachuca 

Audubon Society and Sierra Club. Perfecting the 

water right will provide additional protection for the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

Geology 

General Geology 

The Safford District is situated in the southern portion 

of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. This 

province is characterized by nearly parallel mountain 

ranges that trend north to northwest and are separated 

by broad valleys filled with sediments. The Basin and 

Range Province in Arizona is subdivided into a mountain region, including the Safford District, and a desert 

region occurring in the Sonoran Desert of southwest 

Arizona. The mountain region contains higher and 

wider mountains with less extensive alluvial valleys 

than does the desert region. The mountains of the 

Basin and Range Province represent blocks of rock 

Bass Canyon is an enjoyable day hike through tree-lined 

canyons and flowing water. 

129 
The highly visible DOS Cabezas peaks were navigational 

landmark for early settlers. 

bounded by near-vertical normal faults that were 

upthrown in late Tertiary times. The geology of these 

mountains is generally complex and variable. The 

rocks consist mostly of Precambrian phyllites, schists 

and gneisses; lower to mid-Paleozoic limestones and 

shales; and volcanic rocks from numerous ages, 

ranging from Precambrian through late Cenozoic. The 

geology of the valleys is poorly known because of their 

sediment cover. 

The Basin and Range Province of Arizona is bounded 

on the north and east by what is called the Transition 

Zone. This area separates the Basin and Range 

Province in the southwestern part of the state from the 

Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province in the 

northeastern part of the state. The Transition Zone is a 

poorly defined band up to about 50 miles wide that 

generally has the rock characteristics of the Colorado 

Plateau and the complex structural characteristics of 

the Basin and Range Province. The Colorado Plateau 

of Arizona “...consists of a thick sequence of locally 

folded or faulted but, generally, flat-lying and 

undeformed, sedimentary rocks overlying a basement 

complex of granite and schist. Most of the rocks 

exposed are upper Paleozoic or Mesozoic age, 

predominantly sandstone or limestone” (McColly and 

Anderson 1987). 

Economic Geology 

General 

The mineral potential of the district has been rated 

using the guidance in BLM Manual 3031. A summary 

of the rating for all mineral resources is presented in 

Table 3-l. A description of the potential and certainty 

levels are given in Appendix 11. This mineral resource 

potential information shows the highest rating for a 

resource within the District, but does not imply the 

resource has the potential for uniform occurrence 

throughout the District. 

Locatable Minerals Locatable mineral production in 

the Arizona portion of the Basin and Range Province 

has been prolific over the years and has played an 

important role in the development of the state. Major 

metallic locatable minerals found in the Province, in 

general order of importance, include copper, gold, 

silver, lead, zinc, molybdenum, manganese, tungsten 

and mercury. Non-metallic minerals include asbestos, 

barite and fluorite. The economic geology of the 

Province has been summarized by McColly and 

Anderson (1987) as follows: 

. . . mineral deposits occurring within the Basin and 

Range Province are of many types and sizes . . . . 

Important resources of copper, gold, silver, lead and 

zinc are found in Precambrian-age rocks occurring as 

veins, massive sulfide deposits, or disseminated 

deposits. Asbestos, iron, manganese, mercury, 

uranium and pegmatite minerals also are found in 

Precambrian host rocks. 

Paleozoic rocks, in the Arizona Basin and Range 

Province, are chiefly important for their role as host 

rocks for post-Paleozoic base and precious metals 

deposits. Because of their chemical composition, 

Paleozoic limestones are favored as host rocks and 

are a primary ore control at a number of Arizona’s 

largest and most important mines. Mesozoic rocks, 

including those of Laramide [late Cretaceous] age, are 

of outstanding economic importance to Arizona mining. 

Intrusive rocks of this age are associated with nearly all 

of the larger metal deposits in the Basin and Range 

Province, as well as many of the smaller ones. Copper, molybdenum, gold and silver are the chief metals 

recovered from Laramide-age deposits, but lead, zinc 

130 
 

 

Table 3-1. Mineral Resource Potential 

Ratings 

Mineral Resource Level of Potential Level of Certainty 

Coal O-No Potential D 

Oil and Gas L-Low Potential C 

Geothermal M-Moderate C 

Sodium O-No Potential C 

Potassium O-No Potential C 

Metallic Minerals H-High Potential D 

Uranium L-Low Potential C 

Non-Metallic H-High Potential D 

Common Varieties H-High Potential D 

Source: Safford District files. See Appendix 11 for a description of certainty levels. 

and various other metals and mineral commodities also 

occur in significant quantities. Laramide-age rocks and 

associated mineralization are widely distributed in 

Arizona and where exposed have been extensively 

prospected. 

Locatable mineral potential in the Safford District is 

evidenced by major producers situated virtually from 

one end of the District to the other. The Arizona 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology (Keith et 

al. 1983) lists 27 mining districts in the Safford District. 

These districts, their principal commodities and overall 

value, as determined by McColly and Anderson (1987), 

are shown in Table 3-2. A number of small, poorly 

defined districts are not included with this list; nor are 

areas with mineral potential that are not organized into 

districts. 

Table 3-2. Mining Districts, Commodities Produced and Estimated Values of Each District -

Estimated Value 

Mining District Commodities Produced (in $million) 

Aravaipa

Ash Peak 

Banner 

Bluebird-Cochise 

Bunker Hill 

California 

Christmas 

Copper Mountain 

DOS Pobres 

Dripping Springs 

Golden Rule 

Lone Star 

Mammoth-San Manuel 

Mascot 

Middle Pass 

Mineral Creek 

Pearce 

Reef 

Saddle Mountain 

Sanchez 

San Juan 

Summit 

Swisshelm 

Table Mountain 

Tombstone 

Turquoise 

Warren 

lead, zinc, silver, gold and copper

silver, gold, manganese, copper and lead 

lead, copper, silver, gold and zinc 

copper, zinc, silver, gold, tungsten and lead

copper-molybdenum, lead, silver and gold 

lead, silver, zinc, copper and gold

copper, gold and silver

copper-molybdenum, silver, gold, zinc, lead 

and manganese 

copper 

gold, uranium, copper-molybdenum, silver 

lead and zinc 

gold, silver, lead and copper 

copper

copper-molybdenum, gold, silver, lead, zinc, 

uranium and tungsten

gold, silver, copper and lead 

zinc, copper-molybdenum, silver, gold and lead 

copper-molybdenum, silver, gold, lead 

and zinc 

silver, gold, copper, lead and zinc 

tungsten

copper, silver, gold, lead and zinc 

copper

copper and silver

copper, silver, gold and lead

lead, silver, zinc, copper and gold 

copper and gold

silver, gold, lead, copper, manganese and zinc 

copper, silver, gold, lead and manganese 

copper, gold, silver, zinc, lead and manganese 

32.5 

39.5 

34.8 

207.1 

65.1 

5.3

 1,010.l 

25,319.0 

4.837.4 

2.3 

5.2 

4,200.O 

17,713.3 

14.8 

7.6 

15504.1 

193.9 

1.6 

6.2

 1,679.6 

582.3 

15.0 

11.0 

22.2 

427.4 

68.1 

9,514.5 

Source: McColly and Anderson (1987) 

131 
Copper Mountain and Warren are the largest mining 

districts in the area. The Morenci open pit copper mine 

in the Copper Mountain District is the nation’s largest 

copper producer, with over a half billion pounds of 

copper produced in 1987. The Bisbee Mine in the 

Warren District is presently a small producer of 

leached copper but has historically been a major 

producer. Current exploration and development efforts 

indicate that the Warren District may again become a 

major producer. Magma Copper Company’s San 

Manuel Mine in the Mammoth District is the nation’s 

largest underground metal mining operation with a 

production in 1987 of nearly a quarter billion pounds of 

copper. Cyprus Mineral Company’s open pit Christmas Mine (Christmas District) is currently inactive but 

has been a large copper producer. Large tonnages of 

copper ore occur in the Gila Mountains north of 

Safford. Phelps Dodge has developed one underground ore body there but temporarily suspended 

mining in 1983. There are currently plans for the 

development of a large open pit copper mine in the 

Sanchez District, located about 10 miles northeast of 

Safford. 

Other metal producers are located around Tombstone, 

Pearce, DOS Cabezas, Ash Peak, Johnson and 

Aravaipa. Commodities produced include copper, 

gold, silver, lead and zinc. The industrial mineral 

zeolite is mined in the San Simon Valley. Most current 

production comes from non-federal lands, since the 

lands containing producing mines are generally 

patented mining claims. Recent mining activity on the 

public lands, as evidenced by the number of mining 

plans and notices filed in the Safford District Office 

since 1981 (when such notification became required), 

is mostly in the areas of Ash Peak, Copper Mountain, 

Turquoise Mountain, zeolite deposits north of Bowie, 

and gold placers scattered around the District (see 

Map 23). 

Leasable Minerals Leasable minerals in the Safford 

District consist primarily of geothermal energy. The 

District contains three general areas with geothermal 

potential as well as several thermal wells and springs. 

The Clifton-Morenci area contains Arizona’s two 

hottest springs (70% and 82°C). The Safford-San 

Simon area contains several artesian wells that 

discharge water up to 49°C. The Willcox area contains 

wells that discharge water up to 54°C. One well near 

Pima reportedly produced water at 59°C. The CliftonMorenci area has been leased for geothermal resources in the past, as has the San Bernardino Valley 

area. There are currently no geothermal leases on 

public lands within the District. 

There are no known commercial reserves of coal, oil or 

gas in the District. A few deep exploratory wells were 

drilled in the early 1980s but there has been no activity 

since. Any oil and gas drilling in the District would 

have to be considered exploratory. The current 

economic climate precludes much exploratory drilling 

by oil and gas companies with no change for the 

foreseeable future. A possible exploration and development scenario for the reasonably forseeable future is 

shown as Appendix 10. The only known coal in the 

area occurs as thin, subeconomic seams of low quality 

coal on the San Carlos Indian Reservation. 

No other significant reserves of other leasable minerals, such as sodium, potassium and helium, are known 

to occur within the Safford District. 

Salable Minerals Salable minerals in Arizona, such 

as sand and gravel, stone, clay and pumice “...are 

generally widespread and readily available in most 

places” (McColly and Anderson 1987). Construction 

materials, especially sand and gravel, are by far the 

commodities in greatest demand in the state. Such 

materials are very common in the District with sand 

and gravel occurring in virtually every wash and 

stream. Due to the economics involved in hauling 

material to the marketplace, most material sites are 

located within a range of about 10 miles from the point 

of use. 

Lands and Realty 

Exchanges The Arizona State Land Department, 

through a series of grants, in-lieu selections and 

exchanges since 1912, has acquired lands that created 

an intermingled land pattern with the public lands. 

These land ownership patterns have complicated the 

resource management programs of both agencies. In 

a cooperative effort to remedy this management 

problem, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed 

by BLM and the Arizona State Land Department in 

March 1985 to initiate a joint land exchange program. 

As a result of the on-going exchange program with the 

state, the public land ownership pattern has been 

consolidated northeast of Interstate 10 in Graham and 

Greenlee counties; in the vicinity of Aravaipa Canyon; 

the Muleshoe Ranch area of the Galiuro Mountains; 

and north and west of Safford. There are still some 

isolated parcels of public land, mostly in Cochise 

County. Many of these parcels were included in 

exchange proposals, but were dropped because of 

mining claim encumbrances. Exchanged lands had 

similar resource values so no significant resources 

were lost. As a result of exchanges since 1985, 

202,406 acres of public lands within the Safford District 

have been exchanged for 214,731 acres of state lands. 

133 
Under the proposed RMP, right-of-way corridors will be 

established to minimuze impacts in sensitive areas. 

Approximately 47,668 acres of land along the San 

Pedro River have been acquired through private and 

state exchanges. Congressional legislation in November 1988 designated these lands as the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area. The purpose of 

these exchanges was to place high-value natural 

resources in public ownership. 

Recreation and Public Purposes Local governments 

and non-profit organizations have acquired public land 

at little or no cost under the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act of 7926. Either by lease or patent, these 

lands have been dedicated to specific uses such as 

parks, schools, landfills or shooting ranges that benefit 

the public at large. Five parcels of land have been 

patented (totalling 399 acres) and nine leases issued 

(totalling 877 acres) under the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act during the past 10 years. 

Sales There have been some sales of public land 

within the District. Some tracts are better suited, often 

because of location, for private ownership rather than 

public. The sale parcels have not been large, the 

largest in recent years being 80 acres. The District has 

sold 14 parcels of land, totalling 847 acres, during the 

past 10 years. 

Communications Sites Three major communication 

sites are currently being utilized. The most developed 

is the Guthrie Peak site, located in the Black Hills east 

of Safford, supporting 10 primary right-of-way holders. 

The other two sites, Mule Mountain/Juniper Flats north 

of Bisbee, and DOS Cabezas east of Willcox have 

fewer holders. See Map 27. A communication site plan 

for Guthrie Peak is under development that will dictate 

the level of development for that site. Projects are 

pending for the development of site plans for the DOS 

Cabezas and Mule Mountain/Juniper Flats sites. 

Rights-of-Way, Utility and Transportation Rights-ofway for utility and transportation facilities have been 

granted to qualified individuals, businesses and 

governmental entities. Issuance is based on iidentified 

need and stipulations to protect natural and cultural 

resources are provided to the applicant. The District 

has approximately 608 active rights-of-way involving 

such uses as power transmission/distribution facilities 

roads and highways, communication sites, telephone 

lines, irrigation and water facilities, oil and gas pipelines, federal facilities and railroads. 

Major transportation and utility systems rights-of-way 

crossing the Resource Management Plan area are 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. and Tucson 

Electric Power Co. transmission lines, and All American Pipeline and El Paso Natural Gas Co. pipelines. 

Interstate Highway 10 crosses the entire District from 

east to west. 

No formal utility corridors have been established. 

Corridors are often desirable to provide the private 

sector with secured routes for project planning purposes. Section 503 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act requires that in order to minimize 

adverse environmental impacts and a proliferation of 

separate rights-of-way, corridors will be used to the 

extent practical. 

Withdrawals Certain lands within the Safford District 

have been withdrawn. Withdrawals withhold an area of 

Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry 

under some or all of the general land laws. Withdrawals can also transfer jurisdiction of public land to 

another federal agency. 

The following withdrawals are in effect in the Safford 

District (some of these are multiple withdrawals in the 

same area and some are overlapping withdrawals): 

� Power Site Reserve 602 and Secretarial OrderWater Power Designation - 2,277 acres 

134 
. Power Project - 3,310 acres . Middle Gila River Project - 804 acres . San Carlos Irrigation Project (three withdrawals) 

- 9,383 acres . Power Site Reserve 153 (two withdrawals) ­

3,399 acres . Power Site Reserve 590 and Secretarial OrderWater Power Designation - 2,023 acres . National Guard Safford - 400 acres . Charleston Dam and Reservoir (two withdrawals) 

- 1,989 acres . Ft. Huachuca and Electronic Proving Grounds 

(four withdrawals) - 19,599 acres . Willcox Bombing Range - 27,277 acres 

- National Guard Douglas - 640 acres . Camelback Dam and Reservoir - 14,592 acres 

Wildlife Habitat 

The Safford District has a rich, diversified terrestrial 

wildlife fauna consisting of over 300 species of birds, 

40 species of herptiles and 80 species of mammals. 

The existence of these species is due to the habitat 

diversity present throughout southeastern Arizona. 

These terrestrial habitats range from the low rainfall 

Chihuahuan Desert found in much of the southern 

portions of the District to the moderate rainfall at 

moderate elevations of the more mountainous regions. 

Animal species receiving highest priority for funding 

and habitat improvement projects are: (1) federally 

listed threatened or endangered species; (2) priority 

wildlife species as identified by the Bureau in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department; and 

(3) other species, habitats or features of local importance. 

Riparian/Aquatic Habitat In Arizona, 60 percent of 

wildlife species are dependent upon riparian and 

aquatic habitats. Twenty-eight priority species or 

communities require riparian/aquatic areas. They are 

the Colorado squawfish, Gila topminnow, desert 

pupfish, woundfin, loach minnow, spikedace, Gila 

chub, Gila roundtail chub, razorback sucker, bald 

eagle, western yellow-billed cuckoo, gray hawk, 

Mississippi kite, zone-tailed hawk, common blackhawk, willow flycatcher, belted kingfisher, osprey, 

spotted owl, ferruginous pygmy-owl, white-faced ibis, 

Chiricahua leopard frog, plains leopard frog, lowland 

leopard frog, Mexican garter snake, black bear, turkey 

and waterfowl. Protection and management of this 

biological diversity is linked to the 0.5 percent of the 

land that is riparian and aquatic habitat. Its ecological 

value is far greater than its proportionate size, and 

BLM has set a national goal of having 75 percent of its 

riparian habitat in good or excellent condition by 1997. 

The desert vegetation of the uplands is quite different from the 

riparian vegetation below in Guadalupe Canyon. 

The larger aquatic habitats found in the District are the 

Gila, San Francisco and San Pedro rivers, Aravaipa 

and Bonita creeks. There are numerous smaller 

streams, providing isolated aquatic habitat throughout 

the District. In addition, ponds and springs are important local habitat for some of the 30 species of fish 

found on public lands. 

Because so many priority species and communities on 

the quality and quantity of these small ecosystems, 

management efficiency can be enhanced by concentrating on riparian and aquatic habitat rather than on 

individual species. Physical, chemical and biological 

linkages between aquatic and riparian areas mean that 

impacts upon one quickly affect the others. Riparian 

areas in the Safford District also are important migration corridors through Arizona’s deserts for birds 

moving between tropical wintering areas and breeding 

areas farther north. The value of riparian habitat 

extends beyond District, state or national boundaries. 

Ferruginous hawks, a federal candidate species, are 

present in the District during migration and wintering 

times. The wide range and nonspecific habitat use 

precludes specific management prescriptions. They 

feed upon small mammals, therefore, Bureau management programs that maintain early successional 

communities favored by rodents, benefit fenuginous 

hawks. 

Maternal bat caves are irregularly located throughout 

the District. Eagle Creek Bat Cave serves as the 

largest maternity roost for Mexican free-tailed bats, 

Tadarida brasiliensis, in Arizona and the entire Southwest. It now contains well over 100,000 bats, with 

historic estimates suggesting as many as 100 million. 

On a national basis, it is second only to some Texas 

caves. Due to the large number of bats, along with 

135 
other small animals, the cave reportedly once held the 

highest concentration of mammals and, perhaps, 

vertebrates in the state. 

Bats are important for insect control, and Eagle Creek 

bats are estimated to consume over 80,000 pounds of 

insects nightly. Bats are also important prey for hawks 

and falcons. 

Mexican free-tailed bats have an extremely low 

reproductive potential and are very susceptible to 

human disturbance. Human activities in and near the 

cave, as well as agricultural pesticides, have led to 

drastic population declines. 

Terrestrial Habitat Priority species include the desert 

tortoise, bighorn sheep, mule deer, white-tailed deer, 

Montezuma quail, wild turkey, black bear, pronghorn 

antelope and Texas horned lizard. 

Desert tortoises are restricted to Sonoran Desert areas 

in the lower San Pedro River Valley. Plant communities used include palo Verde-cactus, desert grasslands 

and some open chaparral or encinal (oak woodland) 

patches with southerly exposures. Desert washes 

appear to be especially important. Systematic 

transects to determine the range and abundance of the 

species were begun in 1988. Tentative results indicate 

desert tortoise may occur at low to moderate densities 

on 25,000 acres of public lands in the Safford District. 

The importance of the population of desert tortoise in 

the San Pedro basin is complicated since this is the 

northeast limit of the species’ range, and its ecological 

and biological value may not be proportional to its 

apparent low numbers. Habitats will be categorized by 

densities and management options and will be protected to the degree required by Bureau policy. Preliminary observations indicate perennial grasses, low 

shrubs or annual grasses and forbs are important food 

items depending upon habitat and time of year. A 

critical feature throughout the District seems to be the 

presence of natural shelter sites, common along desert 

washes. 

Lands administered by the Safford District contain two 

subspecies of bighorn sheep. The Rocky Mountain 

bighorn is found in suitable habitat along the Gila and 

San Francisco rivers from Bonita Creek on the west to 

the New Mexico state line on the east. Desert bighorn 

sheep are found in three major places in the northern 

part of the District. The largest population, 150-200 or 

more sheep, is found in and around Aravaipa Canyon 

Wilderness. A smaller population, 50-l 00 sheep, is 

found in the Galiuro Mountains around the Muleshoe 

Ranch and Redfield Canyon areas. The smallest 

population, consisting of less than 50 individuals, is 

located in the Peloncillo Mountains in the east-central 

part of the District. Habitats preferred by bighorn 

sheep are remote, relatively open, precipitous areas 

with rocky ridges, slopes and canyons. Preferred 

foraging areas are mostly found within the above 

mentioned habitats. These foraging areas consist of 

upland and mountain grasslands, with scattered trees 

and shrubs. Threats to bighorn sheep include habitat 

degradation or loss, predators, disease, poaching and 

human activities. 

Desert mule deer occur throughout the District and are 

the most common big game species. Areas of highest 

concentrations are the Galiuro, Peloncillo, DOS 

Cabezas and Mule mountains. Concentrations range 

from five to seven deer per square mile (Arizona Game 

and Fish Department 1988). Mule deer prefer semiarid, sparsely vegetated areas dominated by shrubs, 

such as mesquite, spicebush and oak, and scattered 

juniper and oak trees. These preferred habitats are 

found most often in the rolling hills and open mountain 

areas. There is some habitat overlap between mule 

deer and white-tailed deer in the DOS Cabezas, 

Chiricahua and Mule mountains. The major threats to 

mule deer are habitat degradation and loss. 

The white-tailed deer prefer the oak woodland habitat 

dominated by oak and juniper trees with scattered 

shrubs, forbs and abundant perennial grasses. Areas 

of the highest densities are the Galiuro, Chiricahua, 

Santa Teresa and Mule Mountains. White-tailed deer 

populations are considerably lower than those of the 

mule deer with densities ranging from two to four deer 

per square mile on these better habitats. 

136 
Montezuma quail prefer grassy, open, oak woodland 

canyons and wooded mountain slopes with bunchgrass. The best habitat in the District is in the DOS 

Cabezas, Chiricahua, Mule and Galiuro mountains. 

The major threat to the existing populations is loss of 

high-quality perennial grasses in oak woodland plant 

communities. 

Wild turkeys prefer oak woodland habitat with nearby 

riparian vegetation in the mountains of southeast 

Arizona. Suitable habitat is available in the DOS 

Cabezas, Chiricahua, Gila, Santa Teresa, Winchester, 

Galiuro and Mule mountains. The only verified presence of turkeys in the Safford District, however, is in 

Bonita Creek and Guadalupe Canyon. Turkeys have 

been observed on Forest Service lands adjacent to the 

District in the upper San Francisco River area. The 

current turkey population is estimated to be very low. 

An opportunity exists to reintroduce the Gould’s turkey 

into suitable habitat in several mountain areas. 

In the Southwest, black bears prefer mountainous 

vegetated areas of chaparral, pinyon-juniper and oak 

woodlands. Black bears are very adaptable and may 

be found in all habitats of the oak woodland vegetation 

types, especially when adjacent to riparian vegetation. 

The population of black bears is estimated to be 

moderate to low in these types. Bear numbers depend 

on the condition of oak woodland and adjacent riparian 

areas and will vary according to long-term management strategies. 

Pronghorn antelope inhabit the semidesert grasslands 

in southeast Arizona. Habitat preference is open 

grasslands with scattered shrubs and moderate to high 

densities of forbs. A small population of pronghorn 

antelope exists in this habitat on the east slopes of the 

Peloncillo Mountains along the Arizona-New Mexico 

border. Pronghorns move unrestricted between the 

two states in this habitat. In December 1986, 37 

pronghorn were released east of the Peloncillo Mountains to supplement the small, declining population of 

approximately 15 animals. The present population 

consists of 50 to 60 individuals. Suitable but unoccupied habitat exists in several small areas in the extreme southeastern portion of the District and around 

the Galiuro Mountains. Threats to pronghorn include 

disease, poaching, predation and human developments. The small number of animals increases their 

vulnerability to these threats. 

Texas horned lizard habitat includes dry areas in 

mostly open country with loose soil supporting grass, 

mesquite and cactus. These lizards appear to be 

common in parts of the District. Few surface disturbances are so widespread as to jeopardize blocks of 

habitat, and preferred habitat is seldom exposed to 

major disturbances except by mining and livestock 

grazing. No specific efforts have been made for 

management of this species. 

Other priority species include the peregrine falcon, 

Sanborn’s long-nosed bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, 

red bat, ferruginous hawk, mountain lion, javelina, quail 

and dove. These priority species are so widespread or 

use so many plant communities that management 

focus is difficult. Generally, good land management 

practices that balance uses with long-term production, 

plus standard stipulations on mining actions, provide 

good protection. Because of the large area occupied, 

projects are seldom constructed solely for one of these 

species. Their needs are, however, incorporated into 

the design and development of all proposed actions. 

Peregrine falcons, Mexican long-tongued bats, red 

bats and Sanborn’s long- nosed bats have very 

specific breeding sites and feeding areas that can be 

protected by specific Bureau actions. They do, however, forage in a wide area throughout the District at 

other times of the year. Javelina, mountain lions, quail 

and dove are present virtually throughout the District at 

varying densities. They are important either as an 

important component of the ecosystem, an economic 

impact upon the livestock industry, or for recreational 

activities. 

Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Species 

A number of threatened, endangered and special 

status species are found on public lands in the Safford 

District. Table 3-3 lists the species and their status. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing is managed through allotment 

management plans, most of which were developed 

from decisions resulting from the Upper Gila-San Simon 

Grazing Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1978) 

and the Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental Impact 

Statement (BLM 1986). These plans were written for a 

specific unit of rangeland (allotment) based on multipleuse resource management objectives established 

through existing land use plans and activity level plans 

by resource specialists and permit-tees. An Allotment 

Management Plan establishes objectives, seasons of 

use, grazing system, numbers of livestock permitted on 

the range, range improvements, monitoring plans and 

evaluation procedures for the allotment. 

The District range program manages 129,037 animal 

unit months of authorized active use and 10,150 

animal unit months of non-use in 262 allotments. 

There are 109 allotments being managed under the 

guidelines of an implemented allotment management 

137 
Table 3-3. Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Wildlife Species 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Status 

Safford Fed. State 

MAMMALS 

red bat Lasiurus borealis B C 

spotted bat Euderma maculatum ? 2 C 

southwestern cave myotis Myotis velifer brevis 0 2 

California leaf-nosed bat Macrotus californicus A 2 C 

Sanborn’s long-nosed bat Leptonycteris sanborni 0 E E 

Mexican long-tongued bat Choeronycteris mexicana 0 2 T 

greater western mastiff-bat Eumops perotis californiccus 0 2 

grizzly bear Ursus arctos Ex T E 

Chiricahua western harvest Reithrodontomys megalotis 

mouse arizonensis 0 2 

jaguar Panthera onca A E E 

jaguarundi Felis yagouarundi tolteca Ex E 

ocelot Felis pardalis Ex E E 

river otter Lutra canadensis Sonora Ex 2 E 

Arizona black-tailed Cynomys ludovicianus 

prairie dog arizonensis Ex 2 E 

Chihuahuan pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

mexicana B T 

Arizona shrew Sorex arizonae ? T 

Mexican gray wolf Canis lupus baileyi Ex E E 

BIRDS 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus W C 

least bittern lxobrychus exilis M C 

boblink Dolichonyx oryzivorus A E 

crested caracara Polyborus plancus A C 

gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis A T 

whooping crane Grus americana A 

western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis B T 

long-billed cuckoo Numenius americanus M 

black-bellied whistling duck Dendrocygna autumnallis 0 C 

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus B E 

great egret Casmerodius albus M E 

snowy egret Egretta thula M E 

northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis Ex* E 

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus B C 

southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus B E 
 

Table 3-3. Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Wildlife Species (continued) 

Common Name Scientific Name Safford Fed. State 

Status 

Apache northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis apache A C 

common black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus B C 

, ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis W T 

northern gray hawk Buteo nitidus maximus B T 

violet-crowned hummingbird Amazilia violiceps 0 C 

white-faced ibis Plegadis chili M 

thick-billed kingbird Tyrannus crassirostris B C 

tropicak kingbird Tyrannus melancholicus M C 

belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon W C 

Mississippi kite lctinia mississippiensis B C 

osprey Pandion haliaetus M T 

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl Glaucidium brasiliarum 

cactorum B 2 E 

spotted owl Strix occidentalis 0 2 T 

thick-billed parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha R E E 

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii W C 

western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus M 2 C 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla M T 

wood stork Mycteria americana A E 

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii W T 

Arizona grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

ammolequs B 2 

elegant trogon Trogon elegans M C 

HERPTILES 

Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis ? T 

lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis 0 2 C 

plains leopard frog Rana blairi ? E 

Mexican garter snake Thamnophis eques B 2 C 

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum B 2 

Sonoran tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi ? 2 E 

desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii B 2 C 

FISH 

bonytail chub Gila elegans Ex E E 

Gila chub Gila intermedia B 2 T 

Gila roundtail chub Gila robusta grahami B 2 T 

loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis B T T 

desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius 

macularius B E E 

139 
=

=

=

-

=

-

� 

� 

Table 3-3. Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Wildlife Species (continued) 

Status 

Common Name Scientific Name Safford Fed. State 

spikedace Meda fulgida B T T 

Colorado squawfish Ptychocheilus lucius Ex E E 

razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus 0 1 E 

Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis B E T 

woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus Ex* E E 

INVERTEBRATES 

Bylas springsnail Apachecoccus arizonae B 2 

Gila Tryonia snail Tryonia gilae B 2 

Reintroduced 

Breeds on public lands T Threatened 

C 

A Accidental occurrence	 R

 Candidate ior state listing	 W Winter Residenl 

E Endangered Probable 

Ex Extirpated Proposed for reintroduction 

M Candidate for lederal listing 

O Known occurrence 

Migrant	 1 or 2 

Source: Safford District Files

plan. Priorities for managing livestock use are determined through an allotment categorization process that 

helps determine management priorities. There are 

currently 60 allotments in the “Improve” category, 37 in 

“Maintain”, and 165 in “Custodial.” These categories 

are defined as follows: 

Improve (I) Category criteria 

� Present range condition is unsatisfactory and/or 

needs improvement. 

- Allotments have moderate to high resource 

production potential and are producing at low to 

moderate levels. 

� Serious resource-use conflict and/or controversy 

exists. 

� Opportunities exist for positive economic return
 

from public investments.
 

Present management appears unsatisfactory
 

and/or needs improvement.
 

Allotments in the “I” category require either a change in 

management practices to improve conditions and 

achieve a relatively high resource potential or mitigation of serious resource conflicts. 

The management objectives for “I” allotments are to 

improve current resource conditions or resolve conflicts, Therefore, “I” allotments will have first priority for 

range improvement funding, AMP development, 

monitoring and use supervision. 

Range condition, trend and precipitation will be monitored on all “I” allotments. Utilization and actual 

livestock use will be monitored on the allotments that 

receive livestock grazing use. Other studies to monitor 

water and wildlife habitat will also be conducted. 

Maintain (M) Category Criteria 

� Present range condition is satisfactory. 

Allotments have moderate or high resource 

production potential and are producing near their 

potential (or trend is moving in that direction). 

� No serious resource-use conflict/controversy 

exists. 

� Opportunities may exist for positive economic 

return from public investments. 

Present management appears satisfactory. 

Generally, allotments in the “M” category have no 

serious resource conflicts and range conditions 

and present management are satisfactory. The 

140 
� 

 

Ash and other riparian trees provide shade for hikers In 

Atavaipa Canyon Wilderness. 

management objective for “M” allotments is to maintain 

current resource conditions. Range condition and 

trend, precipitation and actual livestock use will be 

monitored on “M” allotments by priority ranking as 

funding permits. “M” allotments will have second 

priority for funding of range improvements and for AMP 

development. 

Custodial (C) Category Criteria 

_	 Present range condition is not a factor. 

� Allotments have low resource production potential and are producing near their potential. 

Limited resource-use conflict/controversy may 

exist. 

.	 Opportunities for positive economic return on 

public investment do not exist or are constrained 

by technological or economic factors. 

� Present management appears satisfactory or is 

the only logical practice under existing resource 

conditions. 

Allotments in the “C” category include those with a 

small percentage of public land or those with low 

resource potential where response to management 

would not yield positive economic returns. The management objective for this category is to employ 

minimum management to the allotments while protecting existing resource values. 

Permittees will assume a major role in range monitoring and range improvement construction for “c” 

allotments. BLM will conduct periodic use supervision 

on these allotments. 

Currently, the District is heavily involved in monitoring 

allotments to determine the success of meeting 

allotment management plan objectives. Monitoring is 

described in the Safford District Monitoring Plan (‘BLM 

1978 and BLM 1986) and more specifically in completed allotment management plans. Included in the 

monitoring program are livestock counts, trend and 

utilization studies, and precipitation data. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are identifiable cultural properties 

and any traditional lifeway value. Cultural properties 

are the nonrenewable remains of past human activity 

and consist of: (1) manufactured items such as stone 

tools, pottery, fire hearths, buildings, works of art, etc.; 
(2) non-manufactured items used by people in their 

natural state such as rock shelters for housing purposes, or the skeletal remains of an animal that had 

been butchered by a prehistoric hunter; (3) areas 

where significant human events occurred even though 

evidence of the event no longer remains; and (4) the 

natural environment immediately surrounding the 

actual resource (BLM Manual 8100). 

A traditional lifeway value is a group’s shared values. 

These values are useful or important to the maintenance of a specified social and/or cultural groups 

traditional system of (1) religious belief, (2) cultural 

practice or (3) social interaction, not closely identified 

with definite locations. Because traditional lifeway 

values are abstract, nonmaterial, ascribed ideas, one 

cannot know about them without being told. 

Cultural resources are viewed as part of the history of 

humankind. Since we cannot learn about past traditional lifeway values without public participation, 

cultural properties serve as the only link for understanding these nonrenewable resources. To facilitate 

The Fishhooks WSA in the Gila Mountain is recommended for 

wilderness designation. 

their discussion, cultural properties are commonly 

classified according to the cultural period or tradition 

they represent. A common scheme used in the 

Southwest classifies cultural resources as being 

associated with the (1) Paleoindian Period, (2) Archaic 

Period, (3) Southwestern Cultural Traditions, (4) Protohistoric Period (5) Historic Period or (6) Contemporary 

Period. 

Paleoindian Period This cultural tradition refers to the 

original New World inhabitants who migrated into North 

America from Asia during the closing of the Pleistocene, or last great ice age. Most researchers date this 

period from circa 10,000 B.C. to circa 8,000 B.C. The 

Paleoindian lifeway was shaped by a highly nomadic 

existence wherein small social groups or bands would 

forage the countryside in pursuit of animal and plant 

resources. 

Sites of Paleoindian activity are often extremely difficult 

to recognize due to the sparse physical remains of 

these highly nomadic hunters and gatherers. Recognition is further hindered by geological and other natural 

processes that, in the course of several thousand 

years, can hide or obliterate even the most highly 

visible cultural property or archaeological site. 

Although Paleoindian sites are extremely rare, the San 

Pedro River Valley has produced the largest known 

concentration of such sites in North America. Most of 

the San Pedro sites have been interpreted as being kill 

sites where animals, particularly mammoth, were felled 

and butchered. Several of these sites are considered 

to be of world-class status because of the information 

they contain about early people in North America. 

Evidence of these big-game hunters is characteristically associated with the distinctively shaped Clovis 

spear point. Usually these spear points are found 

alongside other stone tools and the bones of extinct 

Pleistocene mammals buried beneath soils marking 

the geological end of the Pleistocene Age in the 

Southwest. 

The significance of Paleoindian sites is that they 

contain rare information regarding the peopling of the 

New World and human adaptation to a postglacial 

environment. 

Archaic Period The Archaic Period is believed to 

have occurred from at least 8,000 B.C. to about A.D. 

100. During this period people lived a more settled 

lifestyle than previously and only hunted modern 

species of game animals. They also relied on gathering wild plants and, toward the end of this period, 

began to domesticate plants such as corn, beans 

and squash. This reliance on vegetal resources is 

142 
evidenced by milling tools used for grinding seeds into 

edible flour and the presence of food storage pits 

inside the remains of brush houses. 

Recognizing Archaic sites from surface observations 

can be extremely difficult because of their age, lack of 

distinctively shaped projectile point types, and other 

kinds of diagnostic artifacts. Because of this, the 

number of sites is difficult to determine. 

The Archaic sites known to exist in the District are in 

fairly good condition due in part to their relatively 

unimpressive nature, which usually consists of small 

surface scatters of stone tools and chipping debris. 

Buried sites are threatened principally by erosion. 

Archaic sites located in rockshelters and caves are 

likely to be damaged by vandals and collectors searching for burial goods, basketry, sandals and other 

artifacts. 

Archaic Period sites are significant in that they represent the most enduring adaptational period of human 

occupation in the New World. These sites fill a data 

gap bridging the transition from nomadic big-game 

hunting to settled village life and agriculture. 

Southwestern Cultural Traditions At about A.D. 100 

prehistoric societies in the Southwest began to undergo dramatic changes in response to adopting an 

agricultural way of life based upon a primary food 

complex of corn, beans and squash. The reliance 

upon these and other crops allowed these people to 

spend most of their time in one place. This new 

lifestyle was marked by a wide-scale population 

increase, establishment of numerous villages with 

large agricultural fields and complex irrigation systems, 

the development of extensive trading networks and 

regional trading centers, and an elaboration of ceremonial and religious customs. 

The basic population groups taking part in these 

cultural developments were the Mogollon, Hohokam 

and Anasazi. A fourth cultural group, known as the 

Salado Complex, appears late in the period and 

probably represents a restructuring of the three existing 

traditions. By A.D. 1450 these developments ceased 

and native groups suffered extensive culture collapse. 

This was followed by wide-scale population abandonment and the disappearance of whole societies. 

Cultural groups during this period are distinguished 

from each other on the basis of certain diagnostic traits 

particularly in architecture and ceramics. Mogollonaffiliated sites outnumber the others in the District and 

tend to be located in mountainous areas and in valleys 

alongside major drainages and terraces. Many of the 

so-called Mogollon sites along major drainages display 

Hohokam characteristics as well, especially those that 

date toward the latter part of the period. 

Researchers believe these Mogollon-Hohokam 

“blended” sites show that intense trading relationships 

existed with the Hohokam people from the Phoenix 

and Tucson areas. The major trading frontiers appear 

to have been along the Gila and San Pedro rivers. The 

Tres Alamos site along the San Pedro River, in part, 

appears to have been a major Mogollon-Hohokam 

regional trading center. 

Bonita Creek Canyon, located northeast of Safford in 

the Gila Mountains, is the only area in the District 

known to contain properties that display Anasazi 

characteristics. Located along Bonita Creek are 

numerous cliff dwellings, elaborate rock art paintings 

and at least one ceremonial cave. This assemblage of 

sites represents one of the most dense and varied 

collections of cultural properties in the District. 

Properties displaying Salado characteristics occur 

primarily as villages with associated agricultural fields 

along the Gila and San Pedro rivers. Most Salado 

villages have been destroyed by historic and modern 

farming practices. Relatively little is known about the 

Salado Complex; it remains somewhat of a puzzle to 

archaeologists in the Southwest. 

Cultural resources from the Southwestern Cultural 

Traditions are much more elaborate and diverse than 

those from any other prehistoric time period. This is 

due to the variety of features and artifacts associated 

with complex societies. Because of this, these sites 

are more likely to be damaged by vandals and collectors searching for painted pottery and other elaborate 

artifacts than damaged from natural processes, 

grazing, recreation and other uses. 

Cultural properties of the Southwestern Cultural 

Traditions are significant for several reasons. Most 

important, they show that the area apparently served 

as a “crossroads.” Here the Hohokam from the west 

and the Anasazi from the north interacted socially and 

economically with the Mogollon, whose greatest 

cultural display occurred to the east in New Mexico. 

This overlap of cultures provides a rich variety of data 

for investigating the effects of trading relationships 

between societies, the rise of agricultural societies, and 

the ability of archaeologists to distinguish former 

culture groups. 

Protohistoric Period. This period, occurring immediately before written history, occurred from about A.D. 

1450 to A.D. 1700. The accounts of early Spanish 

explorers and missionaries in the late 17th century 

documented the existence of two distinct cultural 

143 
groups in southeastern Arizona, the Sobaipuri and the 

Apache. 

The Sobaipuri were first encountered by the Spanish 

along the San Pedro River where these riverine 

adapted people were practicing agriculture and some 

irrigation. They lived in distinctively shaped wattle-anddaub houses known as “jacals.” The Sobaipuri abandoned the San Pedro Valley in the mid-18th century 

due to diseases introduced by the Spanish, the social 

consequences of the Spanish mission system, and 

Apache raiding and warfare. 

Apache peoples, specifically the Western and 

Chiricahua Apaches, practiced a hunting and gathering 

lifestyle. Later, the Western Apache began to practice 

some limited agriculture. Raiding and warfare were 

also important economic. The Aravaipa Canyon area 

harbored an extensive Western Apache settlement. 

Historic ranching and other related activities are 

believed to have destroyed most of the evidence of this 

settlement. 

Both Sobaipuri and Apache cultural properties are 

difficult to recognize. The Apache made a crude, yet 

distinctive type of pottery. The only known Sobaipuri 

properties in the District are along the San Pedro River. 

Apache properties are relatively common within the 

District, at least theoretically. The number of sites is 

extremely hard to determine because of the difficulty in 

identifying them. 

Protohistoric sites often contain European artifacts, 

making them difficult to distinguish from historic sites 

where Anglo-American remains overlay aboriginal 

remains. Their significance is that they provide the 

bridge between unwritten and written history. 

Spanish Period (1534-1820) The earlier part (1534­

1690) of the Spanish period was characterized by 

frontier exploration and military campaigns against the 

Hopi and Zuni in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico. Access to the Hopi and Zuni areas 

was generally through the San Pedro and Gila valleys 

from what is now Mexico. The exact routes are not 

known due to the lack of accurate historical records. 

The route, however, is believed to have traversed the 

San Pedro River until it reached the present day 

community of Benson. From there it trended northeasterly, passing between the Galiuro and Winchester 

mountains. The route then went into the Gila Valley by 

way of the upper Sulphur Springs and Aravaipa 

valleys. After crossing the Gila River in the vicinity of 

Fort Thomas, it proceeded over the Gila Mountains 

and northward to the Hopi and Zuni areas. The route 

is commonly known as the Coronado Trail. No known 

cultural properties remaining from this portion of the 

Spanish Period have been found. 

The later part of the Spanish period (1691-l 820) 

reflects the missionary influence of native populations 

and the military campaigns against the Apache. 

Numerous architectural sites, settlements and visitas 

remain as evidence of the Spanish presence. The 

Presidio of Santa Cruz de Terrenate, located on the 

upper San Pedro River, is listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Some also believe the site 

may be the location of the Sobaipuri village of Quiburi. 

Ruins of a Butterfield Stagecoach station are located near the 

Peloncillo Mountains. 

144 
Mexican Period (1821-l 848) Southeastern Arizona 

became a possession of Mexico in 1821 as a result of 

the War of Mexican Independence. The area, however, never really developed a Mexican identity 

because of its remoteness and sparse population. 

Associated with this period is the probable military 

encampment of Colonel Stephen Watts Kearny, 

located along the Gila Trail. The encampment is listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places. Apache 

raiding and warfare continued throughout this period 

and traders and trappers, mountain men and bounty 

hunters spread into Arizona. These relatively few 

numbers of people involved with these short-term 

activities left little in the way of cultural properties and 

artifacts. The significance of the Mexican period is that 

it marks the beginning of the Anglo-American influence 

in southeastern Arizona. 

Anglo-American Territorial Period (1848-1912) 

This period began the development of travel routes, 

ranching, mining and towns. Settlers created trails, 

such as the National Register of Historic Places-eligible 

Safford-Morenci Trail, stage coach lines, such as the 

Butterfield Overland Stage Line, and military telegraph 

lines. Significant ranches, such as the Salazar, 

Muleshoe and Boquillas were established. Additional 

settlers came into the area to work at the newly 

created mines and ore-processing sites, such as 

Morenci, Millville and Contention. Historic farms with 

elaborate irrigation canals were built by pioneer 

Mormon farmers. Historic sites are considered significant for the information they contain about the development of the area by American pioneers. 

Contemporary Period (1912-Present) Farming, 

ranching and mining intensified during this period. The 

Civilian Conservation Corps built soil and water control 

features during the 1930s to help check erosion 

caused by overgrazing and farming. Cobble detention 

dams, rock features and camps that are still in good 

condition may possess National Register qualities. 

Isolated cabins and other habitation structures from 

this period can be dated through historic artifacts if they 

have not been removed by collectors. Sites associated 

with copper, lead and gold mining also have considerable local and historical significance. 

Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources (fossils) are the remains or 

traces of organisms that have been preserved by 

natural processes in the earth’s crust. They are usually 

associated with sedimentary rocks and deposits rather 

than with igneous or metamorphic formations. Geologic formations were superimposed over one another 

during the course of time and represent the depositional history of the earth’s crust. Fossils occurring 

within this depositional history evidence the biological 

history of the earth. The earliest invertebrate fossils 

(those without backbones) are from the Paleozoic Era 

dating between 250 to 600 million years before the 

present. Fossils from the Mesozoic Era (65 million to 

250 million years before the present) are conspicuous 

by the absence of reptiles such as the dinosaurs. The 

current mammalian age or Cenozoic Era began around 

65 million years before the present. All of the District’s 

vertebrate fossil sites are from the latter part of this era. 

Information on Safford District paleontological resources has been taken from a literature search 

(Lindsay 7979) of all existing records with references to 

District fossils. 

Periodically, fossils become exposed on the surface. 

These exposures may be localized or, more typically, 

in numerous localities of varying extent. They occur in 

association with geologic formations that typically 

meander throughout the landscape. 

I I 

White outcrops of diatomaceous earth on 111 Ranch are 

Pilocene and Pleistocene Age fossilized diatoms. 

145 
There are 64 invertebrate sites and 77 vertebrate sites 

on public lands in the District. The two paleontological 

areas of greatest significance are both Class I vertebrate sites. The Bear Springs Badlands Paleontological Area, covering approximately 16 square miles, 

contains fossilized remains of 12 different kinds of 

animals (Tomida 1987). Most of these were large 

elephant-like mammals, early horses including a threetoed horse, camel, peccary and cat. These mammals 

are grouped into the Blancan assemblage and lived 

from 1.9 million to 4.3 million years before the present. 

Also located in the Bear Springs Badlands are fossilized footprints of animals from this period. Erosion 

appears to present the greatest threat to the fossils. 

Vandalism of sites does not appear to be a problem to 

date. 

The other major fossil area is known as the 111 Ranch 

Paleontological Area. Although large mammals such 

as those found at Bear Springs are present, 111 Ranch 

contains an extensive variety of intact, complete fossils 

of small mammals as well. The fossils represent one 

of the better assemblages of the Southwest. They are 

found in Pliocene deposits that are overlain by deposits 

of Early and Middle Pleistocene age. The Blancan 

vertebrate fossils provide a valuable climatological and 

chronological indicator. The fossils are contained in 

diatomaceous earth deposits that have been and are 

still threatened by mining activities. 

The Hot Well area may be another area of possible 

significance. The area has not been extensively 

studied but does contain vertebrate fossils. Hot Well is 

an area of rapidly increasing recreational use containing sand dunes and a geothermal spring. 

Vegetation 

The vegetation resource on public lands within the 

Safford District is diverse, abundant and important to 

other resources and to the general ecology of the 

District. The significance of this resource is reflected in 

the riparian ecosystems, watershed condition, wildlife 

habitat, livestock forage, and water quality and 

quantity. 

Riparian Communities The riparian areas of the 

District are composed of seven different plant communities. These communities are described as follows: 

Mixed Broadleaf Riparian This type is a gallery forest 

with a double-layered canopy. The upper layer is 

composed of Arizona sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, 

velvet ash, Arizona walnut, Goodding willow and 

Bonpland’s willow in various combinations of pure 

stands of a single species to mixed stands of three, 

four, or five species. The understory comprises young 

trees of the above mentioned species as well as 

shrubs and trees from higher elevations. Forbs and 

grasses may or may not be present, depending upon 

disturbances and amount of shade. 

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian This community is 

characterized by a gallery forest of Fremont cottonwood and Goodding willow along major drainages, 

usually below 3,000 feet elevation. This community is 

sometimes intermixed with mesquite and tamarisk as 

well as shrubs, grasses and forbs. The primary grass 

species associated with it are bermuda grass and giant 

sacaton. 

Mesquite Bosque Large mesquite, with a closed 

canopy 30 to 45 feet high, characterize this community. 

A shrub layer may or may not be present. The major 

grass is giant sacaton. This community is located only 

along major drainages. 

Tamarisk Bosque Tamarisk in pure stands or mixed 

with other short trees is found in disturbed or eroded 

areas along lower elevation streams and rivers and 

may occur on the edges of stock ponds. 

146 
 

 

Riparian Scrub This type is usually composed of a 

dense stand of narrowleaf shrubs. Dominant species 

are usually seepwillow, desert willow or coyote willow. 

Other species could include mesquite, catclaw and 

tamarisk. 

Oak Riparian A continuous line of large oaks characterize this type, usually found above 4000 feet in 

elevation. Emory oak, Arizona white oak, Mexican 

blue oak and chittamwood are usually the dominant 

tree species. Other chaparral shrubs or mixed broadleaf riparian tree species are intermixed with these. 

Marshlands and Cienegas Associations of cattail, 

sedges and rushes dominate these areas. Salt grass 

may also be present at dryer edges. 

Approximately 7,906 acres (328 miles) of riparian 

vegetation have been defined in the District meeting 

the definition used by BLM. Of this acreage, 452 acres 

(11 miles) are classified as in excellent condition, 3,335 

acres (100 miles) in good condition, 3,058 acres (150 

miles) in fair condition and 1,061 acres (67 miles) in 

poor condition. In addition, 191 acres (10 miles) along 

the San Simon River were considered to have lost all 

riparian vegetation. Due largely to increased emphasis 

on riparian management over the past 10 years, the 

trend of most riparian areas is improving and much of 

the remainder is static. Overall, nearly 48 percent of 

the riparian vegetation within the District is classified as 

in good or better condition. 

Upland Communities The District’s upland or nonriparian vegetation was mapped into Up/and Biotic 

Communities by Brown, Lowe and Pase (1979). The 

communities are described as follows: 

Great Basin Conifer Woodland This community 

consists mainly of various junipers and several varieties of pinyon. Two small areas of public lands within 

the District contain some Ponderosa pine. Gambel oak 

is also present at the higher elevations. Mixed shrubs, 

forbs and grasses are usually present. This community comprises less than one percent of the public 

lands (about 42,200 acres) in the Safford District. 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland This community, also 

relatively small (about 6,000 acres), is made up of 

evergreen oaks, various species of juniper and associated shrubs, forbs and grasses. 

Interior Chaparral Pointleaf manzanita is the most 

abundant species in this community. It is associated 

with scrub oak and silk tassel. It usually forms a 

community that has a complete canopy cover with 

virtually no understory vegetation. This community 

occurs solely on granitic soils and covers less than one 

percent of the District (about 9,000 acres). 

Scrub Grassland Tobosa grass, various grama 

grasses, shrubs and halfshrubs characterize this 

community. The most abundant shrubs are mesquite 

and whitethorn. Dominant halfshrubs are burroweed 

and snakeweed. This community comprises about 

442,800 acres of public lands in the District. 

Chlhuahuan Desert Scrub This community is composed mainly of shrubs, principally mesquite, 

whitethorn, tarbush, creosote bush and mariola. 

Grasses are sparse or non-existent. This association 

covers about 592,100 acres of public lands in the 

District. 

Sonoran Desert Scrub Dominant species are creosote bush, bursage, brittlebush, palo verde and cactus. 

This community is most prevalent on the lower portions 

of the western half of the District, covering about 

300,000 acres. Grasses are relatively sparse. 

The End of Year Range Condition Report (1990) lists 

about 66,000 acres in excellent condition, 542,000 

acres in good, 406,000 acres fair, and 291,000 acres in 

poor condition and 111,000 acres unclassified. The 

apparent trend in rangeland condition is improving on 

147 
the vast majority of the District. This upward trend in 

condition is attributed to reductions in livestock numbers, better livestock management and increased 

rainfall in the past 10 years. 

Threatened and Endangered

Species 

Several federally listed or candidate threatened and 

endangered plant species are found on public lands in 

the Safford District. Table 3-4 lists the species and 

their status. 

Outdoor Recreation 

The public lands provide the setting for a wide variety 

of recreation opportunities in the District. Though most 

opportunities are for dispersed activities, developed 

recreation sites are also present. Activities vary from 

off-highway vehicle driving to backcountry hiking in 

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness or rafting in the Gila Box. 

Erosion of the soft rocks at Red knolls has requited in a 

display of many unusual features. 

Some of the more common activities include hunting, 

fishing, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, 

rockhounding, picnicking, camping, floatboating, 

sightseeing, birdwatching and nature study, photography and off-highway vehicle driving. Many of these 

activities do not require developed facilities. 

Table 3-4. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Safford 

Status 

Federal 

Status 

PLANTS 

beeplant Cleome muiticaulis ? 2 

night blooming cereus Cereus greggii transmontanus 0 3c 

Cochise pincushion cactus Coryphantha robbinsorum ? T 

Arizona hedgehog cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus 

arizonicus 0 E 

Pringle’s fleabane Erigeron pringlei 0 2 

Lemmon’s fleabane Erigeron lemmonii ? 2 

Bar-tram’s echeveria Graptopetalum bartramii ? 2 

needle spine pineapple Echinomastus erectrocentra 

cactus erectrocentra 0 2 

rosewood Vauquelinia pauciflora 0 2 

0 = Known occurrence 

? = Probable occurrence 

E = Endangered 

T = Threatened 

2 = Federal candidate lor listing 

3C= Larger representation than previously believed 

Source: Salford District Files 

148 
the vast majority of the District. This upward trend in 

condition is attributed to reductions in livestock numbers, better livestock management and increased 

rainfall in the past 10 years. 

Threatened and Endangered

Species 

Several federally listed or candidate threatened and 

endangered plant species are found on public lands in 

the Safford District. Table 3-4 lists the species and 

their status. 

Outdoor Recreation 

The public lands provide the setting for a wide variety 

of recreation opportunities in the District. Though most 

opportunities are for dispersed activities, developed 

recreation sites are also present. Activities vary from 

off-highway vehicle driving to backcountry hiking in 

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness or rafting in the Gila Box. 

Erosion of the soft rocks at Red knolls has requited in a 

display of many unusual features. 

Some of the more common activities include hunting, 

fishing, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, 

rockhounding, picnicking, camping, floatboating, 

sightseeing, birdwatching and nature study, photography and off-highway vehicle driving. Many of these 

activities do not require developed facilities. 

Table 3-4. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Safford 

Status 

Federal 

Status 

PLANTS 

beeplant Cleome muiticaulis ? 2 

night blooming cereus Cereus greggii transmontanus 0 3c 

Cochise pincushion cactus Coryphantha robbinsorum ? T 

Arizona hedgehog cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus 

arizonicus 0 E 

Pringle’s fleabane Erigeron pringlei 0 2 

Lemmon’s fleabane Erigeron lemmonii ? 2 

Bar-tram’s echeveria Graptopetalum bartramii ? 2 

needle spine pineapple Echinomastus erectrocentra 

cactus erectrocentra 0 2 

rosewood Vauquelinia pauciflora 0 2 

0 = Known occurrence 

? = Probable occurrence 

E = Endangered 

T = Threatened 

2 = Federal candidate lor listing 

3C= Larger representation than previously believed 

Source: Salford District Files 

148 
Some facilities have been developed, however, for the 

benefit of the public. Fourmile Canyon Campground 

near Klondyke is used primarily by hunters and visitors 

to Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness. Three picnic sites 

have been built -two on the Gila River between 

Safford and Clifton, and a third at the foot of the DOS 

Cabezas Mountains near Bowie. Limited facilities are 

provided elsewhere. Signs, trash barrels, visitor 

register boxes and parking areas are provided at two 

rockhound areas, Safford-Morenci and Aravaipa 

Canyon Wilderness trailheads, and three access points 

to the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

The old Safford-Clifton road has also been designated 

as the Black Hills Backcountry Byway and provides 

sightseeing opportunities for the public. 

Areas of concentrated recreation use include hiking 

and backpacking in Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness; 

picnicking on the Gila River at the Old Safford-Clifton 

Road Bridge and Spring Canyon; picknicking on the 

Gila River near Winkelman, camping and picnicking at 

Bonita Creek; off-highway vehicle driving in the Gila 

Box (summer); northeast of Sierra Vista, and the Hot 

Well Dunes in the San Simon Valley southeast of 

Safford; floatboating the Gila and San Francisco rivers 

through the Gila Box (spring); and big and small game 

hunting Districtwide. Birdwatching and nature study 

occur mostly in riparian areas, particularly at Bonita 

Creek, Eagle Creek, Muleshoe Ranch, Guadalupe 

Canyon, Aravaipa Canyon and the San Pedro River. 

The quality of the recreation experience in the District 

varies with the activity and the expectations people 

have of their experiences. High-quality experiences 

are generally available for most of the activities, though 

at times crowding and lack of facilities or information 

can diminish the experience. To maintain the wilderness setting and the quality of the backcountry experience, use of Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness is limited to 

50 people per day. Special recreation use permits are 

issued by the District to control the numbers of visitors 

to protect the fragile resource and the wilderness 

experience. 

Data on recreation use statistics is kept for Aravaipa 

Canyon Wilderness, Fourmile Canyon Campground, 

the two rockhound areas, the picnic site at the Old 

Safford-Clifton Road bridge and the three entry points 

to the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

Use levels are generally stable Districtwide. Offhighway vehicle use at Hot Well Dunes, and 

floatboating in the Gila Box appear to be gaining in 

popularity. Visitor use is anticipated will continue 

increasing on the San Pedro and Gila Box Riparian 

National Conservation Areas as facilities are developed and the public lands are opened to further 

recreation use. Designated wilderness areas are also 

expected to receive increased recreation use. 

Visual Resources
 

The landscape features of the District are varied and 

thus so is the visual, or scenic quality. While perceptions of scenery are individually determined, certain 

landscape features can be assessed. The form, line, 

color and texture (basic landscape elements) of the 

topography, soil, vegetation and human developments 

all affect a scene. Generally, a landscape with a 

harmonious variety of the basic elements will be more 

interesting and appealing. 

Since the Basin and Range Physiographic Province is 

an area of broad, gently sloping valleys with rugged 

mountains rising abruptly above them, this Province 

includes a variety of landscape types with many scenic 

areas. The rugged topography of the Black Hills and 

the Gila, Mescal, Whitlock, Peloncillo, Mule and DOS 

Cabezas mountains provide varied landscapes and 

scenic views. The canyons of the Gila and San 

Francisco rivers and Aravaipa, Redfield and Swamp 

Springs creeks also provide interesting and scenic 

views. The combination of landform and vegetation 

creates outstanding scenery in other parts of the 

District, including the San Pedro River, Black Rock and 

Guadalupe Canyon. Soil erosion in the Bear Springs 

Flat area has created some interesting and scenic 

topographic features. Areas with less topographic and 

vegetation variability, and thus less scenic quality, 

include the creosote flats at the base of the Gila 

Mountains and the desert shrubs and grasslands along 

the San Simon River Valley. 

Agricultural modification is evident along the Gila River 

from Safford to Fort Thomas, Interstate 10 near Bowie 

and San Simon, the Gila River near Duncan and the 

Aravaipa and San Pedro valleys. Mineral development 

has created significant changes to the landscape in the 

mountains north of Clifton and Morenci, in the Dripping 

Springs Mountains at Christmas, in the San Pedro 

Valley near San Manuel and in the San Simon Valley 

north of Interstate 10. 

Visual resource management is a process used by 

BLM to identify and manage the scenic quality and to 

reduce the impact of development activities on the 

scenery. To manage the visual resources, management classes have been developed that describe the 

degree of landscape modification permissible (see 

Appendix 6 for management class definitions). Wilderness study areas are managed as Class II areas 

during the wilderness review process, unless previously designated Class I in prior planning. Table 3-5 

identifies current acreage in the District by VRM class. 

149 
Table 3-5. Visual Resource Management 

Classes by Acreage 

VRM Class Acreage 

I 131,716 

II 17,287 

III 489,063 

IV 646,774 

Unclassified 115,160 

Total 1,400,000 

Source: Safford District Files 

Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

and Other Types of Special 

Management 

The District currently has no designated Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. Through the San 

Pedro Riparian Management Plan (BLM 1989), 

however, three Research Natural Area Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern were recommended and those 

recommendations will be carried forward and implemented in this Resource Management Plan (see Maps 

21 and 22). The San Pedro Area of Critical Environmental Concern proposals are: 

St. David Cienega designate 350 acres to preserve a 

remnant cienega for scientific research. 

San Pedro River designate 1,340 acres to preserve a 

cottonwood/willow riparian area, mesquite bosques 

and Chihuahuan Desert scrub vegetation for scientific 

research. 

San Rafael designate 370 acres to preserve an alkali 

and giant sacaton grassland and a cottonwood-willow 

riparian area for scientific research. 

The Willcox Playa (2,475 acres, eight miles southwest 

of Willcox) is a National Natural Landmark and has 

been managed to preserve the Pleistocene lakebed 

since its designation. 

During the planning process, 34 areas were nominated 

as Areas of Environmental Concerns for consideration 

in this Resource Management Plan. See Tables 3-6 

and 3-7. Dual nominations were received on several 

areas the nominated areas. A brief description of their 

values, and the determination of whether the areas 

qualify for consideration as Areas of Environmental 

Concerns. Areas of Environmental Concern proposals 

are referenced for various alternatives throughout 

Chapter 2, with a more detailed analysis of each area 

in Appendix 2. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

As required by FLPMA and the subsequent Guidelines 

for Futfilling Requirements of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, BLM must study rivers that qualify for 

potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. Two rivers in this area (the Gila and 

San Francisco) were identified by the National Park 

Service in 1982 as needing further study, and are 

addressed in this document as well (See Appendix 3). 

The Wild and Scenic River study process involves 

making an eligibility, classification and suitability 

determination. This Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement will address only 

eligibility and classification as required by the Guidelines and will defer the suitability determination until a 

later date due to the need for further public involvement. Only through the detailed suitability assessment 

and further public involvement will BLM make a 

recommendation through the Secretary of the Interior 

to Congress on suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers. Only 

Congress has the authoriiy to designate a Wild and 

Scenic River through this process. 

Wilderness 

On November 28, 1990, the Arizona Desert Wilderness 

Act was signed by President George Bush. The 

District now has seven designated wilderness areas: 

Aravaipa Canyon, Redfield Canyon, Fishhooks, 

Needles Eye, North Santa Teresa, Peloncillo Mountains and DOS Cabezas mountains totalling 84,622 

acres. The remainder of the wilderness study areas 

which were not declared wilderness are now released 

from further study and returned to multiple use. Baker 

Canyon still remains as a Wilderness Study Area, but 

will be considered in future New Mexico wilderness 

legislation or released for other uses. Although the 

Gila Box was released from future study as wilderness, 

Congress declared the area a Riparian National 

Conservation Area. 

150 
Table 3-6. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Nominations 

Nominated Area 

Values/Hazards Requiring 

Special Management 

Qualified for 

Study? 

1. Aravaipa Canyon riparian veg., native fish, 

T&E, wildlife, water quality yes 

2. Bass, Hot Springs, 

& Redfield Canyons 

riparian veg., native fish, T&E 

wildlife, water quality yes 

3. Bonita Creek city water supply, native fish, yes 

riparian veg., cultural resources 

4. Black Rock unique vegetation, T&E wildlife yes 

5. Day Mine aquatic, riparian vegetation no 

6. Dry Spring relict riparian area yes 

7. Eagle Creek scenery, tiparian veg., sensitive 

wildlife yes 

8. Fishhook Canyon riparian vegetation no 

9. Gila Box scenery, riparian, T&E wildlife, 

native fish, geologic formations, yes 

recreation, cultural resources 

10 Gila River Canyon riparian veg., T&E wildlife, scenery, no 

below Coolidge Dam geologic formations 

11. Gila River Mesquite remnant vegetation type yes 

Bosque 

12 Javelina Peak paleontological, wildlife no 

13. Johnny Creek scenery no 

14. Markham Creek riparian veg., T&E wildlife no 

15. Mescal Creek riparian veg., native fish no 

16. Mescal Mountains relict desert grasslands, 

T&E plant yes 

17. Muleshoe Coop 

Management Area 

riparian veg., T&E wildlife, native 

fish, water quality yes 

18. Pilares and 

Sombrero Butte 

relict desert grasslands yes 

19. Salt Creek riparian veg., wildlife, cultural no 

resources 

151 
Table 3-6. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Nominations 

Nominated Area 

Values/Hazards Requiring 

Special Management 

Qualified for 

Study? 

20. Swamp Spring Canyon riparian veg., sensitive wildlife, 

native fish 

yes 

21. Sycamore Canyon riparian veg., scenery no 

22 Turtle Mountain wildlife, scenery no 

23. Trujillo Canyon riparian veg., scenery no 

24. Turtle Mountain relict desert grassland no 

25. Bear Springs Badlands paleontological 

scenery 

resources, yes 

26. Red Knolls natural hazard no 

27. Baker/Guadalupe Canyons riparian, T&E wildlife, vegetation, scenery yes 

28. Bowie Mtn/Apache Pass scenery, T&E wildlife, cultural 

resources 

yes 

29. DOS Cabezas Peaks historic landmark, 

scenery 

vegetation, yes 

30. Government Peak geologic 

cultural 

formations, 

resources 

scenery, no 

31. Happy Camp, Howell 

and Tar Box Canyons 

scenery, historic sites, riparian no 

32. Peloncillo Mountains geologic formations, 

resources, wildlife, 

cultural 

scenery 

yes 

33. San Francisco River riparian, wildlife, native fish, 

cultural resources 

no 

34. San Simon Cienega riparian wetland no 

35. Willcox Playa natural landmark, T&E plants and 

wildlife, geologic formation, 

cultural resources 

yes 

36. Coronado Mountain unique vegetation yes 

37. 111 Ranch paleontological resources yes 

Source: Safford District Files 
Table 3-7. District Wilderness Status 

Location Total Acreage 

Designated Wilderness 

1. Needle’s Eye 

2. North Santa Teresa (Black Rock) 

3. Fishhooks 

4. Peloncillo Mountains 

5. DOS Cabezas Mountains 

6. Redfield Canyon (Galiuro Add.) 

7. Aravaipa Canyon 

National Conservation Area 

8. Gila Box Riparian NCA 

9. San Pedro Riparian NCA 

Wilderness Study Area 

10. Baker Canyon 

11. Hoverrocker** 

12. Peloncillo Mountains** 

Areas released from further study 

13. Gila Box 

14. Turtle Mountain 

15. Day Mine 

16. Javelina Peak 

17. Bowie Mountain 

18. Hoverrocker (Arizona)

 9,201 

6,590 

10,883 

19,650 

11,988 

6,600 

19,710 

20,900 

54,189 

812 

22 N.M. acreage 

4,061 N.M. acreage 

17,831 

17,422 

17,309 

18,853 

6,156 

2,769 

“Entire WSA in New Mexico 

Source: Salford District Files 

Fire Management 

The fire management program in Safford District is 

separated into two different components, the wildfire 

suppression component and the prescribed fire 

component. 

Wildfire During the past eight years, the District has 

averaged over 18 fires annually, burning slightly over 

1,826 acres per year. These figures represent an 

increase from 10 fires each year and 1,310 acres per 

year for the previous 10 years. Increased frequency 

can be attributed to improved record keeping, an The coati spends hot summer afternoons napping in the shade increase in winter and spring rainfall, and to increased of wooded canyons. 

153 
The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation , 

Southwest. 

forage conditions due to intensive range management 

efforts brought about since the completion of the 

grazing EIS. 

Present fire policy dictates that suppression action be 

taken on all fire starts, with the most intensive action 

taken when life, property or critical resources are 

threatened. Such areas have been delineated and 

planned for in the District Fire Management Plan. 

One of the more critical vegetation types in the District 

is the Mixed Broadleaf Riparian. The components of 

this type are very susceptible to fire damage. Ordinarily, there are not enough contiguous fuels to 

successfully carry a fire very far and most fires in this 

type are small. 

The more significant fires with respect to size occur in 

the scrub grasslands in the higher elevations, in the 

Sonoran Desert Scrub, in the higher elevations and in 

the Chihuahuan Desert Scrub. The amount of annual 

rainfall plays a very significant role in fire size and 

intensity, since rainfall affects the presence of fine fuels 

(grasses) needed to carry the fire from one area to the 

next. 

Prescribed Fire Fire has been used to a limited 

extent in the past for vegetation manipulation to reduce 

heavy brush concentrations, to open areas for increases in grass species or better forage quality and to 

provide easier movement of both livestock and wildlife. 

Such fires are restricted to those times and places 

where control of the fire can be maintained. Certain 

conditions (prescriptions) must be met before ignition 

and maintained during the burning. Because of the 

difficulty of meeting prescription conditions, this 

technique of vegetation manipulation has not been 

extensively used. Where it has been used, however, 

the results have been favorable. Increased use of 

prescribed fire as a resource management tool is 

currently being planned. 

Social and Economic 

Conditions 

The Resource Management Plan socio-economic 

conditions of each of these counties. The source of 

the information is the Arizona Statistical Review (Valley 

National Bank 1988). 

Greenlee County Greenlee County, named for 

Mason Greenlee, an early southeastern Arizona 

pioneer, was created in 1909. Its topography consists 

of mountain ranges, river valleys and deserts. The 

County has a land area of 1,838 square miles. Land 

154 
 

ownership is 79 percent federal, 12 percent state and 9 

percent private. The major communities are Clifton, 

the county seat, (4,215 people, 1988 estimate) and 

Duncan (690 people). The unincorporated mining town 

of Morenci is also located in the county. County 

population in 1980 was 11,406. The estimated population for 1988 was 9,500, a 17 percent decrease. 

Population projections for the year 2000 are 9,100, a 

continued decrease. Population density in 1988 was 

5.2 people per square mile. 

The principal industries of Greenlee County are copper 

mining and smelting, ranching and tourism. The 

following Table 3-8 shows employment figures. 

Personal income totalled $77,400,000 in 1986, down 

from previous years. Per capita income was $9,003, 

32 percent lower than the state average of $13,300. 

Per capita income, however, was comparable or higher 

than previous years in Greenlee County. The following 

Table 3-9 shows economic indicators for Greenlee 

Countv. 

Table 3-8. Employment in Greenlee County 

Employment Status Monthly Avg.-l987 June 1998 

Total Employed 2,950 2,675 

Unemployed 

Number 275 275 

Rate (seasonally adjusted) 8.5% 9.7% 

Non-farm Wage and Salary 3,175* 2,875 

Manufacturing 25 75 

Mining 1,575 1,600 

Construction 625 225 

Transportation & Public Utilities 50 50 

Wholesale/Retail Trade 225 225 

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 25 25 

Services 125 125 

Government 525 550 

Farm and Agricultural Related 

Wage & Salary and Self-Employed No figures available. 

‘Many non-farm Wage and Salary employees work In Greenlee County but restde elsewhere. 

Source: Arizona StatistIcal Review, Valley National Sank, 1998. 

Table 3-9. Economic Indicators in Greenlee County 

Indicator 977 1987 % Change 

Population 11,900 9,600 - 19.3% 

Wage & Salary Employment 3,825 3,175 - 17.0%

Retail Sales $30,179,000 $37,736,000 + 25.0%

Bank Deposits $29,761,000 $45,117,000 + 51.6% 

Vehicle Registrations 10,016 7,731 - 22.8%

Motor Fuel Consumption (gals.) 4,930,000 3,670,584 - 25.5% 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review, Valley National Sank. 1988 

155 
 

 

Graham County Graham County was probably 

named after Lieutenant Colonel Graham, a member of 

an 1850s survey party. The Gila River crosses the 

county from east to west and many farms flourish 

along its banks. The county has a land area of 4,630 

square miles, with 22 square miles of water. Land 

ownership is 38 percent federal, 18 percent state, 37 

percent Indian reservation and 7 percent private. The 

leading towns are Safford, the county seat, (7,755 

people, 1988 estimate), Thatcher (3,485) and Pima 

(1,935). County population in 1980 was 22,862. The 

estimate for 1988 was 24,800, an increase of 8.5 

percent. Population projections for the year 2000 are 

26,300, an increase of 15 percent from 1980. Population density in 1988 was 5.4 people per square mile. 

The principal industries of Graham County are farming 

and ranching, tourism and recreation. The following 

Table 3-10 shows employment figures. 

Table 3-10. Employment in Graham County 

Employment Status Monthly Avg.-l987 1988 

Total Employed 6,975 7,300 

Unemployed 

Number 775 750 

Rate (seasonally adjusted) 10.0% 9.1% 

Non-Farm Wage and Salary 4,825 5,000 

Manufacturing 200 200 

Construction 175 200 

Transportation & Public 

Utilities 150 150 

Wholesale/Retail Trade 1,275 1,625 

Finance, Insurance & Real 

Estate 125 125 

Services 800 875 

Government 2,100 1,825 

Farm & Agricultural Related 

Wage & Salary and Self-Employed 2,150 2,300 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review, Valley National Bank, 1988 

Table 3-11. Economic Indicators in Graham County 

Indicator 1977 1987 % Change 

Population 21,000 24,700 + 17.6%
 

Wage & Salary Employment 4,175 4,825 + 15.6%

Retail Sales $71,241,000 $78,427,000 + 10.1%

Bank Deposits $59,342,000 $98,779,000 + 66.5%
 

Vehicle Registrations 14,727 18,083 + 22.8%

Motor Fuel Consumption (gals.) 13,230,000 9,174,342 - 30.7%
 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review. Valley National Bank, 1988 
Personal income totalled $185,100,000 in 1986, higher 

than previous years. Per capita income was $7,810, 

41 percent lower than the state average of $13,300. 

Per capita income, however, was higher than previous 

years in Graham County. Table 3-l 1 shows economic 

indicators for Graham County. 

Gila County Gila County was named for the Gila 

River and is dominated by desert and mountainous 

terrain. The county has a land area of 4,752 square 

miles, with 41 square miles of water. Land ownership 

is 59 percent federal, 1 percent state, 37 percent 

Indian reservation and 3 percent private. The leading 

towns are Payson (7,745 people, 1988 estimate), 

Globe, the county seat (6,435), and Miami (2,545). 

County population in 1980 was 37,080. The estimate 

for 1988 was 40,500, an increase of 8.5 percent. 

Population projections for the year 2000 are 45,800, an 

increase of 19 percent from 1980. Population density 

in 1988 was 8.5 people per square mile. 

The principal industries of Gila County are copper 

mining and smelting, ranching, lumber, tourism and 

recreation. The following Table 3-12 shows employment figures. 

Personal income totalled $357,200,000 in 1986, up 

steadily from previous years. Per capita income was 

$8,997, 32 percent lower than the state average of 

$13,300. Per capita income, however has increased 

from previous years. Table 3-l 3 shows economic 

indicators for Gila County. 

Pinal County Pinal County probably received its 

name from the Western Apache word meaning deer. 

The county is divided into two distinct regions in 

geography and economy. The eastern part is characterized by mountains and copper mining. The western 

region is mainly low desert valleys and irrigated 

agriculture. The county has a land area of 5,344 

square miles, with 30 square miles of water. Land 

ownership is 16 percent federal, 35 percent state, 23 

percent Indian reservation and 26 percent private. The 

leading towns are Casa Grande (17,660 people, 1988 

estimate), Apache Junction (15,950), Coolidge (7,720), 

Eloy (7,345), Florence, the county seat (6,890), and 

Superior (4,860). County population in 1980 was 

90,918. The estimate for 1988 was 110,300, an 

increase of 17.5 percent. Population projections for 

the year 2000 are 149,100, an increase of 39 percent 

from 1980. Population density in 1988 was 20.6 

people per square mile. 

Table 3-12. Employment in Gila County 

Employment Status Monthly Avg.-l987 June 1988 

Total Employed 

Unemployed 

Number 

Rate (seasonally adjusted) 

Non-farm Wage & Salary 

Manufacturing 

Mining 

Construction 

Transportation & Public 

Utilities 

Wholesale/Retail Trade 

Finance, Insurance & Real 

Estate 

Services 

Government 

Farm & Agricultural Related 

Wage & Salary and Self-Employed 

10,800 10,900 

1,500 1,350 

12.2% 10.9% 

10,250 10,525 

1,300 1,325 

1,275 1,375 

675 600 

425 400
 

2,150 2,425
 

275 275 
 

1,700 1,750
 

2,450 2,375
 

550 375 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review, Valley National Bank, 1999. 

157 
 

 

Table 3-13. Economic Indicators in Gila County 

Indicator 1977 1987 % Change 

Population 34,300 40,100 + 16.9%
 

Wage & Salary Employment 10,075 10,250 + 1.7%

Retail Sales $104,160,000 $142,522,000 + 36.8%

Bank Deposits $93,827,000 $230,193,000 +145.3%

Vehicle Registrations 31,399 46,471 + 48.0%

Motor Fuel Consumption (gals.) 20,443,000 20,059,033 - 1 .9%
 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review, Valley National Bank. 1989 

The principal industries of Pinal County are farming 

and ranching, copper mining, tourism and manufacturing. Table 3-l 4 shows employment figures. 

Personal income totalled $939 million in 1986, up 

steadily from previous years. Per capita income was 

$9,170, 31 percent lower than the state average of 

$13,300. Per capita income, however, has increased 

from previous years. The following Table 3-l 5 shows 

economic indicators for Pinal County. 

Cochise County Cochise County was named after 

the famed Chiricahua Apache leader. The county has 

a land area of 6,219 square miles. Land ownership is 

Table 3-14. Employment in Pinal County 

Employment Status Monthly Avg.-l987 June 1988 

Total Employed 33,425 33,675 

Unemployed 

Number 4,175 3,275 

Rate (seasonally adjusted) 11.1% 8.3% 

Non-Farm Wage & Salary 28,900 20,100 

Manufacturing 3,525 3,750 

Mining 3,775 3,900 

Construction 1,500 1,300 

Transportation & Public 

Utilities 1,100 1,225 

Wholesale/Retail Trade 5,125 5,250 

Finance, Insurance & 

Real Estate 800 800 

Services 4,175 4,200 

Government 8,900 8.675 

Farm & Agricultural Related 

Wage & Salary and Self-Employed 4,525 4,575 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review. Valley National Bank. 1989 

158 
 

 

 

Table 3-15. Economic Indicators in Pinal County 

Indicator 1977 1987 % Change 

Population 

Wage & Salary Employment 

Retail Sales

Bank Deposits

Vehicle Registration 

Motor Fuel Consumption(gal.)

87,100 

23,625 

$276,745,000 

$163,348,000 

64,037 

43,824,000 

107,200 

28,900 

$362,742,000

$477,941,000

100,822 

65,373,638

+ 23.1% 

+ 22.3% 

+ 31.1% 

+ 192.60% 

+ 57.4% 

+ 49.2% 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review, Valley National Bank. 1988. 

24 percent federal, 34 percent state and 42 percent 

private. The leading towns are Sierra Vista (34,290 

people, 1988 estimate), Douglas (14,105), Bisbee, the 

county seat (8,065), Willcox (4,045) and Benson 

(3,975). County population in 1980 was 85,686. The 

estimate for 1988 was 102,400, an increase of 16 

percent. Population projections for the year 2000 are 

129,000, an increase of 33.5 percent from 1980. 

Population density in 1988 was 16.5 people per square 

mile. 

The principal industries of Cochise County are farming 

and ranching, tourism and military. Table 3-16 shows 

employment figures. 

Personal income totaled $960,300,000 in 1986, up 

steadily from previous years. Per capita income was 

$9,952, 25 percent lower than the state average of 

$13,300. Per capita income, however, has increased 

from previous years. The following Table 3-l 7 shows 

economic indicators for Cochise County. 

Table 3-16. Employment in Cochise County 

Employment Status Monthly Avg.-l987 June 1988 

Total Employed 31,850 31.525 

Unemployed 

Number 3,050 2,900 

Rate (seasonally adjusted) 8.7% 8.3% 

Non-farm Wage and Salary 24,700 24,600 

Manufacturing 1,300 1,150 

Mining 100 100 

Construction 1,125 1,200 

Transportation & Public 

Utilities 1,550 1,600 

Wholesale/Retail Trade 5,425 5,375 

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 675 650 

Services 4,350 4,525 

Government incl. military 10,075 10,000 

Farm & Agricultural Related 

Wage & Salary and Self-Employed 7,150 6.925 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review, Valley National Bank 1988. 

159 
 

 

 

iford

Table 3-17. Economic Indicators in Cochise County 

indicator 1977 1987 % Change 

Population 80,700 100,300 + 24.3%
 

Wage & Salary Employment 18,900 24,700 + 30.7%

Retail Sales $232,229,000 $329,854,000 + 42.0%

Bank Deposits $195,431,000 $412,864,000 +111.3%
 

Vehicle Registrations 60,226 81,251 + 34.9%

Motor Fuel Consumption (gals.) 50,297,000 40,721,989 - 19.0%
 

Source: Arizona Statistical Review, Valley National Bank 1998. 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) As required by 

law, the federal government makes a payment to each 

county that has federal lands (public land, national 

forest, national parks, etc.) in its boundaries. This 

payment is called a Payment in Lieu of Taxes and is 

made to compensate county governments for tax 

revenues that would be collected if federal lands were 

in private ownership. Table 3-18 identifies the payments that were made to the counties in the Safford 

District in 1990. 

Public Attitudes and Perceptions With the growth of 

the Bureau into intensive management of the multiple 

uses, BLM constituents have also grown. Public 

involvement in management of the public lands has 

expanded as more and more people use these lands. 

There is an interest or advocacy group associated with 

nearly every program BLM manages. As such, public 

attitudes about how BLM manages the public lands 

cover the entire spectrum from support to opposition. 

Because there are so many uses of the public lands, 

there are many opportunities for user conflicts. As 

such, a decision that one user may find agreeable, 

may adversely affect or preclude the desired activity by 

another user. 

Table 3-18. PILT Payments by County in 1990 

1988 Est. Federal 

County PILT Payment Population Entitlement Acres 

Cochise $611,561 102,400 955,238 

*Gila 706,085 40,500 1,794,355 

Graham 589,379 24,800 1 ,126,016 

Greenlee 89,769 9,500 929,292 

* Pinal 359,429 110,300 940,851 

‘Only parts of these counties are in the Safford District 

Source: Safford District Files 

160 
Introduction 

Chapter 4 identifies the significant environmental 

consequences of implementing specific actions 

proposed in each alternative, including the Preferred 

Alternative. The level of analysis for each element of 

the environment depends on the degree of impact 

expected. Each specialist evaluated the environmental 

consequences of the actions in every alternative to 

determine the degree of impact that was anticipated. 

These determinations form the basis of this chapter. 

The interdisciplinary team concluded that no significant 

impacts would occur to topography, air or climate. 

They will not be addressed further in this document. 

Approval of all actions recommended in the alternatives will be subject to: (1) the completion of the 

appropriate type of National Environmental Policy Act 

document (Administrative determination, Categorical 

Exclusion Record, Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement) and (2) clearances 

as required by the Endangered Species Act, etc. 

Assumptions 

The impact analysis was based on the following 

assumptions: 

1. Funding and personnel would be available to fully 

implement any alternative. 

2. The definition of long-term is 5 years or more. All 

impacts are long-term unless otherwise noted. 

3. Native American religious practices shall receive 

due consideration under the provisions of the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act. 

4. National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

documents will be prepared to determine the 

significance of environmental impacts from the 

implementation of activity plans or site-specific 

actions. 

5. Inventories for cultural resources and Native 

American values will occur on areas of proposed 

land uses. Protection of significant values will 

occur through avoidance and mitigative actions. 

Compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 7966and its implementing regula-tions in 36 CFR 800 will be 

completed before starting specific projects 

resulting from decisions in this plan. 

7. Only those effects that are significant are listed. 

Positive effects are called benefits and adverse 

effects are called impacts. 

Effects of the Alternatives on 

the Environment 

Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) 

Water - Management prescriptions for four Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern totalling 17,734 acres 

would provide low benefits to both water quality and 

quantity. Preservation of these areas would provide 

protection of water quality by reducing erosion and 

sedimentation, while promoting vegetation growth. 

Withdrawal from mineral entry (2,411 acres), prohibition of surface occupancy for mineral leasing activities 

(6,869 acres) and prohibition of mineral material sales 

(6,869 acres) could give low benefits to water quality. 

This is because potential surface disturbances associated with these activities would not occur, thereby 

reducing sedimentation in local waters. 

Restricting off highway vehicles to existing roads and 

trails or prohibiting use in certain areas (1,398,592 

acres) would provide low benefits to water quality by 

reducing soil erosion and sedimentation in streams and 

rivers in the District. 

Soil - The construction of Timber Draw detention dam 

and the repair of Oso Largo detention dam would 

prevent approximately 500 acre-feet of soil from 

leaving the watershed each year. The Timber Draw 

dam would accelerate the filling of the eroded San 

Simon River channel, and the repair of Oso Largo 

detention dam would rehabilitate eroded areas in Bear 

Springs Wash. These actions would have a moderate 

benefit. 

Limiting off highway vehicles to existing roads and 

trails in most of the District would reduce soil erosion, a 

6. All impacts are direct unless otherwise noted. 

163 
low benefit. The designation of the Hot Well Dunes 

(1,708 acres) as open for off highway vehicle use 

would cause accelerated erosion on those acres, a 

localized low impact. 

Riparian Vegetation - Management prescriptions for 

the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern containing 

riparian vegetation (Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area, 

Turkey Creek Riparian, Swamp Springs-Hot Springs 

Watershed and Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding 

Natural Area) would highly benefit riparian areas. Over 

1,500 acres and 40 miles of riparian vegetation would 

improve one condition class. 

Actions limiting vehicle use to existing roads and trails 

would provide high benefits to riparian vegetation by 

limiting disturbance from vehicles. 

Disposal actions would have an insignificant impact on 

riparian systems since less than 25 acres of riparian 

areas would be removed from BLM management. 

Acquisitions would add to the riparian system, offsetting the 25-acre loss. These planned acquisitions 

would give moderate benefits by providing additional 

management and protection. Acquisition of in-stream 

Canyons in the foothills of the Gila Mountains mark the 

easternmost range of the saguaro. 

flow water rights would give high benefits to five 

riparian areas involving 350 acres by ensuring continued streamflow for riparian vegetation protection and 

survival. 

Use of no surface occupancy stipulations for mineral 

leasing activities in riparian areas (2,411 acres) would 

provide low benefits to riparian vegetation because 

activities that would disturb the vegetation would not be 

permitted. Mineral leasing activities would have to 

occur out of the riparian zone. 

Upland Vegetation - Land treatments would have a 

low benefit to vegetation. Generally, only small areas 

(less than 2,000 acres each) are thought to be suitable 

for land treatment. The lack of adapted plant species, 

discontinuous fuels, topographic limitations and 

economic considerations all make large-scale land 

treatments impractical. 

Restricting off highway vehicles to existing roads and 

trails or prohibiting use in certain areas (1,310,713 

acres) would provide low benefits by protecting vegetation from vehicular disturbance. 

Wildlife Habitat - Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern designation of nine areas totalling 26,861 

acres would give protection and moderate benefits to 

18 wildlife species by increasing and improving habitat. 

Management of Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area, 

Turkey Creek Riparian, Swamp Springs-Hot Springs 

Watershed, DOS Cabezas Peaks, Guadalupe Canyon 

Outstanding Natural Area, and Eagle Creek Bat Cave 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern would give 

high benefits to wildlife habitat by preserving unique 

habitat (bat cave, etc.) or riparian ecosystems. Designation of Table Mountain Research Natural Area, 

Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area, Bowie 

Mountain Scenic and Coronado Mountain Research 

Natural Area Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

would provide low benefits to wildlife habitat by protecting necessary habitat from disturbances. 

Designation of bighorn sheep lambing areas as limited 

or closed to off highway vehicle use would provide 

high benefits to the sheep by reducing disturbances, 

thereby increasing lamb survival. off highway vehicles 

limitations and closures would highly benefit 17 priority 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

Management actions planned for priority wildlife 

species (spring protection, prescribed burning, etc.) 

and habitats would have a moderate benefit to wildlife. 

Land acquisitions would provide high benefits to wildlife 

by providing more land under BLM management. 

Withdrawal of 9,829 acres from mineral entry, NSO 

164 
 

stipulations on 14,052 acres and no mineral materials 

sales on 12,371 acres would provide high benefits to 

wildlife habitat by protecting it from disturbance. 

Acquisition of water rights would legally ensure a water 

supply in five streams, affecting 15 priority species. 

This would result in a moderate benefit. 

Cultural/Paleontological Resources - Withdrawal 

from mineral entry, no surface occupancy stipulations 

and closure to mineral material sales would highly 

benefit the paleontological and cultural resources on 

2,927 acres of the Bear Springs Badlands Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern management prescriptions for 

six areas, totalling 14,716 acres, would provide moderate benefits to cultural resources through protective 

actions. The action to close three Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (the Oak Grove Canyon part of 

Turkey Creek Riparian, Desert Grasslands Research 

Natural Area and Willcox Playa National Natural 

Landmark) to vehicles would moderately benefit 

cultural resources, preventing damage associated with 

vehicular use and visitor accessibility. 

Construction of Timber Draw Dam would cause high 

impacts to a potentially eligible National Register 

Archaeological District containing 37 archaelogical 

sites on 1,300 acres. Impacts would be primarily from 

loss of scientific data due to burial of archaeological 

resources, inundation and construction effects. Impacts would be reduced through intensive mitigation 

prior to construction. 

Socio-economic - Withdrawal from mineral entry of 

9,829 acres, no surface occupancy stipulations on 

14,052 acres and the prohibition of mineral material 

sales on 12,371 acres would generally have, on a 

districtwide basis, a low impact on the economy, by 

precluding mineral exploration and extraction. 

The only proposed mineral withdrawal in a highly 

“favorable area” (terminology by the U.S. Bureau of 

Mines) is the Coronado Mountain Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern, located on the western margin 

of the Copper Mountain mining district. This is a 

relatively large district, noted mostly for its porphyry 

copper deposits. Impacts to the mining industry should 

not be significant however, since the Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern occupies only 120 acres on 

the margin of the mining district and the district itself 

covers over 50 square miles. 

Four of the areas proposed for mineral entry withdrawal are in areas of “moderately favorable” potential 

(Bureau of Mines terminology). Two of these (Eagle 

Creek Bat Cave Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Yuma Wash) are less than 200 acres. 

Because very little land would be withdrawn, the 

impact on mining would be low in these areas. The 

other two areas (Bowie Mountain Scenic and Table 

Mountain Research Natural Area Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern) are fairly large (1,220 and 

2,230 acres respectively) and these could have a 

moderate to high impact on mining. The rest of the 

lands proposed for mineral withdrawal are not in areas 

with known potential and would, therefore, have a 

minimal impact on the industry. 

Although there has been no production, the leasable 

minerals, oil, gas and geothermal energy are considered by the BLM to be prospectively valuable in 

scattered areas throughout the District. While all public 

lands (except wilderness areas) are open to the 

mineral leasing laws, a few areas would have no 

surface occupancy stipulations. These stipulations 

would have essentially no impact on geothermal 

activity since all such areas are either small (no larger 

than 160 acres) or are located along riparian zones. 

This same situation holds true for prospectively 

valuable oil and gas lands except for the Bear Springs 

Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The 

relatively large size of this Area of Critical Environmental Concern (2,927 acres) probably precludes all of its 

lands being reached by the drill bit and thus the no 

surface occupancy stipulations for this Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern could have a moderate impact 

on the oil and gas industry in the District. 

Mineral materials such as sand and gravel are common throughout the District, and even with restrictions 

on their sale in a few areas, no shortages are expected. The largest impact to the mineral materials 

industry would be the restrictions of such sales in 

riparian zones. However, given the ample supplies of 

these materials in the numerous dry washes in the 

district, such impacts should be insignificant. 

165 
Great horned owls are a common nocturnal raptor in 

southwastern Arizona. 

The local economy would receive low benefits from the 

designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

and wilderness. Designation of these areas would 

result in increased primitive recreation use, adding to 

the diversification of tourism economies in the local 

communities. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

designations would result in the loss of 2,760 animal 

unit months of grazing. 

The impacts to the economy on a districtwide basis 

from the disposal of 99,670 acres of public lands would 

be low. Any potential impacts from disposal would be 

offset by the benefits to the economy from acquisition 

of 108,562 acres. 

Conclusion 

The selection of this alternative would give moderate to 

high benefits to paleontological and cultural resources 

through the protection measures provided by Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern designation. The 

construction of Timber Draw Dam would cause high 

impacts to archaeological sites in the project area. 

The implementation of the Preferred Alternative would 

provide moderate to high benefits to wildlife habitat and 

riparian vegetation through protection of habitat in 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern management 

prescriptions. Restrictions on off highway vehicle use 

and mining and mineral leasing activities would also 

have high benefits for wildlife habitat by minimizing 

disturbance to wildlife and their habitat. 

Restrictions on mining, mineral leasing activities and 

off highway vehicle use would provide low benefits to 

soil and water quality. Construction or repair of 

detention dams would have a moderate benefit to soil 

retention in the San Simon River channel and the Bear 

Springs Flat area. Upland vegetation would receive 

low benefits from land treatments and restrictions on 

off highway vehicles use. 

Mineral withdrawals, no surface occupancy stipulations, and restrictions on mineral material sales would 

have a low impact on segments of the local economy 

dealing with minerals extraction and exploration on a 

districtwide basis. 

Alternative B 

Water - Management prescriptions for four Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern, totalling 78,522 acres, 

would give low benefits to water quality and quantity. 

Actions that restrict vehicles to existing roads and trails 

(1,309,646 acres) or deny their use (90,354 acres) 

would provide low benefits to water resources by 

reducing the silt in runoff. Withdrawal from mineral 

entry (17,220 acres), no surface occupancy stipulations for mineral leasing (21,729 acres), and prohibition 

of mineral material sales (21,948 acres) would reduce 

soil disturbance, providing moderate benefits for water 

quality. 

Soil - Restrictions of vehicles to existing roads and 

trails or denying their use on 1,400,000 acres would 

provide a low benefit to soil by reducing soil disturbance and erosion. The construction of Timber Draw 

Dam and reconstruction of Oso Largo Dam would help 

regrade eroded areas and reduce soil erosion by about 

500 acre feet per year causing a moderate benefit. 

Riparian Vegetation - Management of four Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern would protect over 

8,455 acres of riparian vegetation. These actions 

would provide a high benefit to riparian vegetation. 

Restricting vehicles to existing roads and trails or 

prohibiting their use in some areas would give a low 

benefit to riparian zones by minimizing vegetation 

disturbance. 

Private land acquisitions would increase riparian 

vegetation under BLM management, a moderate 

benefit. Requiring no surface occupancy stipulations 

for mineral leases on 2,397 acres of riparian vegetation 

166 
would provide low benefits by protecting it from the 

disturbance of mineral leasing activities. 

Unique Waters designations and acquisition of 

instream flow water rights would provide moderate 

benefits to riparian vegetation by ensuring a minimum 

continual flow needed to maintain riparian vegetation 

communities. 

Upland Vegetation - Management prescriptions for 

Aravaipa Watershed and Muleshoe Riparian Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (72,684 acres) would 

enhance the vegetation by increasing the density and 

diversity of species and result in a low benefit to 

vegetation. Any successful revegetation method 

implemented on the Bear Springs Flat area that 

increases vegetation would provide low benefits. 

Limiting or denying off highway vehicle use on 

1,400,000 acres would provide low benefits to upland 

vegetation by protecting it from destruction by vehicles. 

Wildlife Habitat - Designation and management of 

Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area, Muleshoe, 

Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area, Eagle 

Creek Canyon, DOS Cabezas Peaks and Bowie 

Mountain Scenic Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (80,279 acres total) would moderately benefit 

wildlife habitat. Management prescriptions for these 

areas provide for monitoring water quality, improving 

riparian vegetation and placing restrictions on mining 

activities. These prescriptions would benefit 15 priority 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

Closing bighorn sheep lambing areas to vehicles would 

provide high benefits to the sheep by reducing disturbances during critical periods. Off highway vehicles 

limitations and closures would highly benefit 36 priority 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

Management actions planned for priority wildlife 

species and habitats (spring protection, prescribed 

burning, etc.) would give a moderate benefit to wildlife. 

Disposal of 67,716 acres of public lands would have 

negligible districtwide effects on wildlife habitat since 

the criteria for disposal would not permit lands with 

high-quality habitat to be traded or sold. In addition, 

approval of disposal actions will have National Environmental Policy Act compliance documentation. Acquisition of state or private lands having wildlife habitat 

would supply high benefits since these lands would be 

managed by BLM for the benefit of wildlife. 

167 
 

Withdrawal from mineral entry in seven areas (12,652 

acres) would highly benefit all priority species through 

protection of their habitat from mining activities. 

Prohibiting mineral material sales on 21,948 acres 

would provide habitat protection for 17 species, a 

moderate benefit. No surface occupancy stipulations 

(21,669 acres) would give moderate benefits for 15 

species. 

Monitoring water quality would give moderate benefits 

for 17 species in riparian areas by increased water 

quality protection. 

Cultural/Paleontological Resources - Withdrawal 

from mineral entry, no surface occupancy stipulations 

and closure to mineral material sales would highly 

benefit paleontological resources on 4,127 acres of the 

Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. Proposed minerals restrictions on other 

public lands elsewhere in the District would give 

moderate benefits to cultural resources by eliminating 

activities that would damage the resource. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern management 

prescriptions for seven Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, totalling 35,899 acres, would provide moderate benefits to cultural resources through protective 

actions. The closure of two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern to vehicles would moderately benefit 

cultural resources by preventing damage associated 

with vehicular use and visitor accessibility. 

Construction of Timber Draw Dam would cause high 

impacts to a potentially eligible National Register 

Archaeological District containing 37 archaeological 

sites on 1,300 acres. Impacts would be primarily from 

loss of scientific data due to burial of archaeological 

resources, inundation and construction effects. Impacts would be reduced through intensive mitigation 

prior to construction. 

Soclo-economic - Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern designations and additions to wilderness 

would cause low benefits to the local economy by 

diversifying recreation opportunities in the area. 

Withdrawal from mineral entry of 12,652, no surface 

occupancy stipulations of 21,669 acres and the 

prohibition of mineral materials sales on 21,948 acres 

would generally have a low impact on the economy 

because of the extensive nature of the resource within 

the District. 

Six of the areas proposed for withdrawal are in areas 

having moderately favorable potential (Bureau of 

Mines terminology). Coronado Mountain, Eagle Creek, 

Bowie Mountain Scenic, and Table Mountain Research 

Natural Area Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

and Yuma Wash range from 160 to 3,600 acres and 

due to the total amount of acreage, the impact on 

mining would be moderate to high on those lands in 

the district having moderately favorable potential. The 

rest of the lands proposed for mineral withdrawal are 

not in areas with known potential and would, therefore, 

have a minimal impact on the industry. 

Geothermal sources are the only known leasable 

energy potential. This occurs in scattered areas 

throughout the District. Six Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, particularly the Gila Box Outstanding 

Natural Area Area of Critical Environmental Concern, 

have geothermal energy potential. Impacts to the 

geothermal industry, however, would be minimal 

because of the no surface occupancy stipulations in 

five of the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

No restrictions on leasing are placed on the sixth, the 

Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. Although the no 

surface occupancy stipulation prohibits drilling in the 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, standard 

directional drilling practices are allowed from outside 

the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

Mineral materials are found throughout the District and 

no shortages are expected. 

Impacts to the economy from disposal of public lands 

would be low. When public lands are exchanged or 

sold, there could be a decrease in the Payment in Lieu 

168 
of Taxes payment because of the decrease in the 

acreage of federal land in a county. When public land 

is exchanged with the state, the loss of Payment in lieu 

of Taxes money is mitigated by a payment made by 

the state. State law SB-1231, approved by the Governor on July 13, 1988, provides counties with a payment 

similar to the federal Payment in lieu of Taxes payment. When public land is transferred to private 

ownership, the loss of Payment in lieu of Taxes money 

is compensated by the addition of these lands to the 

property tax rolls. 

Conclusion 

The implementation of this alternative would provide 

high benefits to paleontological resources by protecting 

known fossil deposits. Moderate benefits would be 

gained for wildlife habitat, riparian vegetation, cultural 

resources and soils. Low benefits would result to 

upland vegetation. The construction of Timber Draw 

Dam would result in high impacts to archaeological 

sites in the project area. Low economic impacts would 

result from mineral restrictions. Low economic benefits 

would result from Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern and wilderness recreation use. 

Alternative C 

Water - Protective management prescriptions for three 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, totalling 

27,225 acres, would result in low benefits to water 

quality and quantity. Designation of 1,257,513 acres 

open to off-highway vehicle use would result in water 

quality and quantity impacts that would range from 

minimal to high depending on the amount of use in any 

particular area. Impacts would be due to increased 

sedimentation caused by soil erosion. 

Soil - Restricting vehicles to existing roads and trails 

(88,931 acres) or denying their use (85,384 acres) 

would have low benefits to soil by reducing disturbance 

and erosion. The construction of Timber Draw dam 

and reconstruction of Oso Largo Dam would help 

regrade eroded areas and reduce soil erosion in 

floodplains by about 500 acre-feet per year. This 

would be a moderate benefit. 

Riparian Vegetation - Management prescriptions for 

three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern would 

increase riparian vegetation quality from fair to good on 

460 acres and maintain or improve other areas in good 

or better condition, a moderate benefit. Acquisition of 

in-stream flow water rights on five perennial streams 

and four intermittent streams would provide moderate 

benefits by assuring a minimum flow of water needed 

for riparian plant species. 

Designation of most of the District as open for offhighway vehicle use would cause moderate impacts to 

35 riparian areas that would be used by off highway 

vehicles. Acquisition of state and private lands through 

exchange would give moderate benefits by the addition 

of riparian vegetation to public ownership and BLM 

management. 

No surface occupancy stipulations for mineral leasing 

activities on 570 acres of riparian vegetation would 

provide a low benefit to riparian areas. Activities that 

would disturb riparian areas would not be permitted, 

unless located outside these areas. 

Upland Vegetation - The objective of land treatments 

is to decrease invading woody plants and increase 

grasses and forbs for wildlife, watershed condition and 

livestock. Proposed land treatments would have low 

benefits on upland vegetation communities. Designation of 1,257,513 acres as open to off-highway vehicle 

use would have a range of impacts from minimal to 

high depending on the level of off-highway vehicle use 

in a particular area. The impacts on upland vegetation 

would be direct effects of vehicles on the vegetation 

resource. 

Wildlife Habitat - Designation of 10 Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, totalling 42,988 acres, would 

provide moderate benefits to wildlife habitat by protecting against disturbance and loss of habitat. 

Designating 57,214 acres as limited to existing roads 

and trails for off-highway vehicle use and 85,273 acres 

as closed would provide moderate benefits to 16 

priority species by limiting or eliminating disturbance 

from vehicular use. Designating the remainder of the 

169 
area open to off highway vehicles would have impacts 

varying from low to high depending on the intensity and 

extent of use. 

Any low impacts caused by disposal actions would be 

mitigated through actions developed in approved sitespecific disposal plans. Each of these plans must 

comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. High benefits would result from acquisition of 

habitat through state and private exchanges. 

Establishment of right-of-way exclusion areas in 

Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area, 

Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area,and 111 

Ranch Research Natural Area Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern would result in low benefits to 

wildlife by prohibiting construction of pipelines, 

powerlines or roads that would disturb habitat. 

Withdrawal from mineral entry of 2,562 acres, issuing 

mineral and energy leases with no surface occupancy 

stipulations on 7,525 acres and prohibiting the sale of 

mineral materials on 4,316 acres would result in low 

benefits for 11 priority species by protecting their 

habitat from disturbance. 

Acquisition of instream flow water rights on five perennial streams and four intermittent streams would 

provide low benefits to three priority species. 

Cultural/Paleontological Resources - Requiring no 

surface occupancy stipulations for three archaeological 

sites (totalling 320 acres) would provide a low benefit 

to the protection of these sites. Activities associated 

with mineral leasing would have to take place off -site, 

eliminating any possible disturbance to cultural resources. Management prescriptions (limiting off 

highway vehicle use, requiring mining plan, etc.) for 

four Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, totalling 

8,553 acres, would provide moderate benefits to 

cultural and paleontological resources. 

Designating most of the District (1,257,513 acres) open 

to off highway vehicles use would have localized low to 

high impacts to cultural resources due to the possibility 

of increased soil erosion, theft, vandalism and destruction of sites by vehicles. Limiting off highway vehicles 

to existing roads and trails or closing areas to vehicles 

in the remainder of the District would provide low 

benefits to cultural resources by preventing damage 

associated with vehicular use and visitor accessibility. 

Construction of Timber Draw Dam would result in high 

impacts to a potentially eligible National Register 

Archaeological District that contains 37 archaeological 

sites on 1,300 acres. Impacts would be caused 

primarily from loss of scientific data due to burial of 

archaeological resources, inundation and construction 

effects. Impacts would be reduced through an intensive mitigation effort prior to construction. 

Socio-economic - There would be withdrawal from 

mineral entry of 2,411 acres, no surface occupancy 

stipulations on 7,525 acres and the prohibition of 

mineral material sales on 4,316 acres. Because this is 

a relatively small amount of land the impacts on the 

Districtwide economy would be low. 

One area proposed for withdrawal, Bowie Mountain 

Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern, is in an 

area having” moderately” favorable potential (Bureau 

of Mines terminology). Because only 2,411 acres of 

the entire District are proposed for withdrawal from 

mineral entry, the impact on the mining industry and 

the economy would be low. The rest of the land 

proposed for mineral withdrawal are not in areas with 

known potential and would, therefore, have a minimal 

impact on the industry. 

No leasable mineral withdrawals are proposed under 

this alternative. Four Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern have geothermal energy potential. Geothermal sources which occur in scattered areas throughout 

the district are the only known leasable energy potential. Impacts to the geothermal industry, however, 

would be minimal because of the no surface occupancy stipulations. No restriction on leasing are placed 

on the sixth, the Muleshoe Riparian Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. Atthough the NSO stipulation 

prohibits drilling in the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern, standard directional drilling practices are 

allowed. 

Mineral materials are found throughout the District and 

no shortages are expected. 

Impacts to the economy on a Districtwide basis from 

disposal of 99,670 acres of public lands would be low. 

Any potential impacts from disposal would be offset by 

the benefits to the economy from acquisition of 97,190 

acres. 

170 
Conclusion 

Management of Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern would provide moderate benefits to riparian 

vegetation and cultural and paleontological resources. 

Off highway vehicle use, however, would cause 

localized moderate to high, and possibly significant 

impacts to riparian areas, wildlife habitat and cultural 

and paleontological resources from disturbance 

caused by vehicles. The construction of Timber Draw 

dam would result in high impacts to archeological sites 

but moderate benefits to soils by regrading a highly 

eroded area. 

Mineral entry withdrawals, no surface occupancy 

stipulations for mineral leasing and prohibiting mineral 

material sales would provide low benefits to riparian 

vegetation, wildlife and their habitat and cultural and 

paleontological resources. 

The mineral industry would realize few impacts due to 

decreased opportunities from withdrawals of 2,411 

acres from mineral entry and mineral materials restrictions on 4,316 acres of riparian habitat. 

Alternative D No Action 

Water - Restricting vehicles to existing roads and trails 

would reduce erosion, giving low benefits to water 

quality. Actions taken to protect desert washes would 

enhance vegetation cover and provide low benefits to 

water quality by reducing soil erosion. Construction of 

water control facilities would provide moderate benefits 

to water quality by reducing the rate of runoff, thereby 

decreasing the amount of erosion and sediment in the 

water. 

Soil - Restricting vehicles to existing roads and trails 

would provide low benefits to soil by reducing the 

amount of erosion caused by physical disturbance of 

soil surfaces and the destruction of vegetation. Developing grazing management plans would moderately 

benefit soils by increasing vegetation density and 

diversity. 

Construction of the Timber Draw Detention Dam would 

moderately benefit soil by reducing erosion. This 

construction would reduce soil loss by about 300 acrefeet per year. A low benefit would be achieved through 

the use of vegetation manipulation on the Bear Springs 

Flat area. Increasing vegetation cover would reduce 

erosion. 

Riparian Vegetation - Management of riparian areas 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern would 

moderately benefit riparian vegetation through management prescriptions designed to improve and protect 

riparian vegetation. These designations would benefit 

60 riparian areas covering about 1,267 acres. Management of livestock grazing in riparian areas would 

highly benefit those areas by providing for improved 

seedling establishment and increased survival of 

young plants. 

Protection of vegetation cover from livestock grazing at 

natural and artificial waters would provide low benefits 

to riparian vegetation. 

Designating off-highway vehicle use as limited to 

existing roads and trails would give low benefits to 

riparian areas by reducing vegetation disturbance 

caused by off-highway vehicles. 

Low benefits to 570 acres of riparian vegetation 

through the imposition of no surface occupancy 

stipulations. 

Upland Vegetation - Restricting vehicles to existing 

roads and trails would give low benefits to vegetation 

by reducing the disturbance caused by off highway 

vehicles. Continued development of livestock grazing 

systems, construction of water control facilities and 

application of land treatments would give low benefits 

to vegetation by preventing its destruction and encouraging increased vegetation density and vigor. 

Effective wildfire suppression, in the long term, would 

not allow the natural development of vegetation 

diversity and control of shrubs by natural fire. In the 

short term, wildfire suppression would provide low 

benefits by protecting wildlife habitat and livestock 

forage from destruction. Vegetation manipulation in 

the Bear Springs Flat area would give low benefits to 

the vegetation density and diversity. 

Wildlife Habitat - Management of riparian areas as 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern would moderately benefit wildlife species due to the protection of 

171 
riparian habitat. Management prescriptions for Mescal 

Creek and the Gila River would provide a moderate 

benefit to 17 priority wildlife species found in those 

areas. Protection or enhancement of riparian areas 

would moderately benefit wildlife species dependent 

upon that habitat type. 

Actions to retain or acquire lands important to wildlife 

would provide high benefits depending on the wildlife 

habitat types involved. Providing livestock management, by limiting numbers and season of use, on 10 

ephemeral allotments would highly benefit desert 

tortoise habitat by providing adequate forage at critical 

times. Off-highway vehicle limitations and closures 

would highly benefit wildlife habitat. 

Providing protection of vegetation around natural and 

artificial waters would provide moderate benefits to 

wildlife by providing critical food and cover. 

Management of Bonita Creek for Safford’s water 

supply would moderately benefit wildlife by ensuring 

continued water supply. 

Cultural/Paleontological Resources - Restricting 

vehicles to existing roads and trails would moderately 

benefit cultural and paleontological resources. Those 

actions designed to protect riparian areas would 

provide moderate benefits to cultural and paleontological resources since riparian areas typically have high 

concentrations of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. 

Development of water control facilities in the lower 

elevations of the Gila Mountains, Bear Springs Flat and 

Ashurst area would give low benefits to cultural and 

paleontological resources by reducing soil erosion that 

destroys the resources. Construction of Timber Draw 

dam would result in high impacts to a potentially 

eligible National Register Archaeological District that 

contains 37 archaeological sites on 1,300 acres. 

Impacts would be primarily from loss of scientific data 

due to burial of archaeological resources, inundation 

and construction effects. 

Socio-economic - There would be no measurable 

benefits or impacts to the existing environment from 

implementation of this alternative. 

Conclusion 

Continuation of current management practices would 

provide low benefits to water resources by controlling 

off highway vehicle activity that causes soil erosion and 

sedimentation of streams and rivers. This alternative 

would also provide moderate benefits to soil, wildlife 

habitat, riparian vegetation and cultural and paleontological resources. The construction of Timber Draw 

Dam would result in high impacts to archaeological 

sites in the project area. 

Mining and mineral leasing restrictions would cause 

low impacts to the economy. Designation of Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern would provide low 

benefits to the economy of local tourism industries. 

Mitigating Measures 

No specific mitigation measures have been identified in 

this Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement that would reduce the anticipated 

impacts of implementing the Preferred Alternative. 

Mitigation will be incorporated when BLM begins 

implementing the specific actions of the Resource 

Management Plan. At that time, an environmental 

assessment will be prepared to analyze the expected 

impacts of each project and identify needed mitigation 

measures to deal with those impacts. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

The following impacts are expected to remain when the 

Preferred Alternative is implemented and the mitigation 

measures developed by BLM are applied. Closure of 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern to mineral 

entry, mineral leasing or mineral material sales would 

result in low impacts to the local economy. 

172 
Cumulative Impacts 

Since 1970 the administration of public lands in the 

Safford District has been governed by a number of 

Management Framework Plans. Although some of the 

Management Framework Plans were developed prior 

to National Environmental Policy Act and the Council 

on Environmental Quality Regulations, a review 

completed in 1981 by Arizona State Office specialists 

indicated all were in compliance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations. 

Thus, BLM public land management in the Safford 

District has fully conformed to the spirit and intent of 

National Environmental Policy Act. Public participation 

in issue identification and review has been used in 

developing plans. The environmental consequences of 

general, as well as site-specific proposals and reasonable alternatives to those proposals, have been 

considered early in the planning process. Direct and 

indirect impacts have been analyzed. Monitoring has 

been used to check mitigation and plans have been 

revised as appropriate and necessary. 

In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act 

and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 

BLM plans for the past 20 years have undergone 

intergovernmental consultation and coordination, and a 

governor’s consistency review. 

In light of this, no significant cumulative adverse 

impacts are anticipated from adding the preferred 

alternative to the existing plans of other agencies. 

Similarly, because of the continuation of 

intergovernmental consultation and coordination in 

compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations (40 CFR 1501.1) and BLM Planning 

Regulations (43 CFR 1610.2 and 1610.1) no significant 

cumulative adverse effects on this or other plans, or 

from this or other plans are anticipated in the foreseeable future. 

Short-Term Use versus 

Long-Term Productivity 

Proposed disposals of public land would increase 

resource management efficiency during the short and 

long term. Acquisitions, through state and private 

exchanges, would also improve the management 

efficiency of the public lands. 

Proposed land treatments and detention dams would 

destroy vegetation in the short term but would improve 

productivity of the land in the long term. Firewood 

cutting would increase the short-term use of the cutting 

areas but would not affect long-term productivity. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would 

cause the following irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources. Soil erosion, caused by off 

highway vehicle use on 1,708 acres designated open, 

would be an irreversible and irretrievable commitment 

of resources. 

Land disposals would cause the permanent loss of 

those lands from public use because most disposals 

are by state or private exchange. lnadvertant disposal 

of lands containing archaeological or paleontological 

resources to private entities would result in the loss or 

destruction of those resources since they would no 

longer be under BLM protection. Any disturbance to 

cultural or paleontological resources would be irreversible. Any loss of those resources would be irretrievable 

and they could not be replaced. Construction of 

Timber Draw Dam could inadvertently result in irreversible and irretrievable losses to archaeological sites. 

173 
Introduction 

The Safford District Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental impact State ment was prepared by an 

interdisciplinary team of resource specialists from the 

Resource Area, the San Simon Resource Area, 

and District Resources Staff. Writing the Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

began in September 1988 following a process beginning in 1987 that included a series of public scoping 

meetings, interagency coordination and the preparation 

of the management situation analyses. Coordination 

and consultation efforts have continued throughout the 

planning process. 

Scoping and Public

Participation 

The District invited public participation throughout the 

development of this Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement. The following list 

summarizes the actions taken. 

September 1987 and news release advising 

public of intent to develop a plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement and to invite them into the process. 

September 1987 Notice of Intent to Prepare the 

Saff ord District Resource 

Management Plan published in 

Federal Register. 

Oct. 27 Nov. 5, 1987 Public scoping meetings held in 

Safford, Bisbee, Tucson, 

Winkelman and Mesa, Arizona. 

January Scoping meeting with Arizona 

Game and Fish Dept. 

February Safford District Grazing Board 

briefing. 

March 11, 1988 Safford District Advisory Council 

briefing. 

April 1988 Draft issues and concerns sent 

to public for review. 

November 1988 Final issues and concerns sent 

to public. 

December 1989 Draft Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement sent to public for 

comment. 

February 1990	 Public meetings held in Safford, 

Bisbee, Tucson and Winkelman. 

September 1990	 Safford District Advisory Council 

to review comment letters and 

responses. 

December 1990	 Safford District Grazing Board 

meeting. 

In addition, BLM specialists have met with interested 

parties in the field and other locations. Consultations 

with Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona 

State Land Department, Forest Service and Soil 

Conservation Service to coordinate data collection, 

planned actions and to exchange information have 

taken place on a routine basis. 

List of Agencies,

Organizations and Persons 

to whom copies of this document have been sent 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Forest Service 

Soil Conservation Service 

Department of Defense 

US. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Air Force 

Department of Energy 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Mines
 

Bureau of Indian Affairs
 

Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District,
 

Arizona 

Bureau of Land Management, Las District, 

New Mexico
 

Bureau of Reclamation
 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Ecological Services)
 

Geological Survey
 

National Park Service
 

Department of Transportation
 

Federal Aviation Administration
 

Environmental Protection Agency
 

Arizona State Agencies 

Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture
 

Arizona Department of Health Services
 

Arizona Department of Library, Archives and Public
 

Records 

177 
Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Arizona Natural Heritage Program 

Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development 

Arizona Oil and Gas Commission 

Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission 

Arizona State Clearinghouse 

Arizona State Historic Preservation Off ice 

Arizona State Land Commissioner 

Arizona State Parks Board 

Arizona State University 

Arizona Water Resources Department 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology 

Governor of Arizona 

Governors Commission on Arizona Environment 

Mineral Resource Department 

Northern Arizona University 

University of Arizona 

New Mexico State Agencies 

New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer 

Local Agencies 

City of Benson
 

City of Bisbee
 

City of Clifton
 

City of Douglas
 

City of Duncan
 

City of Morenci
 

City of Safford
 

City of Sierra Vista
 

City of Tombstone
 

City of 

City of Winkelman
 

Cochise County Board of Supervisors
 

Cochise County Planning and Zoning Department
 

County Board of Supervisors
 

County Planning and Zoning Department
 

Graham County Board of Supervisors
 

Graham County Planning and Zoning Department
 

County Board of Supervisors
 

County Planning and Zoning Department
 

County Board of Supervisors
 

County Planning and Zoning Department
 

Southeast Arizona Governments Organization
 

Indian Tribes and Councils 

Ak-Chin (Maricopa) 

River Tribal Council
 

San Carlos Apache Tribal Council
 

Salt River Tribal Council
 

Tohono O’odham Tribal Council
 

White Mountain Apache Tribal Council
 

Other Organizations 

Abel’s Guiding and Outfitting 

Alamo Ranch Company 

American Motorcyclist Association 

American Rivers 

Aravaipa Homeowners Association 

Arizona Archaeological Council 

Arizona Cattlegrowers Association 

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society 

Arizona Desert Racing Association 

Arizona Mining Association 

Arizona Native Plant Society 

Arizona Riparian Council 

Arizona Small Miners and Prospectors Association 

Arizona Trail Riders 

Arizona Whitewater Expeditions 

Arizona Wildlife Federation 

ASARCO, Inc. 

Bat Conservation international 

Vista Ranches, Ltd. 

Bisbee Women’s Action Group 

Bob’s Bargain Barn 

BP Minerals America 

Cochise-Graham County Cattlegrowers Association 

Columbia Gas and Development Corporation 

Cyprus Minerals Company 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Earth First!
 

El Paso Natural Gas Company
 

Friends of Arizona’s Rivers
 

River Tours
 

Graham County Electric Cooperative
 

Greater Arizona Bicycling Association
 

County Cattlegrowers Association
 

Homestake Mining Company
 

Huachuca Audubon Society
 

Huachuca Hiking Club
 

J&J Cattle Company
 

Kennecott Exploration
 

Kerr-McGee Corporation
 

Magma Copper Company
 

Maricopa Audubon Society
 

McDonald Cattle Company
 

Missouri Department of Conservation
 

Ranch
 

Museum of Natural History, Univ. of II.
 

Urbana-Champaign
 

National Audubon Society
 

National Off-Road Bicycle Association
 

National Parks and Conservation Association
 

National Public Lands Task Force
 

National Wildlife Federation
 

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
 

Natural Resource Defense Council
 

Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association
 

178 
-

-

-

-

Northern Arizona Audubon 

Oak Ranch List of Preparers 

Pacific Western Land Company 

Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Trails 

Preserve America’s Wolves 

Public Service Company of New Mexico 

Reevis Mountain School of Self Reliance 

San Manual Arizona Railroad Company 

Sierra Club 

Sierra Cycles 

Al Alvarez, Realty Specialist, Resource Area 

has worked for BLM for 14 years and has a B.S. 

degree in Animal Science from the University of 

Arizona. Al was responsible for the Fire Management portion of the Draft Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and for the 

Lands and Realty portion of the Final Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Sierra Ready Mix 

Sonoran Resources 

Southern Arizona Hiking Club 

Southwest Gas Company 

Southwestern Research Station (American 

Natural History) 

Sulphur Springs Valley Electric 

Tenneco Arizona Property Corporation 

The Amerind Foundation 

The Desert Tortoise Council 

Museum of 

Al Bammann, Wildlife Biologist, Resource Area 

has worked as a Research Biologist for BLM 

for six years, Wildlife Biologist for nine years. Al has 

B.S. and MS. degrees in Wildlife Biology from 

Humboldt State University. He is a member of the 

core team and developed the wildlife, riparian and 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern portions 

of the Resource Management Plan for the 

Resource Area. 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wilderness Society 

True Oil Company 

Tucson 4-Wheelers 

Tucson Audubon Society 

Tucson Electric Power Company 

Tucson Rod and Gun Club 

William Brandau, Supervisory Range Conservationist, 

Resource Area has worked for BLM 13 

years. He received a B.S. degree in Recreation and 

Parks and an MS. degree in Range Management 

from Texas A & M University. Bill served on the 

core team. 

Valley Telephone Cooperative, inc. 

Whole Earth Adventures, Inc. 

Wick Broadcasting, Inc. 

X-X Partnership 

ZR Hereford Ranch 

Yuma Audubon Society 

Jerrold Coolidge, Assistant Team Leader, District 

Manager’s Staff has been with BLM 19 years. 

He has both a B.S. and M.S. in Botany from the 

University of Idaho. He wrote the Resource Management Plan/Environmental impact Statement and 

assisted in the direction of the planning team. 

Elected Representatives Olga Diaz, Editorial Clerk, Division of Administration 

Federal has 13 years experience with BLM. She attended 

Eastern Arizona College for three years and one 

year at the University of Arizona. Olga was responRepresentative Jim Kolbe sible for word processing and editing. 

Representative Jon Kyl 

Representative John Rhodes Diane Drobka, Natural Resource Specialist, 

Representative Bob Stump Resource Area has worked for BLM for nine 

Representative Morris K. years and for the Forest Service for one year. 

Senator Dennis Diane has a B.S. in Wildlife Ecology from the 

Senator John University of Arizona. She provided many of the 

State illustrations and photography for the document and 

was responsible for input for portions of the text for 

wildlife habitat in the Resource Area. 

Representative Baker 

Representative Bill English James Gacey, Wildlife Biologist, San Simon Resource 

Representative Reuben Ortega Area has 12 years experience with the Forest 

Representative Mike Palmer Service and over four years with BLM. Jim has a 

Senator Gus Arzburger B.A., Biological Science degree from Northwest 

Nazarene College and an M.S. degree in Zoology 

from Arizona State University. He developed the 

wildlife portion of the Resource Management Plan 

for the San Simon Resource Area. 179 
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Darlene Haegele, Realty Specialist, San Simon 

Resource Area has 11 years experience with 

four of which have been as a Realty Specialist. Darlene attended the University of Utah. She 

prepared the lands and realty portions of the 

Resource Management Plan for the San Simon 

Resource Area. 

John Archaeologist, San Simon Resource 

Area has four years experience with BLM and 

worked at the Museum of Northern Arizona for two 

years. John has B.A. degree in Archaeology from 

the University of Arizona. He developed the archaeology and paleontology parts of the draft plan for the 

San Simon Resource Area. 

Larry Humphrey, Natural Resource Specialist, San 

Simon Resource Area has worked three years 

for Soil Conservation Service and 17 years for BLM. 

Larry has a B.S. degree in Animal Science from the 

University of Arizona. He served on the core team 

and developed the soils, watershed and vegetation 

parts of the Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Steve Knox, Team Leader, Division of Resource 

Management has worked for BLM for 14 years. 

Steve has a B.S. degree in Watershed Management 

from the University of Arizona. He directed development of the Resource Management Plan. 

Roland Loomis, Mining Engineer, Division of Resource 

Management has worked for BLM for 13 years. 

He received a B.S. in Engineering from the U.S. 

Coast Guard Academy and from the University of 

Arizona. Ron provided geological and minerals 

input to the draft. 

Kathy Archaeologist, San Simon Resource Area has five and a half years experience 

as an archaeologist with BLM. Kathy has a B.A. 

degree from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse 

in Anthropology. She has done graduate work in 

Archaeology at Eastern New Mexico University and 

the University of Utah. Kathy developed the archaeology and paleontology sections of the draft plan for 

the San Simon Resource Area. 

Kenneth Mahoney, Outdoor Recreation Planner, 

Resource Area has worked 11 years for BLM. 

Ken has a B.S. degree in Leisure Studies from the 

University of Utah. He prepared the recreation, 

visual resources, wilderness and wild and scenic 

rivers portions of the draft plan for the Resource 

Area. 

Randy Massey, Realty Specialist, Resource Area

 has worked for BLM for a total of 14 years, 

11 as a range conservationist and three years 

as a realty specialist. Randy attended Brigham 

Young University, graduating with a B.S. degree in 

Range Science. He developed the lands and realty 

portions of the draft plan for the Resource Area. 

Greg Merchant, GIS Specialist, Division of Administration -has worked for over six years for BLM as a 

range technician and as a computer (GIS) technician. Greg attended the University of Nevada-Las 

Vegas, Northeast Nevada Community College and 

Eastern Arizona College. He provided GIS support 

for the entire plan. 

Delbert Molitor, Hydrologist, Division of Resource 

Management has worked seven years for the 

Forest and Range Experimental Station in Boise, 

Idaho and 12 years for BLM. Del has a B.S. degree 

in Hydrology from Utah State University. He 

provided hydrologic and air quality input for the 

water resources, watershed and air quality portions 

of the plan. 

Robert Pascoe, District Engineer, Division of Operations has worked for BLM for over five years and 

has had four years experience in private industry in 

mining operations. Bob has a B.S. degree in Mining 

Engineering from the University of Arizona. He 

provided input to the minerals portions of the draft 

plan. 

Sandra Phillips, Legal Clerk, Division of Resource 

Management has worked for BLM for 12 years. 

Sandy received an degree in Office Services 

from Eastern Arizona College. She was responsible 

for word processing and editing. 

Elaine Rowley, Accounting Technician, Division of 

Administration has 19 years experience with 

BLM. Elaine was awarded an AA degree in General 

Education from Eastern Arizona College. She also 

attended Northern Arizona University and Arizona 

State University. Elaine was responsible for word 

processing and editing. 

Darrell Sanders, Archaeologist, Resource Area 

has five years experience with BLM and two years 

with the Forest Service. Darrell was awarded a B.A. 

degree in Anthropology from California State 

University at Chico and has completed the classroom requirements for an M.A. in Anthropology from 

the same university. He also attended Medocino 

Community College and the University of 

Las Vegas. He developed the archaeological and 

paleontological portions of the plan. 

180 
-

-

-

-

Tom Schnell, Outdoor Recreation Planner, San Simon 

Resource Area has worked for BLM for three 

years. Tom received a B.S. degree in Resource 

Management from University of Wisconsin-Stevens 

Point. He provided recreation, visual resources, 

wild and scenic rivers and wilderness input to the 

document for the San Simon Resource Area. 

Deb Smith, Outdoor Recreation Planner, 

Resource Area has worked for BLM for five 

years. Received a B.S. degree in Recreation 

Administration from the University of Idaho. She 

provided recreation, visual resources, wild and 

scenic rivers and wilderness input for the 

Resource Area. 

Larry Thrasher, Geologist, Division of Resources 

has worked for BLM for four years. Larry received a 

B.S. degree in Geology from the University of 

Maryland and an MS. degree in Geology from the 

University of North Dakota. He provided geological, 

minerals and energy input. 

Pete Zwaneveld, Outdoor Recreation Planner, San 

Simon Resource Area has worked for the 

National Park Service and nearly 12 years for BLM. 

Pete has a B.S. degree in Outdoor Recreation from 

Utah State University. He developed the recreation, 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers and visual resources 

portions for the San Simon Resource Area. 

Saff ord District Off ice Assistance 

John Augsberger, Wildlife Biologist 

Ray Brady, District Manager 

Meg Jensen, Resource Area Manager 

Gay Kinkade, Archaeologist 

Lynn Saline, San Simon Resource Area Manager 

Tom Terry, Realty Specialist 

Arizona State Off ice Assistance 

Bob Archibald, Realty Specialist 

Beverly Ashbrook, Cartographic Technician 

Sue Richardson, Wilderness 

Eugene Dahlem, Wildlife Biologist 

Mike Fisher, Fire Management Officer 

Jim Hydrologist 

Steve Meszaros, Cartographic Technician 

Keith Pearson, Planning and Environmental Coordinator 

Alan Rabinoff, Geologist 

George Ramey, Range Conservationist 

Sue Richardson, Wilderness 

Gary Stumpf, Archaeologist 

Larry Taddia, Supervisory Cartographic Technician 

Bruce Talbot, Outdoor Recreation Planner 

to letter. 

3. 

7. 

8. 

� 11. 

13. 

� 15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

� 21 . 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

Public Comments and 

Responses 

Public comments were received from the following 

individuals, organizations, agencies or companies. 

They are displayed in two formats, the first being in the 

order of receipt and the second in an alpha-numeric 

arrangement. 

Public Comment Register 

The following is a list of the public comment letters in 

the order of receipt. *Denotes a response was made 

Bailey, Rex 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Southern Arizona Guides and Outfitters 

Association 

Bureau of Mines 

Holladay, Bobbie 

Serafine, Ellen and John Brumage 

Klump, Wayne D. 

Lazaroff, Cheryl S. 

Aravaipa Property Owners Association 

Owens, Rex 

Notestine, Jim 

Preserve Arizona’s Wolves 

Tucson Rod and Gun Club 

San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Carol 

Tetreault, 

Curry, L.B. 

Stevenson, Mark 

Cabin, Sue Wallace 

Patrick, Vernon W. 

Martin, Ronald P. 

Iser, Jerry 

Newton, Lola T. 

Zinsli, Gabriel 

Frye, Harry D. 

Huston, Jack V. 

Drown, Julie 

Carter, Frances C. 

Coleman, Kristen 

William C. 

Stevenson, Dorothy 

Sharon 

Zaukas, Helen 

June K. 

Schramm, 

Tilsch, John W. 

Juhasz, Andrew J. 

William D. 

Calder, Dr. William A. 

181 
40. Pelech, Walter and Dorothy 

McCauley, William J. 

42. Schwab, Robert G. 

43. Furniss, W. Todd 

44. Pfaff, Kenneth 

45. Foster, Milton P. 

46. Ackerman, T.R. 

‘47. San Carlos Apache Tribe 

48. Ayers, Daniel D. 

49. Margery and Marvin 

50. Klump, Wayne 

‘51. The Nature Conservancy New Mexico 

The Warne Company 

53. Hayward, Bruce J. 

54. Kuihen, Helen S. 

55. Dow, Jane 

56. Lund, Robert E. 

57. William J. 

58. Triplett, DeWayne 

59. Bowie Chamber of Commerce 

60. Buchsbaum, 

Alder, Rodney 

62. Ferguson, Ray 

 Knostman, R.W. 

Wolf, Jack 

65. Kole, Marion 

Notestine, Jim 

67. Miller, Dorothy and Jack 

 Schanz, Mary C. 

69. Safford District Grazing Advisory Board 

70. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

71. Lambrechtse, Rudi 

72. June and Harry 

73. Shafer, Winifred J. 

Swanson, John R. 

75. National Speleological Society
 

National Museum of Natural History
 

77. Poulos, Bonnie 

78. Foster, Catherine L. 

79. Uhl, Louise S. and John H.
 

 Mayercek, Daniel R.
 

81. Petition signed by 21 people 

82. Fischer, Dan
 

Arizona Earth First
 

84. Hollender, Tom 

85. Siwek, Erwin
 

Sidner, Ronnie
 

87. Pamperin, John 

88. Denver Wildlife Research Center
 

Trails Association
 

90. Sidner, Ronnie
 

GSA Resources, Inc.
 

92. Taylor, Thomas J.
 

California Department of Health Services
 

94. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

95. Hoffmeister, Donald F.
 

Trails Association
 

Geldmacher, Don and Bev
 

Werner, Frances W.
 

99. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Fish and Wildlife Service 

101. Gasser, Margaret E. 

Van Gasse, Jerry 

Whole Earth Adventures 

104. River Tours 

� 1 05. Davis, Russell 

106. Arizona Trail Riders 

107. Straley, P.E. 

108. Bell, L. Stephen 

109. Sarah C. and Robert E. 

Alva 

11. Phelps Dodge Mining, Inc. 

American Rivers 

The Desert Tortoise Council 

114. Petition signed by 7 people 

115. McDonald, Pratima 

 Meyer, and Walter 

Bagnara, Joseph T. 

Indiana Bat/Gray Bat Recovery Team 

Rodda, Gordon 

Bureau of Reclamation 

121. Graham County Board of Supervisors 

122. Petition signed by 21 people 

123. San Carlos Apache Tribe 

� l 24. Huachuca Audubon Society 

Cox, Kenneth D. Sr. 

126. Cochise-Graham Cattle Growers Association 

Pamperin, John 

128. Wuerthner, George
 

 Maricopa Audubon Society
 

Y.
 

Rolls, Judi
 

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc.
 

133. Bat Conservation International, Inc. 

134. William S.
 

� 135. Bisbee Women’s Action Group
 

136. Pressel, Douglas 

137. Frey, Don 

138. Fish, 

139. Burgess, Jeff 

140. Ciaramitaro, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph
 

� 141 . Heiser, Noel
 

Pokorny, Martin
 

Bettina
 

Amy E.
 

 Daily, Kathy
 

� l 46. Friends of Arizona Rivers
 

Fischer, Dan
 

� 148. Pamperin, John
 

� 149. Hage, Mary Jean
 

� 150. Flood, Timothy J.
 

151. Geoffry
 

� 152. San Carlos Apache Tribe
 

Coronado National Forest
 

182 
� 154. Fonseca, Julia 29. Coleman, Kristen 

Williams, Steven M. Coronado National Forest 

Sierra Club Cox, Kenneth D. Sr. 

157. Los Angeles Natural History Museum 32. Sharon 

Levick, Lainie 17. Curry, L.B. 

159. Walsh, Jim � 145. Daily, Kathy 

160. Kagan, Randy S. Davis, Russell 

Adams, Larry D. and Frances Werner Y. 

Environmental Protection Agency 88. Denver Wildlife Research Center 

The Arizona Native Plant Society Alva 

Menges, Jeff 55. Dow, Jane 

Leupke, John and Norma Tapia 27. Drown, Julie 

Arizona Cattlegrowers Association El Paso Natural Gas Company 

Tucson Rod and Gun Club Environmental Protection Agency 

� 166. Brown, Matthew Carol 

� 169. Williams, Caryl Mary 62. Ferguson, Ray 

� 170. Elizabeth T. Fischer, Dan 

El Paso Natural Gas Company 82. Fischer, Dan 

� 172. The Arizona Nature Conservancy Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Wildlife Society 99. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 38. Fish, 

175. Wells, Linda K. � 150. Flood, Timothy J. 

� 154. Fonseca, Julia 

This second list is alpha-numeric. 78. Foster, Catherine L. 

45. Foster, Milton P. 

46. 

� 112. 

� 1 66. 

70. 

94. 

106. 

134. 

48. 

� ��

133. 

08. 

� 135. 

59. 

� 166. 

60. 

� 4. 

139. 

19. 

39. 

28. 

140. 

Ackerman, T.R. 

Adams, Larry D. and Frances Werner 

Alder, Rodney 

American Rivers 

Aravaipa Property Owners Assocociation 

Arizona Cattlegrowers Association 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc. 

Arizona Earth First 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Arizona Trail Riders 

William S. 

Ayers, Daniel D. 

Bagnara, Joseph T. 

Bailey, Rex 

Bat Conservation International, Inc. 

Bell, L. Stephen 

Bisbee Women’s Action Group 

Bowie Chamber of Commerce 

Brown, Matthew R. 

Buchsbaum, Robert 

Bureau of Mines 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Burgess, Jeff 

Cabin, Sue Wallace 

Calder, Dr. William A. 

California Department of Health Services 

Carter, Frances C. 

Ciaramitaro, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph 

Cochise-Graham Cattle Growers Association 

137. Frey, Don 

� 146. Friends of Arizona Rivers 

38. Fritz, William D. 

25. Frye, Harry D. 

43. Furniss, W. Todd 

� 91. GSA Resources, inc. 

101. Gasser, Margaret E. 

Geldmacher, Don and Bev 

104. River Tours 

121. Graham County Board of Supervisors 

� 149. Hage, Mary Jean 

53. Hayward, Bruce J. 

‘141. Heiser, Noel 

95. Hoff meister, Donald F. 

Holladay, Bobbie 

84. Hollender, Tom 

Huachuca Audubon Society 

26. Huston, Jack V. 

Indiana Bat/Gray Bat Recovery Team 

22. Iser, Jerry 

72. June and Harry 

37. Juhasz, Andrew J. 

160. Kagan, Randy S. 

50. Klump, Wayne 

7. Klump, Wayne D. 

Knostman, R.W. 

65. Kole, Marion 

54. Kuihen, Helen S. 

71. Lambrechtse, 

a. Lazaroff, Cheryl S. 

� 165. Leupke, John and Norma Tapia 

158. Levick, Lainie 
157. Los Angeles Natural History Museum 

56. Lund, Robert E. 

Maricopa Audubon Society 

Martin, Ronald P. 

Mayercek, Daniel 

41. McCauley, William J. 

McDonald, Pratima 

57. William J. 

Menges, Jeff 

Meyer, and Walter 

67. Miller, Dorothy and Jack
 

 National Museum of Natural History
 

75. National Speleological Society 

30. William C. 

23. Newton, Lola T.
 

Notestine, Jim
 

‘66. Notestine, Jim
 

Owens, Rex
 

Pamperin, John 

Pamperin, John 

87. Pamperin, John 

49. Margery and Marvin
 

‘20. Patrick, Vernon W.
 

40. Pelech, Walter and Dorothy 

Petition signed by 21 people 

81. Petition signed by 21 people 

114. Petition signed by 7 people 

44. Pfaff, Kenneth 

11. Phelps Dodge Mining, Inc. 

Trails Association 

‘96. Trails Association 

151. Platts, Geoffry
 

Pokorny, Martin
 

77. Poulos, Bonnie
 

‘12. Preserve Arizona’s Wolves
 

136. Pressel, Douglas 

34. June K.
 

Rodda, Gordon
 

Rolls, Judi
 

69. Safford District Grazing Advisory Board 

123. San Carlos Apache Tribe
 

‘14. San Carlos Apache Tribe
 

San Carlos Apache Tribe 

� 47. San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Schanz, Mary C. 

Amy E. 

35. Schramm, 

42. Schwab, Robert G.
 

Serafine, Ellen and John Brumage
 

73. Shafer, Winifred J.
 

� 86. Sidner, Ronnie
 

90. Sidner, Ronnie 

Sierra Club 

85. Siwek, Erwin 

3. Southern Arizona Guides and Outfitters 

Association
 

State Historic Preservation Officer
 

31. Stevenson, Dorothy 

18. Stevenson, Mark 

107. Straley, P.E.
 

Swanson, John R.
 

92. Taylor, Thomas J. 

16. Tetreault, 

The Arizona Native Plant Society 

The Arizona Nature Conservancy 

The Desert Tortoise Council 

The Nature Conservancy New Mexico 

The Warne Company 

The Wildlife Society 

36. Tilsch, John W. 

58. 

13. Tucson Rod and Gun Club
 

 Tucson Rod and Gun Club
 

79. Uhl, Louise S. and John H.
 

 Van Gasse, Jerry
 

109. Sarah C. and Robert E. 

159. Walsh, Jim 

175. Wells, Linda K. 

‘98. Werner, Frances W.
 

Whole Earth Adventures
 

� 169. Williams, Mary
 

Williams, Steven M.
 

� 64. Wolf, Jack
 

Elizabeth T.
 

184 
- 

 - 

-

 

-

1 

Form 1604-16 UNITED STATES 

I 

Plan 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OF LARD MANAGEMENT 

OF PARTICIPATION 

Name(s) of Individual(s) or 

INTERVAL OF PUBLIC 

of Annual Schedule and Projected New Starts 

to Guide Identification. Criteria, andPlan&g 

III Review of Draft Plan and Draft Impact 

Review of Management Decisiona includiag chenges from Protests and Governor Review 

� V Review of Use and 

OF PA RTICIPATION AS AS 

Contact � Small Discussion Public Meeting Written Statements 

(--J Questionnaim or surveys 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

ARIZONA 

STATE 

PARKS 

January IO,1990 

Frank Rowley 

Manager 

Land Management 

Office 

East 4th Street 

A2 

Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Statement 

I have the dra” report referenced above and am the 

110 National 

Regarding cultural resources. all four (Alternatives A through 

are similar lo tha, each ultimatefy resuh in high 

37 in of dam repair. 

of me Dam. The draf, further 

Bureau of Land Management is measures 

mitigate me of on properties for 

the Register of Places 

3. The tour differ with specific fhe BLM will 

undertake enhance our opinon. 

Alternative A offers ,he most beneticial for cultural resources; for 

that reason. A 

4	 We would like to suggest you add A one of the 

I	 Alternative ii: nemet~. mar nominate a, leas, 

cultural propertii5 in the S&k&Dislti ,he Na,kwaI Register of 

Places me lifespan me Management 

A demonstrates commitment the 

of pmpenies the Register. By on 

Register. me place such an lo 

funds. such available in the future and 

F. Rowley 

 10.1990 

Page 2 

Thank you for us the on this resource management 

impact Statement Your continued mopera,!an in 

with of Historic is appreciated 

Pa, H. Stein 

for Ph.D. 
 

Southern Guides and Outfitters Rssociation Southern Guides and Outfitters Rssociation 

“Outdoor bg True Profmssionale” “Outdoor bg True 

N. Treat 2534 N. � � . Tucson. . 
 

 

 

4 

4-l 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF 

BOX 25086 I 

February 1. 1990 

Steve Knox. Leader. Bureau Land Management. 

District Fourth Street. Safford. Arizona 

Chief. Field Operations Center 

Subject: Review of Draft Safford District Resource Management 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Personnel of the Bureau of Field Operations Center, 

reviewed the subject draft District Resource 

Impact as requested by Frank Rowley. District 

The draft is fairly concerning minerals within the Safford District; 

the Bureau of Mines believes that a gold deposit at the Table 

area. the Table RNA has not been 

considered. 1989. personnel identified a portion of the Table 

RNA having geologic conditions favorable for occurrences of base and 

Precious metals. The Table Mountain nine is on patented mining claims 

within sections and 22. T. 7 R. We identified a 

of at least 35.500 short of jasperoid breccia averaging 0.034 

at the mine. The jasperoid breccia which hosts the gold 

extends into the Table Mountain RNA Closing mineral 

this would affect future exploration and possible of this 

deposit. Also. the patented claims do show up as private land on 

of the maps in the draft. 

believe that alternative D uauld have the least effect on future minerals 

exploration and development. The Stafford District is an area where 

deposits occur. There is the possibility that other 

yet-undiscovered world-class deposits exist within the district and that the 

document should that possibility. suggest careful Planning be done 

so that future deposits will not be closed to mineral entry and thereby deny 

exploration and development. It is encouraging to evidence that 

input on minerals appears to have helped 

boundaries in the and Shoe study area additions. 
-

 

 

February 5. 1990 

John 

Biologist 

District 

A2 85546 

I contacting you by phone but I never received my 

had I warded to express I just received me copy of me 

so have not bad an opportunity to review My questions may 

in that document. 

I am me Founder of preserve Arizona‘s Wolves a 

of citizens for me preservation and eventually me of 

We work closely me Arizona Game and Fish 

and me U. Fish and Wildlife following me 

Wolf Recovery Plan. At the present time prime is on public 

education and as you may have heard are presenting a major 

on March 23 and 24 at entitled Wolf ‘90. See 

flier 

me lands me former range of me 

Mexican wolf possible in me future mat 

lands might be as potential My 

doss me take into management of habitat and prey to 

enable a program to place? me prey 

would be me addition of rabbits and smaller 

the ideal would have a minimum of conflict from 

There are some fairly remote, areas from 

reports of occur are coyotes, wolfdogs or actually Mexican wolves mat may range up from Mexico remains 

let me know what if any, are in progress to for a 

of endangered species 

Thank 

Founder Director 

Arizona 85040 
 

 

 

6 

(602) 

12. 

OF LAND 

425 

AZ 

order for the public be informed, the ELM should all roads entering public land. When road passes through private the signs should read: 

ACCESS ROAD 

through PRIVATE LAND miles 

do not leave road 

Of this just an idea for the wording. but abusive sign by the co. ‘Private Property, no tresspassing. may be locked any is just an example of how the is being excluded from our land 

We therefore suggest the REQUIREMENT for the public land, or the granting of an easement to ~onstrucr through public land, demand that that the public permitted to freely across any connecting roads in order “se of 
 

 I

of See. 5.6.10.11 1. of S.P.R.R. All im T.lW.8.328. I 

8 9 Wa~l5, 8h.17, 

��� � 900202570 

COCHISE COUWTY 

OF 
 

 

900202570 
 

 

 

 PROPERTY OLlNERS ASSOCWTION. INC. 

4th street 
 

HO”. Dennis u. s. senate 
S-l 
 

 -

10 

I 

I 

1 

l/15/1990 

“CO-l 3219 

AZ. 85535 

Of Land Management 

425 E. 4th Street 

Safford, AZ. 85546 

Steve Team Leader: 

In the and draft, I 

like your Alternative A (The Preferred Alternative). but 

a minor considerations. Allotment Management Plans 

should include input from permit holder (Rancher) to 

on monitoring and habitat areas. We to have 

hunting seasons lapping and extended, such as regular 

hunting Black Powder, Pistol, and and 

etc., for different of wildlife. ""ma" activities 

should somehow be restricted for periods, more that 

habitat degradation or loss does not take place. The permitee 

and should have high priority when establishing these 

seasons. establishes objectives and priorities for 

Of livestock but the rancher can only complain 

about cattle being driven away from water and grazing, gates 

left open and etc., for extended hunting seasons. 

I continue, note I also hunt and feel the Fish 

and need some help. It seems that during these extended 

the cultural are found to be damaged. 

The rancher or permitee the" likely help patrol 

the cultural they are brought to his attention. 

studies along vith development, monitoring 

and habitat are proving to be satisfactory. 

The present management should be in the development 

of the along with the interdisciplinary teams of 

Specialists that brought the about. 

I feel after the alternatives (Preferred 

Alternatives) as identified, that the Alternative A provides 

a balanced approach to multiple and should be implemented. 

The Management Concern Cultural is most important 

and the actions to accomplish the objectives very good. 

I would to this planned implemented. 

The Safford District Resource Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement Draft provides comprehensible 

information to all concerned. 
would a be butst111 

have rdcommendedmany 
 -

 

-

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 

February 18 1990 

John Augsburger
 

42 5 East 4th 

Safford, A2 85546
 

John, 

Thank for me a copy of the Safford for my 

four of concern on I comment 

1 Access I should like see access in areas to authorized 

use only prevent of resource values 

2 and other of management all 

ACECs as ACECs to resource values 

The segments of the Gii and Francisco should be designated 

as and scemc rivers. I have not seen the final of areas 

designated in the current Wilderness Bill, but I that the areas 

adjacent Canyon and Wilderness areas were as 

areas 

3 Off -highway use of should be 

restricted and other lands, areas 

4. areas should be afforded important 

areas has already suffered loss of many areas and 

must protect ALL areas for the of 

and for own water sources All watersheds must be protected 

from overuse from use, of and 

from 

I would like to comment on the and actions to be 

to resolve the Wildlife Concern The 

Alternative A highly under item 1 on page 

30 Subitem b only for 

and Wildhfe Service plans falcon and It is 

future of that be replaced 

subitem b under B on page 50 reads 

the aplomado falcon, bear, 

MelOt, jaguar, Colorado squaw dog and 

Future of the endangered Mexican wolf 

the also the of the Fish and WRlldhfe Service and found be 

would be by the Game and Department 

on the Wolf Recovery Plan of 1982, 

that all candidate reintroduction 

emphasis on for 

the wolf. Studies by the Game and Department 

15 potential several of fall under the 

of the BLM Sanford These done 

the and request and 

New come up with possible sites m-depth 

studies of sites have yet to be made, must be 

encourage large deer healthy cover 

and gwzd w&?r The AGFD a pubhc attitude 

survey to how various segments of the pubhc perceive the wolf 

the completion of tidy. is hoped by many who 

of endangered species, that further stud% wll made of 

the potential by qualified It therefore that 

every effort made the Safford District to make a 

Thank you for of matter Please me 

of the actron correct For your information, enclose 

a Wolf you may 

mterested m attendmg 

Sincerely, 

Bobble Holaday, Found

Preserve Arizona’s Wolves 

85040 

Ken Russell, Deputy USFWS 

Terry Johnson, Endangered AGFD 
 

 

 

 

13 14 

THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 

Mr. Brady: 

The San Carlo* requests you present 

to the *an car1os as part of your 

trust responsibilities the Tribe. a brief overview of the 

District's draft Resource Management Plan. In this 

overview of the we desire that you specifically address 

the issues and concerns which affect the Tribe its 

resources. 

I am that you are well aware. the reservation 

shares a large border with the District: San Carlo* 

Apache Tribal Members compose a significant and unique group

public land within your district. am 

concerned you do not appreciate the full dimension of 

the Federal/Indian trust relationship. This is a 

government-to-government and is not the sole 

domain of the Bureau of Affairs. More specifically.

it is the Department of the Interior which is charged with 

the responsibility of upholding this including the 

Bureau of Land Management where its management affects the 

trust obligations of the Federal government toward 

lands and of Native Americans. 

Some of the specific areas we desire addressed 

are : 
 

 

 

 

planning process. We welcome your agencies

participation in the development of this management 

2. the create a format for resolving questions Sincerely. concerning the legal the reservation 

(where it borders the Safford District) as established 14-2	 through the Executive Orders of November 5. 

3. mat resource* management concerns. does the wish to
 develop Cooperative Management Agreements with the San

Carlos Apache Tribe and these addressed in the 

did the Bureau of Land Management involve the 

Tribe. Tribal Authorities and Tribal Members in the 

planning and how does the Safford District 

intend to involve these groups in the continuing 

5. are the cultural Of the San Carlos 

Tribe and members addressed the need to gather

oak medical. ceremonial 

and religious materials)? attempts made to

Carlos Apaches in the identification and protection

of important Apache historical. religious or ceremonial 

sites or other ethno-historical of the natural 

resources within the Safford District? 

6. Were environmental education plans included within 

your and if the San Pt. Thomas. and 

Globe School Districts included within these plans? 

an attempt made to determine if the San Carlos 

Tribe has is developing a management

plan which would affect the resources management on the 

Safford District? 

Tribal Council meetings are held the first Tuesday of 

every month: there are two council meetings scheduled before 

the end of your comment period. arrange a briefing for one of meetings by contacting myself my 

secretary. Barbara at 475-2361 and requesting

to be placed on the Agenda. 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe wishes to foster a spirit

of cooperation in which the resource management goals of 

both parties be achieved and one in the trust obligations of the Federal government CM be met. In light

of these requirements. the San Carlos Apache Tribe has 

recently begun a similar resource planning project which 

refer to as the Integrated Management Plan 

similar issues and concerns will be addressed in our 

xc: Mr. Wilson Barber, Phoenix Area Director, 

Mr. Allen Superintendent. San Agency.

Mr. Lynn Acting Arizona State Director, 
 

 

-

 

 

 

reperlans 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 to 

for th. on cattle in the San Pedro Area. 

has In particular 

I you repair because that 

job. I would to se. you the have 

do”. the for the purpose a? returninq these 

of nature back to its state. areas can not be 

without keeping cattle them. For they the 

destory the wildlife just by there 

do. 

I 

you to put long term livestock 

that is moMgi”g. cannot stress this Do it 

before completely loose all those I 

is only 78 IeTt of the total south vest still 

not much. In addition livestock grazing on habitat. 

I also strongly oppose all A.D.C. killing o” Altho 

Control necessary if the is like it has rabies. 

of the “public” on ho.’ the BLY Iand will 

be it is public I strongly of 

on 

I your good management of multiuse use. I do have 

about the us. of HerbIcidss The 

tell us the down quickly. This is not true. They don’t 

break dawn they do some dawn they residue. 

you to rid plants on your let me I co” volunteer 

to purl the noxious plants much you could spraying. 

P. 0. 1560 

85603 

3rd. 1990 

432-4292 

of 

425 E. 4th Street 

afford, AZ 85546 

Feb 

I have read your with interest. Being a member of the Tucson 

Rough Riders my are the effects of the plan on roads 

and trails. I can see of hard work went into preparing this 

plan. It provides protection for environmental areas and allows 

vehicle at the same the four plans I find plan C 

to be most suitable. Plan is totally unacceptable due to the 

restrictive nature of the plan. I applaud your plan to obtain legal 

private lands. 

Sincerely

Rhea1 

Dr. 

AZ 
17 -

.
 

18 19 

6, 1990 

Mr. 

425 4th St. 

AZ 85546 

Sue Wallace Cabin 

8780 E. 

Tucson, 85715 
20
 

 

21 

TO: MT. Ray R. Brady 

District Manager 

Dear Sir: 

As an avid mountain bike enthusiast, I very disappointed

by reading your current draft Management Plan for the 

District. believe that it is very unfair to group

mountain bikes in with off-road vehicles such as drives 

and motorcycles. AS far a comparative damage is concerned. it 

is apparent by looking at various trails that mountain bikes I far less degradation than a shod horse, and only slightly

than a person hiking in heavy hiking boots. By classing

mountain bikes with motorized vehicles, the is denying us 

to important areas southern Arizona's back country.

We believe that have just much right to these 

supported areas as others groups who, it should noted, have 

their narrow interests served by us out. Mountain 

bikes are a fun and low impact enjoy the outdoors which

the is protecting and managing for just the

select and influential few. With the ever increasing interest 

and support of mountain bikes, as indicated by the 5 million 

being sold every year, and people choosing offroad bicycling their primary means recreation. and will 

be a force that must be dealt with equitably. Conflicts 

between interest groups can best be dealt with through increased 

education, not by blatantly discriminating against group

I be if my concerns as as those of 

other biking enthusiasts were given attention in any

revisions of the District 

Ronald Martin 

E. 

AZ 85715 
‘
 

 

 

-

-

-

North 56th 

Glendale, Arizona 85302 

9 , 

Mr. Steve 

Team Leader 

425 E. street 

Safford, AZ. 85546 

Mr. Knox, 

am in receipt of the Safford District I 

congratulate you and your co-workers on this good piece of work. 

I have a couple of comments regarding your preferred alternative. 

Alternative should be the preferred alternative because 

has higher number of acres 

number of acres closed to OH" 

recommends the San Francisco river as for inclusion 

in the Wild Scenic River System

this alternative stresses conservation more than A or 

like the of use, whereas these will be confined existing roads and jeep trails as identified 

in your review process. Option is unacceptable as far as

is concerned. 

I like your management of the San Pedro and the Idea cf 

Timber Draw Dam on the San Simon. I 

for as many in-stream water flows as possible. 

Please continue emphasize recreation and wildlife

and reduce grazing and mining activities. You are the stewards of the nicest lands MI AI~ZOILB. you. 
26 

3 
 

March 16, 1990 

the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

425 E. 4th Street 

A2 85546 

Gentlemen: 

I am writing to you regarding the high country south of Creek; 

specifically the old Woods Ranch Allotment at the West End. 

As a horse owner. I feel that this area has great potential for trail 

riding. It is within a reasonable from Tucson and many riders 

would welcome the use of trails in this area. 

We hope that it not be opened to use. There ate roads that 

occasional can use. There are roads that could stand some 

use, but any unlimited opening could to be extremely detrimental 

to the land. These watersheds above the Creek are important to this 

if 

ruined. 

We you think favorably about horseback and hiking use. 

 

31 32 

Placlta 

Valley. 

March 17, 1990 

Steven Knox, Team Leader 

Bureau 01 Land 

425 E. 4th Street 

A2 85546 

Dear Knox, 

I to Altematlve for the Management Plan 

I think It be the best alternative to protect the and Muleshoe 

areas because It restricts cattle and off hi$tway vihlcle use. 

I am a hlker and a blrdwatcher and I value any to preserve the 

natural beauty the wildlife and plants 

Sincerely. 

Sharon 
 

33 

126 La 

AZ 85614 

March 16, 1990 

MI. 

Team Leader
 

Of Management
 

425 E. 47th Street
 

AZ 85546
 

Dear Mr. Knox: 

It has to my attention that the BLM is considering several plans 

in regard to management of the areas of Aravaipa and 

My husband and I are hikers and have hiked in the Aravaipa Creek 

area both last year and this year. It is a beautiful wilderness and 

be ta learn of plan that change present use. 

I that you always under pressure from special groups 

to change the use of the land to benefit them ii 

is important, too, to consider what best for the land in the long term 

and is for the future generations of who love the land 

for its sheer beauty. 

Of the four alternative plans that have been proposed, I feel that Plan 

best protect the wilderness habitat, wildlife flora. I would urge 

you to implement Plan and to work closely with the Conservancy 

and accept their help and advice. 

Sincerely, 
221 w. 

Valley, A Z . 

March 19, 1990 

Steve Knox, Team Leader Bureau of Land Management E. 4th street 

AZ. 85546 

Dear Steve Knox: 

I strongly Alternative B for the and 

Areas where it is most important that Off Highway Vehicles, as 

well as Cattle Grazing, be restricted. 

Along with nine other people, I hiked Canyon in October 

 waiting a year to receive the permit. It was a rare and 

breathtaking Canyon a National Treasure 

that should be carefully protected from overuse and abuse because 

of Its vegetation, archaeological sites and wildlife habitat that future generations may enjoy them doing. 

I urge you to work closely with the Nature Conservancy---Accept their 

Advice and benefit. 

Max-fan Schramm 
 

37 

 Team 

Bureau Management 

425 E. 

Safford. 85546 

I hare been an opportunity read the Safford 

and E.I.S. certainly appears to be a 

for your area of As a visitor many of 

the areas covered by the study my of the report leads me 

urge reconsider choice of Alternative A as the 

“preferred alternative’: Other approaches are available which can 

be much more restrictive on some issues and still preserve the 

use concept. Alternative B would be a forward 

in protecting archeological and sites, over-grazing 

in critical areas. Big Horn Sheep lambing areas and delicate 

vegetation. It would also close additional sensitive areas 

off highway vehicle use. 

We all act and decisively protect our vanishing 

wild areas. This can be done without ignoring the rights of hunters, 

fishermen or users. accomplish all 

much more effectively the “preferred” alternative as 

designated in the and EIS. 

Quail Dr. 

Green Valley, AZ . 85614 
 

 

 

 

 

I

39 

1322 

ARIZONA 85718 17 March 1990 

Leader
 of 425 E. 4th Street
 Safford, AZ 85546
 

Dear Mr. Knox: 

I would like to make comment on the draft for the Safford District. Through the our nation through an to go

back to the 1950s. It did not work. The world, the nation, and 

state are not like they were four decades ago, and we cannot go back. 

The impossibility of the days" is the compound product of population growth (from 15 to 251 million) and technological impacts.

Those impacts do not stop at the state line, but are connected to 

global climate, demand for our products, and natural cycles of water,

carbon, etc. The latest of computer of global climate 

envisions increasing heat and drought, the that grew little grass

In the past summer, making intensive grazing eve" more impossible than 

it has bee" ra2ont1y. 

Hence planning for use of national resource the form of 

public lands in southeastern cannot be limited to the of traditional livestock and Just as sure as there is a BLM, the images of the and racks in the pickup is fading to a last refuge in the movies. There is more 

demand for the service functions of natural lands for the beef, 

more need for protection of natural systems than provision for 

vehicular access. There is also more need for information than what is 

available in the DEIS and the the alternatives. only alternative that a" view,

alternative B, has in common with A and C the rebuilding of roads that 

caused previous erosion Canyon Road,, erosion that is 

incompatible with Concern Vegetation", p. 40. 

The system has been the scene of not mere

predator control, but if news accounts have been accurate, of deaths for black bear. mutilations of killed 

The-causal-nature of the predator not been addressed, so have nothing to refute the grapevine notion that 

over-harvesting of native ungulates has left the predators without 

sufficient natural prey. hence a" demand for domestic stcok 

as the food source. Open up more roads, increase deer harvest, and 

what that do for predator and rancher? 

Vehicular to natural lands Is rendered obsolete by wider 

concerns of energy conservation, biological diversity, carbon dioxide 

Imbalance from excessive burning of fossil fuels and such as results from vehicular abuse by domestic stock. 

1 

To run bulldozers back into the south rim uplands above 

which are already showing poor ability to heal from past insults, is 

to ignore the writing on the brute force is no longer the

solution to our needs. hunting and grazing pressures cannot be 

sustained. There are simply too of us to hunt, and any short-term alleviations will be in the longer run to have bee" unsustainable land 

Similarly. the Arizona economy is no longer dependent on beef 

but on urban-based technologies. Quality of life will 

become increasingly a matter of natural contrasts and escapes, careful 

watershed management. protection of biotic diversity and natural 

heritage. This has, in part, been the thrust of recent Arizona 

wilderness legislation, which has provided another contrast to this 

which seems a nostalgic Safford of the 50s view: put cows on 

the limited grass and jeeps hunters on the uplands. 

Considering what taxpayers must pay for, ultimately, in 

flood control, recovery plans for T E species,

management subsidies to cover what grazing fees do not meet, and the 

host of social costs of land abuse, the time for the Bureau to leave the 50s is You have a very Important role in the national but not envisioned in past land use patterns. 

Hence I urge a modification of Alternative B to include the 

alternative as regards re-opening of rutted into the 

hills. you. 

yours, 

Dr. William A. 

2 
40
41
 

.

44
 

 

 

MT. SteYe Leader Of Land Management 

425 street 

Arizona 85546 

Mr. Knox: 

Because I am deeply concerned about the condition 

the and I urge you to 

Alternative for protecting these 

Alternative restrict the use of off-highway

vehicles, improve wildlife habitats, protect the big horn 

and many other ways preserve the beauty

exceptional natural area. If the with the 

Nature Conversancy and accept their and advice and 

adopt Alternative these worthy goals can be achieved. 

Your help will be greatly appreciated by this concerned 

citizen. 
--

 

 

 

 *

 

 

 

 

 

47 

THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE

Steve Knox. Team Leader 

Bureau of Land 

street 

Safford, 

In P”T*L??t o f of March here the 

comments of the San Carlos Apache Recreation 

the Safford 

The that Included the draft should not be 

t h e 

correct the southern boundary of the San Carlos Apache 

that the 

Coronado Forest. 

2) The Ranch Creek road. or the road south from 

Cutter to the boundary. should not be 

the general It remain under 

whereby any non-tribal member on is 

to have in a San 

hunting, or the road should be 

and locked (by the the at the 

boundary. of the 

expense to the San same 

ranger access at would also 

to San 

that no Mescals and 

Mountains would be aided by access from the south. 

The of closures. 

This recommendation should cause to anyone. as 

the area south of the boundary already 

accessible from 77 the area. 

the would benefit by frequent 

from the north. the tribe could Provide that with a 

to the gate. 

THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE

PO. Ba 

Cattle allotments should not be Ranges 

west of 

Creek and Creek. One the most herds 

and of desert the 

world both north and south the 

boundary. 
48
 and Marvin 
 ___ "" . 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 , -­

, . 

All in T.13S. 

All of 

of sec. 7,3,b,&Rll of of All
 

All in T12S. 

Sec. 3 5 6 7 E 9 10.16; 

All in 

Sec. 28 

N$Ii8i SnCe11 m* WE 

All of 

of 5.6,:

9; mstsee.33; All in All of Sac. S. of S.Y.R.R. All in T.iLS. sec.36 Of L.R. R-0-U. 

All of 2 S. of S.P.R.R. 

All 

UE+SF.i;. S+Sd&Sec. 

All In T.125. 

All of Sec. 

All in 

o ! 

of T14.S. R3OE.
 

PEE 900202570 

RECORDS 

COUNTY 

DATE HOUR 

11 

OF 

RHODES-RECORDER 

FEE : PAGES : 2 
- - CLAM 2 

900202573 

THE.-VW-­
 

51-2 

 the on this retain Mexico Field Office of TIE Nature on list for District. 
 

 

 43. 

results in 

biological in the proposed Guadalupe 

44. Guadalupe

Canyon prcvicks a migration for nwny Mexican 

wildlife 
lards cmrdiratr 

I 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..................... ..I 

........................ 

.......... ...3 

.............. . 

. . . . . . . . . . .

Big cap. . . . .

Blue . . . . . 

. . . . 

................. 

...... 

. . . . 

DriFpirq Sprin$Zemcdny 

East potrillo Mamtains 

Florida . . . 

. . . 

. . . . . 

. . . . . 

. . 

. . . . 

. . 
 rich siteskuttkre isno 

for the 

of the qzadml deterioration of this area over the y- it is difficult

/importarre criteria 
52 

of 

23, 1990 

Two 

Alternative A Summary page iii 4th pare: 

. . on mineral material sales would have a low 

Of impact of the local economy dealing with

425 4th street extraction and 

Safford, AZ 85546 

Observation: This is a general statement which I'm 

Att": Knox adequate research would be found to be Untrue in one or 

more specific instances. I have reviewed the Safford District Resource Plan 

Environmental Statement Draft dtd January 1990, and submit Thank you for this opportunity to 

herein. 

I sympathetic to desire for to designate and to 

"block up" land ownership to the federal 

programs and charge. a" owner that has invested 

rather heavily in lands within two of the proposed areas I a 

little more than concerned about the negative financial impact

the program will no doubt have on future values of private

lands within the subject areas prescribed by Zoning and 

of the properties will unquestionably be influenced by

with their program(s), thereby stiffling

opportunities for development within the private sector. It 

seems that a" owner would have little or no option regarding

the use of his property other than trade it, at a value

controlled mostly through the market made primarily by for 

other properties that has as disposable. Much of 

the disposable properties that remain available are light years

from being of use to anyone, if ever. The present methodology of 

property appraising predicated on the free market system is

abrogated under this plan, leaving the private land owner to

decompose financially. 

Other comments regarding the draft: 

Alternative A page iii 2nd pare: 

. . moderate benefits to vildlife habitat and high

benefits to vegetation.
 

Observation: Appears to me to be a somewhat contradictory
 

statement. I 
 

Western New Mexico University 

1038 

AZ.85614 

Since you are the District Team Leader, I 

addressing my letter to you. Of the four alternatives outlined 

in the I wish to tell you that I support Alternative 

It would benefit and protect 4000 acres of 

It would restrict the use of acres to "off 

vehicles".. 

Through proper would help to 

101,000 acres of wildlife habitat. 

4) It would Close areas that important to Horn Sheep 

time and to their protection. 

5) It would protect and sites. 

6) It would restrict and control the of cattle in 

critical areas. 

And since the Arivipa and areas are such unique 

places, I hope I can help preserve them for my grandchildren to 

enjoy in the future as I have enjoyed them at this time. 

It is hope BLM the Nature 

will work together closely to help preserve the issues on this 

bill. Please support the Alternative B. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 
 

 

 

55 

 DOW 

w. Green Valley, AZ. 85614 

March 22, 1990 

Mr. Knox 

Bureau of Management 425 E. 4th Street Safford,Safford, AZ. 85546 

Knox: 

I'm writing this letter I'm writing this letter hope that it hope that it on "deaf" ears. My concern is My concern is in world with world with 

pressures to pressures to we overlookoverlook the "down-the-road "down-the-road results.results. 

The Alternative Alternative plan, in my estimation. plan, in my estimation. to best protect the wilderness wilderness habitat.habitat. The areas, particularly in Arizona,Arizona, are so important. important. The vegetation vegetation in them helps

with the balance.balance. 

The wildlifewildlife would be protected protected during criticalcritical periods from The big need the undisturbed need the undisturbed 

nurturing time free from from human interference. human interference.
 

Unrestricted Unrestricted cattle grazing in criticalcritical areas also needs control.control. Since they freely they are able to graze trample

delicatedelicate growth needed in the future. 

I also would be to see large restrictions restrictions 

placed on use. Unfortunately Unfortunately owners do not care about the landscapes landscapes available available to them. They are many of the many of the plants, shrubs, shrubs, trees, tres, etc., from these areas. Their tire tire tracks tracks and and litter liter areare disgusting. As a hiker,a hiker, seen they do.they do. 

I support alternative alternative plan because it best preserves the ARAVAIPA and the ARAVAIPA and Generations Generations from fom now now will will bebe able to enjoy this if act wisely non. 

I do urge the work closely with the Nature Conservancy,

accepting accepting their advice and help. 

-p-L--­

Jane DonJane Don 
 

 

1280 West via Del 

Green Valley, Arizona, 85614 

March 26, 1990 

Of Land Management 

425 East 4th Street 

Arizona 85546 

I wish express my concern regarding the 

District Management Plan. Of the four plans 

proposed for the future development this district, I am 

in support Plan B. Plan appears he the viable 

alternative protecting the wilderness habitat because it 

restricts off vehicle thus protecting

vegetation in turn stabilizes the environment for 

wildlife and flora. It provides for the

protection archaeological sites. 
59 60 
61 62 
 
 

64 

64-l 

 La Villa Marina Rey, 90292 

March 24. 1990 

Team Leader
 

, AZ.
 

Although I live in California. I visit Arizona often, and indeed plan 

there of these days. Thus I feel I have a wee vested interest in

all things including RMP reports. My normal Arizona wanderings 

take me Organ Pipe, the the Chiricahuas, and Aravaipa, the 

latter being one of the subjects in your report. 

One of the things that make Aravaipa so spectacular, is its remoteness and 

inaccessibility. If you want to see Aravaipa, have to WALK!!. Although 

I am 58 years old, I still believe things worth seeing should take some

effort, not a roll-by in a And I am not against the 

abuses which are sometimes horrendous. My motor home is a and my city

truck is also I try and obey the rules, and wish most others

It is against the unthinking, empty heads that I rebel. 

I applaud your and well intentioned effort. It is very 

ambitious. But just perhaps, given current manpower and budget realities, 

the loft your goals could easily outstrip the reasonableness of their 

attainment. The report was detailed, perhaps too much so to outside the and trying to get to the core issues. I would think it best 

to concentrate people and money fewer goals and attain them. 

habitat, not user/use, should be the primary goal for such a unique spot as 

Aravaipa. 

I think the thing that strikes me the hardest about your Preferred 

Alternative as Aravaipa is concerned, is the matter of off road 

vehicle access. In summary section, you talk of "the imprint of man’s 

work is substantially unnoticeable throughout the wilderness 

It should be kept that way, which it will not if more and more

peripheral are to hunters vehicular traffic. example you 

propose closing sheep lambing areas from 1 April 30, and then 

reopening on a 'limited. basis. Why reopen at all. Why not close lambing 

areas year around so that the shy sheep know that they have permanent

territory. I also think your designation of the remaining acres 

'limited. use opens up the possiblity of abuse on a grand scale. People 

I	 in 4x4's in general getting off the roads and tracks to remote 

areas. You cannot be expected to successfully patrol such a large area. I 

think more and illegal roads will pop up, closing in Aravaipa and 

its still 

On the other hand, I applaud your intent to include 6684 acres in the 

Rational Wilderness Preservation System.... to continue to file for 

flow consider Aravaipa Creek for 

A. Creek is not extra specially unique,

plans to purchase additional critical properties

good and positive steps which could be easily 

1 

Unique Waters designation

know what your in the area. Those are all 

overshadowed by the eventual 

arrival of clouds of dust and and destroyed all compliments of The area surrounding Aravaipa is as sacred and needing 

of protections as the canyon itself. There are few in this 

world, please let's resist the political pressure to be all things to all 

people. Let's reshape priorities a bit, giving the big nod to habitat 

and Han can still walk. have not lost that ability quite yet,

although denizens of the earth in the middle of next century could well be 

born with wheels where once there were legs. 

I do not want to sound like a rabid environmentalist elitist barring all 

People forever from wild habitat. Han has been part of the scene for 

thousands of years. But NOT his vehicles. I remember walking the canyon one 

early morning, and encountering a young family of four from Holland, 

had camped overnight. They loved the spot, and the reason because they

heard no other people, and they had to make an effort to gain the pleasure.

That's what the super unique wildlife areas are all about. The and the Nature have a sacred here. Please act as 

responsible for the next century, who hopefully

will not have wheels permanently attached. 

Thanks for your 

2 
 

3. Improves wildlife habitat by management 

4. big born sheep lambing 

periods.

3 6 

Restricts cattle razing in critical 

areas. a 

Alternate best 
 

67 

march 29. 1990 

Steve Knox. Team Leader 
 

Bureau of Land Management 
 

425 E. 4th St.
 

Safford, AZ 85546
 

Mr. 

We are regard to the Safford Management 

the four we feel that alternate 

8 best our interest in the habitat. 

and flora of the and areas, 

Dorothy Jack Miller 

963 Las Circle 

Green Valley. 85614 
 

 

 

 I

 

 

 

 

 . ,,

 to be 

opposed to 

A. I am interested here the added 

Creek Canyon wherein Eagle Creek Bat 

free-tailed bat 

from and I would 

the the appropriate gate to protect these 

designate 800,000 to Visual 

I”. Although I do not 
I

further es 

persona 
 

 

 

 

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

KG% MOFPXD. 1990 

Knox, 

District office
 

of Land 

425 East 4th Street
 

Safford, Arizona 

Dear Mr. Knox: 

This letter is in response to your January 1990 request

a" air quality impact review, the following project: 

Safford District 

The planned project is partially located in a" air quality

attainment area, that is, an which currently meets

federal health standards for air pollution levels. The Paul 

Area in in for (particulate matter

less than microns). 

We have reviewed the submitted proposal and no adverse air

quality impact is anticipated as a result of the project.

However, during construction, we would request that steps are 

taken to minimize the amount of particulate matter (dust)

generated, including incidental emissions caused by strong

winds, as well as tracking of dirt off the construction site 

machinery and trucks. Applicable state rules are 

contained in A.A.C. 

I" addition, please be aware that portable sources of air

pollution such as rock, sand, gravel, and asphaltic concrete 

plants are required to receive Installation and Operating 

from the Office of Air Quality in order to operate in the 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have

further questions, please contact this office at 

Sincerely, 
 

-

71 

 30, 1990 

Knox 

of Land Management

425 E. street 

AZ 

Dear MT. Knox: 

Ye have received a copy of the Draft for the 

District. We must admit to only a very

brief review of the alternatives listed and their 

varying impacts. 

Despite this brief review. Ye must come O"t strongly 

for Alternative the alternative which would 

supply greater protection to 

logical and other resources. We worked for 

environmental protection for many years mainly

in the State Michigan. We know the irreversible 

damage which can be done to fragile environments 

by improper use (misuse) by man. 

any permitted or otherwise, effect 

the area under encourage the 

establishment of the strictest controls possible of 

the areas under your jurisdiction. There is 

little damage we can control, where control is 

possible it should be and monitored with 

great stringency. 
74
 

-

75 

Mr. 28, 1990 

Team Leader 

of Land Management

425 4th Street
 

AZ 85546 

Eagle Creek Cave as proposed in 

Safford District Resource Management Plan 

This letter is comment the Eagle Creek Bat Cave portion of 

the District's proposed land management plan. I would 

like to see Alternative A accepted as the management strategy for 

this area due to the significance of the Mexican free-tailed bat 

population a* a maternity colony. AS monies become available the 

lands in Alternative should be acquired. The necessity for a 

management plan for protection of the bats is essential. 

There are very few major Mexican free-tailed maternity

colonies in the United States. This maternity roost 

a of the overall 

Regular human disturbance, especially in Alternative C would 

have an adverse impact on the colony. Thousands would die 

before a census could determine the decline. 

With such a large number of helpless young being raised in a 

single during a specific time frame each year, the 

possibility of a catastrophic incident from careless or 

malicious humans is possible.

As already stated in the management proposal, the Mexican

free-tailed population has been in steady decline for 

several years its entire range. 

I have been to Eagle Creek Bat Cave three times, all on research 

oriented trips when the bats were not present to work on low

impact population estimate*. During the most recent visit,

January 27th. 1990 we observed the 'classic' scenario of three 

men riding up walking up the hill with their M-16,

walking through the gate past the old "Do Not Disturb The Guano" 

sign and up the guano mountain. I went up and requested

them to come back down. We had a polite conversation and they

followed me down the slope. farther up the canyon, we

heard them target practicing with some 30 rounds in rapid

If this scenario occurred during the summer months 

it is quite possible the target practice would have been at the 

cave. 

Please begin with the protection this sight with your Alternative

B, the designation including the 3160 acres. If Alternative 

is not due to monitory restraints for the land

acquisition then Alternative A should be taken. I would not like 

to see Alternative C taken. The chances of changing the 

climatology through mining the guano inside the cave and thus 

effecting the bats is great. I have shown an example of

Alternative above. Similar instances contribute the current 

population decline. 

Sincerely, 

President, Arizona Region of the 

National Society 
 

 

76 

United States Department of the Interior 

ANDWILDUFE SERWCE . 

March 28, 1990 

Steve Knox
 

Team Leader
 

Bureau of Land Management

425 E. 4th Street
 

AZ 85546
 

Dear Hr. Knox: 

I was heartened to learn that BLM is contemplating protecting Eagle Creek Cave 

and the dwindling population of Tadarida I brasiliensis that roost there. n

response to the agency request for public input on the 1989 Resource Management 

Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I would like to support efforts to 

protect Eagle Creek Cave as a" Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

During the I studied declining populations of brasiliensis throughout the Southwestern U.S., including the population at Eagle Creek Cave (see enclosed 

reprints). At that time it was obvious that the Eagle Creek colony had already 

undergone a perilous decline. Our studies showed little support for the theory 

that the decline there due to pesticides as had demonstrated for the 

population at Carlsbad Caverns. Although there is some evidence of heavy metal 

contamination, also considerable evidence 

a major contributor to the decline. 

We routinely found empty shotgun shells and other evidence of human disturbance 

during our visits to the I would really prefer your Alternative to 

protect the entire expanse of Eagle Creek. I think that would make it much 

easier to control access to the cave, and would provide significant protection 

for other important natural resources as outlined in the ACEC evaluation. 

Regardless of the alternative ultimately selected, hope will 

posting a conservation message explaining why the public should be excluded from 

the cave, so that legitimate visitors to the Canyon not be offended. The 

public could easily be to view the exit flight from below, providing 

I an educational opportunity as well. In conjunction with this, I would urge a ban 

on the discharge of firearms within a quarter mile or so of the cave entrance. 

If access to the area cannot be controlled effectively, it might be necessary to 

build better gate the entrance. The entrance is high enough that a" 

effective bar to human entry could be designed that occupied only the bottom 10 

feet or so, leaving the bats ample room to exit normally through the higher part 

of the entrance. Should you eventually contemplate changes to the gate, I would 

consulting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Team Bat 

Conservation International for current guidelines on cave 

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our natural resources. If I can be of
 

further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
 

Sincerely,
 

E. Wilson 

Research Zoologist 
77 

. 
79
 

80 81 

PETITION 

TO: Bureau of Land Management RE: Safford District Resource 

U.S. of the Interior Management Plan and 

425 E. 4th Street Impact 

Safford, A2 85546 

THIS PETITION is in regard to the use of the high country above Aravaipa Canyon. 

request that you do not open the mad Virgus Canyon. The area west of Virgus 

should be open to equestrian and foot travel only. At present. there are many O-wheel 

drive in the Turkey Creek-Table area. There is need for equestrian 

trails outside of the Aravaipa Creek itself and and are a dangerous 

combination. 

Safford 

please do not re-open the Virgus Canyon road, and please do 

not or build any roads in the Canyon 

areas. 

2316 Chrysler

Tucson, AZ 85716 
 

 

 

 

DOS Route, Box 6309 

85643 

MI. 

Bureau of Land Management 

425 E. 4th Street 

Safford, 85546 

Draft Safford District Resource Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement 

The document under review, with appropriate maps, 

wealth of information in which to make a reasonably good 

of the four alternative land use plans. The 

has Properly identified four major issues and ten concerns 

which most of the public recognizes. 

Although the Alternative A provides for a 

basis to land use and management problems, I would strongly 

like to emphasize that Alternate enables much protection 

to the natural and the environment. I, therefore, 

recommend and support Alternate 

The mild interests on the part of the public towards the 

Public Lands and the environment during the past have 

dramatically shifted in recent years to major concerns. 

Many realize that this is all that is left of the Public 

Lands and that they should be used protected wisely. 

It is becoming more apparent that the values the 

natural and cultural as they are found 

are of great interest and importance. 

The BUM should be especially commended the identification 

of several sensitive such as the ACEC, NCR, 

and RNA units. The enlargement of most of these critical 

areas as proposed in Alternate would a greater buffer 

thus providing much protection to these units. 

I also encourage the as a wilderness 

addition. The Scenic ACEC around Fort could be 

to the Nation1 Park System so as to 

National Historic Site to be a larger and Unit. 

the as a National 

Conservation Area. Other wilderness areas mentioned are 

also 

I oppose the possible suggestion of vegetation 

manipulation in the future through the use of artificial 

methods such as chemical biocides on Public Lands. Similar 

control methods on insects would also be objectionable. 

Fischer 
 

 

 

 

 

83 

83-l 

March 29, 1990 

Mr. Steve Knox 

of Land Management 

425 E. 4th St. 

Saff0I-d. AZ 85546 

The saffmd RMPEls does not adequately address wolf 

Al who wrote pmtions of the wildlife discussions, on March 24 

me that wolf reintroduction not no agency has designated any 

Banmann told IM he was that in 1986, AGFD identified 

BLM lands for evaluation as wolf sires. A copy of this document is 

attached. The should include an evaluation of impacts of habitat 

management and land tenwc upon suitability of these for wolf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Post Office Box 1306 

Albuquerque, Mexico 87103 

spear: 

This letter is in response to your of July 14 for a 

areas in Arizona possibly sustain 

reintroductions of the Mexican wolf 

The list is not prioritized and the area boundaries 

are not defined. The areas listed are based largely the 

habitat and established by the 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Team and enclosed with your letter of July 

14. We this initial list as a basis to begin the process of 

delineating potential. reintroductions and agree that 

non-biological will guide the rigorous site 

prioritization process and influence the final selection of 

areas. The habitat considerations developed by the 

Recovery Team are adequate for commencing the reintroduction 

and at this offer no considerations in addition 

to those. 

I” candidate reintroduction areas it is 

difficult to separate the biological from the non-biological 

components. For example, the nearly statewide presence Of 

if releases are made areas “here livestock are excluded, 

the wide-ranging nature of will eventually bring them in 

contact with far from the release area. 

focused more on biological factors of to habitat expanse 

and condition and native prey populations. We think that some 

mechanism to handle livestock depredation must be outlined very 

soon, and refined later with local ranchers as specific release 

are 

suggest that there be a series meetings to 

specifically define and prioritize potential release areas. 

initial meeting could be the Recovery Team and responsible 

state and federal agencies, but afterward should provide 

ample opportunity for public Involvement. 
 J. Spear July 28, 1986 

Ye are looking forward to developing with the U.S. and 

Service a wolf reintroduction program that successfully

fills a predator niche vacated by decades of persecution. At the 

same time hope project succeeds in revealing to the

people of Arizona the true nature and tragic history of the 

in state. Indeed, both of these expectations must be met if 

to maintain this important element of southwestern fauna. 

Please contact Rich Biologist, or Terry 

Johnson, Endangered Species Coordinator, if you need additional 

assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Lee Perry, AGFD 

Mike AGFD 

Tom AGFD 

Wes Martin, AGFD 

Tom AGFD Don Turner, 
 

Steven Knox, RMP Term Leader
 

01 Land 

42s E. 4th street
 

Dear 

I an wrltlng to Alternative B the Reswce f-lx@gementPlan. 

I it be the best altematlve to protect the Aravaipa and 

areas because it protects sites habitat. 

I selected for my years of beauty 

I the to help the wlMerness for my to 

enjoy. 

Sincerely, 
 

..

 

 

 

 

86 

Box 122,Bio Science West 

31 March 

Mr. Steve Knox 

RMP Team Leader
 

Bureau of Land Management

425 E 4th Street
 

Arizona 85546
 

Dear Mr. Knox: 

In another letter I have written my general comments about the BLM Safford

District and draft Environmental act Statement
 

the specific I have several of the
 

but the area with which I am most familiar is Eagle

Creek Bat Cave. I wanted to address it in this letter. 

species of bats with which they cc-occur. 

Like most other species of bats, Mexican have extremely low

reproductive potential. are not capable of population losses rapidly.

Natural by catastrophic events or insect cycling then can

drastic decreases their numbers. deal with events. But 

the disturbances caused by human impact, those of habitat pesticide

introduction, scientific and disturbance at the site, offer little 

hope of recovery. bats must be protected. 

I strongly favor Alternative B. My recommendations to this end are based 

evidence of urbamx by encroachment the cave. Much of and illegal activity is undoubtedly due to ignorance. For this reason I

 public, with an imitation to bat from bottom. 

And such messages will never by everyone who visits the 

The 

existing will only keep out those who to the posted 

message.

every human visitation to interior the of bats (either those 

that abandon or by loss of bats that drop a guaranteed death). It probable that the removal of changes microclimate enough to effect

differences in bat behavior. In addition, I have seen shells of shotguns and various caliber at the entrance to the cave on every visit, I a 

Alternative B would eventually lead to of section of Creek to 

proposed Box National c!!onservation Area. This would help

public awareness and appreciation for bats, as well as demonstrating effectiveness of the BLM in protecting public lands. 

I am very leased that the again noticed and singled out Eagle Creek Bat

renew, and I hope that you will do that is to protect the site

and its bats. 

Ronnie Sidner 

References Cited: 

E. L 1970. Insecticides and bats. Ecology,

D. G. 1958 of hair pigments in bats by the atmosphere

in caves. J. 20 

Duncan, R. B. and R. Sidner. press. Bats spotted pellets southern Arizona. Great 

D. A and R C review. record for 

the Mexican Free-tailed bat at Creek Cave. , Arizona. 

R. F. and E. L 1978 Orgamxbknine residues in 

tail bats . ) at Creek Cave, Greenlee Arizona. P in Proc. Fourth International Bat Research 

R J., J. B. R. A eds. Kenya Literature Bureau, 

Sidner, . 19%. significance of Eagle Creek Cave to Arizona’s Mexican Free-tailed bats, Report to the Game 

and Fish Department, June 1986. 65 pp. 
-

I 

Potential Wolf Reintroduction Areas
 

compiled by

Arizona Game and Fish Department

1986
 

Area Name 

Mountains 

3 North Kaibab-Saddle
 Mountain Wilderness
 

Sycamore Wilderness
 

Complex
 

5 Coconino Plateau 

6 

sierra 

Mountains 

9 

10 Timber Camp 

11 Pine Mountain 

12 

13 Chiricahua Hountains- HountainsSan Valley 

14 Mountains 

15 Mountains­

%" 

Principal

"SFS 

Graham state (near 

Coconino 

Coconino 

USPS (Coconino

Kaibab) 

and 

“0 State and private 

state, private, BLM 

"SFS 

"SFS (Prescott) 

Graham "SFS (Coronado), private BLM, 

Cochise (Coronado), private BLM, 

Santa "SFS (Coronado) 

Santa "SFS (Coronado),

Cochise private 
---

 

 

 Knox 

Team Leader 

Bureau of Land Management 

425 E. Street 

Safford, a5546 

Mr. Knox: 

strongly the Eagle Creek Bat Cave be designated an Area of 

Critical Concern. Preferably it should b-e preserved as 

parcel under the prescription as a Preferred 

Alternative. 

Eagle Creek Cave is one of three known caves for the 

free-tailed bat Tad&da . In the visited Eagle 

Creek Cave while a student at the University of Arizona. The million 

bats in this � aturnity cave not only were zoologist's dream, but also 

had a tremendous on Arizona agriculture by consuming millions of 

insects nightly. 

To learn this population has dwindled to an estimated 40,000 is 

alarming. I do not place the for this decline entirely on human 

In fact, the mismanagement of pesticides in 

probably has had the greatest impact on this migratory species. But. I 

also feel we should protect this cave to ensure this population will 

continue to survive. 

Clay Mitchell, Ph.D. Wildlife Biologist 

March 31, 1990 

MT. Ray A. 

District Manager
 

District Office
 

street
 

AZ 85546
 

Dear Mr. Brady: 

Enclosed is my District public comment form, 

which I completed after consulting with off-road bicyclists

in my organization and around southern Arizona. you can

ascertain the nature of comments, mountain bicycle

enthusiasts are less than thrilled with how the proposed 

treat them--particularly the decision to unfairly

mountain bikes by lumping them in with 

as we feel that mountain bicycles, with their proven minimal 

environmental impact, don't belong in the category. we suggest the creation a separate mountain bicycle classification to allow the fair consideration of mountain I issues. 

Please feel free call on me if the District 

is ever in need of assistance in dealing with mountain biking

issues. I'm especially interested in working with the 

establish mountain bike trails. 

Thank you very much. 

Steve Anderson 

Trails Board 

Representing Off-Road 

Cyclists. 
Mountain Bike Access 

As the Trails Association board member charged with 

representing the interests off-road bicyclists, I feel compelled 

to comment on the rather unfair manner in which the issue mountain 

bicycle is treated in the Safford District Draft Resource 

The most significant access-related concern enthusiasts have
 

raised relates to the Safford staff's unfortunate decision 

to include mountain bicycles in the access-restrictive "Off-highway 

Vehicle" category along with such motorized conveyances as 

as and drive trucks. Obviously, the 

need for an classification exists to facilitate the careful 

consideration of where potentially destructive motorized vehicles 

should be allowed to be used on public lands; however, mountain 

bicycles hardly belong in this group. A variety of trail-damage 

studies conducted in recent years, including the well-known 1987 

Analysis, have concluded that off-road bicycles pose 

no more of an environmental "threat" than do hikers equestrians. 

Given that such scholarly examination has that mountain bikes 

have a minimal impact at most, it is patently unfair to subject 

bikers the restricted access status that part 

being classified as an The time has come to 

the myths about the "dangers" of mountain biking proffered by 

informed, intentionally deceptive environmental interests and a 

selfish minority of other trail users and allow mountain bikers the 

Steve Anderson 

Trails Association* 

901 Santa Drive 

Tucson, 85710 

March 28, 1990 

member representing

off-road bicyclists. 

fair access they deserve--access which should include the ability to 

recreate on all lands open to hikers and horsemen except for designated wilderness and wilderness study areas. 

Another major access-issue concern for mountain bikers is the 

Safford District staff's belief, expressed in the Draft and at 

public meetings,

with other 

that biking is inherently incompatible

trail use activities and should be segregated from them. 

This belief is diametrically opposed to our multi-use trails experience in County, where have achieved a remarkable degree of 

respectful mutual between bicyclists, equestrians and 

hikers. From all indications, a similar level peaceful coexistence exists among trail users throughout the vest. This is not to say that trail conflicts do not occur; occasionally they do. It 

appears, however, that as trail learn their respective responsibilities and begin to apply proper trail etiquette on a consistent 

basis, conflicts are diminishing in both numbers and severity. With such conflicts the becoming the rare exception, it be decidedly unfair to prohibit mountain bicyclists from many of 

the same areas in the Safford District that hikers and horsemen have 

access And "unfair" may putting it mildly. The unreasonable denial of access mountain bikers would probably be accurately

characterized as an infringement upon their civil liberties. 

Mountain bicyclists in southern Arizona are disappointed that the Safford District office has shown a marked indifference 

their legitimate recreational needs. The enthusiasts I 

have spoken with enviously point to the cordial, cooperative relationship that has developed between the and mountain bikers in eastern 

Utah and western Colorado--a relationship that has resulted in the 

establishment if the magnificent Kokopelli mountain bike 

trail--and why a similar cooperative relationship can't exist 

in southern Arizona. Regardless of how the Safford District staff 

may feel about mountain biking, it is an undeniable fact that and 

off-road will be recreating in the Safford District in 

the years to come, and the possibility exists that mountain bikers 

may become the largest single group of to utilize the 

Safford District for recreational purposes. taxpayers support

these lands as much as any other recreational group, the responsible,

environmentally aware mountain bike enthusiasts southern Arizona 

would like to receive all of the access that they rightly 
 

 

roads

 

StdsofOalGrweubea~ty~~~~nt~.~~

 

 

 

Box Science West 

31 March 

Mr. Knox 

RMP Team Leader 

Bureau of Land Management 

425 4th street 

a5546 

Dear Mr. 

I have the following regarding the BLM District Resource 

Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement 1989). 

1. I generally recommendations for hope to see rapid 

implementation of the actions to restore and protect these areas. 

2 Box Outstanding Natural Area I agree with the recommended 

prescriptions under Alternative A, except that refer the ones 

Alternative B including inclusion of more lands closing the 

to off-highway vehicular we, but I am not in favor of nahtml wildfire m the 

I agree with the prescriptions in the Preferred 

I you should include the from B 

about suspension of In addition, I recommend 

within the area and even blocking access to Turkey Creek at eek. Turkey 

Creek is another of important riperian wrridon,and with it Oak 

the steep-walled 

along Aravaipa. In addition, Oak Grove held (and may one of s 

two of Allen’s Big-eared Bats 

the canyon Littered with cow manure human evidence that 

to within the 

dwindling islands of habitat. I prefer Alternative B. 

5. Canyon Wilderness Additions. I prefer the addition of as land to 

as is I would like to see it closed to and vehicular In addition, I like to see a decrease in hunt harvests of 

deer in the immediate to encourage predators into these areas. 

6. Creek Canyon Outstanding Natural Area I strongly the 

suggestion in B of the Eagle Creek Bat Cave to 3160 acres of 

land in Eagle Canyon to join this to the Box 

Area. 

Thank you for preparing this document for review. I encourage you to protect 

public lands in the most nahral native possible for present and fuhue 

enjoyment in preservation. Sincerely, 

Ronnie 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91
 

p.0. Box The I Ranch RNA for example, portions 

2974330 

suspect are valid 

Fax 

3 , in area. The on Non-Metal 

“there are several hundred acres of 

of good 30 

Bureau of Land Management feet can be observed”. N o 

E. street 

Safford, by the despite area for 

have the Draft Resource are also concerned Areas, 

and have a number of comments. on map all of the 

coverage of concern 4 and the only of the 

The Safford as reported Table 3-1 an page I the The Management Plan has 3 

has a cumulac,ve m,neral excess of $80 the one the deposit north of 

of the largest areas the the San the of 

and reasonable expect that other major from unpatented Federal 

b e from parented as stared Resource Plan. 

Carbide Corporation, and The Norton 

production of None of the areas proposed Company, Incorporated, 

for had o r I I and GSA Resources, hold unpatented 

o r atleast none noted the Plan. The area. In Resources, Carbide 

of I” rhe Safford and East-West Minerals hold valid State Leases an 

not Table 3-l. lands in which the surface managed by the 

To date a product of $40 mlllzon has 

been produced from this There be some awareness of 

2 
 

 

 

 by the this area has the largest 

number notices and plans in the Safford as 

noted on page 132 Map 

Finally, have concerns about the misuse of by 

BLM. The appear be used manage lands as 

defacto areas without meeting the mandated by 

Congress. The III Ranch RNA and the Bear Springs Badlands 

are good examples. Both contain resources of 

Industrial minerals. my knowledge has had mineral 

inventory, but both are proposed be closed mineral entry. 

The Ranch RN4 has and the Bear 

Springs Badlands contains deposits of clay and natural 

There are no reasons close this area 

entry. The mechanisms formed valuable 

resources, are for the 

assemblages present areas. If is absurd close an 

area mineral entry, because of the assemblages 

found area. not a 

Similar assemblages are found tertiary basins 

throughout the western States. 

would appear Resource Management Plan proposed has 

serious It is unclear mineral development 

be by the designated Areas. The proposed 

81,000 of nearly 6% of the land managed 

by the in the Safford defacto wilderness 

designation lands added wilderness 

and appears to areas were deemed 

for wilderness. There does not appear be a 

by Congress allow this fype of of mineral lands 

from the 

Attached this letter the and Bear 

deposits. A major problem in mineral resources 

the use of mineral needs of the 

project and allocate resources for the future. 

of are discovered. used 

advanced ceramics or super 

materials are developed. The unique minerals 

needed resource needs are being 

New play an 

role solving current problems. 

are being evaluated for use in treatment of 

waters, and are used far the and 
 

 

65 

ZEOLITE DEPOSITS IN THE AND SAN SIMON 

VALLEYS OF ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO 

by Ted H. GSA Rpourca, 

of hazardous and nuclear wastes. fact, 

was used decontaminate the Three Mile Island reactor 

vessel. 

Eyde 

DTE 

Congressman Bob Stump 

Congressman Jim be 

Congressman John Rhodes 

Senator 

Senator John 
61 

References 
"

 

III-23 

Nr. Steve Knox	 April 6, 1990 

199: Creek Bat 

In 4 under the special management prescription, the DEIS calls for 

acquisition of private lands at the auth of the cave as they available. 

is not available and not available for sale or trade to 

Under item 5, considered, the plan indicates that an ACEC would established on 3,160 acres of public land in Eagle Creek Canyon with 

the Eagle Creek Bat Cave included. However, what the plan does not state at 

this particular point is that this ACEC would include nearly 5,000 acres of private lands. An ACEC includes 5,000 of private lands and only 3,000 

acres of federal lands is unmanageable and is an improper ACEC. In addition,

of the zones are included within the private lands and not in the 

federal lands. 

203. Red 

'The Red Knolls geologic formation was evaluated for ACEC status based 

primarily on concern for human safety.' Ye pleased to see BLN reject closing of areas to protect humans their unsafe actions. 

1 

pleased to see BLN declining to run through myriad of overprotective designations of an until the finally qualifies for inclusion protected classification. 

5: and Scenic River Study River BOX 

The inclusion of the Yild and Scenic River report and 

within the resource � nageaent plan reduces the importance of this action and 

should not the only of gathering on this particular issue. 

These studies and should be noticed separately and should have 

separate hearings. 

In the S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

issued a 152 page study report and EIS regarding potential designation of the 

San Francisco River as a Wild and Scenic River. Quoting from the letter sent to 

the President, at the conclusion of that study by the responsible agency. 'Based 

on the river evaluation, the analysis of alternatives, and the public input, it 

concluded that the San Francisco River should not be for 

addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.' 

-24 

The current seven page analysis placed in the Appendix of a 290 page 

Draft EIS for the Resource Plan is a far cry the previous effort 

and essentially conceals the issue from all except those who carefully study the 

DEIS. Certainly the local man-on-the-street who will affected by this decision (Alt. B) is not aware of the action. Accordingly, the preferred 

Alternative A, must be followed for this issue. 

Nr. Steve Knox April 6. 

Again the statement "referring to the last stretch of the 

River in Arizona.' is used. This should be stated in different terms. 

Under the section 5 Local/Regional Social/Economic Considerations, the 

is made that "Designation of the river would not have an impact on 

this (livestock) activity or any other potential in the This Ill- 25 is simply not true. of wild scenic rivers for these river 

segments would definitely have impacts es industry develops In the future and I	 permit issues are raised. Delays in permitting, additional for 

permitting, and stoppages resulting the increased regulation in this 

particular area of any real impacts will indeed cost jobs and could affect the future economy of the area. This section indicates in Graham County of the income is related to retail and 

service sectors. this statement refers to dollars paid by businesses 

which operate in Graham County and not dollars to people live in Graham 

county. For instance, it does not include the 450 who work at the 

industrial complex in County but yet live in Graham County. This 

annual payroll of 12 million dollars is excluded the Graham 

County figures. If regarding economic impacts are to be made in this 

draft resource plan, the numbers should be accurate. 

The following apply to the maps. 

Nap 3:	 ACEC. The outline of the ACEC should conform to the recently proposed NCA boundary. 

Nap 21: The outline of Eagle Creek canyon ACEC should include the outline 

of private lands within the ACEC. This display would graphically 

illustrate that nearly 5,000 acres of private patented fee lands lie 

within the ACEC boundary which includes only 3,000 acres of federal 

lands. This illustration would clearly point out the labored nature of 

this ACEC and the inability of BLN to manage such an 

Nap 32: The Box ACEC boundary should be modified to conform to the recently developed Box NCA boundary. 

Nap 35: The map clearly indicates that sections 1 and 12 in are tarfor retention by BLN. These sections contain mining operations 

on public lands and should not be included in the retention base. They III-27 should be targeted for sale or exchange. I 

The district land status included in the draft 

inaccurately depicts property in section 12 by failing to 

show private along the San Francisco River. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas J. Taylor 

1851 EXJniversity Dr. C 

AZ 

April 2.1990 

Knox 

RMP Team 

of Land Management 

42.5 East 4th Sueet 

AZ 

Knox: 

I have had chance to a copy of the Resource
 

Management I am writing letter to convey my and opinions on
 

the plan 8s it affects and sunuundine It is view the
 

I see no for the suggested opening of this would offroad vehicle in this area, which would increase dust, erasion. and noise 

as weU into creek (and impact wildlife 

and and endemic Surely, with already 

available ORV navel, the value obtained by opening Viirgus mad cannot balance 

against negative impact on this pristine area I also find no 

benefit in obtaining legal access to Hell Hole Canyon nail; this is 

from the points, another nail into me area simply 

not needed. I favor the of Table RNA and 

the Desert Grasslands RNA ACEC 

Thank you for the my thoughts on these matters 

Taylor 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93 

It is � �������� ����

the bats of Creek Bat goal which can be 

by installing a gate that keep 

 ��� �� but not hinder of 

I	 would advantage potential exposure 

to Infections. The 

especially as a of reproduction

the bats. Moreover, to preserve the surrounding are.5 

since such areas provide the insect 

to sustain the bats during the critical period when

cm be restricted due to pregnancy or 

necessity to care for the bats that should be to 

of the animals, such as by shooting, or of 

them by protected persons. 

You are to be commended for your timely proposals. 

I spent nearly my career
 

investigating public health and economic impacts

0" rn."ki"d. years

in of s. PUbl ic MPH 

14 years Of emplDyme"t by the state Public Health Veterinarian 

Health Services, by years Of Veterinary Public Health Unit 

ecological Therefore, I I" 

your 

is in the best interests humans to preserve 

insects by reflect their 

the control insect his livestock, crops,

."d the general environment. are I" affording protection the insects 

to 

From States to eastern a distributed soil fungus may multiply in fecal birds 

or including those of bats. When large of 

fungus are inhaled in dust, a called hlstoplamosis 

may The fungus might be in the cave guano. 
 .

 

 

 

94 i Ox---‘ 

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

2655 Magnolia, Suite 2 

WCOD. rl!REcrm Phoenix, Arizona 85034 

April 4, 

Steve Knox, Team Leader
 

Bureau of Land 

425 4th street
 

Safford, Arizona 85546
 

Dear nr. Knox: 

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed 

the Safford District and draft 

Environmental Statement appreciate the 

opportunity to comment on the document. 

The San Pedro and Upper drainage basins be affected by

the changes in land management by the The 

Report identifies the primary water

quality problems in these systems as follows: 

Out of a total of 694 miles of stream reach in the San Pedro 

drainage basin the has assessed almost a third, finding

that miles are in partial support of state water quality

standards while 21 miles fail to meet minimum accepted levels. 

Principal contaminants include elevated sediment/turbidity,

vith associated levels of dissolved oxygen: high metal 

content and accompanying acidity problems; elevated nitrate 

Grazing and mining are suggested as the probable

contributors of these pollutants. A 1976 inventory showed

accelerated soil erosion for 15 percent of the grazing

land in the San Pedro basin. 

River basin: 

The upper River drainage basin contains miles of 

stream reach: the assessed 378 miles for water quality

problems, identifying 346 miles in partial support and 23

miles in nonsupport of state water quality standards. The 

Upper basin is characterized by elevated turbidity and 

sedimentation, with grazing, agricultural irrigation, and

the suspected sources. Mining and waste disposal

also degrade water quality in the basin 

Both the San Francisco and Blue Rivers, components of the

Upper Basin, poor watershed conditions on 75,600 and 

83,500 acres, respectively. Grazing and poor forest road

conditions responsible for the degradation. 

Knox 

April 4,

2 

supports Alternative A, which acknowledges the need to 

protect the district's resources while accommodating the demands 

of multiple use. as identified in the the Safford 

District riparian areas account for only five percent of the

district's land these increasingly threatened riparian 

resources have beneficial effect on water quality, serving as buffer zones that the influx of sediment and chemical 

contaminants into the stream system, the recommends that the 

protection of riparian areas receive priority in water quality 

management schemes. In particular, the believes the following

riparian areas should receive the increased protection afforded by

Alternative B: 

Creek: 

The unique qualities of this system, as a domestic water 

source, habitat for fish and wildlife populations,

and rich archaeological site are well documented in the

From the standpoint of quality protection, Bonita Creek 

be best by designating and managing the Bonita 

Creek of Critical Environmental Concern as 

stipulated under Alternative B. This would increase the ACEC 

from 1.572 acres to acres, thereby including the entire 

watershed into the ACEC management strategy. This would 

guarantee an increased level of protection this valuable 

stream system. 

Under Alternative A total of 2376 acres would designated 

an to protect two riparian woodlands. to 

the importance of Creek, as a recreational resource, 

wildlife habitat, and domestic water source the ADEQ urges

the to consider designating the

Aravaipa Watershed outlined in Alternative B. This would 

provide the greatest level of protection to the resources of 

Aravaipa, the acres currently designated

wilderness. 

grazing, mining, and off-highway vehicles are significant

contributors of source pollution to in the 

Safford District, the recommends the incorporate the

into the final 

1) Close all riparian areas to use and construct fencing 

to exclude livestock from all riparian areas. Both measures 

preserve riparian vegetation and reduce erosion and

sedimentation. 
Nr. Steve Knox 

April 4,

3 

2) Implement mining restrictions on 200,849 acres, as proposed

in Alternative This action would significantly improve 

water quality, since water quality in the Safford District is 

adversely impacted by resource extraction activities at the 

present time. In addition! recommend that mining

restrictions, including of sand and gravel

operations, be implemented in all areas, due to the degrading effect these activities have on quality. 

The commends the Safford District for its efforts to protect

its resources, particularly soil and water, and to rehabilitate 

those areas currently in unsatisfactory condition. We hope 

are 

Sincerely, 

Source Unit 

The Indiana bat, NyOtis sodalis, in winter is a colonial 

cave-dwelling bat. The occupied a caves in the winter. Disturbances in these cave* caused 

great destruction of these hats. 

be fenced and gait-ed in such a fashion that humans do 

not access to area. fencing and gates should not hinder the free movement of the bats. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96 

ASSOCIATION

Ray A. Brady, District Manager 

u. s. Bureau of Land 

District 

425 East Street 

April 3.1990 

Brady, 

We in Pima Trails Awxiation appreciate being the to comment 

the Resource Plan for the Safford District. 

members on a to review this Anne Britt, Steve 

and Janice E&%mse the main focus of is we reviewed 

RhP fmm a recreational/access and did not address other 

1. is favor of non-motorized of the system in County. We 

endorse the long which is non-motorized We believe 

motorized use should be limited in certain of the We have a very 

good the biking commonity in Southern would 

to bike use expauded to a.reas. It is patently to group 

bikes with other motorized off-road We request that moontain bikes 

deleted from OHV and be instead put into their ow~.category. There 

is no more impact these from that of 

trails and goes We in PTA stmngly discowage this. There 

on the if follow etiquette. 

2 of trails as for bikes” would offer these 

wider to of 

&table h-r multi-w with as are too 

hazards ineluding trail guidelines, 

be pasted at all PTA Member and mountain biker, Steve 

has to form committee to meet you and your staff to and 

bike trails. 

3. Adequate areas for need to be established expanded at 

Corrals need to be erected where needed at 

4. There lm in regards to the Road 

proposed of the Amvaipa This is a 

by use should be permitted this to the 

wilderness 

you for support. We would appreciate being kept informed about this study. don’t hesitate to call if have questions or need help. 

Jan Resident 

Steve Board Member 

Member 
 

 

97 Dan and Bev 

Holy Joe 

85292 

4th 
 
ALPHAGRAPHICS OF THE FUTURE 

2736 N. CAMPBELL A TUCSON, Ml.9 

OF 

NO. PAGES COVER 

ACCOUNT 
 

2 

98-3 

SENT 4- 6-92 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNITED 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 

ECOLOGICAL SNEVICES 3616 Suite 6 2-21-88-F-114 

85019 

April 1990 

District Bureau of Land Safford. 

Field Supervisor 

SUBJECT: Biological Opinion. Draft Safford District Resource 

Plan and Environmental 

This responds to your request of January 1990, for consultation 

pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

mended, the draft “Safford District Resource Plan and 

Environmental Impact for Bureau of Management 

lands in Cocbise. and Counties, 

Arizona. Tbe species of concern are the spikedace loach 

occidentalis 

desert peregrine falcon 

bald eagle 

falcon long-nosed bat 

Cochise pincushion cactus 

cactus 

The consultation on January 1990, 

the date your request received in our office. 

opinion is based on infomation provided in the 

other infomation provided by the Safford District staff, data in our 

files, and other sources of infomation. 

It is biological opinion that of the draft “Safford 

District Resource Plan and Statement” is 

not likely affect the falcon; not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the desert peregrine 

falcon. bald eagle, long-nosed bat. Cocbise or 

Arizona cactus: and, not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the spikedace or minnow and not likely to adversely 

the critical habitat of the spikedace or loach 

Project 

The proposed action is implementation by the of the preferred 

alternative set forth in tbe Resource Management Plan for public lands of 

the Safford District in southeastern Arizona. The provides overall 

guidance for administration the District and specific 

land allocation decisions regarding identification of lands eligible for 

disposal, lands considered high priority for designation of 

Areas of Critical Concern and limitations use of 

public lands by off-highvay-vehicles The also identifies 

wildlife and plant species are to be considered as priority species 

in land decisions. on allocation of resources for 

livestock grazing in tbis the exception of 

6.521 acres of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area 

Grazing decisions were in prior the 1978 “Upper 

San Grazing Environmental Statement” and the 1981 Arizona 

Grazing Environmental Statement". of the 

Aravaipa Wilderness and the San Pedro also addressed 

in 

spikedace listed a threatened species on 1. 

1986. Critical habitat proposed on 1985, for portions of the 

Verde River and Aravaipa Creek in Arizona and the upper River in 

Mexico. The is a silvery lpinnov reachng size 

2.5 inches 1973) which inhabits the interface of fast 

waters in shallow, flowing streams 1986). Within 

the Safford District, the spikedace is presently found in Aravaipa and 

Eagle Creeks. 

The loach listed as a threatened 

October 28. 1986. proposed on June 18, 1985. for 

portions of the San Francisco, and Rivers and Dry Creek 

in and the and San Francisco Rivers. Aravaipa and Campbell 

Creeks in Arizona. Tbe loach minnow is inhabitant of 

fast rater areas It is a slender, elongate 

reaching about 2.5 inches in length (Ninckley 1973). Within the Safford 

District, the loach bas been documented only in Creek. 

The occidentalis listed as 

an endangered species on 11, 1967. The is 

fish found the Sonora. and la River 

drainages in Arizona, Ner Sonora, Mexico (Ninckley 1973, 

Within the Safford District, the 

has five extant reintroduced populations in Springs, Cold 

Spring Seep, Big Spring, Wash. Martin Well. 

The desert was listed as an endangered 

species 31, 1986. designated at 

Organ Pipe National Arizona three locations in 

Imperial County. California. The desert pupfisb is a fish 

historically c-n throughout of the lower River system,. the 

lover Colorado River system, and the Rio in Arizona, 

California, and (Ninckley The Safford District has 

reintroduced population of desert at Well. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

benefit the species. Actions rbicb may adversely affect 

the peregrine falcon. such as vegetation should be analyzed 

an individual project basis determine effects be adverse, 

neutral, or beneficial. 

Protection of areas and stream in general. have 

beneficial effects on the bald eagle. Continued grazing and allowance 

in stream channels negatively impact the bald eagle. 

Sanborn’s long-nosed bat be Impacted by many the proposed 

in the due the overall effects of the of plant 

community. Actions such as livestock grazing and vegetation manipulation 

be of particular for this species through depletion food 

supply. Designation of would have little impact on 

nosed bat due to management prescriptions which call for continued 

livestock grazing, vegetation manipulation, and some in of the 

Establishment of an at Bat Cave Eagle Creek benefit 

some other bat species. but that cave is not to be used by Sanhorn’s 

long-nosed bat. 

The proposed acquisition of State lands of Guadalupe Canyon would 

have a effect on the cactus. Because this 

cactus is not currently lands. no other actions in the 

impact the species until and if the State lands on which it 

occurs are acquired. At that time. such actions as grazing, 

mineral development. access, etc., may be of concern. 

Little effect is expected to the Arizona hedgehog cactus from actions and 

policies proposed in the 

of the Act directs Federal to utilize their 

authorities further the purposes of the Act by carrying conservation 

programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. The 

conservation has been as suggestions of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service measures to or 

avoid adverse a on species or 

habitat or regarding the of information. The 

constitute conservation 

Private lands along Eagle Creek should be as high 

areas for acquisition. 

2. adoption of the alternative Watershed 

boundaries. as a part of the preferred alternative. 

3. The exclusion of grazing, closure to OW use. mineral 

entrr. leasins. sales. and of and State 

be inciuded in prescription for the 

Watershed 

4. If does not already hold rights, an attempt should be made to 

them for Springs, Watson Sash, Martin and 

5. Public lands being considered for disposal should be analyzed for their 

value as fwd source for long-nosed bat and those with 

stands of or saguaro should be retained in public 

ownership or exchanged for other lands similar value for the bat. 

6. of caves should be done bat-sensitive to 

for full access to the caves for long-nosed bat and 

candidate bat species. 

7. Plans for vegetation manipulation and treatment be carefully 

analyzed for their effects, both direct and indirect, on listed species, 

and plans modified eliminate any adverse effects. 

Section of the Act prohibits any taking (harass, harm, pursue, bunt, 

shoot, round, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any 

such conduct) of listed species without a special exemption. is 

further defined to include significant habitat or degradation 

that results in death to listed species by significantly 

impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

Under the terns of Sections and that is incidental 

to. and intended as part the agency action is considered taking 

within the bounds of the Act provided taking is ia capliance 

with the incidental take 

take of spikedace, loach minnow, desert pupfisb, 

peregrine falcon, bald eagle, bat, pincushion 

or Arizona cactus is expected as a result of 

general the RIIP/EIS. Borever. incidental take of several 

of these species occur as a result of various site-specific actions 

taken under the lubrella of the Any action taken under this 

that is expected to have any effect (beneficial otherwise) on a 

federally listed species undergo Section 7 consultation. 

that time the for incidental take such actions be 

addressed. 

In order for the to be kept of actions that either minimize or 

avoid adverse effects or benefit listed species their habitats, the 

is requesting notification of the implementation of conservation 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The peregrine listed as an endangered 

species October 1970. It is a blue-gray falcon 

inhabits rocky, steep cliffs, preferably near water. Documented nesting 

sites of peregrine falcon are found or the Safford District at 

Eagle Creek. Mountains. 

Black Rock area. and Creek. falcon habitat also 

exists the the although 

peregrine nests not yet been found in those areas. The 

also provides excellent area for migrating peregrine falcons. 

The bald eagle listed as endangered 

species larch 11. 1967. This large. fish-eating is 

the as the 

southwest those which only winter in the southwest An 

occupied bald eagle is located just below Coolidge Dam and the 

territory of that pair includes of the Safford District. 

Wintering bald eagles are several areas on the Safford District, 

notably the River in the BOX and Coolidge Dam and 

along the San Francisco River. 

falcon listed as an 

species on 26. 1986. there � av be 

habitat for falcon it 

is not presently to occur there. 

long-nosed bat Leptonycteris listed as an 

endangered species on September 30, feeds primarily on 

nectar from and saguaro blossoms. It winters south of the U.S. 

border and migrates into tbe United States the spring and 

maternity colonies are Mom in the Safford District, but 

nosed bat has been recorded in several portions of southeastern Arizona, 

including the Port San Pedro River. 

Paradise/Portal, Port San Simon, and southern Mountains 

areas In press). roosting sites are most likely at higher 

elevations, much of the foraging habitat is located lands of the Safford 

District. 

The Cochise pincushion cactus orypbhantha listed as a 

threatened species on January 9, 1986. small, cactus, the 

Cochise pincushion cactus gray limestone in the Semidesert 

Grassland at an elevation of about 4,200 feet (Benson It is not 

presently lands of the Safford District, but is State 

lands identified for acquisition in the area east of Douglas. 

The Arizona hedgehog cactus var. 

listed as endangered species October 1979. dark green, 

single or multiple growing 2.5 to 12 inches tall, 

Arizona hedgehog cactus inhabits open slopes in the understory of shrubs of 

4 

the Evergreen Woodland/Interior Chaparral at to 5,200 

feet elevation Populations of this cactus are to 

occur vithin the Safford District in the 

OF 

Environmental Baseline 

Safford District has ongoing management activities including 

livestock grazing, mining, recreation, road and maintenance, 

wildlife water vegetation manipulation, etc. 

These activities have resulted in various adverse and beneficial effects to 

federally listed species and other activities in 

southeastern Arizona have contributed to the present threatened or 

endangered status of the species of concern in opinion. General 

guidance concerning management of categories of management actions 

are addressed in tbe of the San Pedro of 

grazing the District, and of the Wilderness not change 

the ongoing management set forth by the existing documents listed 

earlier in this 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Land decisions and management as a result of the 

implementation of the preferred alternative of the affect the 

federally listed species to occur vithin the District. 

The spikedace and loach be similarly impacted by tbe 

certain provisions of the effect recovery 

habitats for these fisb, that is not the scope of the Section 7 

consultation process. Effects addressed in this biological opinion are 

limited to those the of existing 

Creek the designation of an on Creek 

may have effects; however, those effects would be limited by 

the small geographic scope of that and the continued grazing of the 

Acquisition of State and private lands in the vicinity of Eagle and 

Creeks probably result in overall beneficial affects the 

spikedace and loach minnow as various protections proposed for all 

riparian areas. 

ritb the loach minnow and spikedace, the and desert 

be addressed in this biological opinion only in regards to 

their existing populations. Continued livestock grazing and livestock and 

rildlife developments would exert adverse affects these 

fish the various protections for all riparian areas would 

result in beneficial i-pacts. 

peregrine falcon be impacted by various actions proposed in the 

including regulations, designation. and vegetation 

manipulation. Certain actions. such as designation of the Black 
 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

This concludes on this action. Reinitiation of 

consultation is if the or extent incidental is 

exceeded. reveals effects of the action that impact 

listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent 

considered in this opinion, if the is subsequently in a 

that an effect to the listed species critical habitat that 

not considered in this opinion, or if a species is listed or 

critical habitat designated that be affected by tbe action. 

It can be of further assistance, please Sally Stefferud or me 

(Telephone: or 

cc: Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Regional Director. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and SE) 

1982. The cacti of the United States and Canada. Stanford 

Univ. Press. Stanford, CA. 1044 pp. 

In press. Seasonal distribution of populations 

of the long-nosed bats, genus family 

1973. Fishes of Arizona. Came Fish 

Department, Phoenix, 293 

and C.Y. Painter. Distribution. 

and biology of the spikedace in Mexico. Endangered 

Species 15. U.S. Fisb and Wildlife Service. 

 93 PP . 

R.R. and Painter. 1988. Distribution, status, 

biology and conservation of the loach 

in Endangered Species 17. and 

Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, 75 PP. 

of federally endangered. threatened, and 

candidate plants of Arizona. Spring U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Phoenix, AZ. 34 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.	 1982. Southwestern bald eagle recovery 

plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 65 PP. 

R.C., Douglas, and 1985. Conservation 

genetics endangered fish populations in Arizona. Science 

402. 
 

 

 

100 

DEPARTMENT 

ECOLOGICAL 

3616 Suite 6 

85019 

1990 

: 

District 

Field Supervisor 

Bureau of Land Safford, Arizona 

Review of Draft Safford District Resource Management Pla” and 

Environmental Statement 

1” to January 5. 1990 request. the Fish and Wildlife Service 

has reviewed the draft “Safford District Resource Management Plan and 

This memorandum contains our 

general and review of overall wildlife concerns. The biological 

opinion which will conclude formal Section 7 consultation on the 

will he sent under separate cover. 

GENERAL 

Land Exchanges 

The is strongly supportive of the Bureau of Land Management’s 

land exchange and believe that acquisition of State lands in 

the Turkey Creek, River. and Guadalupe Canyon areas 

he of great value in the protection and enhancement of wildlife and 

plant including recovery of threatened and endangered species. 

In addition to those areas identified i” the preferred alternative. 

suggest that acqulsitio” at State lands also be considered on the rest 

slope of the Teresa to provide protection for the 

watershed and to join Aravaipa Creek lands to the Santa Teresa 

Mountains and lands beyond form large contiguous area of federally 

lands. Large contiguous areas. especially those 

and mountain areas. tend to maintain a higher diversity of species and 

provide greater degree of protection for ecosystems. 

The does not identify private lands are be acquired. 

realize specific parcels be identified due to the 

need to find willing sellers or exchangers, believe the should 

identify areas in which such acquisition is considered desirable. For 

example, that under the stated objective of acquiring 

privately owned lands within adjacent to public lands, the 

following private lands be identified as high priority: in the 

San Pedro National Conservation Area lands between the 

portion of the RNCA and the downstream portion, lands along the 

River, lands along the lover San Pedro River, and lands 

2 

One minor question arises concerning the lands identified for disposal. I” 

Sec. 30 there are lots and identified for 

disposal. identified as potential reintroduction 

habitat and included in the draft proposed rule for of 

experimental nonessential populations of that species is also located in 

Sec. 30. maps are not of sufficient scale to determine 

if the spring is on lands identified for disposal. If it is and is not 

deemed sufficiently valuable as reintroduction habitat, would 

notification so that it can be fra the draft proposed rule 

prior to publication. 

1978 and 1987 Environmental Impact Statements 

We believe the to exclude analysis of grazing as a” issue in the 

is serious in this document. The majority of tbe grazing 

lands in the Safford District were addressed in the 1978 “Upper 

Simon Grazing Impact Statement” 

believe is of date and in need of This may be 

the most effective place to update grazing analysis and allow the 

District’s master land use allocation decisions to be made 

consideration of all major land use issues instead of excluding 

consideration of the single most pervasive land use. 

things have since 1978; in particular, the District has 

acquired 250.000 acres of additional lands and disposed of a similar 

Alterations in grazing management due to the acquisitions and 

disposals need to be addressed. The 1987 “Eastern Arizona Grazing 

Environmental Impact Statement” may address of those lands; however. 

since that has no shoving specific areas being analyzed and 

refers to the areas by allotment only, it is impossible to discern 

which of the lands are addressed. Since 1978, several species found in 

“ear the District have been added to the Federal list of threatened and 

endangered species, including Cochise pincushion cactus, Arizona hedgehog 

cactus, spikedace. loach long-nosed bat. and desert 

In addition, the 1978 EIS that 91 percent of the 

range in the area of consideration in fair condition at the 

time of that document. The reports only 63 percent of the to 

be in fair to condition attributing this large increase in condition 

reductions in livestock better livestock and 

increased rainfall. Thus, the Upper EIS appear be out 

date and inadequate for use as for master land allocation 

decisions a” other resources. 

believe that balancing of all land uses. is the purpose 

of a” cannot be if the allocation of resources for 

land use made prior to the of prior decisions on a single 

land use the baseline for allocation of remaining resources to other 

land uses vi11 resnlt in a biased decision. 
 

 

 

 

 

3 

Priority 

Each alternative in the has a different list of species which 

be considered to he priority and priority species are 

only for animals. that all the species listed on Tables 

2 and and 3-3 (page plus any species on the District 

in the future become State or Federal threatened, endangered or candidate species, be adopted as priority species for the preferred 

alternative under both the wildlife and vegetation management concerns. 

This would be in keeping with policy regarding listed and candidate 

species Section 

the emphasis which the places an of riparian 

areas, their retention in public ownership, and their from 

mineral entry. The goal of 75 percent of riparian areas in or better 

ecological condition by is It would be helpful if 

furnished in the plan on percentages of riparian in each 

condition class at the present time. also ask for clarification of what 

portion of the riparian resource of the District be in this 

protection. The simply says “riparian” and refers the reader 

map 34. 34 delineates the major riparian areas on stream courses. 

much of the riparian resource in the District found in very 

small pockets around springs, seeps. and small perennial 

otherwise ephemeral These small areas are not 

shorn on 34 and it should be made clear in the whether they are 

included in the “riparian” which is for retention and 

withdrawal mineral entry. 

100-6 

recorend that discussions of riparian areas be extended also address 

the aquatic habitats are interdependent riparian 

of these habitat types must be integrated in order to 

optimize protection and enhancement of each. Optimum management for one 

type not necessarily result in optimum management far other, and 

single-minded pursuit of riparian without consideration of the 

habitat may result in damage to and loss of opportunity for aquatic 

habitats. 

in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area 

strongly object to continued grazing on the 6.521 acres of land which 

are of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area but were not addressed in the San Pedro River Riparian Plan. 

believe that grazing is with the congressionally mandated 

purpose of the A portion of these lands lie along the 

River and should be considered an part of the lands 

4 

is mandated to protect and restore under the That protection 

restoration cannot be fully realized in the presence of grazing. 

Upland areas the east side of the river less vital the overall 

of the but removal from grazing would 

management of the and contribute valuable information about the 100-a impacts to the riparian protection of upland areas of the 

watershed. Such would contribute greatly to the analysis of 

the pros and cons of grazing in the that occur at the end of the 

15 year grazing understand that grazing rights on these 

former State lands guaranteed for the life of the existing leases as 

part of the exchange with the State of Arizona. However. 

that the stipulate that livestock grazing will be 

terminated at the expiration of the current leases. In 

that the interim protective fencing far the River 

riparian zone presently being considered by the be added the 

as action item of the preferred alternative. 

of Critical Environmental Concern 

commend an the of areas designation. and 

recommend the following boundary changes. Because of outstanding 

wildlife resources and importance preservation and of 

threatened and endangered species, that the expanded 

boundaries set forth in be adopted for the Creek, 

Box, Watershed, and Guadalupe Canyon also recommend 

that the Swamp Springs Watershed be expanded to 

include all areas the Bass Canyon watershed. These 

additions would increase the amount of land be designated as to 

about 7 percent of the total lands in the District: a relatively small 

allocation. Existing literature indicates that larger contiguous areas are 

generally at preservation of wildlife than small isolated 

areas. In addition, the surrounding watershed is vital in the protection 

of aquatic and riparian resources and many impacts be 

without the watershed as as the stream bottoms. 

example, although the Creek have been protected for 

years, the uplands are subjected to multiple use practices and 

according the Wilderness Management Plan have been heavily 

impacted by livestock grazing with vegetative condition in the side canyons 

cited as poor. As a result, uplands are still contributing sediment and 

quality impacts to the stream and are in need of � anageoeent to 

alleviate impacts. 

also recorend sole changes in the management prescriptions recommended 

for the Under all alternatives, the majority the would 

remain open for grazing, mining. and off-highway vehicle use. The 

definition of an states that their is to provide special 

management to protect outstanding natural values. If all the same land 

uses are allowed as would be the without designation, there 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 to be no the designation of In particular, 

that for the Creek. 

(including Turkey Creek and Table and Swamp 

Springs specify no grazing. closure to use, 

mineral entry, leasing and sales, acquisition of 

private inholdings. also recorend that the alternative Box 

management prescription closure the canyon bottom to 

be brought forward into the preferred alternative: and that 

installation of a gate to exclude while still free bat 

be included in the management Prescription for the Eagle Creek 

cave 

The states that for are part of wilderness Study 

areas, their designation wilderness result removal 

status. We recommend retention of status if the area is placed 

into wilderness. Designation as an more flexibility in 

management, and believe the dual Status help provide maximum 

protection to these areas. 

and Scenic Rivers 

Of tbe areas Studied for and Scenic River designation, believe the 

single area for designation in the preferred alternative the 

least and scenic. Rationale far exclusion of the River segment 

Coolidge Dam set out in the but no rationale is included 

for the exclusion any of the Box and San River. 

Lacking that it is difficult to understand this 

example the free-flowing river segments left in Arizona should be 

judged not suitable for Wild and scenic designation. recorend that 

conclusions in the Wild and Scenic River (appendix 

regarding the be adopted part the preferred alternative: 

17.95 miles of designation on the and San Francisco Rivers, 

10.85 miles of scenic designation on the River, and 4.95 of 

Recreation designation the River. Ye believe that designation 

would be beneficial to wildlife and threatened and endangered species in 

the and San Francisco Rivers. 

Unique 

Ye support your plan to evaluate several District streams for designation 

as Unique Waters. believe designation help to protect those 

and high value natural resources. indicates that 

Creek also consideration for 

We recorend that Creek be identified under the preferred 

alternative for nomination for designation a Unique later. 

6 

Water 

identifies eight perennial will evaluate as to 

their potential for of State rater rights. this 

effort and that of the isolated Springs and Short perennial 

stretches in stream channels be added to the list of to be 

evaluated. 

Vegetation Manipulation 

Land treatment and vegetation are listed as anticipated 

actions under all alternatives in the that the 

specify that such treatment and manipulation not occur in 

habitat for endangered. threatened. or candidate species, Such as Arizona 

hedgehog cactus, long-nosed bat, and desert We also 

suggest that types of vegetation treatment, such as burning 

and be excluded use in 

Transplanting, Augmentation, and of 

several places in the references are made to the potential for 

transplanting, augmenting, and reintroducing flora and fauna. The only 

that are are for and 

falcon. would like see specific statements the 

for reintroduction of native Species into the District. In 

particular. the San Pedro Should be specifically identified as 

the best remaining reintroduction habitat for several federally and 

other native species including the spikedace, loach minnow. roundtail chub, 

desert Sonora sucker, and possibly the razorback Sucker. 

and Colorado In addition. recorend that the 

include reintroduction of beaver into the San Pedro River as a 

major component of the historic ecosystem of that river. recognizing 

that Such reintroduction would require management control. Creek 

should be identified as a potential reintroduction site for spikedace. 

loach razorback sucker, and beaver; and the 

River in the Box area should also be 

a potential native fish reintroduction of the isolated 

and Seeps in the have been identified elsewhere as 

potential and desert sites. 

need not be listed individually in the but reference to their 

identification should be included. 

Transplants and augmentation of Son-native animal and 

be discouraged. All references the to transplants or 

augmentations should specify that it refers to native The problem of non-native species and their adverse impacts on native species 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IOO- I6 

is one of serious concern the natural resources of the 

Introduction and of non-native species resulted many 

adverse impacts to native species of the district, particularly native 

and fish. like the recognize this problem 

and address at least general policy on bow the District intends deal 

with it. We recommend that and vegetation portions of 

the that, in general. non-native species be 

transplanted. augmented, or seeded District lands. Although there are 

circumstances in that policy not be applicable. those 

cases should be subject to careful scrutiny and with the 

Arizona and Fish Department, and other appropriate parties. 

In addition, recommend that the specifically call for 

of a barrier upstream of non-native below the 

the at Creek. efforts been 

underway for establish baseline information and obtain 

funding far construction of a harrier. Recognition of the need for 

this barrier in this plan make clear the for the 

project. Creek is one of the “jewels” of the and the 

presence of relatively intact native fish fauna is a major portion of 

value of the area. protect that fauna it be necessary to 

prevent creek by many of the “an-native that are 

presently found in the San Pedro River. 

While alternatives A. and are comparable, it is not possible 

to those with the no action alternative 

Alternatives A, and defined through and 

broad-framed policies; specific action apply only to major land 

allocation decisions as lands far exchange and recommended for 

Wilderness, or and River *tat”*. is 

defined site action items. that 

be rewritten to define the alternative “sing the approach as 

for and C. 

page 1, column 2. Issue 2. It is be confusing that the refers to 

the Wilderness without reference the fact that is on the 

Coronado and not an land. 

page 4. column 4. It be helpful to here the 

difference between an issue and management concern and whether that 

difference give different end results during of 

the 

00-20 

I 

00-22 I 

26) 

27 

I 

page 6, 2. and 4. believe the 

references to “resource conservation areas” actually intended to 

to areas. If not. then the definition of 

resource conservation area should be included in glossary and 

reference should be made the various alternatives as 

decisions regarding the designation of 

page 2. 6, and page colum 1, Federal 

candidate species should also be considered for setting of management 

Another question to be asked IS bow BM mn*gement 

efforts be fulfill objectives of recovery 

plans for federally listed species. 

page column 2. Concern 6. “bat should 

establish for management of soils in other areas of special concern 

such as the San Pedro and the Creek 

page 15. Alternative The criteria for alternative formulation 

should also state that each alternative provide for 

delineated in the grazing and each provide for 

mining pursuant the 1812 Mining Act. These are both baseline 

of the 

page column This paragraph also the need 

for additional on specific 

page column 2. item 3. Does the phrase 

changes” Indicate that BM has data documenting a 

change I” southeastern Arizona the past years? 

page column item 4. This item should specify that transplant 

of priority and other wildlife species should occur only 

the historic range of the species being transplanted. 

page column 2. item 7. Rationale for of springs and 

associated vegetation should also include the protection and 

enhancement of indigenous and fauna. often in the past, 

protection of springs for wildlife and livestock has resulted in 

of habitat for wildlife and plants. 

paqe 31, column items and 12. items should also be accompanied 

by additional items providing far input into allotment 

plans to that opportunities maximized for protection and 

recovery of all wildlife and threatened. endangered, and 

candidate plants. and to provide for sufficient quantity and 

of forage for desert tortoise. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

- 

 

 

9 

page 1, item 13. Section consultation be required on all 

animal damage control activities that may affect Federal endangered 

and threatened species. 

page 2. 4. The Timber Draw is not 

addressed in the Upper Simon Grazing That EIS addresses 

only the Barrier. and Slick Rock detention dams. 

page column 2. Concern 2. additional action should be 

specified calling for evaluation of all lands, prior to disposal. for 

presence of candidate. threatened. or endangered wildlife and plants. 

page 31. 2 and page 32. Concern 2. 

that 35 he amended to the location Of all lands 

identified for disposal and to specifically the State lands 

listed on page 32 as high priority areas for 

page 33, 2. Management 3. Please define the “Special 

and specify special management such 

a designation would invoke. 

I 

-39 

page 131, Table 3-l. The Table Mountain District cited in the 

as having an value of $22.2 million. In Scott 

“Mineral Resources of the Study that 

District is said to have an estimated value of only about $0.5 

million. Scott concludes that the Table Mining is 

for of mineral resources. 

page 135, 2. The list of dependent species should 

also include the lowland leopard frog. 

page 135, column 2, 4. Bat roosts include than 

colonies. The requests that all known bat roosts be protected on 

lands. 

100-33 

I 

page column item 5. are the public safety hazards located 

the River from Coolidge Dam to two miles upstream Dripping 

Springs that justify a float-boating prohibition? 

page 2. 2. pauciflora is not a federally 

listed species. it is a federal category 2 candidate. It has also 

undergone revision and should be referred to as 

is spelled - - ritb two and has been determined not be a 

result. it is a category 1 candidate. but has been to 

category is unlikely exist on lands in 

the District. It is a elevation found above feet 

in ret areas. 

I category 2 

The thick-billed parrot is not listed as endangered in the United 

States. those found in are 

listed. The-united population has official status 

137 and 138, Table 3-2. 

Three federal species omitted and should be added 

to this table as known District occurrences with breeding 

populations: 

category 2 

snail category 2 

Arizona grasshopper 

page 44. Table The third column is missing a portion of its title. 

believe the title should correctly read “values and Hazards”. 

page 81. column 2. item 24. Please add the San Pedro River 

Creek to the areas to be studied for reintroduction of beaver, subject 

to management control capabilities. 

page column 1, items and 15. items are found only in 

alternative Does this the outlined in item 

14 and the withdrawal revocation outlined in item 15 would not occur 

under any of the other alternatives7 100-43 

under the Endangered species Act. 

page 146, 

Night has been to 

Cochise pincushion cactus is not 

currently found land but is on the State lands of 

Guadalupe Canyon that are identified for acquisition. 

var. should 

be added to the table as a possible 

cactus is a category federal candidate. 

100-37 I 

page 86, 1. Management Concern 7. item 4. Alternative calls far 

review and revision of all existing allotment management plans. Ye 

that this also be incorporated into the preferred 

alternative. 

The fleabane found at Turkey Creek has 

been submerged within c-n species, 

. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 

The species and subspecies for the pineapple 

are misspelled and incorrectly cited. In addition the scientific 

name has been changed to var. 

100-43 also as limestone has been 

into another species as a subspecies. The correct name I is w vaumelinia californica 

 159, column 1, Assumptions. Add the assumption that inventories for 

endangered, and candidate species will areas of 

land uses. 

page 166, 1, 2. Please specify nine locations proposed 

for disposal under alternative C would result impacts desert 

tortoise and 

item Creek also provides reintroduction habitat for 

the threatened and loach minnow and the endangered 

232, 2, 4. The loach minnow is not known to be present 

in the area; in the 1919 “Resource 

the River in Eastern Arizona” states tbat 

he believes that loach minnow may still be present in the area. 

although not during sampling. Loach is an 

elusive species and further survey of the should be carried 

I 

100-47 

page 247, 1, item i. This objective should be limited to native 

wildlife only. 

page 247. column 1. that other objectives be 

added: Protect native fish and wildlife by exclusion of 

non-native species which may adversely affect natives. And, protect 100-49 and restore springs and seeps and their native flora and fauna. I page 247. column 2. 2. The Mexican snake still found on 100-50 the San Pedro River in 1986.

12 

If be of further assistance, please contact Sally or me 

(Telephone: or 

cc: Regional Director. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, 
 

ARIZONA WHITEWATER P.O. Box 26028 

April 5, 1990 (602) 

AZ. 85282 

838-7428 

Mr. 

SUBJECT: District Resource Management Plan 

The preferred alternative recommended by the BLM changes

the natural attributes and environment the district. While 

recommending the Lower below Coolidge Dam, as a suitable 

"Wild Scenic River?, the BLM recommends against study of the 

onlv remainine of the River in Arizona 

We insist that segments meet all criteria as' 

Wild Scenic Study Rivers and that other streams neglected in this 

draft ie. San Pedro, be included in the Final 

In light of the imminent designation of the Box as a National 

Conservation Area, we feel it would be negligent of the BLM to not

consider this segment of river far Wild Scenic protection. The 

District has of the remaining areas in 

Arizona and we wish to work with the District to fully protect

these irreplaceable 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHOLE EARTH 

Box 70. Arizona 85292 

not just be a river company but 

be a complete recreation company in the 

future offer river rafting, canoeing, kayaking, 

and inflatable kayak guided trips along a river 

service that rent river equipment to private 

river This equipment consist of 

kayaks, inflatable kayaks, life 

will also mountain and 

touring bicycling, horse and pack trips, back packing and hiking opportunities along a complete experienced 

guide service. 

All of the above mentioned activities be supported 

by a 23 acre base camp in the Dripping Spring* area 

provide showers. facilities, camping, 

camping, food service, and recreation facilities. 

is an and culturally aware company. 

a based company. 

completed a 32 page technical proposal to perform 

an archaeological survey on our 23 acre base camp 

property which result in the formulation of a plan 

to protect. explore, and develop 4 archaeological sites 

located the property into small interpretive sites 

and/or park* which visitors and enjoy. All 

vi11 conform c o the secrerary Of tile 

Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

pay local property, school. and sales taxes. 

is an experienced outdoor company having 

been located in Virginia commercial 

on the and Rivers for 

8 

With the above facts in mind, wish submit 

that all mechanized or motorized transportation could be this is this would seem 

include chairs. supports right of all 

people to enjoy outdoor-recreation. 

strongly Alternatives and Management 

concern 3, (5 for several reasons. 

a. No river in the is safe. If only through 

knowledge, training. and experience of professional 

river outfitters the chance of accidents. injuries, 

and other problems inherent in river trips can be 

minimized. 

b. Private boaters and tubers have run of 

the before and continue do regardless 

any agency says. This section of the can be cleared of trees and 

just a* Segments 4 and 5 have been cleared. 

d. the “escal not 

significantly co hazardous of 

this of the if communication via 

radio-telephone be used. This system currently 

operates in a on in 

and the Salmon in Idaho. 

e. The economic impact of not allowing commercial river 

trips on this section of the Gila would probably reduce 

the number of river related jobs that offer 

the local community about to 35 part time 
 

 

 

jobs 17 and the number of full time jobs 

45 35. This, believes, 

would have a significant economic impact on the local 

area as fO the page 242, 

paragraph liner 9, and 

5. supports Alternative A, Management Concern 3, 

especially the access the in Segment 4. 

At the present time these access points from 77 are 

by various means ranging rag 

survey marking tap, hand made signs, Not only is 

this a visual intrusion contributes 

unsafe auto traffic conditions. signs at the river 

in” points would prevent campers and river from 

experiencing disagreements to who has the right access. 

6. supports A, concern over 

Alternatives or because of historical. environmental 

and cultural prejudices. 

We at appreciate the opportunity to in this planning 

process and hope that our comments useful and informative. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104 

April 6. 

4th St. 

This letter is River Tours. Inc. (GRT) response to

Bureau of Land Management Plan and 

statement Of January 1990 1,610. 

I. be a professional river company providing

guided river rafting, kayaking, and canoeing trips

the river. River Trips and be our 

only business. 

2. is experienced professional river company having

performed commercial river in Virginia on the 

5). Gauley (Class 5+) and (Class 5++) 

Rivers for over 8 years. 

2. supports Alternative Issue part C 

a weaker Alternative A. 

3. strongly Alternatives 

concern 3, for historical, educational, economic. and 

practical 

Winston President 

Gila Riqer Tours 

AZ 85292 
 

106 

Steve Knox 

Team Leader 

Bureau of Land Management 

425 E. 4th Street 

Arizona 85546 

Dear Steve: 

April 6, 1990 

To begin, I wish to congratulate you and your team in the preparation 

and presentation of your plans(s). The information is easy to 

understand and well out. 

I represent the Arizona Trail Riders. Inc, a non-profit motorcycle 

club which has existed for over 3 years. Our group is comprised of 

approximately 50 families who promote responsible use of trails 

through Arizona. 

After careful review and consideration of your plans, our club feels 

plan is the best offered. This alternate provides for the use of 

the land while still allowing existing wilderness areas and A.C.E.C. 

formation. Protection of needed variation areas will continue and 

development of cultural resources be 

We do not support the other two plans because they do no allow for 

the use of the land for the majority of the people. Instead, large 

areas would be limited or closed to satisfy the needs of a minority 

D o the :ami:iasthat 

motorized vehicles into the backwoods and camp, are now going to 

park hike in? No way! Lets provide a plan that is realistic for the 

people and style of 

Thank you for your time and consideration 

Peter Zepeda 

President 

Arizona Trail Riders 

107 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108 

Of 

st. 
 

Safford AZ. 

In rsfsrancs to Safford ‘Jan 19X,,, 

I the and 

I you to adopt as the most 

plan for sn"ironns"ta1 protection Of the subJect 

lands. 

Allowing limited off-highway vehicle on 

million acres of lands the 

land from cross-country driving. Such 

designation not be in such a 

that the 

of by at three-fourths of the 

1.3 million to 

Due to tha fragility and rarity of our systems, 

should also any cutting areas from 

within of stream> 

In particular. tha cutting

should from any 

109 

Team 

Land 

E. St.. 
 

Safford Rz. ES'+6 

In to Safford <Jan 1990,. 

I the following and 

I urge 89 the most 

effective plan for of the 

lands. 

to the and rarity of systems, 

you should withdraw any fuelwood cutting from 

within one-half of any <or intsrmlttent 

I" the Deer Creek cutting area

should be deleted from plans. 

The overall for excellent, and 

will serve to many of our resources for the 

N. Dr. 

Tucson, 85712 
110 
-

 

-

April 6, 1990 

Hr. Steve Knox Team Leader 

U. of Interior
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Safford District Office
 425 East 4th St.
 

Safford, Al 85546
 

Dear Mr. Knox: 

RE: Safford District Resource Management Plan Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement 

I have reviewed the Safford District Resource Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement and offer the following comments for 

consideration in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Before on specific portions, I have the following general 

1. The is almost entirely subjective; using estimates of impacts 

such low, moderate, and high. These impact estimates do not 

appear to have any quantitative backing and are the personal opinion 

of the person preparing any particular section of the RMP. I 

2. You make the assumption that cost and personnel requirements of 

implementing a selected alternative is not a consideration. To Ill-21 	 the contrary, costs of alternatives should be estimated up-front.

It is, in our opinion, unwise to select a management scheme without 

this information. People do not do this in their personal lives, 

businesses cannot do this, and governing agencies should not make 

decisions without cost analysis. 

3. Ye see strong trend toward evaluating and reevaluating the same 

area for protection under various classifications until it finally 

the criteria. An example is Box/Turtle Mountain Box ACEC, San River Wild and Scenic River 

Designation, Trujillo Canyon ACEC, Turtle Mountain Desert Grassland, 

Box Riparian NCA. This continual duplication of effort is very 

counterproductive and breeds distrust of the BLM in the eyes of the 

public. 

Specific are presented on the following pages. My will be 

referenced by page and general area easy reference. 

Mr. April 6, 1990 

1. Paraqraph 6. 2; 231 

"Two segments of the and San Francisco Rivers as possible Yild and Scenic Rivers." The San Francisco and Rivers south of Clifton have previously undergone analysis for inclusion into the wild and scenic river system. 

Following analysis of this segment, the Forest Service in 1981 chose a no action alternative. Growth of the Phelps Dodge tailings facility adjacent to the 

river, sights and sounds of mine operations, vehicular access for recreation Ill-3 purposes by residents of the local and other cited in the decision. Furthermore, a portion of this area is proposed for inclusion in 

the Box Riparian NCA. Further discussion of and Scenic River designation of this of the San Francisco and Rivers should be halted. 

2; Page 90.
 

c. 1: 162. Conclusions
 

'Mining and mineral leasing restrictions would cause low impacts to the 

economy.' This statement is very subjective and not quantifiable. The only thing quantifiable about mineral entry restrictions is that mining companies and 

individual prospectors will not locate mineral resources if they do not have access to public lands to look for them. agree with your statements like 

"Designation of wild and scenic rivers and would provide low benefits to 

the economy of local tourism industries." This statement represents something 

proven and quantifiable. mining statement would only be true if mineral 

discoveries in virgin territory never made, which is not supported by 

history. 

8: Concern 4 and 

The states that ‘It is Bureau policy to foster and encourage the 

development of energy and mineral resources." The section goes on to say that 

'BLM has the authority and responsibility to ensure environmental degradation 

I	 does not occur on public lands." The entire section would leave the reader to 

believe that it is the directive that if mining causes any impact then it 

should not be allowed to take place on public lands. This is contrary to Ill-5 charge for multiple use in the development of energy and minerals on the public 

lands. The language should be modified to reflect language which occurs in 

pliable regulations. Specifically, the document should state that "BLM has the 

authority and responsibility to ensure that undue environmental degradation does 

I	 not occur on public lands." [Underlined words should be added.] 

9: Concern 4 and 

The fourth and fifth bullets from the top of the page in the left hand 

column appear to be existing mining laws and the that they 

function on public lands. the questions are posed in such a fashion 

that indicate that the is trying to change the operation of the 

mining laws on public lands by the language which states "what terms, conditions Ill-6 or special stipulations should be applied to open areas that may constrain operations of the mining laws?' [Underline added for emphasis]. The resource management plan should properly plan for multiple use on public lands, not find 

to get around the existing laws so that there will be less use. 
 

Ill-7 

Ill-8 

Ill-9 

Hr. Steve Knox April 6. 1990 

. 11. zx 

'A district-ride re-evaluation is not warranted at this time.' Ye co"­

with your Ye hope that there are productive things to 

do than to continue to study and restudy Safford District public lands for the 

same purposes. It is time consuming for both BLM and interested and concerned 

public. 

me 11. 2 

"Designate 17 totaling 61,737 acres of public land to protect important natural and cultural resources." These 17 areas total 4.4 percent of 

the Safford District. Together with pending wilderness legislation, including 

National Conservation areas, a" alarmingly high percentage of the Safford 

District will be off limits to mineral prospecting activities, much less mineral

development. How can this policy of continuing to restrict access be compatible 

with policy to foster and encourage the development of energy and mineral 

resources (page B)? The 43 CFR 3809 regulations governing mining activities on 

public lands are quite restrictive already. These should be adequate to protect 

public lands. 

Creek ACEC monitor water quality." It does not appear that 

rater quality should be in realm of responsibility. The City 

of Safford probably already closely watches water quality at this location. 

Does BLN intend to contract for this service, develop in-house expertise, add 

staff? will be done if water quality declines or if it improves? 

25. Bonita Creek ACEC and Box ACEC 

These study areas should be placed on hold pending designation of the 

Box Riparian NCA and eliminated if so designated. 

26. Mountain RNA ACEC: Also 197 

Designation ACEC adjacent to the United States' largest open pit 

mine is an invitation to possible future land use conflicts. Phelps Dodge 

currently has all or portions of seven unpatented mining claims in this 

ACEC, and is actively conducting road building and prospect drilling within 

4,000 feet of the area boundary. As in the above the 43 CFR 3809 

regulations should be adequate to protect public lands from poorly managed 

mismanaged mining exploratory work. 

27: Creek Bat Cave ACEC 

The management prescription for the Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC indicates 

a mineral withdrawal be instituted. However, a valid mining claim currently exists on that particular property, and will necessitate a change in the 

prescription. 

Ill 

Ill-13 

Hr. Steve Knox April 6, 1990 

'Retain all lands, not identified for disposal in public 

ship Although it is not clear in this section. Phelps Dodge 

the will continue exchanges that are mutually beneficial and that 

lands 'not identified for disposal" in this section are still available for exchange as the specific need arises. For example, Phelps Dodge has been pursuing 

an exchange for 375 acres adjacent to its tailings facilities "ear since 

mid-1987 with very little response from This selected area with roads, 

tailings safety dams, and wells is within the area proposed for retention by BLN. It appears to be in the public interest to relinquish these lands 

to Phelps Dodge in exchange for other private lands along the San Francisco 

River corridor also identified as "proposed retention*. 

'Withdraw 29,104 acres, including administrative sites and campgrounds, 

from mineral entry to preserve important resource values.* This alone is 

2.1 percent of the Safford District and coupled with ACEC proposals in 

Alternative A results in closures or restrictions to mineral entry of 

6.5 percent over and above wilderness and NCA areas. 

Page 33: Management Concern 3 

Outdoor Recreation and Visual Resource 

The Bonita Creek and Box Special Recreation Management Areas 

should have boundaries modified to reflect the recently proposed Box Riparian Area National Conservation Area boundaries. 

34: 

Designation of Eagle Creek canyon, which is entirely privately owned, 

as a VRN class two area will not serve any real constructive purpose. Since the 

private owner can construct facilities along the canyon on private lands, the

designation of any BLN land in the area has little to no effect on the total impact of the visual resource management in the area. 

47:

Under alternative the of certain river segments as 

suitable for inclusion in the National and Scenic River system shields the 

importance of this activity. These should be done in a separate 

action and not as part of a resource management plan in order to allow the local 

public a more full view and review of the process. 

The reference to the AEPCO powerline corridor under item and the 

exclusion of the Box ACEC for right-of-way areas are "at compatible 

since the AEPCO line traverses the Box ACEC under alternatives A and B. 

Furthermore, a subsidiary powerline which feeds the entire and 

Black River area traverses the ACEC under alternative B. 

111-10 
-

-

 

 

 -

III-14 

 Steve Knox April 6, 1990 Hr. Steve Knox April 6, 1990 

164: Alternative 

: f Environment Air Quality 

The inference that increases in primitive recreation use would result 

This section suggests that the of rainfall in the Valley is the in higher local sales from people using these areas is simply not documented in 

result of which operate "in the vicinity of Norenci. Globe. the literature. In fact, quite the opposite is true and has been documented by 

Hayden-Winkleman, and near the border area of southern . . county'. Ill-18 several authorities on the subject. The very uses that would be closed as a 

However, the section doesn't recognize that the smelter at Norenci has been idle I result of ACEC designation to vehicular traffic are the very ones which are 

since 1984 (during nearly the entire period of measurement) and the smelter in currently used by people engaged in fishing and hunting activities and other 

Cochise County has been shutdown for nearly that period of time. However, recreation activities on the public lands. These vehicular accessed activities 

the statement is made that the "precipitation samples are collected weekly and would no longer occur in the area and the people who use these areas for this

have consistently been measured at 4.7 over a period.' If the of type of activity would not be willing to hike in to do the same thing. 

the rain were due to the copper smelters in these areas as suggested in the 

DEIS, it would appear that there would be some change as smelting ceases. The 183. of Access. 14
 

affect of in the Safford valley and the major metropolitan areas of
 

Tucson and Phoenix should be considered as they have much greater impact on the
 This item targets gaining access on parcels that have been 

air quality of the region than these single sources. offered to in exchange for selected lands adjacent to the Morenci tailings 

storage It is assumed that this form of access. acquisition, is the 

desired 

Pare 187. Creek 

The section dealing with Geology of the Safford district is deficient
 

and should be expanded to indicate at least two activities. The statement is
 The ACEC designation should be placed hold' pending action on the 

made that "Phelps Dodge has developed one underground there but ceased Arizona wilderness bill. If the Riparian NCA is designated, this ACEC 

mining in 1983." This sentence should be to state that Phelps Dodge should be dropped.
 suspended" mining in 1983 rather than "ceased'. Although the section describes some development at the Sanchez Mine for the future. nothing is
 188. 6ila Box 

said of the large deposit lying between DOS Pobres and Sanchez which
 

will someday be mined. This particular deposit contains over 1 billion tons of
 This ACEC designation should be placed "on hold" pending action on the 

ore and dwarfs both of the other mining developments which are mentioned in the Arizona wilderness bill. If the Riparian NCA is designated, this ACEC 

section. should be dropped. The statement is made "also included is the 'last free flowstretch of the River in Arizona'." This particular quotation is used 

other places in this report, is not referenced, and is not true. It should 

I be and described otherwise.

Under Visual Resources, the impact of agricultural modification and 189

 due to mining is described in some detail. However, there is no Ill-161 mention of the significant modification to visual resources which has occurred Under section 4 Special Provisions, the indicates 

by the development of towns and infrastructure for towns in the area. that authorization of rights-of-way would be prohibited in the 

Under certain alternatives, this could mean that the request for renewal for right-of-way for existing powerlines would be refused in the future 

and the towns of Clifton and Morenci and Point of Pines would be no longer able 

I to have power supplied to them. 

3-5, which lists ACEC nominations and the decision regarding whether they are or are not qualified for ACEC studies, designates the
 

Eagle Creek ACEC as qualified for study. the Eagle Creek ACEC contains
 

predominantly private lands and the reasons for having special management are
 Under item 5, Alternatives Considered section, it is stated that access 

directly tied to all of the riparian lands which occur on the private lands. by vehicle along the San Francisco River would be closed to off-highway vehicle 

This area should not be studied for ACEC status. This would essentially cut off recreation opportunities to all the resi­ I dents in the area and would take one of the few drawing cards for tourism 

and recreation which the town of Clifton has. I 
 

 

Mr. Steve Knox April 6, 1990 

I appreciate the opportunity to on the Draft EIS of the Safford 

District Resource Plan. The document reflects sincere effort to 

develop plan to wisely use the resources of the Safford District. I trust 

that the multiple use management directive be adequately reflected in the 

Final Draft. 

cc: G. 

L. 

American 

April 6, 1990 

Steve Knox, Team Leader 

Bureau of Management Plan 

425 4th Street 

Safford, Arizona 85546 

Draft Safford District Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Statement 

Mr. Knox: 

Comments 

American Rivers is a national, public interest not-for-profit

corporation with than 13,000 members nationwide. American 

is the only national conservation organization dedicated 

exclusively to the preservation of free-floving rivers. In our 

sixteen-year history, American Rivers has worked intensively to 

protect rivers under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and 

has actively assisted states and local groups with their river 

conservation efforts. 

American Rivers has worked extensively with in 

planning for the river resources on the lands they administer. 

have assisted the staff of the Bureau of Land 

Management to clarify administrative

direction for consideration of potential wild and scenic rivers 

in resource management planning, and have reviewed, commented on, and protested numerous plans. We have worked 

s. 

direction for the evaluation and management of 

potential wild and scenic rivers on the National Forests, and 

reviewed, commented on, and appealed numerous land and resource 

management plans issued by that agency. 

Section of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. section 

1271 requires all federal agencies to consider potential

tional wild, scenic and recreational river areas in all 

 ng for the "se and development of water and related land 

resources. 16 U.S.C. section 1276(d). The planning responsibility imposed by section plainly requires the to assess 

the values of potential Wild and Scenic Rivers during the preparation of resource management plans pursuant to the 

Recognizing that responsibility, Manual section 

identifies wild and scenic river recommendations as possible 

determination to be made in such plans. 
Nr. SteVe 

April 6, 

2 

To provide further guidance for fulfilling planning 

responsibilities for potential wild and scenic rivers, the 

agency's Washington office on July 23, circulated 

Instruction Memorandum No. containing draft guidelines

for identifying, evaluating, and protecting potential wild and 

scenic rivers on lands. That guidance was promulgated by the 

Director in final in Instruction Memorandum No. and 

the attached Guidelines for R of the Wild and Rivers Act (the "Guidelines'): issued September

1988. 

Under the directions established in the Guidelines, planning for 

potential wild and scenic rivers on lands follows a relatively three-step procedure. Each resource 

management plan is to: 

(1) evaluate the eliaibility of potential wild and scenic 

rivers within its planning area for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Rivers System in accordance 

with the criteria set forth in Section of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act (i.e., whether the river is 

flowing and possesses one or more "outstandingly

remarkable' values); 

(2) determine the appropriate classification ('wild,"

"scenic," or "recreational") for rivers found to be 

eligible; 

assess the suitability of such rivers for inclusion in 

the national rivers system, based upon the 

values and "ses that would or by 

such protection, the degree of public, state and local 

interest in designation, and practical concerns 

regarding costs and feasibility of administration. 

Guidelines, Section VIII, at Until a final decision is 

reached by the agency and, for recommended rivers, by Congress,

is to protect river resource values and characteristics 

through specific management prescriptions established in 

detailed recreation area management plans or project plans.

Guidelines, Section at Section Ix, at p. As a 

substantive decision 

sensitive area, the 

be accompanied by

Environmental Policy 

at p. 

In order to protect

potential wild and 

regarding the appropriate management of a 

planners' decision regarding suitability must 

environmental analysis pursuant to the National 

Act Guidelines, Section 

the resource values and character of its 

scenic rivers until a decision is reached 

April 6,

3 

regarding

planners

Guidelines state: must prescribe the protection

(interim management prescriptions) to be provided for the river 

and adjacent public land area pending suitability and, when 

necessary, subsequent action by the Congress." Guidelines, 

Section at p. 11. 

Comments 

The eligibility analysis contained in Appendix 5 demonstrates the 

attention and sensitivity of the planners to the eligibility of 

the River and San Francisco River for inclusion in the 

national rivers system. The planners have substantiated well 

their conclusion that these rivers possess outstandingly

remarkable values. In particular, the planners have recognized

that perennial rivers are very uncommon in the Southwest, and 

that this feature alone may indicate that a stream possesses

outstandingly remarkable hydrologic values. at 232. The 

importance of preserving the remnants of the Southwest's 

remaining riparian vegetation, particularly important for fish 

and wildlife, ecological and recreational values, is also 

recognized by the planners. 

American Rivers commends the Safford planners for evaluating the 

eight mile segment of the San Francisco River, a river not listed 

on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (SRI). See Appendix 5. A 

failing common to other plans is an examination of rivers only on 

the 

However, the fails to examine the eligibility of other that are obvious candidates for inclusion in the national 

rivers system. There is no indication that other streams which 

flow the Safford Resource Area were evaluated for their 

in the national rivers system. nap 34 

numerous streams the Resource Area which 

possess riparian habitat, including Creek. San Simon 

I	 River, Creek, Eagle Creek and the San Pedro River. While 

the presence or absence of riparian habitat does not determine 

Knox 

their designation, Guidelines require agency 

to establish detailed management prescriptions. The 

the eligibility of a 

the desert Southwest 

logical or fish and 

only sources of data 

flowing streams. 

river, it is en indicator that a stream in 

may possess outstandingly remarkable ecowildlife values. Also, Map 34 is one of the

within the Plan which identifies 
 

 

 

 

Hr. Steve Knox 

April 6,

4 

Additional candidate rivers may be found among those areas 

nominated by planning teem for consideration, including 

Bonita 'Turkey Creek, and Guadalupe meek. See Appendix

2. Bonita Creek, for example include* habitat for several 

threatened and endangered wildlife species and National Register

quality cultural resource sites. at 187. Either of these 

value* suggest the Creek is an eligible river. The fact the 

stream and it* corridor supports one of highest numbers of 

breeding bird specie* found in the United supports the 

greatest standing crop biomass of fishes recorded in a Southwestern stream can leave no doubt that this stream should not merely be found eligible, but should be recommended to Congress

for designation. .See id 

Turkey Creek regionally significant cultural and scenic 

values, community and wildlife at 

In fact, the Turkey Creek cliff dwelling is described es one of 

the most intact prehistoric structures of its kind in southeastern Arizona. at 52. These values suyyest that 

Turkey Creek is an eligible stream. 

Dry Spring Research Natural Area should be included 

within the River corridor. See at 192 et These 

springs comprise an exceptionally rare undisturbed desert 

resource. American Rivers believes that the corridor 

should be expanded to include this outstandingly remarkable area. 

Guadalupe Canyon undoubtedly outstandingly remarkable 

and fish and wildlife see at 195 et seq. 

This is one of the premier birdwatching area* in 

States and also possesses unique botanical and wildlife values. 

American Rivers believes strongly that Guadalupe Creek

qualifies for inclusion in the national rivers system. 

American Rivers wish to emphasize the fact, sometimes overlooked 

by individual planner*, that ecological may qualify a 

river for inclusion in the national rivers see U.S. 

Departments of Interior and Agriculture, at&al Wild and Scenic 

Revised Guide1 for Ellsibilit

sification and of River ("Interagency Guidelines"), 47 Fed. Reg. 39454, 39457 addition to the specific

values listed in Section of the Act, other similar values, 

such es ecological, if outstandingly remarkable, can justify

inclusion of a river in the national rivers system."). 

The planning documents include a table of threatened, endangered

and special status plants and wildlife species, Table 3-2 at 

137 and Table 3-3 at however, there is minimal information a* to where such are to be found in the planning 

112-I 

I	 extend to the one-quarter mile required the Guidelines, but 

included only the canyon itself. see at 231. The planners 

are mistaken in restricting the study corridor to less than the 

distance required by administrative direction. Further, American Rivers believes that such a restricted corridor fails to appre­ I ciate that many people enjoy the of a river canyon from 

the canyon rim. Extension of the boundaries to include a quarter mile will meet the policy objective of wild and 

rivers system, which is to preserve free-flowing rivers and their 

adjacent landscapes. Eligibility determinations are required to 

reflect the of the stream itself and the lands within the study boundary; arbitrarily narrowing, or even 

ignoring, required corridor of lands exclude 

resource values should be evaluated together with the 

of the stream itself. 

American Rivers appreciates the recognition that the corridor may

be larger if necessary to preserve resource values, and we commend the planners recognition of this by expanding the corridor 

to include the canyon where they are greater than 

quarter mile from the river. 

le. Steve Knox 

April 6,

5
 

area. the planners assess the eligibility of individual 

rivers. serious attention should be to the of such 

species, both es indicators of values fish and 

wildlife values. 

The planners must undertake a serious evaluation of the 

flowing streams in the resource area to determine whether they

possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values that might

qualify them inclusion in the national rivers system. The failure of the planners to consider all of the 

streams exposes those with high values be eligible for 

inclusion in the wild and scenic rivers system to development

that can significantly degrade their values and to damming or 

diversion that could disqualify them for future consideration. 

American Rivers suggests that assessment of rivers. 

and creek*, including tributaries and headwaters, within the 

Area will result in the identification of other 

rivers, streams and creeks eligible for inclusion in the national 

wild and scenic rivers system. 

The Final should expand Appendix 5 and include a separate 

assessment of the various streams and their values 

by the planners. 

2. River corridor* 

The states that the study corridor for River did not 
 

 

 

 

 

Mr. 

April 6,

6 

3. classification 

American Rivers believes the classifications set forth in the 

"Classification Determination" of Appendix 5 are sensitive to the 

*et forth in administrative directive. 

we are deeply concerned with the proposal to arbitrarily

"under-classify' various segments is set forth in the 

"Formulation of Alternative*." at 236. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides that each component of

the system shall be "administered in such a manner a* to protect

and the values which caused it to be included in said 

system.. Section lo(a); 16 section 1281(a). This 

section of the Act has been interpreted as stating a

and enhancement policy for all designated river areas." 

se* Interagency Guidelines, 47 Fed. Reg. 

American Rivers is concerned that a number of river segments will 

be exposed to inappropriate levels of development due to improper

classifications. The Plan include* several examples of 

classification" that threaten to degrade and impair the values Of 

eligible and suitable rivers pending Congressional consideration. 

Such "under-classification" is in plain violation of policy

which provides unequivocally that potential classification 

of a river is based on the condition of the river and the adjacent lands they exist at the time of the study." Guidelines, 

For example, the plan documents that segment 2 of the 

qualifies as based upon the current level of stream-side
 

at There are no roads along this
 

portion of the river. Despite the current wild character
 

of this segment, two alternatives would inexplicably establish a 

scenic classification for this segment. at 236. There are 

several similar examples inappropriate classification 

throughout Appendix 5. 

For the reasons stated above, the decision to "under-classify" a 

river segment is in contravention of administrative policy

and the directive of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for federal 

agencies to enhance and maintain outstandingly remarkable river 

values. 

Further, the contains no analysis of the adverse impacts of 

development which would permitted in a wild but not a scenic 

classification. Such development could foreclose congressional

designation of the river a wild rives. 

April 6,

7 

Finally, the decision to "under-classify' merely to provide a 

range of alternatives fails to comply with the guidance for 

alternative classifications set forth in the Interagency

Guidelines. Interagency Guidelines, 47 Fed. Reg. at 38458. 

The Guidelines make plain that an analysis of alternative 

classifications is an unusual occurrence, and arises only on 

those occasions that there may be an "authorized but not yet

constructed which if constructed alter the 

classification of the river area." This very limited

justification for analysis alternative classifications is not 

the basis for the recommended range of alternative*. 

4. Standards 

In order to protect the resource values and character of its 

potential wild and scenic rivers until a decision is reached 

regarding their designation, Guidelines require agency

planners to establish detailed management prescriptions. The 

Guidelines state: must prescribe the protection

(interim management prescriptions) to be provided for the river 

and adjacent public land pending the suitability and, when 

necessary, subsequent action by the Congress." Guidelines, 

Section at 11. 

The Guidelines address in detail the scope of management

prescriptions that should adopted: 

Specific management prescriptions for river corridor* 

identified from the list, otherwise identified for 

study, should provide protection in the following ways: 

1. Free-flowins values. The free-flowing characteristics 

of such identified river cannot be modified to 

allow stream impoundments, channelization, 

rip-rapping to the extent the authorized under 

2. River values. Outstandingly remarkable of the 

identified river segment or area must be protected (subject 

to valid existing right*) and, to the extent practicable,

enhanced. 

3. Classification Management and development of 

the identified river and it* corridor cannot be modified, 

subject to valid existing rights, to the degree that its 

eligibility classification would be affected (i.e., its 

classification cannot be changed from wild to scenic, 

scenic to recreational). 
 

 

April 6, 

Guidelines, Ix, B., at 

The Safford fails to include any specific prescriptions and 

thereby fails to comply with agency directive. The Draft Three 

Rivers recently issued in Oregon contains management prescriptions that are consistent with the Guidelines and will 

provide appropriate guidance to and the public those 

actions that are appropriate within the relevant river corridor. 

American suggests that the Safford planners consult with 

the Three Rivers planners this issue. 

5. Preferred Alternative and Suitability Determination 

American Rivers is deeply concerned with the proposal to 

recommend a 10.2 mile segment of River as a recreational river for Congressional designation. we 

believe that the Plan has failed to demonstrate that the other 

eligible river segments are not suitable. We strongly urge that 

the Safford Final reexamine closely the suitability issue and 

recommend appropriate eligible river segments for Congressional

designation. 

The documents that the River and San Francisco River 

remain free-flowing and possesses outstandingly remarkable values 

and is therefore eligible for inclusion in the nation wild and 

scenic rivers system. The Final should reexamine whether 

these rivers (and other eligible streams) are suitable for 

by Congress in the wiid and scenic river 

system. That decision necessarily requires a weighing of the 

relative public value of the streams as protected components of 

the national rivers system against the public values associated 

with other possible uses of the river. The Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act mandates that inquiry and establishes a national 

policy that "certain selected rivers . be preserved in 

condition, and . for the benefit and 

of present and generations." 16 section 

1271 (emphasis added). The Act's policy of preservation of 

selected rivers balances the established national policy favoring 

dam and other development at appropriate sections of our nation's 

rivers. The fundamental task that the faces with 

respect to any potential wild and scenic river! therefore, is to 

balance properly the competing values of the if preserved

developed. 

decisions not to recommend designation for potential Wild and 

Scenic Rivers! like decisions releasing potential wilderness 

areas, commit the resources of such rivers and 

their adjacent lands, and require similar site-specific 

Mr. Knox 

April 6, 

analysis. where the establishes 

relatively protective management prescriptions for river area 

in its forest plan, the decision not to recommend Wild and Scenic 

River designation exposes the river to continued risk of 

hydroelectric development that may degrade destroy the river's 

free-flowing character, and to mineral development that may

impair its outstanding natural values. 

Further, the Plan documents well the outstandingly remarkable 

values of the remaining free-flawing streams in the resource 

. Several are unquestionably suitable for inclusion in the 

national rivers system. We urge the planners to reexamine this 

issue during the preparation of the Final 

We trust these comments are helpful during the Resource 

process. We look forward to participating

further in the process. If you have any questions concerning 

any of the matters set forth above, please do not hesitate to 

communicate with me. 

Thomas 

Public Lands Counsel
 
 

 

THE I_* 

DESERT 

so-calledAlternatives. 
 Brady 30, 

114 

PETITION 

TO: Bureau of Land Management RE: District Resource 

U.S. Department of the Interior Plan and 

425 E. 4th Street Environmental Impact AZ 85546 

THIS PETITION is in regard to the use of the high country above Aravaipa Canyon. We 

request that you do not open the road Canyon. The area west of 

should be open to equestrian and foot travel only. present, many 

drive roads in the Turkey Creek-Table Mountain area. There is a need for equestrian 

trails outside of the Aravaipa Creek itself and horses and are a dangerous 
116
 

April 1, 1990 

Steve Knox 

Team Leader 

of Land Management

425 E. 4th Street 

Safford. AZ 05546 

Dear Mr. Knox: 

Ye hare studied the draft District Resource 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement also 

attended your open comment session. We have aereral 

comments to offer for your consideration. Although 

feelings are pretty much the same for the whole 

district. would like to address comments primarily 

to the areas within and surrounding the Wilderness. 

After all the proposed 

probably favor Alternative but with several important 

exceptions. 

First, and perhaps foremost, we strongly oppose the 

opening of areas to use, whether restricted 

unlimited. Such use be extremely detrimental to the 

primary the soil and water, causing 

erosion, a degradation of water quality in the creek and 

springs, and the destruction of vegetation. AS 

all increased access will draw more rho are less 

conscientious about littering and abiding by rules and laws. 

with no or provisions being made for enforcement 
 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

and supervision, 

creased 

land who 

increasing burden 

these fragile will be ruined. Inwill affect the adjacent private 

already are forced to cope with the everthat recreational incurs. 

Ye also object to 

into 

potential for damage and 

water 

to indicate what effect beaver may have the 

gered fish in the creek. Beaver just might help to 

a more favorable habitat for the exotic species that 

have already invaded areas. 

Ye oppose acquisition of the of private 

on the east and rest ends of Wilderness. 

an will only give more freedom to increase 

recreational in the area. attracting Such 

will force counties to spend more on 

road improvements putting a greater on these 

citizens. 

oppose increased recreation in the area, 

naturally oppose development 

the aod acquisition of 

A human daily "carrying 

do you propose to solve the 

by the greater of visitors to the area? 

thing at your open house at the 

Central Arizona College Campus the possibility 

may be acquiring lands along the San Pedro 

attempts to reintroduce beaver 

could an increased 

problems to downstream property 

As far as we know. there is 

of "activity for 

adjacent to 

for already been 

problems that will be created 

3 

river between and Benson to be into a special 

recreational and wildlife area. Ye vehemently oppose this. 

San Pedro is vital to the agricultural interests of 

county. Remove1 of these lands from county roles would 

place a further burden on an already economically depressed 

county. There already exists problems with the 

on the adjacent lands. We don't need any more. Also, 

it make for to reacquire lands it has 

traded away in the past. 

Finally, perhaps our gravest concerns are with itself. 

We are concerned by lack of concern for the private 

land adjacent to controlled lands. Also, like so 

many other land managing agencies, makes no provisiona for 

enforcement and supervision of the increased of 

it attracts. The policies is embracing are like a 

growth. There to be no end to the attempt 

to acquire and control. main is on recreation 

and public use is speeding away from production and management of public lands and at the time 

building its gigantic bureaucracy. Such policies are very 

dangerous, not only for the local people involved, but for the 

well-being of nation. 

hope you will give consideration to concerns. Thank 

for your attention. 

Walter and Meyer 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Steve 

Leader 

Management 

Mr. Knox, 

In recent years I have often heard of problems that relate to the Eagle 

and I am to my sincere its 

Some of its value as wildlife has already lost 

and need do all that is possible to preserve this unique place. 

in the and on into the I was of 8 group which made 

to the Eegle Creek to study population of the 

bet es a To 

observe the flights of millions of females to their 

feeding sites in the drainage was a sight to behold! I realize that for 

the bat populations at Creek have fallen considerably and this is 

all mason to pay attention to the factors that might be harmful to 

colony. These bats need to be protected. 

It would a locked gate to the would be almost 

The ba 

helpful. I would support the of prohibiting discharge within 

mile circumference of the 

I hope comments will be in the determination of measures 

to the Eagle Creek cave. 

Sincerely, 

Ph.D. 
119 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 822. 3753) 

FOR PROJECT 

the Act of June 17, 1902. 32 Scat. -388, and 

43 8416 is 

of the following public lands 

under jurisdiction of the of Interior 

the Ch. 

leasing the mineral leasing and reserved for 

and Salt River 

21 R. 22 

5. 1, 

sec. 6. lots 3 excluding

6967, 8968, 6969, 14930; 

7. lots 1. 2, 

9. 

33. lot 
 

 

 

22 22 

4. lot 23 to 33. 

36. 39, 40, 4si so. 

67 70. incl.. 

lots 72. 73. 76. 77. 

82 LO 85. 

62. 63. 

OCT 

Loesch 
 Order NV. 5269, II. 

3. 1. 

4. 

5. 

7. 

9. 

10. 

13. 
 Felix. Board/Clerk 

GRAHAM COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

GRAHAM COUNTY COURTHOUSE 800 MAIN STREET PHONE 

April 16, 1990 

Ray Brady 

District Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

425 E. 4th St. 

Safford, Arizona 85546 

RE: Draft Plan 

Enclosed for your is a copy of Resolution 1990-10 outlining 

the Board's position with respect to the removal of acreage. 

Please consider this position as the Board's in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

AN 

1990-10 

A OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN OPPOSITION 

TO THE BUREAU OF PROPOSAL TO ADDITIONAL GRAZING 

LAND ACREAGE. 

the economic survival of rural counties and 

is dependent lands as primary tax base, and 

private lands within County consist less 

than seven percent of total land and 

substantial portion of tax revenues derived from 

on livestock, etc.. on public lands, and 

the proposed Bureau of Land Management draft plan, 

preferred alternative, calls for the additional withdrawal of twenty-three 

thousand (Swamp Spring/Hot Spring area) possible future use 

for livestock grazing, and 

WHEREAS, such withdrawals create financial hardships on retail 

trades and sales, businesses which support ranching, along with additional 

hardships on local governments in meeting- their responsibilities to 

provide minimum basic services. 

THEREFORE IT RESOLVED, that the Graham County Board of 

Supervisors is opposed to any additional withdrawal of land which has 

a direct negative impact on taxation. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of Graham County 

this 16th day April, 1990. 

GRAHAM COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Householder, 
122 

PETITION 

TO: Bureau of Land Management RE: Safford District Resource U.S. of the Interior Plan and 

425 E. 4th Street Environmental Impact Statement 

Safford. A2 85546 

THIS PETITION is in regard to the of the high country above Aravaipa Canyon. We 

request that you do not open the road across Virgus Canyon. The area west of Virgus 

should be open to equestrian and foot travel only. At present, there are drive roads in the Turkey Creek-Table Mountain area. is a need for equestrian trails outside of the Aravaipa Creek itself and horses and a dangerous 

combination. 

NAME ADDRESS DATE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123 

THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE 

Mr. Ray A. Brady, District 

of 

District 

R. 4th 

Hr. Srady; 

I a that your office does not 

adequate of Federal/Indian 

th. from this 

and this responsibility the 

Plan This 

concern i. based the by staff and 

of the RMP before the 

of the San Carlo. Tribe. 

in my letter, the 

not the sol. domain of the 

of India" Affair.. It 1. of th. 

Interior which is charged with th. of 

upholding this tru.t, including th. of Land 

where its the fiduciary 

of the Federal trust land. 

and of relationship is 

oft." by 

1" this field, I ha". of 

on this topic for your 

The first from Federal District 

in the Trlb. a 

of the the of Land 

The finding. 1" this 

the responsibility of th. 

is 11.c born. by th. of 

third and th. position of 

of the Interior. In 

before the he 

that th. 

8. r..t*t.d 

in hi. all th. 

by of the trust 

conducting all 

Th. final distributed (during a recent 

"r. nlcha.1 Assistant 

Director, L."d h.R.".wabI. of Land 

during . on "Caopersti". 

for N.tlll.1 R..ourc..." It is copy 

Of and 

This document gives 

and AI.* Ilanagers, *s ".ll a. tc staff, concerning 

for identifying and fully considering 

during th. 

I that you will find the.. 

and point for further 

into quickly evolving within 

Buck Kitcheym, Chair.=

San C.rlcs 

cc: "r. Yll.cn Barber, Phoenix RIA 

All." se" 

Lynn Acting Stat. 
 

 

 

 

HUCA AUDUBON SOCIETY POST OFFICE ARIZONA 85636 

1990 

124-l 

of the Interior 

of Management 

Safford District Office 

425 E. 4th Street 

Safford, AZ. 

On behalf of the Audubon Society,

would like to thank the Bureau of Land Management for this 

opportunity to make comment on the Draft Resource Management

Plan for the Safford District. Our previous efforts an 

the San Pedro River management plan proved to be quite

rewarding, and we are looking forward to having similar 

satisfaction with this District Plan. 

TO begin with, we basically Alternative A, 

but would like to see modifications on the following concerns: 

1. Any road access in riparian areas should 

run parallel to stream flow and not in it. crossings

riparian areas should be at right angles to stream 

flow, thereby keeping people from driving up and down the 

stream. Close off or avoid developing any switchback road 

access in all riparian areas. The following roads should be 

moved of riparian areas: Canyon Road, left fork 

of Markham Creek Road, and Guadalupe Canyon Road. 

2. We support Alternative 2. All 

should have class I and all new 

land acquisitions should be designation.

also support status for the BOX. 

3. Off-Highway Vehicles: We SUppOrt A. 

but suggest the following additions: closures 

during nesting or breeding seasons in all sensitive areas 

for wildlife, for example near riparian areas. 

4. Riparian Areas: should consider 

4. Riparian Areas 

establishing a buffer around all and 

riparian areas where Animal Damage Control efforts 

would be prohibited. To to trap next to these

protected areas would have a negative impact on the resources 

these areas were established to protect. We would also like 

put management of T L species in riparian 

areas and less livestock grazing. We congratulate the 

removal of cows from the San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area and encourage the same policy the 

following riparian habitat: Muleshoe, 

San Francisco River Area, Box, River Area, 

Apache Box, Turkey Creek, Guadalupe Canyon, and other 

significant riparian areas in the Safford District. also 

encourage no site development on the San Pedro 

National Conservation Area, would 

support a site development in Sierra Vista. 

Management concern 2. Lands and Reality: We support

The Mt. area, Portal area, and 

other sky islands serving as wildlife corridors should not 

be traded off for any less valuable lands for wildlife. 

land exchanges should be carefully assessed as to their 

impacts wildlife, including migration 

concern 4. and Minerals: support

Alternative because it provides greater protection to 

sensitive areas from mining disturbance. 

concern 6. Soil Erosion: We encourage building

the Timber Draw Dam on the San Simon River because it would 

greatly reduce soil erosion and improve riparian habitat. 

We also encourage livestock removal from this area to 

vegetation regrowth. 

We strongly urge to incorporate comments 

into the final Safford District Plan, and we thank 

for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Marty

President 
-

 

 

 

 -

 

125 

Ken Cox, Sr. 

the of and better the as these areas been for years. 1 aart LS simll.ar to tne ene used the state of at their mine at be a) rerf perhaps noj cost the by donations of machinery and labor

by Dhe Granam or tiommerc.. 

to propose another area be established near the County Une alow 

126 

COCAISE-GRAHAM CATTLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION 

RESOLUTION 

WHEREAS. the survival of each rural and county the state on private Property as a tax base: and 

WHEREAS. further for rural counties and are derived from personal property tax on livestock: and. 

WHEREAS. the current Bureau of Land Resource Plan Draft <preferred alternative> proposes to withdraw 22.883 any Dossibil Lty "f future by !iYestCCk thus and reducing the tax base of Graham and Cochise 

Counties: and. 

WHEREAS. the current plan states that private lands to be from to time for various further would reduce the tax base. 

THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, the Cochise-Graham Cattle Growers' 

Association opposed to the current Resource Plan to on Swamp-Springs-Hot watershed Area of Critical Concern, better as the Allotment. 

BE IT RESOLVED, the Cochise-Graham Cattle 

Association opposed to any accumulation of state lands by the federal government that would affect the tax base Graham Counties. 

ADOPTED THIS 21st day of 1990 by vote of the members of the Cochise-Graham Cattle Growers' 
127 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

128 

 spare me crap for amount meat 

public lands is I I in 

Southwest the land be much better without it. up costs 

be no to justify it. 

can you 

supposed to be protecting the public trust and the public’s land. 

Is you protect IS zone5 

protect it? And please me if 

only chip in a you and 

range maggots out. range to pay for all if they want to 

for stock ponds, cost of the allotments in the 

The only wonderful about this trip is that I got to 

visit where there are no range maggots and it 

a person 

supposed to look out-- if you did the job you are paid to 

Instead of being a lanky to the livestock industry. the Box. 

this letter meant be. For I 

tire of seeing the compromised. I am tire of seeing the American landscape destroyed and the agency 

protecting the American interest refusing 

I to answer 

you feel your pay 
 

 

 

 

2 

Management Concern Energy and 

provides greater protection to sensitive 

Lastly, encourage Timber Draw Dam to reduce 

habitat. we 

Thank you *or considering our recommendations 

is desirable because it 

mining disturbance. 

erosion and improve 

this vegetation 

District 
 

 

 

130 

130-I 

12 Marshall Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Fax 

Nay 9, 1990 

Nr. Ray A. Brady

District 

United States Department

Bureau of 

Safford District Office 

of the Interior 

425 E. 4th Street 

Safford, Arizona 85546 

Dear Brady: 

the owner of Trails 

other properties in the 

End Ranch, The 

area I have 

Painted Cave 

the following 

and 

concerns and 

suggestions. 

The north of the Canyon but South of the San

India" Reservation is long property that into 

Creek. The area controlled by the this area is 

primarily The Painted Cave allotment owned by and the Dry Camp

allotment. 

I have of access to The Cave allotment, the 

primary one is through my Property known as the

Ranch Road Sec. 17, 19, 20. Presently I allow vehicles 

over this road under a sign in sign out program totally at 

Under no circumstances do I want unlimited and 

uncontrolled access by right. To date vandalism is minimal but 

trash continues to be major problem also vehicles during wet 

periods do considerable damage to the roads. I also think vehicular 

access beyond The Painted Cave should be limited to ranch and 

vehicles. 

second access is the Wagner Ranch Road Sec. 23 and 

24. This road is private, goes directly through my front yard,

holding pens and ranch buildings and under no circumstances do I 

allow other than vehicles to travel over this road. 

Given my approach to the Road one has see" any need to

utilize this access and I see to open it to the public. 

In general the to the North of is 

small and fragile and no roads should be opened up into this area 

beyond the limited access that presently exists. should be 

encouraged by or horseback and the same for hiking. This 

greatly improve the enjoyment of this area for most of the people

utilizing this small area while also protecting the for the small population of Desert Big Sheep that traverses this 

area between Hell Hole and 

All opportunities for mining on the Dry and Painted Cave 

allotment should with&awn. This would assure protection of the 

drainage, protect the Big terrain and assure the 

public of continued environment that is extremely close to 

major mining operations at San Manuel, and 

should not be allowed in this environmentally sensitive 

area, except with Landowner permission on the North Rim and all 

should be eliminated on South Rim property controlled by 

Grazing should be allowed under present permits on Painted Cave 

The cattle and sheep have gotten along successfully 

many years. It is my understanding The Nature Conservancy wants 

to withdraw grazing on their leases which grazing in the total 

Canyon area will be highly limited and its impact minimal. 

Expansion of Wilderness: I have no objections to the expansion

of the Wilderness area as 

The Painted Cave homestead is and historic property.

The should make sure that the lessee properly secures and 

maintains this property. The road down to Painted Cave should be 

kept lacked with only Ranch and vehicular access. 
 

131
 

Three 

The area is area and as such it cannot be all 

things all people. The heart of this area is the 

Wilderness, the surrounding areas north to the 

and South the Nature East to Deer Creek should 

be looked at support areas. Vehicles should be limited, hunting 

should be by foot and new or closed roads should be opened up.

This generally maintains the present situation and acknowledges the 

that passive (non vehicular) is 

. In keeping vehicles a unique 

recreational for hiking, hunting and camping in a 

non-wilderness area, while uses for vehicular recreation 

in the remainder of the resource management area. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely,. 

Philip Y. DeNormandie 
 

 

 

 

 - 

 

 

132 

ARIZONA DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP SOCIETY, INC. 

. Phoe”lX. Anmna 

May 20.1990 

Mr. Steve Knox
 

RMP Leader
 

Safford District
 

Bureau of Land Managment
 

425 East 4th Street
 

Safford, Arizona 65546 

Re: Draft Safford District Resource Management Plan
 

and Environmental Impact Statement
 

Dear Mr. Knox: 

The Arizona Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc (ADESS) has the 

above Please include the comments as part 

of the official 

The primary concern of ADBSS is the management and of 

desert bighorn Although we will address comments to the 

portion of the interested in other portions because of their 

bearing on management. 

ISSUE ACCESS 

ADBSS supports the alternative action of and 

administrative access public lands. We feel this I S important for 

wildlife management as well as hunting. 

We support those locations listed 1 

which access to bighorn sheep habitat. 

We support the reconstruction of the Canyon Road and the East 

Turkey Creek Road to provide vehicle access for desert bighorn sheep 

management and hunting. 

We support obtaining legal access for the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness 

from the west to the west boundary of the wilderness. 

ARIZONA DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP SOCIETY, INC. 

ISSUE 2 AND OTHER TYPES OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT 

The Box Turkey Creek Riparian ACEC, Swamp Hot 

Springs Watershed ACEC and Mountains all list 

bighorn sheep as one of values. One of the management 

common to all of these is the of off use If 

means existing roads and trails to vehicle use, we 

cannot support it. 

Aravaipa Canyon and Wilderness additions are recommended as 

suitable for inclusion- in the National Preservation System. 

ADBSS does not favor recommendation of or inclusion of these lands 

clasificatian unless certain specific language I S contained in 

the legislation designating these areas as wilderness. The language 

we would request relates to use of minimum tools the forms of 

motor vehicles, and hand held power tools. This equipment IS absolutely 

essential to conduct the activities necessary in modern 

management. These activities are surveys. captures, transplants, waterhole 

construction and maintenance, and scientific study. The language for both 

the Interim Wilderness Guidelines and Wilderness Policy leave too much 

discretion to the manager to interpret use of minimum tool. 

3 OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLES 

ADBSS is concerned about closure of Oak Grove Canyon, above the 

Oak Grove Canyon for closure to off highway vehicle use We would 

prefer to see the to limited use. 

We designation of sheep lambing areas as to off 

highway May 1 to January and dosed to use 

from February 1 to April 30. 

We are surprised at the recommendation to mountain bikes and 

other forms of mechanized transportation with off highway vehicle 

designations. What I S the basis for such an inclusion? Unless resource 

damage, such as soil erosion, can be attributed to mountain why 

should they be restricted? 
 

 

 

 

 

 :

 

 

ARIZONA DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP SOCIETY, INC. 

Arizona 

MANAGEMENT CONCERN 1 WILDLIFE HABITAT 

ADBSS supports the establishment of both Desert and Rocky 

bighorn sheep as priority species and their habitats as priority habitats. 

Managing habitat for optimum populations based on 

I 

conditions is a laudable goal. We are not sure what “optimum wildlife 

132-3 populations” are. It is not defined in the glossary. We do support the concept of managing. any wildlife species the capabilities of the 

habitat. 

ADBSS supports and augmenting populations of priority 

wildlife species, to reach management objectives. Given the 

recent die off in Canyon, transplants could serve 

as important a which has fallen below 

potential. . . 

In designating f&or& wildlii attention should be paid 

to limiting off AS earlier, we would 

limit vehicle use end trails rather than close these areas 

to vehicle use. 

MANAGEMENT 

and leaseable minerals 

would not a bighorn sheep 

Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on this plan. 

Bat Conservation International, Inc.

Pas cmce 
 

 

 

134 

WILLIAM S. ATLEE
 

Attorney at Law
 

3444 Country Club Rd.
 

85716
 

May 24, 

Meg Jensen 

Resource 

Bureau of Land Management
 

425 Fourth 

Arizona 

RE: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MESA 

Dear Meg: 

As I indicated in my telephone conversation, I appointed the of 

the estate of Hope Jones and of were issued to me on May 15, 

I enclosing a of those for 

One of the of the is the C-Spear Ranch. As you will Johnny 

and I met with you and Bill at the ranch last summer to discuss the rock 

house located on Ranch in Canyon 

On Behalf of the C-Spear Ranch, we are definitely in of a management plan 

which would result the of the Soza Mesa land to land. Further, we would 

in being the of that land when it became available to lease, or we would 

he interested in being the of such acreage. 

We would appreciate it if you could take note of interest in this land and keep 

as or when any progress in this matter 

WILLIAM S. 

Johnny 

SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY 

LETTERS 

WILLIAM is hereby appointed 

Of estate of HOPE I. JONES, 

protected person 

Appointment, but shall not exercise 

without prior order of Court:­

STATE ARIZONA 

COUNTY OF 

3 I hereby accept duties of
 

of the estate of the 

protected person, do I will according to 

law. such duties. 

WILLIAM S. 

SUBSCRIBED TO before me on 

G-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135 

KrlOY, RW Tsarn Leader of 

A.? 85546 my 23, 1990 

The Women’s Action Group. which Includes network of 

200 people. wishes to our in the 

of Land Resource 

prefer It shows the most protection 

and the “se of the public lands. 

The following Is Iist of suggestions to apply to the Issues 

or whichever Is 

In Areas should run 

to stream and not In It. Crossings through Areas should 

be at to to prevent people from driving In 

the Remove these roads from 

left fork of Creek Road. 

Issue 2, All should have Class I 

affords for these 

3, All sensitive and RiparIon should be closed 

Completely to OHV “se. or at 

Issue 4. “buffer zone” around 

which prohibits Control. 

of Such completely negates the 

I Of the that these areas established to protect. 

group. and the in Is outraged 

the of v,IldI Ife by 

4. you on the removal of 

the Pedro encourage the 

for these Creek, FranBox. River Area. Apache Turkey 

Creek, Canyon other 

to the Government’s 

Report on of June. 

In of Is the removal of 

suggest no development of the San Pedro. An 

can put In Sierra Vista,thereby 

to Sierra VI&a. displays be put 

the at the San Pedro, the I scope Its for future 

Ions. to enjoy. 

Concern 2, Lands and Realtyr Any land such 

the Portal or other sky Islands 

should have the the Impacts on wildlife and 

migratory routes priority. Only exchange these 

with resource 

as the?? and concern. 

Concern 6. Soil support the 

Timber r)rav on San it would help 

i I ion. removal of from 

the ha= 0 chonct to Livestock 

sail erosion by compacting earth so that It cannot 

absorb thereby run off 

7. “rqe you not to “se 

Is necessary to remove It would not only 

be harmful to the but could the be harmful to people or such 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 8, approve the Timber 

but hope are In to the 

methods of 

and approach to land Also, 

the of the where 

the berms. not be done until the 

Removal the berms 

result In erosion. 

In we like to the need restore 

at cast. the blood 

the western lands. 

result. 

L. 

Group 

953 

A I 
 

 

136 

 AZ 85603 

MAY 27, 1990 

KNOX, RIP TEA" LEADER, 

RE: REScl0RCE l4ANAGE"ENT PLAN 

you for the great management your agency is already

doing. In particular, Canyon and the San Pedro 

areas are gems, and deserves national recognition for 

management practices in these areas. 

Thank you for removing cattle from the San Pedro River

Area. ask you to insure their permanent removal. 

I am aware that a compromise was worked the hunting

issue. support keeping hunters of the entire San Pedro 

Conservation area. 

also feel strongly that other buildings be placed on the 

San Pedro River. Let any displays be placed in

present buildings or in shopping malls in Sierra Vista and

Administrative buildings should be in present buildiings

of in Sierra vista. No new construction please. generation 

will thank you for encouraging the 'natural-"ess of the River. 

I feel strongly preserving what is left of

in the arid South West. also feel it is time to 

and bring back those areas that have see” 

serious abuse in the past 100 years. 

I also removing all livestock from all riparian 

areas in the district. I" particular, I support

cattle the following areas: the five drainages that 

comprise Turkey Creek, Creek, Guadalupe

the and San Francisco Rivers, Eagle Creek, BOX, Apache

and all areas in the District. 

believe that needs to reassess the impact that

'multiple use' has made on public lands. land has been 

abused by over-use, and is in critical condition compared to 

white man days. The practice of comparing the current conditions 

to the abused conditions of the 1920s and 1930s must be 

stopped as it is a distortion. 

Not all District land is fit at this time to be used for 

use'. Certain sensitive District lands need protection

from continued human centered over-abuse. I recommend that the 

above mentioned riparian areas be limited 

use at least thirty years. 

particular please keep off the District land 

adjacent to Nature Conservancy Preserve. 

I support "on-game and non-consumptive using a 

without abusing removing it. I support very long 

range planning, projecting protection of public land into the 

next 500 years. 

that is just as important as 'consumptive use' is 

'environmental use' whereby systems have a chance to regenerate 

without the interference of the consumptive uses of man. These 

areas can also become areas of 'educational use'. 

I support alternative of the RMP. 

Access: Make people walk. roads from riparian areas, parallel to stream beds, not in it. Prevent vehicles from 

driving in stream beds. Avoid switchbacks. As roads encourage

erosion. avoid roads whenever possible. Remove the Canyon 

Road, Guadalupe Canyon Road and the left fork of Markham Creek Road, 

All ACECs must have Class I VRPl designation. Please

consider designating all new land for ACEC 

designation. 

Please close all areas to during

sensitive times, such as during nesting season. 

Riparian Areas: Please prohibit any activity of ADC on 

District land, in particular around all and 

Riparian area management must have as the primary goal

protection and regeneration of habitat of species. 

Lands and Realty: District land "ear the Sisbee area being

targeted for disposal must not be sold traded to anyone 

intending to use the land for consumptive use due to the

sensitive nature of that land and the threat of increased erosion to watershed. 

The Portal area and any other islands' 

serving as wildlife must not be traded off for any less valuable lands for wildlife. Any land exchanges he carefully

assessed as to their impacts on wildlife, especially migration

and habitat. 

Vegetation: chemicals used to suppress vegetation, 

any reason. 

I would like to encourage the to stop any

practices that are 'cow-centric' and to keep the bigger

ecological picture in mind. job is to protect the resources 

of all species' children, not just human children. 

remove livestock from riparian areas. 


 

 

138 PO BOX 612 

85603 

22, 1990 

STEVE KNOX, LEADER, BLW 

RB: DISTRICT RESOURCE PLAN 

you for the great management agency is already

doing. In particular, Canyon and the San Pedro Riparian 

are gems, and deserves national recognition for 

management in these areas. 

Thank you for removing cattle from the San Pedro River

Riparian Area. ask you to insure their permanent removal. 

I am aware that a compromise was worked on the hunting

issue. support keeping hunters of the entire San Pedro 

Conservation area. 

also feel strongly that no other buildings be placed on the 

San Pedro River. Let any displays be placed in

present buildings in shopping malls in Sierra Vista and

Administrative buildings should be in present buildiings

in Sierra Vista. new construction please. generation

will thank you for encouraging the 'natural-ness of the River. 

I feel very strongly about preserving is left of 

in the arid South West. also feel it is time to and bring back those riparian areas that have seen

serious abuse in the past 100 years. 

also support removing all livestock from all riparian

in the district. In particular, support removing 

cattle from the following riparian areas: the five drainages that 

comprise Turkey Creek, Creek, Guadalupe Canyon,

the and San Rivers, Eagle Creek, Box, Apache

BOX and all riparian areas in the District. 

I believe that needs to reassess the impact that

'multiple use' has made on public lands. land has been 

abused by over-use, and is in critical condition compared to 

white man days. The practice of comparing the current conditions 

to the abused conditions of the 1920s and 1930s must be 

stopped as it is a distortion. 

Not all District land is fit at this time to be used for 

'multiple use'. Certain sensitive District lands need protection 

from continued human centered aver-abuse. recommend that the 

above mentioned riparian areas be limited to 'non-consumptive

use" for at least thirty years. 

In particular please keep off the District land 

adjacent to Nature Conservancy Preserve. 

support non-game and non-consumptive using a 

resource without abusing or removing it. support very long 

range planning, projecting protection of our public land into the 

next 500 years. 

that is just as important 'consumptive use' is 'environmental use' whereby systems have a chance to regenerate

without the interference of the consumptive uses of man. These 

areas can also become areas of 'educational use'. 

I support alternative B of the RIP. 

Access: Make people walk. Keeps roads away from riparian 

areas, parallel to stream beds, not in it. Prevent vehicles from 

driving in stream beds. Avoid As roads encourage

erosion, avoid roads whenever possible. Remove the Canyon

Road, Guadalupe Canyon Road and the left fork of Creek 

Road. 

All ACECS must have Class I designation. Please

consider designating all new land aquisitions for ACEC 

designation. 

Please close all riparian areas to during

sensitive times, such as during nesting season. 

Riparian Areas: Please prohibit any activity of ADC on

District land, in particular around all and Riparian

Riparian area management must have as the primary goal

protection and regeneration of habitat of species. 

Lands and Realty: District land near the Bisbee area being

targeted for disposal must not be sold or traded to anyone

intending to use the land for consumptive use due to the

sensitive nature of that land and the threat of increased erosion 

to watershed. 

The Swisshelms, Portal area and any other ‘sky islands' 

serving as wildlife must not be off any less valuable lands for wildlife. land must be 

assessed as to their impacts wildlife, especially 

routes and habitat. 

Vegetation: chemicals used to suppress vegetation, ever, any reason. 

I would like encourage the BLM to stop any practices that 'cow-centric' and to keep the bigger

ecological picture in mind. job is to protect the 

of all species' children, not just human children. 

Please remove livestock from riparian areas. 

2 
139 
141 
 

 

142 

Of 

E. 

143 
144 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145 

Thank you sending me a COPY of 

having the I'd like to 

in... 

fh0 th. A, B but with 

A, I ,..I the strongest about this issue, like to 

it I’d like to by you 

your excellent to out th. 

Area. encourage t o 

������ � s with tha San Riparirn District for 

Creek, Area, 

Turkey Canyon, and other
 

in the I 

establishing a and Areas where would be prohibited. 

1: in should run 

to flow and not in it. crossings

Areas should be at right angles to helping 

people driving up the bed. 145-3 or avoid developing any road in 

Riprrian Areas. Canyon left fork o f I	 Creek out of Riprrian 

2: All should cl... I designation. All 

land acquisition5 should for designation. 

3: 

to during nesting for 

not 

Portal other islands 

corridors for any less wildlife. 

I	 would especially migration router. 

6. Erosion: I the building

the Timber on the River it would 

reduce the erosion and habitat. THE 

LIVESTOCK THIS AREA th. has . to . . 

the silt accumulates. As the US General Accounting

in their Report in Public June 

the factor in restoring has been 

livestock. 

Concern 7. Vegetation: I support the of 

to, vegetation I F the soil,

contaminate the water/ground water, wildlife humans, in

organically 

Manage..nt concern In addition to building Timber Dam, I suggest the Bud into methods of highly land Pleas. do the 

berms in the area the Pedro River until the 

thicker growth. Removing the could result in furthering

erosion this time. 

Thank You, 
 

146 

146-I 

147 

Route, 6309 

F RIENDS AZ. OF A RIZONA RIVERS 

1, 1990 

Steve Knox, RMP Team Leader 

Bureau of Land Management 

425 E. street 

Safford, AZ. 85546 

Draft Safford District Resource Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement 

The has an opportunity within this District provide 

protection to areas which are unique with natural and cultural 

features. The identification of these areas by the are 

designated as ACEC, NCR, RNA and USA Units. have 

many of these and have indeed found them to be 

each for respective reasons. I hesitate to single 

out and name individual areas and therefore recommend all Of 

these areas as a group to be protected with an extended buffer 

as indicated in Alternate 

in the riparian 

It is absolutely essential that these units are provided 

Limited access to many areas should also be maintained. 

Several signs of grazing, 

I would also like to see an extended regional approach to include 

drainage for units such Canyon Wilderness, 

Creek and Box, Ranch Coordinated Resource Area, 

Peloncillo and Guadalupe Canyon. 

Some additional also include more protection around 

Campers nesting birds such as Black and Lone-tailed Hawks. 

should not be allowed to camp within the close proximity of 

nests during the breeding season'. Also, the discharge of 

these areas should be eliminated. 

I might also suggest the the eradication of exotic tamarisk in 

several areas such as Canyon, Hell Hole, etc. should 

be done before a foothold is secured. 

I also encourage the additions of all the proposed wilderness 

areas including the Peloncillo 
 

 

 

148 149 

SreYe Knox, Of Team Leader Land Management 425 E. 4th Street 

AZ 85546 

Hr. Knox: 

We are amateur ornithologists and photographers travel 

into areas our drive vehicle. 

recently camped at Spring near Camp in the 

area and delighted with the abundant

there. 

disappointed however to find that this beautiful 

primitive area is used to graze cattle. The signs their 

presence detracted the beauty of the area. 

We are writing to ask that your Plan 

cattle grazing in Spring and other riparian 

areas should really be inhabited by indigenous animals 

Thanks your consideration of our ideas. 
 

 

 

150 

Drive 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

3, 

Knox
 

Team Leader
 

Bureau Land Management

425 E. street
 Safford, Arizona 

Knox: 

I offer the following comments on the Safford District Resource 

I was pleased by the attention that the riparian issue received in 

the A long term plan for control of grazing in riparian areas 

Also, the District should develop long plans for 

of riparian species (flora and fauna) to achieve a 

and restoration of what used to be. The tamarisk problem

is very serious in certain areas. hope that the District will be

an active participant in whatever national effort there is to

control and eliminate tamarisk. The objectives

described in the draft are an excellent start for riparian 

management. designations should be maximized in the final 

The River below Coolidge certainly is an outstandingly

remarkable segment. The features include a dense riparian

with mesquite stands of cottonwood and willow that choke the river, and a dazzling array of desert-dwelling birds. Other 

are found in the corridor as well. is relatively scarce in segments. Recreational use of the water (rafting,

kayaking and is limited because the density of the

vegetation, and the swift and cold water, even in the 

summer. I recommend that be allowed below Christmas, but 

discouraged because of the natural hazards. Navigation requires

excellent water reading skills, and a lot of luck 

to avoid the disasters associated with the numerous "strainers." 

I have not visited Segments or which are quite remote and, 

I hear, unnavigable because of the density of vegetation. 

Segment is worthy of a Scenic classification. The shoreline is 

the road and trail is not 

very Furthermore, no crosses the rive; 

this segment. 

The vegetation should not be altered cut back) to

accommodate recreational users, as this would destroy some of the 

very reasons the river is unique. (I advocate this even though

am an avid 

have a more fundamental concern about considering this "Below 

Dam" portion for designation. The Act requires

flowing as a prerequisite. The flow here is "quasi-free-flow" from 

the ephemeral contributions of the numerous side canyons, the

flows of the San Pedro River,, and the releases from 

the Dam. The only truly free-flowing remaining on any of 

the River is above the Dam the (see below).

Fortunately, the releases from the Dam-have the 

riparian values the segments, at least as far as 

I recommend Segments and for Recreational classification, 

Segment for Wild classification, and Segment for Scenic 

classification. am sure about any classification for Segment

given its proximity to the Dam. 

THE BOX 

Having rafted and hiked the Box and environs many times, can 

verify the accurate and fairness of the descriptions of the river 

As the draft indicates, there are a 

number of outstandingly remarkable values the B OX 

The classification determinations (pages are accurate and 

fair. River study Segment X4 also contains a small, fascinating 

set of reddish, ancient pictoqraphs, the only set have seen in 

the BOX, or in all of western Arizona. 

The economic considerations (page 234) should mention that national 

Wild and Scenic River designation may increase tourism. Segment

(San Francisco River) is located relatively close to town and will 

be easily accessible by vehicle. This will be beneficial to the 

Clifton economy to a small degree and it will allow larger numbers 

of people to appreciate this component of the national Wild and 

Scenic River system. 

The description of resources appears accurate, that is, most of the 

2 
 

current uses would continue unaffected. I would not 

consider uncontrolled, motorized, vehicular traffic within the 

riparian an appropriate use of a 

The effect of non designation 235) accurately describes the 

degradation to riparian values that will occur without Wild and 

Scenic River designation. 

The five segments and their classifications, as described on pages

235-236, are well thought out and appropriate. That is: 

classification 

segment 1 -- scenic
 

segment 2 -- Wild
 

segment 3 -- scenic
 segment 4 -- Wild 

segment 5 -- Recreational. 

The classification of Segment 5 as Recreational is weak, but

acceptable, as long as exercises reasonable control of vehicles 

to minimize riparian impact. The thrust here should be not to 

totally exclude vehicles, but rather to maintain and enhance the 

very qualities that the local population and others come to see, 

experience, share, and enjoy. I would hope the and Clifton 

would work together to maintain the natural attraction of Segment

5. 

The deserves more protection than just an administrative, 

designation. The contains last, free-flowing,

dam-free segments of the Francisco Rivers in Arizona. It 

is clearly worthy and deserving of a Wild and Scenic River

suitability recommendation by the Such rivers are what the 

Wild and Scenic River Act is all about! 

The District should recommend all five segments of the 

Box for Wild and Scenic River designation. The classification 

of the five segments, as proposed in the draft should be 

recommended to Congress. 

The should study some of the smaller creeks and "ashes for

their eligibility and suitability in the Wild and Scenic River 

, system. At a minimum the should acknowledge (on page 231) that

other areas may be suitable/eligible but were not considered in the 

This will allow the public to propose additions, without 

150-2 . 

saying that other creeks will be considered only during a 

3 

150-3 

evaluation. This is the concept I am proposing: nominations for will be considered on their own merits by the District if they are proposed in the period between planning

The reason for this is that the public and legislative effort for 

designation of Arizona rivers and creeks will extend past the 

deadline for this document. Also, changes in the environment 

(due to many factors, natural and man-made) may favor eligibility

of various segments, and would not want to loose an opportunity

for protection if it presents itself and the deems such an interim management as appropriate. 

I tried to find a list of District's lands that I 

consider it reasonable to have a certain portion of the District's 

lands available for the public to see what the land might look like

without the impact of cattle. Could such a list be added to the 

final document? Could such lands be integrated into the riparian 

areas, so that entire ecosystems of relatively "natural looking"

land can be experienced? 

I was not familiar with the areas considered for but not 

designated (page 202). 

liked the management objectives for priority species and habitats 

as described in Appendix 6. To accomplish these objectives would 

demonstrate the District's strong commitment to conservation and 

stewardship. I recommend Alternative for this issue because it 

offers the most benefits on this issue. 

The "road" into Hot Springs in Sections 26 and 27 of the 

should be removed from the map and instead shown as 

a foot trail. 

The index of the should show the page number 

"Abbreviations." 

Thank you for reviewing these comments concerning the draft 

Sincerely, 

Timothy Flood 
151
 

 

 

 

 

 

152
 

THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
 

Mr. Ray Brady, Disnict Manager 

united states Department of the 

Bureau of Management 

Disnict 

425 E. 4dt Sttret 

Saffoni. Ariwna 85546 

Mr. Brady: 

Let me take this opportunity on behalf of San Apache Tribe to extend 

my appreciation to your for presentations they provided Disuict 

Resource Management Plan (draft) at the Tribal meeting of May 8.1990, and at 

the March 22.1990, Natural Resource Committee Meeting. These presentations were of 

interest to the Trite and assisted us in response to the I would also 

like to commend planning for a presentable and readable 

document. 

I have enclosed for inclusion into the comment record a summary of issues 

in the of to the San Apache 

Again, my thanks for the interest that has shown in discussing 

planning issues that affect San Apache Tribe. If you wish to discuss these 

issues me or Vice-Chairman Ronald office) at 

475.2361 contact Natural Resource Planning staff at 475.2329. 

SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE 

ISSUES, CONCERNS. AND PROPOSED IDENTIFIED IN 

DISTRICT MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT AFFECT THE MEMBERS 

AND RESOURCES OF THE SAN APACHE TRIBE 

After review of the Saffcnd Disnict Resource Management (draft) by the 

Tribal Staff, issues me as have a negative impact on the Tribe and 

its members. actions within the plan may offer to the Tribe 

and the of Land Management for management through 

increased coordination and 

I. ISSUES OF LAND STATUS 

I 

issue of concern to San Apache Tribe is the to discuss 

within RMP the incorrect land status of the lands that ate cumndy identitied as 

domain under the management of Resource This issue is very 

clearly a federal issue as it concerns lands that corpus of the 

The San Apache Tribe must take position that should be 

identified as a Issue” within the RMP because of its controversial and 

significance to the Tribe. Furthermore, I believe a format should developed the 

preferred alternative which would prioritize and specify the steps to taken to resolve 

this matter. All lands identified in the Executive Orders of 1871 and 1872 as Tribal lands 

should be as lands and to the Tribe for the benefit of its 

members, it be that lands have been legally withdrawn the 

reservation. of determining the status falls upon federal 

government and particularly upon Bureau of Management upon the 

precedent established in the 1831 Marshall decision (Cherokee Nation vs. and 

in subsequent court cases, if a (or executive issue is 

doubt is unclear the decision made in favor of the Tribe. 

An associated land status issue is inaccurate Disuict maps contained in 

plan. maps depict are managed by the Tribe as being a of 

the Coronado National Forest. These maps in direct of 

Interior Order which the to the Tribe. This action was later 

by a U.S. Solicitor’s memorandum (1981)‘. As you be aware. Tribal 

codes are enforced on lands. By releasing inaccurate 

maps the public add to enforcement problems and unnecessary 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IL CONCERNS OVER ACCESS AND ADJACENT LAND 

which; encompass public onto 2) adjacent 

Two rights-of-way, Goodwin Wash Rock Wash Roads, 

will with policy of 

which closed to members. It should pointed out that 

that with local compatibility 

will be used to Additionally, fails to point 

tbc rcxrvaticm 011 the safford-Morcttci trail 

I have about adjacency need to they 

be by the Tribe. One which anticipated is of 

by who stray off adjacent 

nails lands. simikuly, pc&mting. po?shblg, plwp&ng and 

enforcement effcm nsulthg actions will add to 

cost of management mC ~cservatic.u National River 

both would adjacent to reservation closed to 

I that could resolved duough mm-dir&on and cooperation. 

Additionally. actions may offer Tribe similar 

complimentary to possible 

by the is of the River a ‘Tribal Wii 

River.” systems 

Trail. 

III.	 ON RIVER AND 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PROPOSAL 

Tribal action a Wild and similar 

designation. One issue involved in would be that of rights and the 

of a minimum flow lower River (if to 

of Wild and proposal). the Trite recognizes the benefits 

a minimum pool in the Reservoir would have to 

FOR ETHNOGRAF’HIC AND PROGRAM 

An that has at Resource is the 

for District to conduct and to document 

San Apache Trite. Management 5 

laws which for of life-way A 

objective. however, was listed which would guide program in 

obligations. be in of 

the San Apache Tribe a public should and 

uses developing and making management decision on 

the District. Ethnographical studies will your office in making 

decisions. 

V . ISSUE OF ABORIGINAL HUNTINGANDGATHERIN G RIGHTS 

of San Apache Tribe all public 

Apache explicitly taken away 

Treaty of 1852, any subsequent action. As a lead player in wildlife 

habitat management public lands, the BLM that San 

Tribe has not rights. 

I feel that if we thes issw be resolved the satisfaction of 

all parties involved and to of the responsibility. 

Buck 

SAN 
 

 -

 

 

 

 

-

-

- -

 - -

-

Forest 

for the Land and 

1950 

2. 

Team Leader
 

of Land Hanawment
 

E. 4th Street
 

Arizona 

RE: draft District Resource Plan 

Impact 

Dear Mr. Knox: 

The Coronado National Forest has reviewed the District 

Resource Plan and Draft Impact Statement, as

requested in a letter office, dated January 

We appreciate the to your Resource

Overall, the reflects a and 

assessment of the and "sustained yield" philosophies

inherent in your manaeewznt policies. This Plan/US will help insure

fair of public land. 

We this 

In 2. 23-24. the Plan identifies Of the 

Jackson Cabin mad. standard will portion of 153-I road The Forest is on a very steep

and a safety for vehicle travel. Tbe standard, of I mad. could affect direction the Forest will 

need to take on the forest in order to be with the 

portion. Another option be to close the Forest and 

build facilities on land be our preferred

option). With the of the close coordination between 

will values. 

153-2 I 

153-3 I 

153-7 

2 and Other Types of Special 

The of is a in the direction in the 

of important historic: cultural. scenic and natural 

The Turkey ACEC is the bane to one of the highest densities of

black-hawks in Arizona. This is another to this ACEC. 

Perhaps this could be added to Table Note that black-hawk 

hyphenated and that this correction should be made Table and 

30 and 50, and wherever the canvan black-ha& appears in the 

Cave ACEC is maternity colony cave for the Mexican 

free-tailed bat. The even if seasonally locked, can

easily be climbed. and therefore is not adequate to the cave. Perhaps a seasonal pate closure. a similar the one at 

the Cave of Bells. could be 

Issue Off-hi&way Vehicles 

 Creek is a area for Peregrine falcons. use. and the noise. in this creek could be a major disturbance to the

of Peregrine falcons. We examine the option of

seasonal closure of Creek to "se. 

Issue 4 Riparian Areas 

29, "Develop a inventory Doesn't the 

have a nationally developed called "Coordinated 

Area course 

Habitat Arizona. 60 percent of

wildlife and fish species are dependent and 

habitats." Aren't percent of fish species depndent upon an 

habitat? sentence should be rewritten. 

Concern Wildlife Habitat 

Alternative is a favorable alternative for wildlife. however. 

Alternative A preferred alternative) is an acceptable balanced

approach to management of all resources. 

objectives and actions. of this section. like 

to the resource. they do not spell Out how these

actions will be Will specific direction and further

analyses take place before decisions are implemented?

Will be developed prior to implementinp the 

Preferred Alternative? 
 

 

-

-

 

 

 

-

-

 - 

 

153-8 

I 

I 

On 31 and 12. are but to 

this is the only wildlife input into livestock allotment

plans There Should be an action for wildlife input

in for ALL priority species and their habitat. 

135 priority species with habitats are described. 

These species include Peregrine falcon and several These 

do Specific sites and The eventually discusses specific within the 

non-specific section. next Section discusses priority species with

specific habitats. section includes deer, white-tailed deer. 

and black bear. These Species have specific habitats but they

aren't specific that Peregrine falcon or bat habitats.

Perhaps the should just discuss priority Species and their

and not try to separate them into these groups. 

this document individual species are discussed. However.

quail and doves are lumped (except for &ail). Why this 

distinction? should Scaled and be 

Stick to individual and their habitat requirements. 

In Appendix 6, 248 Antelope,

misspelled. 

Gould's is this a candidate for reintroduction? If so 

Would prescribed fire on Forest conflict with BLP management 

Close is needed. 

concern 2 Lands 

the lands are referred to public lands. 

National Service lands are public lands. Perhaps this

distinction should made clearer, by in federal of the "public lands". BLM mdnaaed 

lands Should be identified such. 

Forest public lands and public often are 

adjacent to each other with private and administer& 

within private and/or state

administered within 

environmental corridors could be with the 

objectives If for 

adjacent public lands are in conflict, then benefits would be 

lost. If the acquires land in the Bass Canyon area of Ranch Sod extends the management of to that 

area, conflicts in between the aeencies could develop. The 

Forest public lands in area are for erasing

cattle. Water. in that area, is for by cattle and

wildlife, which may be in conflict with flow off 

153- I8 

the Forest. Closer coordination between be in 

order to adjacent lands in a fashion. 

Concern 3 Recreation Visual Resource 

. 

34 This is the first the Coronado National Forest has heard 

of the Teresa Trail. cannot find Soy

project the IS 

this the Arizona Trail? concept of an extended trail is 

close will be needed because the majority

of this trail System would be on Forest within wilderness areas. 

Impacts on user capacities. utilization of the 

existing Forest trail System. trail Standards, and 

will all need be addressed before There be a 

heavier on the Forest to implement than on the ELM. 

concern 5 

preferred alternative has the of a balance 

between resource use and protection. Effort

distributed; attention is to a wider of priorities or

planned actions in the other alternatives. These 

this alternative attractive to a wider of interest 

it Seems that of the actions and priorities of the

various alternatives could be implemented by an intensive 

Site inventory considered in Alternative 

Alternatives A and a study of vandalism but this miaht

be as of an intensive survey

(Stratified or the impacts of could be 

in the context of the array of sites in the area. the of the resource, the quality or value of that portion of

the that not been disturbed. Areas with 

evidence of vandalism could be surveyed first in order to be able to

the of 

to be allocated for promoting and predictive models

(Alternatives A Sod could be Spent on inventories and on

the results of broad Scale inventories that be used 

effectively to "predict" Site locations in future. little is 

about so of the district that it may be premature to

to develop predictive 

In Alternatives A and C. rock art to receive a priority 

status than other types of cultural by virtue of a research specifically at It. Apain, art 

could carried out in conjunction with an archaeological

survey and therefore not require a research 

Also, volunteers and researchers art Studies and 

recording in the district could be to submit a research 

Collectively these could be used to lessen the 

cost to BLM of or a research 
 -

154 

also to be a heavy emphasis on historic cultural resources

and information. Obviously, historical resources are important. yet

there is also a Substantial pap in data for prehistoric and
 

periods in District area can only be filled intensive inventory. areas are virtually

the resources are Continually I do 

the to conduct studies still possible. considerable effort into interviews and so on before die.
 

the enlist help of local and volunteers
 

this effort. Students at have numerous contacts with
 

local residents and can pain access to and lard
 

I ELM (federal) 

Alternative A but not fund scientific research as
 

Alternative C does. Given the interest in southeastern
 

Arizona by individuals their research eradually

tracts of land be and sites recorded if even 

of were available. Funding to individuals

conducting research along my out the site
 inventory. For example, of funding researchers to sites other than those of concern to
 

their research and to report the results of their work.
 

difference in on priorities between Alternatives A and C

lead the Forest to support Alternative A simply because of the

need curb adverse impacts to sites. Yet. I emphasis

where sites are and the relative scientific value of these
 

sites my ultimately prove fruitful in the
 

Cultural resources only be protected if their locations
 

are 

There are copies of the tht have 160, 161.
 

164, and 165. blank should have addressed the
 

environmental consequences of specific actions proposed in
 

Supervisor 
 

 ---

-

-

-

-

- --

155 

P. Williams 4575 North 17th Avenue Phoenix. 

5. 1990 

Knox 

Teem Leader
 District Office
 Bureau of Management 425 Street
 

05546
 

Ret District Draft Resource Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Knox: 

The District Is to be commended for Its work 

on the above referenced document. It Is easily understood than the Arizona Strip Draft and EIS due to the simpler format. 

I would like to offer my comments for each Issue 

and management Please Include my comments as 

part of the official public record. 

ISSUE 1 ACCESS 

I support the alternative. This is a critical Issue and needs the District's utmost attention. 

ISSUE 2 

The Box, Swamp Springs-Hot Springs and 

all include bighorn sheep as value. Although not listed as having a bighorn sheep value the 

Turkey Creek provides the access to bighorn

sheep range In the north end of hunt unit 32. The management prescription for all these Is limiting use. The draft does not define what limited use Is. If it means vehicular traffic to existing roads and I it. If it means something resI trictive it 

Two alternatives varying acres to Congress

as suitable for In the National Wilderness Reservation System for Canyon Mountains. 

alternatives make suitability recommendation. I do 

not feel acreage should be recommended to Congress for 

wilderness additions in either the Canyon areas. 

ISSUE 3 HIGHWAY 

I support the closure of bighorn sheep lambing areas 

I 

2 

from February 1 to April 30 and limiting use to existing roads and trails In those areas the remainder of the year. 

ISSUE 4 RIPARIAN 

All but one of the alternatives addresses building

Timber Dam on the Simon River. I support

this effort and urge It be done as quickly as possible to costs I further values should not interfere with this project, but certainly be 

and mitigated as much as possible. 

1 WILDLIFE HABITAT 

I support the establishment of both Rocky Mountain 

and desert bighorn sheep as priority species and their 

habitats as priority habitats. 

I support the transplanting and augmentation of 

priority wildlife species.

"Optimum wildlife populations" are not defined. If 

actions Implemented to manage habitat for optimum

life populations how will you know when you have arrived at 

the optimum population? Who. what agency. will make the 

determination? 

I do support which will manage wildlife 

populations within the carrying capacity of the habitat 

based upon ecological conditions. 

CONCERN2 LANDS REALTY
 

I support the preferred alternative.
 

CONCERN 3 OUTDOOR RECREATION AND RESOURCE 

I support the preferred alternative. 

CONCERN4 

I support the leasing of energy and other leasable
 minerals subject to conditions which do not surface occupancy In established bighorn sheep lambing areas from 

February 1 to April 30 each year. 

MANAGEMENT 

I the preferred alternative. 

CONCERN 6 SOIL EROSION 

I the preferred alternative. especially the 

construction of Timber Draw Dam (see comments under Issue 
-

-

-

 

 CONCERN 

I support the alternative. 

CONCERN 

I support the preferred alternative. 

9 AIR QUALITY 

I the preferred alternative. 

CONCERN 

I support the preferred alternative. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document and help the of public in the District. 

Stephen William 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156 

SIERRA CLUB 

Canyon . GROUP 

June 

85546
 

Regarding and 

Mr. 

in dlis analysis: Ken wolf 

inuaduction), Jamifer Hall David Mount mining, 

and animals). Edward Sheila 

Diaw Brcia Nichols Fox (bats), 

Gail 

Public Lards Chair, Club 

Comments District Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement

by the Grand Canyon of tbe Club 

As a of we Siena Club Cbapta for State of 

we a a of who 

about public lands. co- a these lands 

rcueadonal oppormnitis State Nation and 

a fear without way yield these benefits. ultimate is that all public lands can be managed in a 

will be able to 

Commendable Features of the Plan 

BLM is to complemented in in of areas of Critical 

and for -must given 

priority consideration for plan be for the following 

features: (1) management take into the 

ecological values of these the large of (34 ACEC nominations) 

indicates the of the in ecologically critical areas, (3) 

management of lands as ecosystems is considered as option (e.g., of tire 

assist in l-e-vegewilxl). (4) protection of plant is 

considered (e.g. the hedgehog cactus, Table 3-3, p. 146.). and (5) sensitivity archaeological sites is in Alternative A.. 

Recommendations and Concerns 

We would like to make the following 

2. mat goals apply these 

clarified, 

3. the priorities of management including budgetary commitments, 

4. That of wolves be included as issue, and 

5. BLM a active in the public. ranchers and 

on ap~qxiate uses of BLM lands. 

the following and 

1 . Access 

2. and other types of 

vehicles
 

4. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. 

6. Cuhual resources/.?xhae&&al sites 

7. 

8. Pesticides and herbicides 

Livestock Impacts 

The purposeful exclusion of Grazing as issue in creating comprehensive 

management plan a blow to its chases success. The number 

negative on this area is in 

the detrimental effects of grazing have well documented, these y c public. This lack of may be 

to the following facts: 

1. Much of the damage most in West. 

2. few to allow to vast 

have 3. of the of devices, such as 

guards, and mat lraeatiottal 

of the 

4. Unbiased, has not been widely 

public. 

Because prccivc gtazing taking “out they believe its 

effects impact lives. 

that much of West was rich (with 

wildlife) that have ban redtxcd to a biological by 

of livestock grazing. 

I 

We asking the to livestock as and to add a 

of the full of impacts cawed by livestock 

in addition the of management plans in By including 

d+ impwant backmund public will have a much foundation 

to make include in this discussion the following impacts 

1. Tbc of vegetative in the 

ability to forage for elk, antelope. 

and has eliminated many of indigenous public 

2. llte mqding of soils, allows 

and lush land to be washed away during flooding. 

and the, restddng in has 

dead 

5. The native herbivores which with livestock for 

has the 

6. a of all indigenous of 

mammals, including black fox, wolf, bobcat. elk, 

and had implications on odtcr animal 

populations. 

2 

In addition, effects caused by grazing 

which nuisance to visitors. include the necessity of 

opening gates, of manure in 

the of which in manure, the with in 

mud holes by cattle, the of clean water to use camping. general 

degradation of 

of the National En Act it is 

p-wide and of impacts”. 

the it is also stated that “agencies shall focus 

and under shall be discussed in 

We believe that the of grazing upon the 

indeed profound and must fully in to 

of The agency’s failure to consider as in the 

may in violation of NEPA. we the of upon 

wildlife (including species to be Act), 

In addition, note that the NEPA “(agencies shall 

supplements to if) tbete 

information the pmpmcd its 

The designation of new and district 

necessitates of tbe impacts of grazing 1978 by the District impacts of is now in light of these new 

We applaud for its spirit in designating these want impacts of sensitive-arc fully 

so the is protected. we ask BLM to of NEPA, which says “if draft is 

the agency shall and a 

of tlK. appmpriate action”. 

that grazing be in biologically sensitive As in 

past grazing the highest the concept of 

“multiple is often at the expense uses of 

long-term of ecological health of we livestock grazing on public as a the 

of livestock all We be in which must indicates that only 41% 

of all [page excluded possible. and any policy on a bigb priotity to 

of watersheds in (such as Canyon). of 

flow the of and can 

drastically affected by Additional alhsmms in should bc to 

the of native and 

Wild life habitat and low impact in opinion, the and most of lands. 

we that in bc to 

ptcvcnt abuse A objective should be to of the in a given 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 WC that be a higb dependent simply 

on a deIicate and 

Management Goals and Standards 

which of will be lli.5 pldJlan is espxiauy 

assessing FtMPs gods managing and we have mentioned above clarify custodial” with to gwing 

139). addition, on page 29. do BLM is to 

yardstick be to judge the of a given 

have by which of 

grassland, upland, desert. any ecosystem? How would these standards 

management? what ax spcdfic ob+tivcs involved? We much 

a to of may 

of the and commenting on RMP. 

We the chosen 

and should reflect which long-term. 

for the term “improve” to be meaningful , it 

is first nwcsaq the ultimate goal the in of 

plant and animal soil conditions, purity quality. 

Prioritization and Budget8 

The assumption that BLM will have to fully A, 

B or C, ot any avoids the of budget In 

attainable”), addressed. 

4 

cd.3 get a picture of managenat picdities, an analysis of the 

cxpmdifuns in with budgets should done. 

It is realistic to a to which will get top 

if a is not We such as part of a full 

for the District. 

Below, we state for the sat&d Distict 

1 . Reservation of ecosystems should be the Due to 

and fragility of they ate the most but are 

most under usage. should entail out of 

and entire not just 

2. ecosystems should be given next priority. effort should 

that these bc susIabt& for the 

years. should include of 

Turtle Table Mountain RNA Desert 

RNA Butte. quality of should 

be (e.g.. by fencing to In disturbed and 

should brought back to a sustainable. state. 

relatively grasslands should a by which 

to judge health of that 

habitat species by human including should be by fencing tie to exclude grazing). 

3 . A priotity should the and of areas which 

presently have suffered human impact possible. these should special status and Scenic Riven. WSA. to 

assist in preservation. 

Reintroduction of Wolves 

six Mexican sites in 

the which we believe receive 

identified by the in irs July 1986 Potential 

Wolf analysis include the Mountains 

Springs Mountains I I San Valley, 

and Mountains I San Rafael Valley. Although many of 

by Service, BLM play a vital in 

managing cmtiguaus to and along potential migration corridors 

between wolf habitat areas. Wolf and recovery is a vital facet of restoring 

ecological balance. 

We conflicts with wolf 

we this gal be achieved by of 

we 

sites areas historic v&f mvays between upland wolf 

habitats. We the BLM to its pine, and oak-grassland 

expanses above in a with the of wolf 

and to with federal in out this vital 

mission. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Eductioo 

Much of past on BLM lands have private individuals and 

who of impaa of Ml d-le lands they 

enjoy. we the give a high ptiotity t” educating 

state. in of 

(e.g. 

types of and their In BLM active in 

rattchkg witi long-term of 

BLM also help tllimrs in mining such 

cnntakment pmadttres heavy from mine tailings. 

In other WC if any new 

existing in an available. Rmds that left shwld 

any biologically sensitive and a In is a continually 

There is the problem of liability to BLM. Roads with 

pmbkms should bc and so marked. 

With to we Canyon Road and East 

in this tqion vehicle human not a 

of East Road, if would 

driving right ACEC It would then to 

human “se of this and u) ptot%zt habitats within ACEC. 

addition, oppose opening Ranch Road (see 1: Locations of 

of Access 183.) opening this mad allow to 

existing Natme C!anxsvancy propaty. a black 

hawk and important habitat allow access 

to the upper tablelmds tegicu, and potential in this such as poaching of the 

Pipeline Road 183. the public because it 

Bass Canyon. habitat and adequate to the 

6 

-9 

I 

I 

and Other Types of Special Management 

Peak, Day Mine) that were for wilderness 

by the which ate due to reziw any ACEC 

designation designated by for lands which have 

provide uniqtx oppotmitics for primitive and of believe 

that these for ACEC designation 

which allowed to 

W C the 18,853 WSA for designation protect its 

BLM miss he oppanmity U, pmtect In fcwd i” the ana’s wo fossil 

sites including of hones, and tapirs. Among the 

ate falcon and the 

W C klicvc this daignation ban on all off-highway vehicle “se in 

d-e aforementioned acreage in to protect the formations and 

badlands. fossils have bee” found in any OHV have 

advme bnpaa on sites. 

W C also the 17,422 Mountain WSA designation due to the of Ccit8xss to this in system. 

the endangered and bald Mountain bighorn 

interior and forest 

impacts of No water sauces ot livestock 

“ails should built as cattle “se of upland% in wildlife BLM, the cumulative impact of existing livestock facilities to degrading the naturalness of In addition to numbers in the should the “SC of 

to maintain the for hikers and 

Trail. all activities within 17,422 

We also 21,641 Day Mint atra for ACEC biotic 

Basin 

interior chaparral, grassland. and 

deciduous black and hawks have in the 

Populations of black deer, lion. 

and quail impact the 

natural and could result in of Such 

wood-cutting, OHV “se should banned in to its 

qualities. 

Two and Black (page 27) should retain RNA 

status, eve” designated to bew”tc wikkmess anas. Othcwisc, these 

RNA as separate entities each 

has a unique management plan. 
 

Off-highway Vehicles 

by the fact they were designed to of existing 

wida cnvinmmcntal DIcscTvBdm. 

156- I7 

a 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 to by funding to “reasonably 

The Club believes that bt&etaq not 

to simply requiring to build to 

it is hat implement prerogative 

restorable” as the 156- I9 This best the 

I to of these public 

4 , 

we view the preset-&cm of as favor B 

A, B povides bxdquate A clear advantage of B is its larger of ACEC acres that include 

Specific our of B are indicated 

We the larger designation forth in Alternative B. 

the Box, we support the additional for ACEC 

in B and the of the canyon bottom. We 

not be dmpped palioil of the River above the old 

Clifton should as for mxea&ml liptian. 

values. additional three four miles of lower San 156-20 river should also be as if the NCA passes. area as it the of NCA, including 

I field sites 

Turkey the ACBC pmexion that would be 

in by Alternative B. Creek is one of the most examples of fish diversity. It is area in southern 

where seven tish coexist, some of which already 

of after of current lease” is 

the watershed 

Similarly, the species; ACEC of Alternative 

A prwidcs poor ptWction. 

that the Dry is for RNA designation, we feel 

that of is even by B. AU the 156-22 ignore of by and 19 on 

I map 34. 

1,767 acres granted by A to Guadalupe Canyon is undersized. 

We the 6,984 of protected for Alternative B. 

It for of but these objectives 

the the 4 page 29). 

it is for public to provide what we bopc helpful useful 

comments. Nevertheless. we like make following these 

10 

As stated above, strongly the objective (to maintain 

75% of the riparian be 100% of these 

The objective to inventory is We encourage BLM pay attention which may have stressed by 

of and mining 

The plan and tiling for insueam of objectives 65 and 

essential. but not be in lieu of dixomimting gwing. 

We to to (to “continue to develop systems”). Glazing be the direction of 

phasing as they expire. only way to livestock for the of tip&an aas’* is to eliminate sheep at least the 

preferable of the 

be to avoid fecal contamination as 

as the caving in of banks and by trampling. Overhanging banks stability to as as for desert 

the that bottom a stable stream 

As the of cows are watered at 

We support the ban ~1 ftrewocd cutting 

of non-native vegetation should only with the 

if at all, to pxserve swam stability. 

states that relict areas” must be maintained and 

monitored “to provide a baseline for decisions.” these 

specified, we suggest that au tipaian representative as biologic-al historical describes. We encourage the BLM to 

their condition and provide protection OHV use. mining and mad erosion. 

We support the recent of San River NCA. 

the very sensitive and history of over-grazing. we urge that ample 

be given for this area to recover Any plan for area 

emphasize: of the ecosystem. research and preservation of 

sites, low-impact visitation. Plans to develop this as major tourist 

&veQment should be limited to the 

of NCA, allowing the be available for use as 

species migrating in Mexico, as jaguars, ocelots 

and Mexican wolves. 

On page 18, the notes San Riva Ripadan Management 

grazing for life of yet management of the area 156-23 in this RMP is not given the same We that as 

habitat efforts to the San 

The area involved be granted same as the rest of the 

San Pedro River NCA. It is not possible to values in this NCA if 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 (on p. Alternatives we urge that the maximum possible 

designated as 

that and upper watershed be 

yith watushed putcctton the major objective. in should 

and 

Mining Activities 

While clearly the policy encourage” mining 

20. Mamgettmt Concan 4). it to the hazards which 

result ftmt mining. Recent studies have shown that mine 

a potential of toxic heavy (e.g., cadmium) which can

adversely affecting plant animal 

weAl as human for cause teatdatia~ in humans This that of mining 

110 longer based solely of its benefits 

The of contamination by mining only been for a 

short time. we it is now to n-evaluate any policy on 

mining. As indicated section National Policy Act 

that impacts be in if new 

xnhrnation bexnnes light of tindings on the hazardous side 

I of mining. impacts should in this 

ore, for example, is of quality to parts of the 

Recycling is now than mining. 

activities should have to be permits 

It be the benefits risks and that the risk of I by use of apprc+te techniques. 

Because of of mining, we srcxtgly 

urge BLM to take a much regulamg dus In particular, we 

mining should bc albnved to best ptuect the biological 

communities in This remictim should be absolute. and it should na 

be possible to by administrative 

3. AU BLM lands to that 

tailings a of mnal mntambtadat of either nearby 

4 . Applications for mines opening old required to 

plans heavy leaching. 

5. BLM take in existing mines and in 

mmitodng pamial lurhing of these 

BLM should take active in cleaning up sites of closed 01 abandoned 

mines avoid 

BLM whether heavy 

on private public might be BLM lands if so,

should apply pressure to abuse. 

“of trying to prevent mining on BLh4 feel evidence as to the 

threats to human by this activity a reassessment of policy 

to “encourage” mining. the BLM save regulatory and should 

that adqtately conuoued 

Cultural Resources/Archaeological Sites 

we that cultural be an of 

BLM. Cultural should be managed not information potential 

conservation but for public values understanding to 

public of and and should public 

severe of human alternatives and C 

quite since A on public understanding, it is 

the this from point of view. 

We applaud plans to develop an depicting 

and of (Action 15, page 38) and 

for interpretive of the Turkey the CCC Camp 

(Action 38). 

support plans to conduct in mining 

(Action page 38) and to identify (Action page 38). these 

plans (Action 10 in parti&) may mote than is apparent and thus may be implementable the of 

grazing on the 4. page 37). As is well livestock 

grazing archaeological disturbs the integrity artifacts features and be discotttitnted possible. We livestock 

other sites heavy of 

12 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife Protection 

Thisbat po~in1%4w~.detcmdncdbyalocal2mlogisS 

This decline is due, in pan to to DDT in winta mignticns 

in part, humans have disturbed bats in cave. 

humidity and make it as a cave. Bats and their 

offspring, of which is one pa female pa to cave year after year 

to site is critical for maintaining bat 

We have suggestions allowing bats longer life span they 

Build a much in fmnt of cave keep 

who would disturb a bats. gate which stands is 

or not, to keep out. Opening the cave is 

enough 

2 . Close canyon within mile of to four wheel drive and to 

now drive right to cave. carrying to shoot at bars. 

14 

and of is to two in 

(as suggested pages to avoid polluting which feed 

These chemicals and habitat. 

opposed Canyon and East Turkey Creek Road 

24). because of impact these have on 

Pesticides Herbicides 

We are to the use of and of potential 

to wikilife odm The of chemicals to 

upland the plan to 

we to long-term effects of 

and the natural create not enough certainty to 

We be and avoided at costs 

in any area (e.g., of chemicals could 

the these we 

that to be found. 

in the interest human we recommend input 

sought deciding to spray in 

15 

159
 
160 

�
Frances A. Jackson Ave. Tucson, AZ. 

85719 

xc: Knox 

1 
 

 

ARIZONA 

29, 1987 

Keith Cook 

Area Manager 

U.S. Dept. of Interior 

425 4th street 

Saffosd, AS. 85546 

Dear Sir, 

am in receipt of your

concerning access the 

access to public lands is 

for the Arizona Game and 

Game and Fish Commission. 

DEPARTMENT 

efforts for the citizens of Arizona concerning the Muleshoe. 

If there is anything can do to assist you on the

closure, with any other access problem on public lands, 

please let me know. 

Please keep me advised as to your progress on the 

Larry Commissioner 

AZ. Game and Fish Department 

cc:	 Baker 

w. 

W. 

Temple A. Reynolds 

letter to The Nature Conservancy

Ranch. AS you are aware, very high on the priority list 

Department as well as the 

applaud and appreciate your 
 

 

 

555 N. 

American co.
 

756 SC.
 

85234
 
NO. : 

Effective: 

Revised: 6. Exert every to obtain the availability of : 1 2 new roads for the purpose of aiding Approved: commercial endeavor where roads resolve, 

aid in resolving, access problems identified by the 

provided the Department supports the

of roads deemed and 

unnecessary: 

Access To And Public And State Lands 7 . 	 accordance with sound principle* of natural 

resource management, develop, maintain, improve

where the geophysical characteristics of the 

and the of such development, maintenance. or improvement are not prohibitive, and lawful 

new road*, trails other rights-of-way that will It is the policy of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission either connect existing roads trails provide place high priority on preserving existing to public and roads or trails that solve access problems state trust lands for hunting and fishing, and to place high

priority on improving to such lands in areas the identified by the Department; 

where access to such lands is difficult or a.	 Use access as a guideline and goal nonexistent. For purposes of this policy, the Commission define* the term in the process of preserving or improving existing "public and state trust lands" those federal public or developing new access, where such and reserved lands, state trust lands, and other lands within the 

State of Arizona, owned, is lawful; controlled or managed by the United states, the State of Arizona, agencies political subdivisions 

thereof upon which hunting and fishing are lawful. 9 . 	 Where Standards road density are needed

guidelines in the process of addressing

problems, use standards that are in keeping with By this policy, the Commission directs the Department to: the land-use plan of the land management agency

authority involved. If that plan is in the process Identify specific problems and their causes of formulation revision, use standards that the throughout the State: Department intend* to recommend for inclusion in 

the plan. If such plan is utilized by the 2 . 	 Prioritize specific access problems in the order of agency or authority involved, determine appropriate importance their solution: density in cooperation with the appropriate land 

management agency authority: and, 3 . 	 Plan a method of approach for solving the problem
 

to be addressed;
 10.	 Establish, at the Commission's direction, a 

Landowner/Lessee/Sportsman Relations Committee 4 . 	 Confer with, and seek the cooperation of private whose purpose shall be to provide suggestions landowners and land management agencies in the reducing and resolving conflict* between private process of addressing the problem selected landowners, lessees of public and state trust for solution; and sportsmen. 

5 . 	 every existing roads and The mission* of various management trails that provide lawful to, and upon, agencies, the rights of private landowners, existing law and public and state trust lands open and/or available principles of natural resource management but a few of the The Commission recognizes that, in some factors that come to bear on the process of solving access areas of the state, too many such roads exist and problems. The recognize* that any definition of directs the to the "reasonable access" must be made a case-by-case basis, taking closure of Such roads in where the
 

Department finds itself in substantial agreement into account all of the pertinent factors bearing each case. I" reference to roads, trails, and other rights-of-way, with the appropriate land management agency reasonable amount* to the ability to use, or develop for authority involved: use, roads, trails, and other rights-of-way directed in this 

policy. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 JUN 

District Manager

District 

Of Land 

425 E. 

AZ 85546 

MT. Brady: 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the 

DISTRICT PLAN, 

IMPACT comments on this 

are provided pursuant the National Environmental Policy Act 

and authorities under section the Clean Air 

The identifies and analyzes four alternatives managing the resources on 1.4 million acres of 

public lands in southeastern Arizona, which are administered by

the Bureau of Land Management. The four alternatives are: 

Preferred Alternative -- provides consumptive use and 

development resources while also providing protection to 

resources; More Protective Alternative -- emphasizes 

management and protection of natural and cultural resources while 

providing for use public lands: Less Protective 

-- emphasizes use and development lands and provides less 

protection natural and cultural resources; Action Alternative -- continues current land use 

We have classified this as Category EC-Z -- Environmental concerns, Insufficient Information (see enclosed "Summary Of 

Rating Definitions and action'). our rating reflects 

concerns have regarding the existing watershed conditions and 

surface water quality in the District. We support the 

designations of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

wildernesses, and wild, scenic, or recreational rivers, as 

believe that these protect enhance the natural resources 

the district. We have serious concerns, the 

direct. indirect, and cumulative impacts that activities 

within the district and its area of influence will have on these 

resources. These activities include livestock grazing, mineral 

and energy development, agricultural irrigation, and off-highway

vehicle use. 

We appreciate the review this 

send three copies the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

this office at the same time it is officially filed 

with our Washington, D.C., office. If have questions,

please contact me at or your staff contact 

Jeanne Dunn, Office of Federal Activities, at 

Director 

Office of External Affairs 
 

 

 

 

-

 the for
 

be 

in 

for 

the preferred alternative or project

alternative the no actim alternative or a mew alternative). intends to 

EPA review has identified adverse that are of sufficient 

that they the of quality,

health If 

ftEISadeguatelyseUforththeemri-ntal of 

preferred alternative a-d of the alternatives reasmab 

Air Duality 

1. The should discuss the National Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

increments applicable to air quality in the Safford District. 

2. For each alternative, the should identify the activities 

that miqht impact air quality sand and gravel

other mining activities, fire management, Off-Highway Vehicle 

It should also consider any cumulative impacts to 

NAAQS and PSD increments resulting from activities on land in 

the district and other pollutant sources such as smelters in the 

district's vicinity. 

1. The Affected Environment Water Quality information on 

129 cites the 1984 water Quality Assessment prepared by Arizona 

Department of Health Services pursuant to section

of the Clean Water Act. section 305(b) reports are prepared a 

biennial basis. subsequently prepared a Water Quality Assessment in and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

prepared a Water Quality Assessment in 1988. More 

tantly, ADEQ prepared a Assessment 

in 1988, pursuant to Section of the Clean Water Act. 

Arizona’s SAX, approved by EPA on 28. 1989, provides the

following information which should be cited in the Affected Environment Water Quality section of the 

90 percent of Arizona's waters do not meet

beneficial uses required by state water quality standards 

due to impacts from sources. 

The most significant categories of affecting Arizona's waters, by stream miles, are grazing,

hydrologic/habitat modification, recreation and resource 

traction. 

Waters affected in the Safford District by 

sources include the River (grazing and resource 

the San Simon River and the River e&action 

irrigated agriculture). 
 

 

 

 

 DISTRICT DRAFT 

EPA commENTs -- 1990 

8. JUN 

2. Pursuant to Section of the Clean Water states have 

the lead role in identifying and controlling sources. 

In Arizona, been designated the lead agency for implementation of the Section 319 Sources Program. 

to Section 319(b) of the Clean Water Act, prepared a

State Management (SIP), which approved by EPA on January 4, 1990. Arizona'* identifies 

federal programs and activities subject to the Federal 

review requirements of Sections and 319(k)

of the Clean Water Act. These sections require federal agencies 

to submit specific assistance programs and development projects 

to the lead state source agency for review for 

consistency with Arizona's SMP. 

Specific Bureau of Land Management programs identified 

in Arizona's include: watershed projects; mineral exploration and development: coal, oil and gas leasing: activities; 

timber activities; grazing allotment/grazing management

chemicals/pesticides: analysis/cumulative impacts: riparian 

management plans; and Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

plans. Further, it is responsibility to implement 

sufficient Best Management Practice* to enable full protection of beneficial uses of surface waters, attainment of 

surface water quality standards, and compliance with the 

provision* of 131.12. 

strongly encourage to work closely with to 

satisfy under the Federal Consistency requirements of Section and 40 cFR 131.12. we expect 

development of a memorandum of understanding with will 

to facilitate this process and encourage to establish 

this as a priority. The should contain the procedure* to be 

used in resolving conflicts between development activities and protection of surface water quality. Resolution of 

conflicts should ensure that beneficial of surface 

will be fully protected, that surface water quality standards 

will be attained, and that there will be no further degradation

of surface water quality. 

We would like to take this opportunity to recognize

active involvement in Grazing development committee 

and work on protecting riparian areas as positive efforts 

to control pollution from lands. 

3. We understand that the existing detention dams in the San 

Simon and Bear Spring Flats basins have been effective in 

preventing additional head-cuts upstream by facilitating the 

DISTRICT 

-- 1990 

JUN 

recovery of riparian vegetation through replenishment of *hallow 

aquifers. Accordingly, we support the construction 

of the Timber Draw Dam and the repair of the Detention 

However, additional effort*, including reductions in animal 

units on grazing allotments in these watersheds, will be necessary to control source impacts on water quality in basins. We encourage to closely with on the** restoration efforts. 

4. We support the proposed suitability evaluation of 

Creek, Creek, Canyon, Swamp Springs 

Canyon, Hot Springs Canyon, Canyon, Turkey Creek, Deer 

Creek, and the left fork of Markham Creek for Unique Waters 

designation*. This measure would constitute an effective step

toward protecting the quality of these waters. we also 

recommend that evaluate Wildcat Canyon, Double Canyon, and 

Grapevine Creek for suitability for Unique Waters designation, as 

recommended in Alternative In addition, encourage

monitoring of these to include appropriate

method*, such a* the assessment method 

developed by the U.S. Service, and any appropriate

biological monitoring and assessment method* which have been 

developed by EPA pursuant to Section the Water 

Quality Act of 1987. These may prove to be appropriate

reference water bodies for Arizona's development of biological 

water quality standards the next three years. 

5. Appendix 11 should include the frequency of monitoring and 

the specific parameters that will be monitored at the water 

quality testing sites. we recommend that, at a minimum, monitoring be conducted annually and that parameter* to be monitored in 

surface include nutrients and all of the parameter* for

which Arizona has water quality standards. should consult with in the design of the monitoring program. should 

also carry out bioassessments in surface that are potentially affected by sources. are particularly valuable in detecting effects of sources of 

pollution including sediment loadings. Data collected should be 

entered into database, to facilitate sharing data 

with other water quality managing agencies. We recommend that 

enter biological data collected into database. 

6. Appendix 7 lists the public lands that meet Federal 

Policy and Management Act requirement* for sale or exchange. EPA is concerned that some of the parcel* (e.g., those near San Jose, and San Simon) may include waters of the

United State*. Because the public lands identified generally 

3 
 

 

 

EW c-3-s -- 1990 

JUN 

have potential for economic development, any waters of the United 

States within these parcels could eventually be affected by

residential, commercial, recreational development. The 

needs to identify which parcels, if any, include waters of the 

United States, particularly major drainages such as the and 

San Simon rivers. 

Livestock Issues 

EPA believes that this should expand on the existing baseline 

information and the issues relating to livestock management in 

the district. of the resources managed under the Safford 

District Resource Plan -- water quality, soil 

erosion, vegetation and wildlife habitat, and riparian 

areas, cultural and socioeconomic resources -- have the potential 

to be significantly affected by livestock management. Livestock 

grazing in the Safford District is managed through allotment 

management plans most of which were developed out of 

decisions based on the Upper Simon Grazing EIS 

and the Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS (BIH, 1986). EPA's 

concerns regarding the 1986 Eastern Arizona Grazing (as expressed in our December 6, 1985, and October 1986, letters to 

Arizona State Director) were never adequately addressed. comments on the EIS focused on: the lack of existing information regarding water quality and riparian habitats; the consequences of on water soil erosion. and habitats; practices

from livestock. It may be beneficial for to maintain 

flexibility in updating the in order to management changes necessary for the protection of the district's 

1. The FEIS should describe the connection between the livestock 

management activities and resources addressed in the grazing

and the activities and resources managed under this We 

recommend that the briefly summarize the district's and 

the special livestock practices currently

in sensitive watersheds in watersheds in unsatisfactory condition. The FEIS should also discuss the criteria used to revise allotments and animal unit months The should also 

discuss how much flexibility has in implementing the and 

how this would affect implementation of this 

4 

I 

I 

I 

DISTRICT 

EPA conwENTs -- 1990 

JUN 

A map of current and future grazing allotments and their 

respective categories ("Improve," "Maintain," and "Custodial")

would also prove useful. This map, coupled with one indicating

watershed conditions and soil erosion potentials, would greatly

enhance the FEIS as a public disclosure document. 

3. The 1986 Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS called for monitoring

the grazing management program to determine the effectiveness of 

grazing treatments and new rangeland developments and to determine whether AMP objectives are being met. The FEIS should discuss the parameters that have been monitored and thoroughly 

any trends that are apparent from the monitoring data collected in the grazing districts the last several years. 

4. In light of the potential significant impacts from grazing 

water quality, we suggest the following measures be identified 

for implementation in the 

Include special provisions in grazing allotment plans to 

reduce the number of animal units in allotments during

drought conditions. 

Use fencing or other methods to exclude livestock from all 

riparian areas. Livestock access to riparian areas has a 

significant negative impact on water quality due to trampling of stream banks and consumption of riparian vegetation. 

5. The FEIS should identify the measures that will be taken to 

implement appropriate" livestock management in order to protect 

the San Simon River floodplain page 39). 

6. Under the preferred alternative, most of the proposed ACEC 

designations -- Black Rock Research Natural Area (RNA),

Creek, B OX, Turkey Creek Riparian, Table Mountain RNA. 

Desert Grasslands, Bear Springs Badlands, Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area Mountain Scenic, Coronado 

Mountain RNA, Wilcox National Natural Landmark 

Ranch RNA, and Mountains -- do not include livestock exclusions. Most of these would even be subject to individual livestock management plans. Several of these include riparian areas or unique plant associations. The 

should identify the proposed in which grazing currently occurs or potentially will occur in the foreseeable future and 

evaluate for each the impacts that livestock grazing would 

have on riparian habitat, water quality, soil erosion, vegetation, and wildlife. 
- - --

 

 

162-15 

DISTRICT 

1990 

8: 

soil 

1. least 49,680 acres of severely soils have bee" 

identified in the Saffcrd District page 127). What factors have contributed to the severe soil conditions observed 

overgrazing, roads, mining)? The should 

not only existing soil/watershed conditions, but potential causes 

as that appropriate measures may be determined to stabi­ lize improve soil erosion conditions. 

2. The should indicate continuation of seasonal livestock use in the Bear springs Flat area will to accomplish

stated soil erosion and salinity management objectives 

page 39). Potential impacts soil erosion and water quality

should be discussed. 

3. The states that soil erosion studies would be conducted 

at Hot Well Dunes determine the effects use, and 

use will be limited if erosion unacceptable. The 

should identify the baseline information and evaluation criteria 

be used in the studies and define the term, "unacceptable," i" 

the of soil erosion at Hat Well Dunes page 

4. Although the proposed watershed and soil treatment areas are 

delineated Map 34 of the the does not include any 

maps depicting watershed conditions soil erosion potentials

throughout the district. It is difficult, therefore, for the 

reviewer to judge whether not the proposed watershed and soil 

areas the watersheds that are in 

condition soils that are susceptible tc wind and water 

erosion. The should include maps shoving watershed conditions and soil erosion susceptibility throughout the district. 

1. The states that vegetation manipulation be used 

decrease invading plants and increase grasses and fcrbs 

wildlife, watershed condition, and livestock page 40). It

is not clear what these "invading" species are whether they are native "an-native. The should specify the direct and adverse and beneficial effects that vegetation manipulation have wildlife, native vegetation, soil stability,

and water quality. It should also indicate livestock will be 

managed in areas where listed threatened and endangered

plant species are reintroduced. 

6 

DISTRICT DRAFT 

1990 

JUN 

2. The thoroughly discuss the direct and indirect impacts of firewood cutting in each of the areas specified

for the four alternatives. The should also identify what 

vegetative products would be available to the public pursuant issuance of a permit. 

Wildlife 

1. The states that under the Action Alternative predator

control only be permitted in areas where evidence of extreme depredation of livestock is documented. this the only

condition that currently triggers such activities? The 

should discuss the activities involved in animal damage control 

and the criteria used determine the need for animal damage

control. 

Areas 

1. Water quality monitoring will be in selected 

riparian areas listed in Appendix page 29). It is not 

clear why certain areas are not included in 

list. livestock apparently are permitted to graze

in and Guadalupe Canyon, but these stream segments are 

not included in the monitoring program. The should discuss 

the criteria used to determine which stream segments in the district should be monitored for water quality. 

2. Table 2-23 indicates that construction repair of dams 

will benefit soil the DEIS provides "c other information on adverse beneficial affects of dam 

repair on water quality, upland vegetation, wildlife habitat. The should provide this information. 

1. According the impacts range, wildlife, timber, 

recreation, lands, soils, vegetation, cultural, fire, water, 

mineral, energy, air, and visual resources are not expected to 

result either the Canyon Galiuro wilderness 

ditions for any of the alternatives. social and economic impacts

and impacts livestock grazing are expected to be minor. 

It is "at clear, therefore, why the complete study areas for both 

wildernesses are not recommended in the preferred alternative. 

EPA believes that wilderness designations for the complete study 

areas would benefit affected water quality, riparian habitat, 

vegetation, wildlife, and soil resources. The should 
 --

 

 

 

 

 

162 

 JUN 

cuss the reasons why, give" the results of the wilderness 

studies, the entire study are not being recommended in the 

preferred alternative. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The DEIS does not explain the basis for selection of the 

alternative for wild, scenic, or recreational designation

of the segments of the River. According to the 162 -21 DEIS, air, water, soils, vegetation, wildlife, fire management,

visual, and resources would not be adversely affected by wild, scenic, or recreational designation, 

many would in fact benefit through the protection that a 

designation would offer. The also anticipates very minor 

impacts to livestock grazing and energy and mineral resources. 

EPA believes that the resources in the vicinity of the study 

areas would be better protected and enhanced by designation of the B OX wild, scenic, recreational. The FEIS should 

discuss why, given the results of the designation evaluation, the 

study area* are not being recommended in the

preferred alternative. 

Lands and Realty 

1. DEIS that the and conditions to be applied 

to right-of-way grants for corridors and communication sites and 

for use outside of corridors and communication sites were 

analyzed in the process for the District 

(DEIS, paqe 8). The should identify the and conditions to be applied to utility corridors and communication sites. 

2. The should provide more information on the proposed

designations of communication sites and the 

lines corridors for future utility needs. The the l-mile wide utility corridors should be explained. Aside from the segment of the San Pedro corridor where it the San 

of any the proposed corridors that should be 

than one mile across? If utility corridors and communication 

sites are to be designated in the FEIS, their environmental, cultural, and socio-economic impacts must be fully evaluated. Any

mitigation necessary to protect the district's 

from adverse impacts of these designations should also be discussed. 

DRAET RKP/EIS EPA -- 1990 

JUN 

3. The acquisition of up to acres of private and state 

lands may occur under the preferred alternative. We understand 

that site-specific environmental assessments are prepared for 

each acquisition. EPA recommends that the discuss how 

will determine whether any of the proposed for acquisition

sites where hazardous wastes were disposed of in past 

years. The presence of hazardous could diminish the 

habitat and public recreation values of the proposed acquisition. 

Furthermore, the lands contaminated with hazardous wastes 

become property, may become a responsible party under the 

of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act of 1980, L. NO. amended 

by the Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Pub. 

L. NO. could the" be legally responsible for 

remedial investigations, cleanup activities, and full or partial 

costs. 

The should evaluate the adverse and beneficial impacts

of the proposed road reconstruction projects. Soil erosion and 

water quality are of particular relevance. 

The should indicate what measures will be take" to 

rehabilitate eroded areas where roads will be closed. what steps

be taken to stabilize and denuded areas? 

Vehicle Use 

1. EPA strongly supports the proposed closing of sensitive areas to The use of especially in riparian areas, can be a

significant source of pollution. While limiting the 

of to designated roads on most of the remaining portions of 

land would have beneficial impact on water quality, we 

have serious concerns as to whether such a restriction could be 

enforced, given the extensive area that manages. A better al++-na++i:.*, iclose all riparian area watersheds and areas of hiqh erosion 

potential to 

2. The should describe the current condition of the Hot 

Well Dunes and include a" inventory of vegetation and 

species and populations. The should also evaluate the 

Pact of use at the Hot Well Dune area air quality, water

soil stability, vegetation, wildlife, and 

cal to determine whether this area should be open to 

162- 28 
 

3.

 

 

 

 

 

 DISTRICT DRAFT 

-- 1990 

JUN 

The should include a discussion of stipulations 162- 331 development, operation, and reclamation of 

Cumulative 

1. have serious concerns about the cumulative impacts to 

face water quality, soil resources, riparian habitats, 

tion, and wildlife attributable to proposed and ongoing activities in the district. The should discuss the 

impacts to these resources from activities such as agricultural

irrigation, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, and soil and 

vegetation treatment projects throughout the district and its 

area of influence, not just in and other special management I areas. 

1. We understand that several documents currently are being 

independently prepared or will be prepared pursuant to guidance

provided by this These documents include the Fire Management Activity Plan; habitat management plans: livestock allotment

management plans; site plans for communication sites: recreation 

management plans far Special Recreation Management Areas; activity plans to rehabilitated soil erosion areas; management

plans for use and conservation of water; District Water Quality

Management Plan: Resources Management Plan: and 

project-specific pesticide/herbicide management plans based on 

the "Vegetation Treatment on Lands in 13 Western 

States," currently being prepared. We request that notify

EPA when any of these environmental assessments are 

I released for public review. 

I 

162-30 

162-32 

DISTRICT DRAFT 

EPA -- 1990 

8~ JUN 

use. The should discuss baseline information would 

be collected in this area and how further monitoring would be 

conducted in order to assess the impacts of use in this area. 

The should discuss any indirect impacts to tree and 

populations resulting from access and illegal collection 

of plants in potentially critical areas. 

and Minerals 

1. We strongly recommend that the mining restrictions and 

acreages in Alternative be adopted as part of the 

preferred alternative. Water bodies in the District are 

currently affected by source pollution from resource traction activities. These restrictions should significantly improve water quality relative to the mining restrictions under Alternative A. In addition, we recommend that mining restrictions, 

including prohibition sand and gravel operations, be implemented in riparian areas to protect water quality. 

It is not clear in the why Alternative A does not include the Turkey Creek Riparian or the Swamp Springs-Hot

Springs Watershed among the list areas that would be subject to withdrawal from mineral entry, "no surface occupancy," or 

prohibited sale of mineral materials. According to Table 

mining plans would be required for these areas. Under alternatives A and all riparian areas are proposed as subject to 

prohibition of mineral material sales and a surface occupancy" stipulation. 

3. The should include information on the impacts of mining

in the district in the past and foreseeable future (i.e., the 

period during which this applies). It should specify for the 

entire district: mineral materials (including sand and gravel),

mining activities, number of cases with each activity, and 

acreages disturbed affected by each mineral material activity. The should also provide this information for each 

special management area, or riparian area in the district. 

The should also evaluate the impacts of mining in these 

areas and discuss any mitigation measures that are necessary to 

protect water quality, soil resources, vegetation, and wildlife 

(including desert big horn sheep). The discuss the 

value of mining restriction in riparian areas such as Turkey

Creek Riparian and swamp Springs-Hot springs Watershed 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

163
 

The Arizona 

of Land N.".g.m."t Ssfford District 

426 4th Street 

86446 

The of the Arizona Native Plant 

the opportunity to of proposed Plan 

for Ssfford District. hsv. indexed specific in draft 

We draw .tt."tio" to proposed plan. to contin.. 

livestock the 6,651 rithi" the San 

Nation.1 Are.. Your proposed action contradict. the intent of Congress to prohibit within NCA for 

of 16 year. in the report.

when the NCA bill by ASPS request. that the withdraw" livestock in accord with 

intent. 

WC of Canyon Road. Pork 

of Crock Jackson Cabin snd East Creek 

These sre located in sensitive snd increased will facilitate erosion and 

siltation problem. within of Turkey Creek is especially inappropriate due to the of 

2 currently 2 

in O‘d*rntition Turkey Creek . end of I" light of the

paucity of thi. a prudent of 

action would be to action. which likely

uncontrolled visitor us. in 

ANPS the Ssfford District'. proposed ACEC 

Creek Oils Turkey Creek 

Spring

Springs Watershed Bat Csv. 

ACEC and Canyon ACEC. Swcific recowndstions 

regarding ACEC 

Creak ACEC: related to livestock grazing is 

We suggest livestock be 8an.g.d to 

from the corridor snd 

of esch yesr part of the 

Turkey Creek Ripsris" ACEC: If this ACBC is (see our below regarding expanded

livestock" se a 

us s. ludicruou.. It i. our hop. that the BLM 

Native Plant "manages livestock" on all their We 

livestock excluded from this ACEC due to the that the Society include. the corridor of 

Grove Creek and to protect this

that do not reduce 

cosmetic. 

,63e5i tzzy2%; Desert ACEC: should be added that 

specifies the no action. will 

livestock above usage. 

Springs-Rot Spring. Watershed ACBC: ANPS 

livestock se of the prescription. 

We also recommend the of the 

ACEC proposed in Alternative B. Th. relevsnce and 

used to justify of Springs-Rot

Spring. ACEC src pr..."t within the Arsvsip. WC 

recommend that livestock grazing excluded reduced from those 

portion. of the ACEC in which are receptive to

action. 

The Ssfford District's planning effort. with to the ACPC 

set. the standard for the throughout 

supports development of site-specific for 

designated ACEC. I" rildcr"... v. sUpport the 

dropping of designation but draw attention to tb. need to 

the identified i" the in the 

Wilderness Plan. 

The road. trail. msp .hauld included within 

the final 

Pan. 29, objectives snd certain action. for Areas 

could nafit from tintable that is shorter th. 

length of the planning period. Ares receive 

priority attention which should be reflected in the final 

pl." through We that the action. 

completed within 3-5 yssr time period. 

proposed State/Private land 

". land. which support high quality

habitat, watershed. of important and 

urge. the to give consideration to acquiring

lands within the corridor of Ssn Pedro River 

Be"."" to the Oils confluence including significant sit.. 
 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

 

164 

long perennial to Pedro River. 

be San Pedro River should seen as the building block 

upon which protection of the Pedro River 

be affected. 

40, ANPS requests that include language that 

ot native species on treatment 

actions. 

to for complete list of

Sensitive plant to ensure that all species

properly categorized (e.g. Category and referred to in the 

using currently

nomenclature. A listing of documented and 

suspected sensitive within the District T".W". Anzonr should be included as Appendix. This is standard information provided by all documents. I
 

We find reference to a monitoring plan and its attendant
 to be conspicuously the draft draws
 

your attention to the the fact that this was grounds for an of
 

the Lower Please include appropriate reference to monitoring

in Appendix. 

overall, Tucson Chapter the Plant Society 

supports the preferred alternative of the District to 

the aforementioned recommended changes. Ye appreciate the opportunity

to provide input into land the 

public lands. 

Barbara 

Tucson Chapter 

Conservation 
 Land Management 

District 

 

 

-~

 

__

 

 

 

166-I 

Nr. Steve RNP Team 

Bureau of Land 

425 East 4th Street 

Safford. Arizona 85546 

Mr. Rnox: 

The Arizona Cattle Growers' 

appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft 

for the Safford District. 

Ye suggest that in all plans, feel that 

one essential objective should be "profitable

grazing" this objective is reached, many

positive things be achieved on the public lands. 

The of access is of great concern. The ACGA 

recommends that all existing roads and trails be left 

open. the roads which require four-wheel drives are important. Roads provide permittees feasible 

means of developing and maintaining range improveThese improvements enhance grazing distribution, wildlife populations and watershed values. 

areas in the Safford District need additional roads 

for construction of additional range improvements.

These roads a greater percentage of the public

the chance to see and enjoy the public lands. a small percentage of the public have the health and 

wealth required backpack into which are 

inaccessible by vehicle. 

8 

The is very concerned with the excessive number 

of and the excessive "umber of acres within the 

proposed in the plan. These special management units will further reduce the "umber of acres 

multiple lands that are so critical to the 

economies in rural Arizona. Ye are concerned 

that the National Park service may assume management

of of and include them in the National Park System. This would impose further restrictions the land and further economic restraints rural 

economics. Ye are concerned that the additional funds required manage these special units may

further deplete the amount of funds available for 

range improvements and range management. 

Until these many and concerns have been 

resolved. the cannot support the creation of 

management 

Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association 

Knox 

1990 

Page 2 

OBJECT TO GRAZING 

More specifically. one of our concerns with the is the 

proposed exclusion of grazing on the and Aravaipa

ranches which by The Nature Conservancy. The ACGA 

the exclusion of within these large which 

include: 

1. Ranch 

a . 	 Alternative A- 22,883 acres on the Swamp Spring-Hot

Springs Watershed ACEC. b . 	 Alternative B- 33.287 acres the ACEC. p.45 

c . 	 Alternative C- 9,926 acres the 

2. Aravaipa Ranches 

a . 	 Alternative 78.028 acres the Aravaipa Watershed 

p.44

b.	 Alternative C- 46,268 acres on the South Rim ACEC. p.64 

The would Alternative D (no action) on these

allotments and urge that cattle grazing be returned the 

Some members have expressed a willingness 

graze these allotments. disagree with the concept that 

livestock grazing should be "excluded to facilitate 

rehabilitation of the and upland vegetation communities 

within the p.193 Objectives of this type can be met 

through properly managed livestock grazing. Total economic loss 

to local economies which would result from exclusion of 

livestock grazing in these be in excess of $500,000 

per year. 

3. Dry Spring a . 	 Alternative 825 acres. River 25 b.	 Alternative B- 825 acres. River p. 45 

C- 90 acres. River 64 

The opposes the recommended grazing exclusion for

Spring 

4. Eagle Creek Canyon 

a . Alternative 9,451 acres. 46 

More than half of the in the proposal is privately

A of this type would infringe on the private 166-3 property rights of the land owner. ACGA opposes this proposal

because of the private property within the I 

SCENIC 

The supports the Wild and Scenic River Alternative, "1. 

designation alternative action)" which that no 

would be recommended for designation under the and 

Scenic Rivers Act in the areas. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 12, 1990
 

3
 

ACGA i* concerned that there is no 

monitoring established in any alternative described in the 

I Definitive resource reference points such sight specific,

clearly described plant community and soil condition baseline
 

data needed for monitoring wildlife population levels.
 

wildlife impacts on habitat, grazing/wildlife interaction and
 

other values important a sight specific ecosystem. are
 

concerned with the omission of specific and measurable resource
 

criteria. The strongly supports an integrated resource
 

monitoring 

AND FISH DBPART"EHT 

Although there to the strategic plans of
 

the Arizona and Fish Department, the does not address
 

rho has the ultimate responsibility for the resource and it's
 

protection. Over population of any wildlife species has
 

negative impacts on the resource. The should address
 

realistic wildlife population levels and include clarification
 

of the influence of wildlife management under this plan on
 

intermingled lands. We object to the alternative in the plan

wherein the Safford District relinquishes their ability 

protect the by allowing the strategic plan of the
 Arizona Game and Fish department to drive a single use of the
 

resource at the of other multiple uses.
 

1. RIAN,AO"ATIC HABITAT:
 

The supports the enhancement of habitat
 

use. habitat management must be considered as part of
 the whole resource context, including surrounding uplands.
 

There is developed by the that demonstrates
 

livestock grazing can occur on riparian areas without damaging

riparian areas and when properly managed will maintain and
 

enhance the habitat. Ye suggest language be
 

added to the plan acknowledging the importance 

to livestock grazing and riparian management as 

2. FOR ~~RO~~~~I~.Ns_~~~N

The orts collaborative process for 

of wildlife reintroductions. The collaborative 

described in the Consideration should 

on each multiple-use by reintroduction 

on the local economy as well as 

of life. 

3. 

of riparian areas 

one part of the 

FISH AND WILDLIFE 

the consideration should 

be given to 

and their impact

endangerment 

considerable data developed which show that grazing is 

not factor in the concern for survival of the desert 

12, 1990 

4. 

The finds the language unclear as to the Bighorn Sheep population in the 

other multiple use, including grazing. in 

integrated resource management

specific wildlife levels. 

how the increase in 

Creek area fits with 

that area. We 

address these 

5. 

The GA has reports 

are heavily impacted

Safford District. 

can enhance habitat, 

herd in the Sierra 

from our members that mule deer populations

by an excessive predator population in the 

The livestock industry is on record that 

Vegetation management

but. as a study on a specific Mule Deer 

Nevada illustrated, uncontrolled 

reduced the herd from animals to within a 

relatively Of time. This issue has more components

than are described in the and needs to be restated. 

Ye refer our comments on reintroduction species relative to Item c. The that bear would be benefited by improved habitat conditions raises several 

concerns. Nuisance bear and lion on the Safford District are already a problem which are not addressed in this plan. The management of bear and lion population level.6 in 

relation to their native prey population levels. 

7. 

The the management goals general. Ye further object to the acquisition of private property by the Federal

It is not demonstrated that there is a need for 

additional wetlands in this district. Additional wetlands that would serve migrating waterfowl may be available at a lower cost 

in other areas. 

8. OTHER SPECIES &ND HA~2.~&TOF..INTEPES_T: 

The the Safford District in managing priority

species on public lands. In the Safford are many

intermingled lands and adjoining lands that would be influenced 

by management prescriptions by this plan. 

an integrated approach in the development of management

criteria. 

Please advise us of any other comments that affect livestock 

grazing. and please keep informed as to the significant dates 

for additional input this is finalized. 

President 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

167 

 La"* 

4th Street
 

Subject: District Plan 

Attention: Mr. Steve Leader 

The copy of the District Resource Plan 

DRAFT, a" 

a agency agency

and responsible for this valuable resource document are 

be Their the highest professional 

is evident and signals a" important dedication to the 

fullest possible development of subsequent, specific

activity 

Rod and Gun appreciates the opportunity to 

it be provided all notices and 

publications pertaining to the adoption end of the 

of this year our organization submitted a prepared 

statement to the Rational Public Lands Advisory Council at its 

meeting Tucson. copy of that statement is attached and is submitted as of comments on the District 

Tucson Rod and Club supports the acquisition 

identified A (The Preferred Alter­ native,. TRRGC also supports the addition of the area in the 

of T. S., R. 31 R., Sec. 17 as identified 

from Region (locked gate preventing access to 

I and Forest lands,. 

TRhGC especially pleased to the Jackson Road. about 

identified reconstruction to provide vehicle 

access the Rational boundary. I" addition, 

of legal administrative on the Pipeline Road end 

its to I-wheel drive standard is supported by the

TRRGC . 

supports Alternative A in of the es proposed 

with the following two exceptions: 

Creek Consideration should be give" to desig­ nation Alternative for the entire watershed as This single deviation from the Preferred 

Alternative allows for the management of the interconnected 

uplands and streambed for the Creek watershed. 

TRhGC supports

Alternative R specifically to close the river to 

off-highway vehicle use. necessary administrative 

be allowed for the of the 

organization agrees with the for 

designation of segment of the River about 2 

miles above Dripping Spring Wash for inclusion in 

the Rational Wild end Scenic River 

TRRGC supports Alternative A as proposed in the 

Alternative A as proposed in the

organization ie eepecielly in the of the 

inventory and it5' baseline This 

system data will be crucial to the protection of 

proposed in Alternative A in the Wildlife habitat 

rights on 

on springs 

streams 

and ponds. 

or rivers well as the water rights 

TRRGC supports the Management objectives and 

and the and protection available 

ponds springs be priority. view 

the 10 Menage.ent es of the "hole. TRRGC 

federal and state agencies to cooperate to the fullest extent 

practicable in the Wildlife and Plans. 

Two potential actions � "e"ts lay affect 

of any plan. Arizona Governor created 

on way by Order Ho. 90-10, a Governor's 

Force Assessments. Timing and impact of 

the implementation of Arizona mini-RRPA for state agency actions or for any public agency allocating federal monies 

can't be et this time. 

its' have not bee" without controversy in its application to 

wildlife and control 
President 

Rod and Club on behalf of the Officers and Board 
 aroun*e.public lande 
169
 

 

 

 

 - 

 

 

 

 

 

170
 

Brady,

of Land District Office 

425 B. 4th 

Arizona 85546 

Elizabeth representing self 

Draft 

12, 

Saffcrd District of the should highly commended for a 

crganiaed, well thought and comprehensive draft Such is 

especially appropriate in light of the many complex and controversial

issues in a of 

Preferred Alternative demonstrates the keen of the 

of an agressive management role in protection of

remaining areas the many pressures brought to

on them. It those pressures largely responsible for the

extirpation of of the habitat which existed in state before 

the of Preferred quite adequately addresses the

mandate for multiple use, does so keeping in mind the best 

us** those of biclczical and/or cultural richness 

which particularly fragile and easily to degradation. There

several which I feel not as reflected in Preferred 

as they could be. 

First, regard to the and Access, 

I applaud the decision legal to the road for administrative purposes only. route carved out for construction 

a mostly straight line with regard for the

in its path. As such it has potential for erosion and for

personal is therefore inappropriate as a

The Jackson Cabin hcvever,does provide a and more 

access corridor. people wishing to the 

naturally such north path as 

to towards the Galiurc and the Area. 

prescription of the SLP lands on the as outlined 

in Preferred Alternative Springs Watershed is 

generally of support and a great deal of sensitivity to

unique features for which the is being by

the Forest the of Land and Batu~* ConS*=K=CY. 

The few sxceptions I the ACEC as described would in 

DRAFT DISTRICT OF 

FROM: 

in the and south 

Springs area. latter feature should not be excluded 

should sections and 32 in the 

Those sections drainages 

its and integrity, they should be included in

I In addition, I rould seriously from 

One final concern I have regarding the for the concentration of 

is mining. A closure of those fragile

rich but not particularly 

another important the kind of 

for that ecological traasure. 

With raference the proposed

me that Alternative best addresses the biological and hydrological

values for it is renowned. Hell 

an important Creek, is blessed with 

beautiful, unusual and fragile

under an ACEC in either Alternative 

inclusion the country including

with the Wilderness Plan for 

table lands in order to most adequately protect

vegetational integrity of Canyon. One

spelled out regard Alternative 

be incorporated into such a 

which is rather impractical to continue because of

sufficient to the table lands 

for the cattle up thare in order to 

along Creek. It is hoped that as

other livestock be reviewed 

In conclusion, I have a great deal

information in the District's Draft 

the District's 

that for comment. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

171 

Mr. 

Bureau of Land 

425 E. 4th street 

Safford, 85546 

Draft Safford District Plan 

and Environmental 

Mr. Knox: 

El Ps30 (El Paso) operates Of the co"nt?cy's 

largest natural gas transportation systems, located in the 

southwestern States. Since a number of El Paso's pipelines

and compressor stations are within the Safford District, have a 

vital interest in the of Management's land 

resource management planning for the district. 

We are particularly interested in two proposed special management

that are crossed by existing El Paso pipelines: 

eshoe &D& El Paso's 30" D.D. Waha to Line 

crosses this area. for of a Coordinated 

for 7 miles.‘ 

faln m El Paso's O.D. California Mainline and adjacent O.D. California First Line 

cross this proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

for approximately 1.5 miles. 

shoe proposes establishing the Ranch as

right-of-way avoidance area. El Paso is concerned about the impact

this designation could have on possible future expansion along its 

to Should second pipeline prove necessary

in tlie future, El Paso would favor locating it adjacent to its

existing line rather using a" entirely new route that avoids the 

Ranch. 

Location of new line next to a" existing line is desirable for

variety of not the least of is reduction of 

environmental impacts by confining much of the construction-related 

disturbance to previously disturbed areas. We recommend that the 

designation of the Ranch right-of-my avoidance area 

qualified to ensure that possible future location of new pipeline adjacent to El existing line is not precluded. 

Mr. Knox 

12, 

2 

The Scenic 

presents similar situation: proposes establishing the 

right-of-way exclusion area. No future pipeline adjacent to 

El Paso's existing two lines crossing the ACEC would be 

recommend that this management prescription for the

modified to permit future pipeline adjacent to the existing lines if it can be demonstrated that the advantages

of paralleling the existing lines outweigh the disadvantages of 

construction within the 

it appears the proposed All Alnerican Pipeline corridor on 35 is one mile south of the existing All

American Pipeline (and Paso's 30" D.D. to Line). 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft

District Resource Statement. 

A. 

senior Environmental Scientist 

Environmental and Safety Affairs 
 

 

 

__ 

 

172 

 Arizona Nature Conservancy 00 Boulevard. Suite Tucson. Arizona 85705 

Mr. Ray Brady 8 &June, 1990 

Safford District 

Bureau Land Management 

47.5 E. 4th Street Safford. AZ 85546 

Dear Mr. Brady, 

We appreciate the opportunity to review and your

draft Resource Management Plan for the Safford District. We 

offer the following comments to ensure that the Plan adequately

addresses the management rare and endangered species of plants

animals and their habitats, and the management of sensitive 

communities. 

Our response to the is organized in parts: first, 

general comments about broad issues that we feel are 

important in the plan, and second, page-by-page of a 

more specific nature where the text of the could be clarified 

or improved. 

Habitat: 

The Safford District contains by many criteria the highest 

quality habitat found lands in Arizona, perhaps

in the entire Southwestern United States. a multi-state, 

and multi-agency, perspective, the Safford District has a 

disproportionately large amount of habitat. A 

discussion in the Summary Affected sections 

emphasizing the extraordinary variety and extent 

habitats species the Safford District would help put the 

management attention given to riparian areas in the into 

perspective. 

Because the Safford District possesses a" unmatched wealth 

of and wetland resources, it consequently has a 

proportionately large responsibility for protecting those 

resources. The regional importance of these wetland and 

resources is apparent from many points of view including: 

-- The variety of habitats such as CottonwoodWillow forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous forests, 

Mesquite woodland, marsh. 

-- The number of endangered sensitive 

species including Loach minnow, Chub, Desert 

Lowland Leopard Frog, Mexican 

Garter Snake, Gray Hawk, Slack Hawk, and many others. 

2 

The extent of habitat with many miles of flowing

streams along the San Pedro Creek, 

Creek, Eagle Creek, River, Canyon, Hot Springs

Canyon, Sass Canyon, and others. 

__ The amount of recreational use these areas receive with 

of visitors each year enjoying Canyon,

Creek, the and the San Pedro and 

the concomitant economic value this provides the state. 

We reiterate these points to emphasize that these resources 

possess much than just local importance, and must be 

recognized as such in the Plan. 

We strongly support the Safford District in taking the lead in resources and associated wildlife habitat 

values management guidelines that are proposed

in the (pgs. 29-31, 36 item 5, 247, 249). These management

guidelines are among the best that have see" for riparian 

areas on land in Arizona. The San Pedro Riparian

Conservation Management Plan sets a standard for other 

Districts to follow in managing areas. 

We support the Safford District's proposal to acquire

additional lands that include key areas and their 

watersheds and habitat threatened and endangered species. I"

particular, the Conservancy urges the Safford District to 

consider acquiring additional lands along portions of the San 

Pedro River and its major tributaries from the Mexico border to 

its confluence with the River at The information 

available to us, including information provided by the Arizona 

Department of Game and Fish's Data Management System,

clearly indicates that additional areas outside the San Pedro 

River National Conservation Area should he given top

priority for acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Several habitat islands along portions of the lower 

San Pedro River provide key stepping stones for migratory birds 

which have bee" identified in several studies as critical natural 

areas which merit protection. Several perennial tributary 

systems serve as native fish species and are integral 

components of the San Pedro River ecosystem that would benefit 

from greater ownership and management. The San Pedro 

River is one of the few major river systems in the

Southwest and the has the opportunity to make a significant

contribution to its long term protection. 

The Canyon Wilderness Management Plan 

guides management activities for what many believe is the premier

natural area the entire Safford District. the 

not cited in the Summary or Description of Alternatives as 
 

 

 

 

 

3 

significant source of management guidance, as are numerous other 

management planning documents. The should cited in the 

Description of as one of the guidelines

is to a11 *lternati"es. 

Of concern: 

support the of the proposed in the 

to protect rare and sensitive natural resources including

grassland habitat. These contain 

the most outstanding ecological features in the district, and 

their natural resource values are great despite their relatively

size. They clearly deserve special management

consideration, and with the exceptions specified below, we 

support the boundaries and management prescriptions

described the preferred alternative. 

The Eagle Creek Bat Cave 198-199) is known as a" 

roost in 

endorse this proposal because of the site's significance, and 

because the management prescription help reverse the 

alarming recent declines in bat in this roost. We 

recommend investigating the possibility of installing a 

accessible gate in cave mouth to keep out vandals or other 

destructive 

The Guadalupe Canyon ACEC 195-196) supports a "umber of 

species of plants and animals whose distribution is primarily

Mexican and which are found in the United States only in southern 

TWO rare plants of special interest, 

var. and robbinsorum, 

in the may e found the ACEC. We encourage the 

Safford District to acquire private inholdings in the as 

they become available. We recommend that management of the ACEC 

be coordinated with the Coronado National Forest which has 

designated a Zoological-Botanical Area in the upper reaches of 

Guadalupe Canyon and the appropriate New Mexico office of the 

which manages adjacent lands in New and that the 

identify this coordination effort. 

Coronado Mountain and (pg. 197,

both include communities that are unique in Arizona. These 

the Arizona 

community community, are indicative of 

environmental conditions. Protection of small, specialized

habitats such as these is critical to managing the entire 

spectrum of biological diversity on the Safford District. 

are in general agreement with the boundaries and 

management prescriptions for as described in the preferred

alternative A. with the exception of Swamp Springs-Hot 

4 

Springs and Watershed which we discuss below. 

we feel all ACECs should withdrawn from mineral entry and 

occupancy. Mining exploration and development poses 

one of the most serious threats to aquatic resources of any land 

from these activities include toxic spills,

increased stream siltation, and erosion induced by excavation and 

can result in extirpation of aquatic species, especially fish. 

These impacts are particularly tragic because they often 

permanent or to recover, costs for attempting to rectify the 

damage are usually born by those who create it, and the 

damage is unnecessary because the mineral values are 

inconsequential. We discuss this in more detail below for 

and Ranch 

Ranch ACEC (pgs. 26, 193-194): As participants

with at the Ranch Cooperative Management Area we are 

forward to working with the Safford District to manage

the ecological there, and we support the management

prescriptions presented in the preferred alternative. The management prescriptions proposed for this will 

the goals that has identified the‘ agreement. 

for the Ranch we propose a modified

boundary that is intermediate between those presented in 

alternatives A (see map). Our revised boundary 

serves the dual purpose of making the area outside of 

the Sot Springs and Cherry Springs watersheds available for 

livestock grazing, while assuring better protection for a 

significant portion of the Creek watershed. Using

proposed boundary, two areas within the Sass Canyon watershed, at 

the north-east and south-east corners of the ACEC, would be in 

the ACEC. 

For the most part we support management prescriptions for 

the Ranch as they presented in the preferred 

swamp springs

considering the sensitive nature of the values there, we 

recommend closing the area to mineral entry and to surface 

This is unlikely to conflict with mineral interests 

there are no known mineral resources of economic value 

and there are no active mining claims in the area. The U.S. 

of Mines (Mineral Investigation of the Study

Area, Graham Counties, concluded that mineral 

potential the area is low and the has rated the petroleum

for the area as low. claims would 

dangerous to the natural values of the 

would be permanent or slow to recover, and would present

additional management expense to the or the Conservancy. 

Creek 96, 189-191): recommend adopting

the Watershed ACEC as proposed in Alternative 
Rim allotment,

evaluated on a case-by-case

management goals.

those

which

plan.

are proposed in the

also be appropriate

 rigorous predictive model of the

interpretive

activities can

at

research aimed at

watershed conditions and

stream.

and increased erosion

mineral potential in the

Mines found the area to have low

area with Surface minerals,

considered subeconomic "because

small tonnage." (U.S.

Mineral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Creek may be the most significant,

sensitive, and best know" resource on the Safford 

and es such it deserves the best possible management.

We feel that this best accomplished by giving

designation to watershed areas adjacent to the canyon to direct 

The of the watershed in the tablelands area 

adjacent to the is emphasized by the increase in 

from 18 CFS on the east end to cfs on the 

a strong relationship between the hydrology of the 

tablelands watershed the stream. 

Ecological Studies of Creek) discusses the-importance of 

clear-water originating in the that 

counterbalance the silt-lade" from the upper valley to 

maintain diverse aquatic microhabitat types. This the 

importance of managing the watershed to minimize soil and 

in the tablelands. These hydrologic benefits are 

derived from both the north and south slopes, and hence 

designation should encompass both slopes. 

The Canyon Wilderness Management Plan 1988)

referenced in the on page 33 provides guidance for the 

management of the tablelands in the watershed for the 

benefit of the habitat and the wildlife that depend on 

it. Management objectives stated in the "TO manage

the canyon corridor and side canyons so that natural ecological 

processes continue to repair the vegetation condition caused 

prior to wilderness designation." "TO increase fine fuels on 

the tablelands (i.e. grasses) to the point that natural fires can 

return vegetation to grassland conditions." The plan

further that "The major emphasis of wildlife management the 

will be on allowing natural processes to control the 

evolution of the habitat. Management of the 

"ill also be geared to the free operation of natural 

believe that accomplishing these goals requires

a watershed believe it is only to insist 

that tablelands, as referenced in the be managed in a 

manner that is consistent with that plan. 

Special management attention be given to all land 

and management activities in the watershed. All proposed existing management prescriptions should be 

evaluated in the context of managing for and endangered 

species resource values as the over-riding goal of management in 

the watershed. 

the Watershed management

prescription proposed in Alternative as the best alternative 

for the goals identified by in the which 

guides management of the area. However, the prescription for 

grazing in the somewhat vague. Although we support the 

proposed prescription for our South 

management prescriptions should be 

basis for each allotment in the 

Management should written 

accomplishing the resource 

Regardless of the specific

for the 

defining Limits of Acceptable

and The and evaluated relative to 

should be modified to correct conditions 

Limits of Acceptable Change. 

Because of the complexity of the

importance of the resources there, 

a high priority for drafting a management 

Several management objectives

archeological that would 

ecological resources of the 

include patrolling sensitive sites, 

investigations, development of 

resource, end developing a comprehensive

educational program. All of these 

the context of current land uses 

perhaps the most 

guide other management actions, is 

understanding the relationships between 

water quality and quantity in the 

also address the relationship between 

Sensitive wildlife populations. 

We recommend that the 

mineral entry and to occupancy.

watershed would place one of the 

in Arizona at risk from toxic spills

Closure to mineral entry would not

conflict with interests because 

area is low. The U.S. Bureau of 

mineral potential and the minerals. The only site in the 

located "ear Table Mountain, is 

of the low grade and especially the 

of Mines. Mineral Resources of the 

and Counties, Arizona. 

Roads/Access: 

We feel that the public should have 
 

pg- I”

 

 

 

7 

the and enjoyment of public lands, and we agree with that 

the means of access should be based on a with 

appropriate public input that is designed to 

sensitive resources are protected from adverse effects (pg. groups may not that we public access across 

private property to land in several areas including

Jackson Cabin road on the Ranch, the east end of 

Aravaipa Creek, the foot trail at the end of Aravaipa Creek,

and the Table Mountain Pass road from Turkey Creek to 

We oppose the opening of the Turkey Creek 

road (pg. 24) because it would pose a threat to a 

significant area, and it not significantly improve 

to any areas that are not already accessible by car. 

route a steep, unstable hillside of alluvium that 

is prone to erosion, and which has bee" determined to be 

unsuitable for use as a roadway by staff in a 1981 review of 172-4 the road. Opening a road at this area would lead to increased 

erosion and sediment deposition in Turkey Creek, with likely

adverse effects the community there, including

which is a candidate for listing as

threatened or Creek should be closed to OH" 

use above the point at which the Table Mountain road leaves the 

canyon bottom. 

When proposing to open a road, we feel that should 

address the additional management effort that will be needed as a 

result of increased use of newly accessible areas. For example, 

opening the Road (pg. would allow vehicular access 

sensitive, remote parts of the Aravaipa Creek watershed and would 

compromise wilderness management the Aravaipa Canyon

Wilderness Area. is a" important wildlife area and has 

potentially soils if vehicles are used off of roadways.

We feel that it would be inappropriate to open such an isolated, 

sensitive area unless a commitment is made to devote manpower to 

patrol and manage it. At a time when is considering reducing

the patrol effort of wilderness rangers at Aravaipa Creek, we are 

concerned that such a commitment might not be possible due to 

budget constraints. 

Page-by-paqe Comments: 

Under the Wildlife Habitat management concern the control 

I of exotic fish in natural streams should be added. Exotic fish a 

one of the major threats to endangered native fish populations. 

Pg. 8 With regard to Recreation, one question that should also 

be addressed is, as recreational opportunities and facilities are 172-6 expanded and visitor use grows, what level of staffing and

funding will be needed to insure that sensitive resources are not 

damaged by recreational use? 

9 Soil erosion be addressed as a management concern 

district-wide, not just the San Simon valley. Where else in 

the district should erosion control activities be implemented,

and where in the district does erosion pose a sensitive 

I species or 

Pg. 15 Add Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Management Plan as one of 

the guiding management planning documents to all 

. 

Pg. 15 It would be helpful to provide a list of existing 

agreements that are in effect. example, do they

include coop Habitat Management Plans with Arizona Game and Fish 

such as the Dripping Springs at 

Pg. 17 With regard to management plans, have schedules and 

Staffing assignments bee" made to assure that planning for these areas proceed in a timely manner? 

2nd paragraph It would be helpful if you would define 

"good better” ecological condition. The Conservancy has some I expertise in evaluating habitat and we would be pleased 

to provide input into habitat analysis guidelines. 

Pg. 21 With regard to soil erosion, accurate baseline data 

monitoring are needed to evaluate whether watershed 

conditions are being "maintained or enhanced." Is such a" erosion monitoring program being planned? 

Pg. 23-24 You propose preparing a District Transportation

that will identify road access and closure needs, it appears

somewhat inconsistent to identify roads to open and 

before the plan prepared. These 

should be postponed until after the transportation plan is
 

I prepared, with appropriate public input.
 

Pg. 27 Wilderness designation does not necessarily accomplish

the same goals as ACEC designation. example, in the Dry I Spring and Swamp Springs-Hot Springs grazing is excluded to 

protect habitat, but grazing is not excluded from 

I wilderness areas. Management prescriptions designed to protect

sensitive resources in not be lost if management

designation is changed to wilderness. 

Pg. 28 3. All areas with perennial stream flow 

should be closed to Off-highway vehicles. 

Pg 29 Add as a" action for areas the preparation of a" 

program such as you have proposed for

(Pg. 37-38). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

172- I91 

172-20 

172-22 

9 

Pg. 33 Item 7. Add Aravaipa Watershed as a 

of-way exclusion area. 

Pg. 33 "hat are the boundaries of the dc they tc the wilderness area? Creek should be 

included within the 

recreational use cf the area. 

due tc the rapidly increasing 

Pg.

cf 

34 "0.4 

endangered 

The Wash 

so 

Well 

any 

site includes a population

recreational 

development of the site should take into 

this rare fish. 

Pg. 35-36 Add Aravaipa Swamp Springs-Hot Springs to 

withdraw" from mineral mineral sales and surface 

40 Recent revisions have resulted in the 

changes: Aster is "cw R. potosinus, is cn 

piscaticus sis iana var. should be 

added tc the list of priority plant species. 

 is found at higher elevations and is almost certainly 

not on the district. 

Pg. 41-42 We congratulate you on being a leader in in 

managing water resources with your Flow at 

Aravaipa and Unique Waters application at Creek. 

131 Recent analysis of the mineral of the Table 

area indicates that the estimated commercial value there 

is $0.5 million, not million as stated Table 3-l (U.S. 

Bureau of Mines. 1988. Mineral Of the Aravaipa Study

Area. Graham Counties, Mineral Land 

Assessment, Open File 

Pg. 138 TWO invert&rates should be added to the list of 

Threatened and Endangered wildlife: the Bylas Spring snail 

the snail 

They each known from one location on the district, 

We a" active prescribed burn program manage

grassland habitat. 

Pg. 160 I" the long riparian vegetation receives high, "ct 

moderate, benefits establishment of rights. 

Pg. item 37 and pg. item 29. The pipeline road 

was created for purposes only should "ct 

for use. It to Bass a"d Hct Springs

Creeks steep, erosion-prone hillsides. use of this 

would tc erosio: and siltation in these 

streams. 

10 

190. 194 Chemical treatment should be considered as a 

vegetation management in the Hct 

Springs watersheds due tc risks tc quality fish 

The list of Threatened plants should 25 and ssp. bath of which are candidates listing by the Fish and 

Pg. 217 The suggestion that wilderness designation may adversely

effect wildlife is inappropriate and biased: nowhere else in the 172-261 do suggest that management activities, such as opening roads example, may have effects wildlife. 

Pg. 238 Wild and Scenic River designation can be given by either 

the Secretary cf Interior Secretary of Agriculture, without 

Congressional approval, under Sec. of the S.R. Act. 

Pg. 247 The management objectives habitat 

172- 28 condition habitat. Management objectives for I habitat should address cf exotic fish, 

which are of the major threats to native fish species. 

for considering comments c" the draft 

which are a compilation cf input from several on staff. If 

 be of further help, please tc me. 

Public Lands 
 

 

 RANCH ACEC 

- . - I ­

D 

SCALE IN MILES 

ALTERNATIVE 

THE SOCIETY, AWONA 

Ray A. Brady District 

of Land Management 

Safford District 

425 E. street 

afford, 85546 

Dear Mr. Brady: 

Review of Safford Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

The Arizona Chapter of the Wildlife Society has reviewed the abovereferenced and would like to submit the following 

First, we want to commend the Bureau of Land and 

the team members for their efforts the preparation of this 

comprehensive document. We realize that the integration of the 

various of public in the Safford District requires tradeoffs between a multitude of resource values. With this in mind, 

it is intention to provide and concerns that are meant 

to enhance. rather than detract from this document. 

generally support most of the management direction 

proposed in Alternative A (the Preferred Alternative), believe 

that the best possible approach would be combination of 

management directions the Preferred and 

alternative 

To help organize 1 be responding to the 

specific issues and management concerns listed in the Draft 

support the Preferred Alternative 
of the San Pedro

in the past by clearing for

on private land, it is in

River

also for our opportunity to be

 

 

2 

S”* 

We strongly support the designation of the 17 Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern identified in the Draft. The 

special protection afforded by the designation will benefit 

the wildlife resource these areas. 

We support Alternative for the following 

Creek 

Turkey Creek 

Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area 

Dry Spring Research Natural Area 

all other the Preferred Alternative 

We support the Wild and Scenic River designations in 

Alternative for the River segments identified on pages 47 

and of Arizona’s river systems have been adversely 

impacted by activities, and believe that the greatest 

protection should be given to those portions of our rivers which 

remain relatively undisturbed. As outlined in Appendix the 

additional protection provided inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic River System should not place unreasonable restrictions 

onmining, livestock of recreation. The designation would 

protect the river from water supply dame, major 

hydroelectric power facilities, and flood control works. 

sue 3 ff-V 

We support the designated closures in Alternative and strongly 

oppose Alternative C on this issue. most of the 

the district as "Open" to use (Alternative puts 

many unique wildlife habitats and the that depend on these 

habitats et risk. 

We believe that the overall goal foe riparian on the 

District should be to improve end then 100 percent of the 

vegetation in good or excellent condition. the 

stated objective of maintaining end 75 of the 

of vegetation in or &cell&t condition by 

is reasonable. 

we concur with the wildlife habitat 

objectives contained in the Draft however, the information 

provided in Appendix 6 does not reflect the current 

I 

Arizona and Fish Department Big Game Strategic Plan goals end 

objectives. 

The current strategic plans call for increases in the capability 

of the habitat on lands to support the species in question. 

References to increasing population numbers may have been taken

from an earlier plan. We 

Fish Department for clarification. 

Concern Lands and Realty 

We recognize tiie benefits of consolidating public land ownership, 

and the objectives and proposed actions in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Much of the riparian vegetation associated with the lower San Pedro 

River, from the northern boundary 

National conservation Area to the confluence of the 

Pedro Rivers, has been impacted agriculture and other activities. 

remaining riparian habitat is located 

jeopardy of being lost. 

We that the identify all 

lands on the lower San Pedro 

significant riparian wildlife habitat 

of these parcels through exchange of purchase, in order 

to protect the high quality wildlife habitats associated with this 

corridor. 

Other aFor the additional eight management concerns identified in the 

plan. we support the Preferred Alternative in each case. 

It is our hope that these 

which feel will enhance this document. Our concerns 

be while still meeting 

use management. 

like to you for the 

of this and 

involved in the process. 

President 
-

 11, 1990 

A. 

District Manager

Bureau of Land 

Safford District 

425 street 

Safford, AZ 85546 

Dear Mr. Brady: 

Draft Safford District Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has reviewed the abovereferenced Draft, and the following comments are provided. 

It is obvious that a major effort into the development of

this draft plan. The Bureau of Land Management should be 

commended their thoroughness in identifying issues, concerns, 

and opportunities and in developing alternatives which adequately

address the various issues. I" particular, the Areas of Critical 

Environmental evaluations indicate a 

responsiveness to public Input and professional analysis of the 

Our Department's comments on issues and/or concerns are 

included in an attachment to this letter. Although we generally 

support the management direction outlined in Alternative A 

Preferred Alternative), we have concerns with specific management 

recommendations contained in this Alternative attachment).

We believe that a combination of management direction from the

Preferred Alternative and Alternative should be considered as 

the best approach in the Final 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft

Safford District we look forward to continued 

cooperation with the in the development and implementation of 

the final plan. 

Sincerely, 

Attachment 

Attachment. 

SPECIFIC C

 1 

This issue 

OMMENTS ON ISSUES 

was identified by 

AND 

our 

MANAGEMENT 

Department

of the Significant number 

problems occurring, especially in southeastern Arizona, we 

recommended that the provide the framework for the

solution of as many problems as possible. Throughout the review 

we have asked all of Wildlife Managers to pay

particular attention to the list of locations being considered

for the acquisition of legal access (Appendix 1 in the Draft).

The list appears to be very comprehensive and should go a long

way toward-addressing and resolving many of the access issues

that we have identified lands in the Safford 

District. We are of only additional public land access 

issue that not identified in the Draft. This issue involves 

a locked gate located where a road crosses a small parcel of

private land in Township 16 South, Range 31 East, Section 17,

The effect of this locked gate is to deny access to a

large area of and Service lands in the vicinity of

We are aware that the is currently involved in

efforts to resolve this problem, and it may be that resolution is 

achieved before the becomes final. Nevertheless, we 

recommend that this site be added to the list of access roads 

found on page 24 of the Draft. 

CONCERNS 

early in the planning

and types of access 

I 
 

2 

Bonita Creek The important resource values associated with 

Bonita Creek are derived, by and large, from the quantity and

quality of water present in the perennial stream channel. These 

characteristics, and the importance of the stream as the source 

of domestic water for the City of Safford are well described in

Numerous studies have demonstrated the relationship

between water quality and the condition of the watershed in which 

a stream is located. Therefore, we believe that the management

prescriptions identified in the Preferred Alternative will only

be truly effective if they are applied the Bonita Creek 

watershed, as proposed in Alternative The application of

protective features throughout the watershed recognizes that the 

uplands and the streambed function as an interconnected system. 

It appears likely, at this point in time, that Creek will 

become part of the BOX Riparian National Conservation Area

through congressional Notwithstanding any such action, 

we support the designation of the entire Bonita Creek watershed 

as an ACEC, as proposed in Alternative B. 

Box Outstanding Natural ACEC. We support the Preferred 

Alternative. This issue may be moot, however, as the entire area 

appears likely to be designated as the B OX Riparian National Conservation Area. 

Turkey Creek Riparian ACEC. This area was nominated, in large 

part, because of the important riparian resources associated with 

Turkey, Oak Grove, and-Maple Recognizing the profound

influence that watershed quality has on riparian resources and in 

keeping with the reasoning outlined we support the ACEC 

boundaries and management prescriptions identified in Alternative 

The inclusion of the Aravaipa Canyon watershed within the

ACRC should provide for a unified approach the management

of the resources associated with Turkey Creek and Aravaipa Creek. 

We are aware that the suspension of grazing on the South Rim

Allotment proposed under Alternative has become an issue of 

controversy. Our Department is satisfied that The Nature 

Conservancy grazing permittee) has consistently demonstrated 

both the willingness and the wherewithal1 for responsible natural 

resource management in Arizona. We believe that the Conservancy

should be provided the opportunity to continue their tradition of 

sound stewardship on the South Rim Allotment, of whether or not this stewardship includes livestock grazing. 

Table Research Natural Area We support the

Preferred Alternative. 

Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area ACBC Sombrero 

Butte and Ridge). These relict grassland areas provide

unique wildlife habitat, critical to a number of State-listed wildlife species. We agree that this area should be designated as a" ACEC, but we prefer the additional protection furnished

under Alternative including closing the area to use, 

3 

closing the area to mineral material sales, and prohibiting

surface occupancy mineral leasing. (Tables 2-l and 2-S do 

not with the ACEC Evaluation in 

2. relate; to differences between the-Preferred-Alternative and Alternative this ACEC with regard to

activity.) We support Alternative on the Desert Grasslands 

Research Natural Area (RNA) ACEC. 

Research Natural Area ACEC. As best as we can 

determine from Map on 102, we do not believe that 

Warm Springs (T3S, R17E, Section 20, is included in this 

We believe that this spring area should be included in the 

The springs and the at this location are 

important resources that should be protected. 

We prefer that the additional protection granted in Alternative 

for the Dry Springs ACEC, include: 

-- ACEC status and special management would be retained, even if 

Congress designates Needles Eye Wilderness 

-- additional restrictions would be placed on mineral activities 

(mining would be withdrawn and no sand/gravel sales would be 

permitted) 

-- the area would be closed to "se 

-- overnight camping would not be allowed 

, Tables 2-l and 2-S do not entirely agree with the ACEC

given in Appendix 2, as relates to the differences

between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative for this 

. This problem may occur for other 

Woodcutting, which we feel is' inappropriate for this area, is

prohibited under the Preferred Alternative, but not mentioned in 

Alternative We support Alternative with the addition of a 

restriction on any woodcutting for the Dry Springs RNA 

Watershed ACEC. general, we support

the described in the Preferred 

plant and important

native fish populations in the area should benefit from the

proposed special management. we question the rationale 

for excluding a portion of Section 32, in the 

174- 5 Preferred Alternative. Canyon provides important native 

habitat and supports riparian vegetation. would appear 

I	 logical to include all of Section 32 within the boundary of the 

ACEC in order to provide management for the lower Bass Canyon 

watershed and its associated aquatic community. Therefore, we 

recommend that the final proposal include all of sections 29 

32 within the ACEC boundary. 
 -

-

4 

We are pleased to see that the Preferred Alternative provides for 

the acquisition of legal public access on the Jackson Cabin

Road. Our Department has consistently supported the maintenance 

of access on this road up to the National boundary. 

Springs Badlands we support the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area ACEC. We support the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Mountain Scenic ACBC. we support the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Coronado Research Natural Area ACEC. We support the

Preferred Alternative. 

DOS Cabezas Peaks We support the Preferred Alternative. 

Creek Bat Cave We strongly support the Preferred

Alternative, especially the acquisition of private lands at the 

mouth of the cave. of vandalism (shooting into the

cave) and unauthorized uses, such as guano mining, hare seriously

impacted this important maternity colony. 

The acquisition of the desired private lands may be a difficult 

and long-term process. Therefore, recommend the following

additional management action for inclusion in the management

prescription: Negotiate for a conservation easement and/or

cooperative management agreement with the private land owner in 

order to control access into the cave and to protect the cave

 National Natural Landmark ACEC. We support the

Preferred Alternative. 

111 Ranch Research Natural Area ACEC. We support the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Peloncillo Mountains Outstanding Natural Area ACEC. Much of the 

proposed ACEC lies within the proposed Peloncillo Wilderness Area 

and many of the management activities would be accomplished under 

wilderness management. We support the Preferred Alternative. 

Wild and Scenic River Designations. It is difficult to determine 

the relationship between the alternatives contained in Appendix

and the recommendations for Wild and Scenic River designation

found in the various alternatives. We believe that a 

classification result in a greater potential for the 

term protection of the resources associated with the candidate

rivers through the restriction of use. Therefore, support

the Wild and Scenic River recommendations contained in 

Alternative The impacts and additional protection provided by inclusion in the National Wild and River System 

5 

are outlined in Appendix 5, page 242, item 6. Arizona's 

river systems have been heavily impacted by human activities, and 

believe that protection should be given to those

remaining, relatively undisturbed, rivers. This portion of the 

River provides habitat and water sources for numerous game

and species in the area, including white-tailed deer, 

mule deer, javelina, bald eagles, and even an occasional bighorn 

sheep. we believe that the additional restrictions granted by

Alternative (providing Congress acts on the recommendation 

and designates the for inclusion in the would not 

place unreasonable limitations mining, livestock grazing, or 

recreation. The designation would protect the river from water 

supply dams, major diversions, hydroelectric facilities, 

and flood control works. 

3 Off-highway Vehicles. 

we with recommendations contained in the Preferred 

Alternative. We believe that the proposed closures should serve 

to protect sensitive wildlife resources that are currently being

impacted by vehicle use. We do, however, ask that the Desert 

Grasslands RNA ACEC and the Dry Springs RNA ACEC be designated as 

"Closed" to use, as proposed in Alternative S. Both of these 

areas contain unique wildlife habitat that needs protection from 

use. 

As an additional comment, we strongly oppose Alternative C on the 

issue. Alternative C would designate most acreage in the

District acres) as to use, where all types

of vehicle use is permitted at all times and anywhere in the 

area. This designation is not compatible with protection of

wildlife habitat resources. 

4 

We support the 1997 objective of maintaining improving 75

percent of the acres of riparian vegetation in the District in

excellent condition by 1997. We believe that the goal

for riparian condition should be 100 percent in good excellent 

condition, but agree that 75 percent is a reasonable short-term 

objective. we trust that the objective will not become a target

for but simply serve as a guide toward achieving a 

greater 

The management strategies described in the Draft, combined with 

the more detailed riparian habitat objectives of the Wildlife 

Program (Appendix should provide the necessary guidance for 

achieving the 1997 objective. 

Concern 1 Wildlife 

In general, agree with the wildlife habitat management

objectives indentified in the Draft, and we support the actions 

proposed to accomplish these objectives. In particular, we agree 
of river.

for agriculture and other

the

exchange habitats associated with this

the manager of the Cooks Lake

Pedro.

Spring,

more manageable.

concerns identified in the Plan

wildlife habitat issues

discern a significant difference

discussed: therefore, we support

case.

- 

6 

that existing Management Plans are in need of revision, 

in terms of their boundaries and in terms of their planned

actions. We are concerned that planned actions 11 and 12 on page

31 are not Livestock allotment management planning

potentially impacts wildlife and wildlife habitats in all 

The provision of adequate forage, and water for 

wildlife should be an integral part of every allotment management

plan, without reference to habitat type. 

Appendix 6 Objectives for Priority Species/Habitats)

contains some inaccuracies relative to Department Strategic Plan 

goals and objectives. Apparently, the management goals for big 

game were taken from an out-dated strategic plan, rather than the 

one currently in effect. The following changes will be necessary

for the final plan: 

Bighorn Sheep: The Department objective for lands is to 

increase the capability of the habitat by 10 percent on lands 

by 1990. In addition, this section defines as 125 

bighorn. We should point out that this figure was an estimated

minimum necessary to sustain a population over time and should

be considered a "target'. We recommend deleting the figure

of 125 sheep. 

The Department Strategic Plan objective is to

increase the capability of the habitat by 7 percent on lands 

by 1990. 

Pronghorn Antelope: Strategic Plan objectives call for a 15 

percent increase in pronghorn habitat capability on lands by

1990. 

Oak-Woodland Species: Department Strategic Plan objectives are 

for no change in white-tailed deer, turkey, and black bear 

populations on lands. 

2 and Realty. 

I" general, recognize the benefits associated with the 

consolidation of public land ownership in terms of improving 

management efficiency. Therefore, we the objectives and 

proposed actions contained in the Preferred Alternative. 

support is predicated on the assumption that we will continue to 

be participants in the evaluations of individual land actions as 

they occur, and that these lands will be traded for other lands 

of equal preferably higher resource values. 

We would also like to suggest that the following be included in

the actions involving land acquisition in the Safford District. 

The lower San River, from the northern boundary of the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area to the confluence of

the and San Pedro Rivers, supports an often

Riparian plant community along much of its length. Both 

cottonwood-willow plant associations and remnant mesquite 

are located along this stretch 

vegetation associated with this 

impacted in the past by clearing

activity. Nearly all of the remaining 

located on private land and is,

jeopardy of being lost. 

Our Department strongly encourages 

private and State Trust lands on the lower San Pedro River

corridor that possess significant 

potential for acquisition through 

to protect the important wildlife 

corridor. The may become 

property adjacent to the San 

an excellent nucleus around which 

and wetland habitats. 

In addition, we are concerned 

Little Spring, Yellowjacket

springs (specifically lands in 

Sections 11 and 12: 

area has wildlife value, 

sections included in the Hayden-Christmas Corridor Retention 

We realize that adjacent lands might need to be 

acquired to make these parcels 

The additional eight management 

are only marginally involved with 

cases where wildlife may be an 

potential conflicts. We do not 

between the various alternatives 

the Preferred Alternative in each 
175
The results of public comments have been separated 

into two sections: general response to public 

comments and public comment letters and BLM’s 

specific responses. 

General Response 1. Assumptions 

BLM assumed that full funding and personnel would be 

available to implement any alternative. This is a basis 

for comparing reasonable alternatives and analyzing 

impacts. It is also an important element in selecting 

the final plan and defining implementation priorities and 

monitoring needs. 

General Response 2. Livestock Grazing 

All the requirements of National Environmental Policy 

Act have been met with respect to the grazing program. As stated in the draft, the livestock grazing issue 

was studied in the Upper Simon (1978) and 

Eastern Arizona (1986) Grazing Environmental Impact 

Statements as well as the San Pedro River Riparian 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (1988). Livestock grazing decisions in those 

documents have been or are being implemented 

through individual grazing decisions according to 

schedules developed after completion of the Environmental Impact Statement. Monitoring studies, required 

to determine the effectiveness of those decisions, are 

taking place. A Range Program Summary Update is 

prepared periodically to display the results of the 

studies. If monitoring reveals that stocking levels are 

too high and the utilization of forage is too great, then 

the operator is required to reduce the stocking level. If, 

on the the other hand, increases in stocking levels are 

requested and, if monitoring reveals that the increases 

could be accommodated, they could be permitted. 

When an operator requests an increased stocking level 

in an allotment not being monitored, studies will be set 

in place and at the end of the monitoring cycle the 

decision to grant or deny the increase can be made. 

Grazing by livestock is a use of the public lands 

historically permitted by Congress. BLM does not feel 

it is necessary or in the public interest to arbitrarily 

cease livestock grazing on all public lands. Better 

management, especially in sensitive areas such as 

riparian, may be necessary. That is one of the purposes of this document, to identify those sensitive 

areas and describe the kinds of protection we feel are 

necessary. The specific plans for protection will 

emerge from activity plans designed to fit the special 

management prescription. 

General Response 3. Alternative Selection 

Each alternative is a complete plan developed around 

a theme or level of management direction. Each has, 

as integral parts, various actions or levels of actions 

that appear to best meet the thrust of that theme. 

When the decisions are made as to what the plan will 

contain, parts of any of the alternatives may be 

included. The alternatives are not designed to require 

adoption of all of their components. 

General Response 4. Animal Damage

Control Activities. 

Except for a few identified areas such as Aravaipa 

Canyon Wilderness Area and San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area, public lands within the 

District are open for Animal Damage Control activities. 

BLM must approve requests before these actions 

can occur, but unless there are overriding reasons, 

approval will usually be given. It should be noted that 

requests for predator control can be based on wildlife 

needs or human safety (disease outbreaks) as well as 

livestock losses. 

General Response 5. Mineral Withdrawals. 

The authority to close lands to mineral entry has not 

been delegated to the District Office. Recommendations for such withdrawals are reviewed and evaluated 

by the Director, BLM and The Department of the 

Interior to determine the rationale and need for these 

recommendations. Withdrawals can only be made 

through a Public Land Order or congressional action. 

The recommendation must include a detailed mineral 

report outlining the mineral potential of the subject 

area. It must also describe why existing laws, regulations and management practices will not adequately 

protect the non-mineral resources from exploration and 

mining activity. Economic significance resulting from 

the loss of mining income if the area is withdrawn 

from the mining laws must be described so that 

comparisons can be made with the values retained or 

enhanced as a result of the withdrawal. 

General Response 6. Compliance-with-the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Prior to approving any activity plan-level site-specific 

project BLM will complete the necessary environmental 

compliance process. In some cases this will entail a 

Categorical Exclusion Review (40 CFR 1508). If a 

proposed action, with mitigation, would have significant 

adverse environmental consequences, the project will 

be abandoned, revised as necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts, or an environmental impact 

381 
statement will be prepared. Environmental compliance 

procedures are documented and are available for 

public review. Many involve public participation and 

comments in their preparation. All decisions based on 

environmental documentation are available for public 

review. 

Public Letter Responses 

Response l-l 

The action referenced is found in Alternatives A and C. 

The proposed woodcutting is designed to help control 

mesquite and other desert shrubs that have invaded 

former desert grasslands by helping to control the 

extent of the invasion and by improving the vegetation 

diversity. In the long-term, wildlife should benefit by 

the action. These sites were selected because of the 

stable soil types. 

Response 2-1 

See General Response 3. This action is viewed as 

being within a resource protection/conservation theme. 

This theme is represented by Resource Management 

Plan Alternative B; hence, the proposal to nominate 

cultural properties to the National Register of Historic 

Places is included in that alternative. 

BLM can nominate eligible cultural properties to the 

National Register of Historic Places under any of the 

Resource Management Plan alternatives. The authority to do so is given in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

Response 4-1 

See General Response 5. The mineral potential of the 

area will be reviewed and evaluated prior to any 

recommendation to the Bureau Director or Department 

of the Interior for a withdrawal. If the withdrawal is 

authorized, then any valid mining claim would be 

subject to valid existing rights. 

Response 5-I 

Because the recovery plans for aplomado falcons and 

were site-specific for the Safford District, we 

are able to make specific management decisions for 

only these species in the Resource Management Plan. 

On a practical basis the species with a recovery plan 

specific to the Safford District are more likely to be 

reintroduced than those without, during the life of of the 

Resource Management Plan. Should an existing 

recovery plan be modified so that a release on public 

lands is proposed, the Endangered Species Act would 

trigger an evaluation despite the lower priority for 

reintroduction at this time. 

The Mexican wolf was listed as an endangered species 

in 1976, and a recovery plan was completed by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service in 1982. The plan identified 

several factors for potential release areas including 

“middle to high elevations of a 5,000 square mile area”; 

“adequate amounts of free water”; “broken, sloping 

country, abundant prey, especially white-tail deer, 

suitable plant communities and minimal conflicts with 

livestock.” 

The Safford District does not have a suitably sized 

block of land. The total acreage managed by the 

District is only half the required size. Most of the 

District’s public lands are below the elevation suggested (4,500 feet) and livestock grazing is ongoing. 

There is abundant water and probably sufficient prey in 

some blocks of land. 

Actions that BLM has taken that would benefit a wolf 

reintroduction, should it be proposed, include State/ 

BLM land exchanges in the Muleshoe, Aravaipa, Santa 

Teresa , and Peloncillo mountain areas, Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern proposals, big game 

and livestock waters developed as part of previous 

Habitat Management Plans and Allotment Management Plans. In addition, proposals to limit vehicles to 

existing roads and trails, prescribed burnings, 

reintroduction of bighorn sheep and antelope, and 

riparian enhancement efforts would benefit the wolf. 

Response 6-1 

Regulations assure that the United States retains a 

continuing right of access onto the public lands covered by a right-of-way grant or temporary use permit. 

Public lands covered with a grazing permit are open for 

public access. However, BLM cannot force a grazing 

permittee to provide an easement over his private land. 

Response 9-1 

Class I Visual Resource Management designations are 

generally reserved for congressionally designated 

areas such as wilderness or for Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern which are solely based on 

scenic values. Although Brandenburg Mountain falls in 

Class a III category according to physiographic province, your letter evidences a high-sensitivity level. The 

Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement reflects a change to Class II. 

382 
Response 1 O-1 

policy is to develop Allotment Management 

Plans through cooperation with the and an 

interdisciplinary approach involving other affected 

resource interests. This gives the opportunities 

to interact with Arizona Game and Fish personnel on 

problems involving hunters and hunting seasons. 

Response IO-2 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department is responsible 

for determining the hunting seasons. BLM only coordinates with the Arizona Game and Fish on seasons. 

Response 11-l 

The 1989 Mohave Final Wilderness Environmental 

Impact Statement analyzed each specific Wilderness 

Study Area and provided recommendations based on 

wilderness values. An opportunity for public comment 

to these recommendations was presented at that time. 

See page 17 in Resource Management Plan/Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for clarification. 

Response 11-2 

BLM analyzed the environmental effects of livestock 

grazing in two previous Environmental Impact Statements. Mining is a legitimate use of the public lands 

authorized by law, although BLM can require mitigating 

measures and enforce current laws and regulations. 

Alternative A restricts off-highway vehicles to existing 

roads and trails over much of the District 

acres) and closed to off-highway on 87,879 

acres. Only 1,708 acres would be left open to unrestricted use. (See General Responses 2 and 6). 

Response 1 

The goal to achieve 75 percent of the riparian vegetation in good or excellent condition is based on data 

indicating it is achievable. Some areas cannot respond 

enough to reach good or excellent condition by 1997. 

For example, the north end of the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area, even with livestock 

removed, will not reach good or excellent condition in 

the predictable future. The problem is the encroachment of salt cedars and the erosion present in the 

stream channel. Unrestricted and unmanaged livestock use is not the sole reason for poor conditions of 

riparian areas. Proper management of livestock in 

those areas can speed riparian area improvement, 

however. 

Response 12-1 

See Response 5-l. 

Response 14-1 

The actions from implementing each alternative would 

be reviewed for compatibility with adjacent land uses 

and consistency with state, federal and focal plans. 

Existing cooperative agreements would be continued, 

and processes for developing new cooperative efforts 

will be pursued. 

Response 14-2 

The resolution of legal boundary questions is beyond 

the scope of this Resource Management Plan. BLM 

will continue to work cooperatively with other agencies 

to assure that the present condition of the lands in 

question is maintained or enhanced until the legal 

questions regarding boundaries are resolved. 

Response 143 

The Bonita Creek area would benefit by the revision 

of the existing Cooperative Management Agreement 

with the City of Safford to include the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe in the management of the Bonita Creek 

Watershed. This is not specifically addressed in the 

Resource Management Plan because it is an 

level action. (See General Response 6). 

Response 14-4 

BLM advised the Tribe by mail, Federal Register 

Notice of Intent, newsletters and newspaper public 

service announcements of scoping meetings to be 

held. Summaries of the scoping meetings were 

submitted to the Tribe for information and comment. 

Invitations to the public meetings were sent to the 

Tribal Council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BLM 

also attended Tribal Council meetings whenever 

requested. 

Response 14-5 

The cultural needs of the San Carlos Apache Tribe are 

a consideration in all the Resource Management Plan 

alternatives. Afternatives A, B and C propose ethnographic studies in the Bonita Creek and Aravaipa 

Canyon areas. Alternative D proposes action to 

“conduct studies to identify socio-cultural values.” 

Such a study would also be ethnographic. 

383 
To date, the Safford District’s attempts to involve the 

San Carlos Apache Indian Tribe in the identification 

and protection of important Apache historical, religious 

or ceremonial sites have taken place during a public 

meeting in San Carlos, and through formal notification 

of the development of the Resource Management Plan 

and requests for comments or input. 

Response 14-6 

The need for environmental education plans was 

discussed on page 37 of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Specific environmental education 

plans are not, however, appropriate for an Resource 

Management Plan. Environmental education is an 

ongoing program in the Safford District. BLM personnel present special programs to schools, usually in 

conjunction with programs such as Archaeology Week 

or Wildlife Week. 

Response 14-7 

No special effort was made beyond those mentioned 

above (14-4) and in Chapter 5, to discover ongoing 

planning efforts of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. BLM 

welcomes the opportunity and invitation to work with 

the Tribe as it develops a new Resource Management 

Plan. 

Response 15-1 

BLM intends to improve riparian areas and, if possible, 

allow other legitimate uses of the public land to occur. 

See Issue 4, page 17 of the Resource Management 

Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Current 

plans are for livestock grazing to be removed from 

some riparian areas and for grazing to be managed in 

other areas to enhance riparian areas. See General 

Response 2. 

Response 20-I 

Mountain bicycles are no longer listed with off-highway 

vehicles. 

Response 21-I 

See Response 20-l. 

Response 47-1 

The subject map in the Resource Management 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be 

republished. All new maps printed by BLM will reflect 

the modification of the boundary across the Coronado 

National Forest. 

Response 47-2 

BLM hopes to continue negotiations with the San 

Carlos Apache Tribe to acquire access primarily for 

recreational purposes to the Needles Eye area by 

Ranch Creek Road. 

Response 47-3 

BLM data indicate that bighorn sheep are more 

susceptible to disease from domestic sheep than from 

cattle. Conflicts between bighorn sheep and cattle can 

arise through competition for food and water. However, with proper livestock management this has not 

been the case with the Aravaipa bighorn herd, as 

documented in a major study by Arizona Game and 

Fish Department. 

Response 51-1 

This Proposed Resource Management Plan contains a 

revised boundary configuration for the Guadalupe 

Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern. See 

Map 13. 

Response 51-2 

BLM policy is to manage livestock to minimize impacts 

on riparian zones. When the management plan is 

written for the Guadalupe Canyon Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern, wording similar to yours will 

be included in the activity plan. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 52-1 

The intent of the statement was to point out that 

vegetation would be enhanced in riparian areas. 

Wildlife, using only a portion of the vegetation would 

not benefit as much. In addition, priority wildlife 

species that did not require riparian vegetation would 

not benefit. 

Response 61-I 

See Response 1 l-l. 

Response 63-1 

The riparian areas are depicted by a solid line. In 

riparian area 37, the line follows the San Simon River 

and several short side-channels. The line encompassing the larger area simply helps identify particular 

riparian areas listed in the legend. We regret the 

confusion created by the use of these area lines. 

Riparian areas near a mining area do not necessarily 

place major constraints on mining operations. Mining 

384 
plans or mining notices will be required and are subject 

to National Environmental Policy Act compliance. (See 

General Response 6.) 

Response 64-1 

Closing sheep lambing areas reduces stress during a 

critical time in the sheep’s life cycle. Once lambing is 

completed and those areas are no longer needed for 

that purpose, these existing roads and trails can be 

reasonably be opened to vehicle use since sheep 

range quite far during the remaining part of the year. 

Allowing the public to drive on existing 4x4 roads the 

rest of the year will not adversely impact bighorn 

sheep. Off-highway vehicle use is generally light in 

these areas. 

Closure of the District to vehicle use would not resolve 

the difficulties in assuring compliance with the closure. 

Response 66-1 

A Special Recreational Management Area plan will be 

developed following the approval of the Resource 

Management Plan. Environmental compliance documents will be completed as part of the recreation plan. 

(See General Response 6.) 

Response 68-1 

Visual Resource Management classes are assigned to 

establish management objectives that maintain the 

desired scenic of the public lands. Visual 

Resource Management classes are determined by 

considering scenic quality, sensitivity level and distance zones. Based on these three factors, lands are 

placed into one of four visual resource management 

classes. Although a Class IV designation represents 

land of least visual value, it does not allow for total 

destruction of the land. The management objective of 

a Visual Resource Management Class IV area is to 

allow modification of the landscape, but the changes 

must still reflect a natural occurrence. Regardless of 

class, approval for proposed surface-disturbing activities is subject to National Environmental Policy Act 

compliance. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 74-l 

See Response 11-l. 

Response 76-1 

An interpretive program addressing types of gates and 

interpretive signs is planned as part of the Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern management plan. 

Since the Eagle Creek Canyon is owned by Phelps 

Dodge, a firearms discharge ban is not an appropriate 

action for this Resource Management Plan. (Also, see 

General Response 6.) 

Response 76-2 

The need for a more effective gate will be evaluated as 

part of the management plan for the Eagle Creek bat 

cave. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 83-1 

See Response The Arizona Game and Fish 

Department did not include BLM in the list of those 

sent copies of the letter and, when contacted for this 

information, indicated this was only an initial list from 

which to begin discussions among members of the 

Mexican wolf recovery team. It was not a list of sites 

being evaluated for releases. 

Response 86-1 

Although this is activity-level planning and is not 

addressed in the Resource Management Plan, the 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern management 

plan will include educational information as part of the 

interpretation of the Eagle Creek bat cave. The need 

for a better gate is being evaluated and construction 

will be initiated if necessary. Withdrawal from mining is 

part of the Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

prescription, but this does not preclude activities of 

those holding valid existing rights. Firearms restrictions cannot be initiated within the canyon by BLM, as 

canyon lands are privately owned. (See General 

Response 6 for additional information.) 

Response 89-1 

See Response 20-l. 

Response 91-l 

If mineral withdrawals are included in the approved 

Resource Management Plan, the necessary steps for 

withdrawal will be pursued. The mineral potential of 

the area will be reviewed and evaluated prior to any 

recommendations to the Bureau Director or Department of the Interior for a withdrawal. (See General 

Response 5) 

Response 91-2 

See Response 63-l. 

Response 913 

See Response 91-I. 

385 
Response 93-1 

The need for a more effective gate is currently being 

evaluated. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 96-1 

See Response 20-l. 

Response 97-1 

BLM set out three traffic counters between 1981 and 

1986. The counters were located at the end of the 

asphalt road, below the BLM Aravaipa parking lot and 

above the BLM parking lot. The data for the high-use 

periods, March through May and September through 

December shows a range of 5 to 14 vehicles per 

day. Of that number, 7 to 20 percent were there for 

use of the BLM recreational facilities. (See General 

Response 6.) 

Response 97-2 

See Response 97-l. Since a 50 person per day limit 

(30 from the west end) was placed on Aravaipa 

Canyon, visits have slowly increased but are expected 

to level off as capacity is reached. 

Response 97-3 

See Responses and 172-6. 

Response 97-4 

See Response 97-3. 

Response 98-1 

Departmental policy states that every fire is 

either a wildfire or a prescribed burn. All Safford 

District fires are fully suppressed regardless of 

whether or not they occur within a wilderness area. 

Wilderness fires receive special suppression considerations to minimize any impacts. 

Plans to develop prescribed fire criteria and goals are 

currently underway which will address both natural and 

planned ignitions. These plans will include wilderness 

and non-wilderness areas and will be incorporated 

later into the Safford District Fire Management Activity 

Plan. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 98-2 

BLM is currently a member of the State Riparian Task 

Force and is working with the state and other federal 

agencies to develop a coordinated riparian inventory 

system for the state as a whole. Current inventory 

efforts are consistent with existing BLM guidelines and 

technical standards. 

Response 

The proposed plan (Resource Management Plan/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement) has been changed to 

include “in cooperation with the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department.” 

Response 100-l 

The subject lands located on the west slopes of the 

Santa Teresa mountains have been identified in the 

proposed plan (Resource Management Plan/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement) 

Response 100-2 

Please refer to Map 27 which has been revised to 

reflect lands identified for acquisition. 

Response 100-3 

The spring is located on the referenced parcel of land. 

The list of lands qualified for disposal has been modified to exclude this parcel because of wildlife habitat 

values. 

Response 100-4 

See General Response 2 for partial response. Most 

lands acquired in the exchanges were already under 

BLM grazing management as part of an allotment. In 

some cases the allotment categorization changed from 

custodial to intensive, requiring the development of an 

allotment management plan. In any case, the uses of 

these lands will continue under BLM management. 

Monitoring studies will determine the effectiveness of 

current management. Monitoring results are reflected 

in the periodic Range Program Summary Update 

which displays the progress of grazing decisions 

originating from the grazing Environmental Impact 

Statements. 

Response 

Bureau policy (Manual 6840) directs BLM to carry out 

management consistent with the principles of multiple 

use, for the conservation of candidate species and 

their habitats. It also ensures that actions authorized, 

funded or carried out do not contribute to the need to 

list any of these species as threatened or endangered. 

Sensitive species may be designated by the State 

Director in cooperation with other groups and agencies 

386 
to receive protection. Species designated by the State 

Director will receive the same level of protection as 

candidate species. This process is not tied directly to 

the planning system; it is ongoing and may change 

with the changes in species status. 

Response100-6 

The areas delineated on the maps include the major 

riparian areas found in Safford District with public land 

status. As indicated in Alternatives A, B and C, a 

system to inventory all riparian areas in the District 

needed to be established. This system has now been 

established. A system to prioritize riparian area 

management based upon objectives, resource condition, resource conflict and the potential of the area to 

respond to treatment needs to be defined. (See 

General Response 6.) 

Response100-7 

Many riparian areas in the Safford District do not have 

aquatic habitat. Aquatic habitat concerns will be 

incorporated in the development of specific Wildlife 

Habitat Management Plans if they are not addressed 

as part of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, 

Wilderness, T&E species recovery effort or as part of 

the Water Resources Concern in this document. (See 

General Response 6.) 

Response100-8 

The subject land was part of an exchange with the 

state. As a condition of the exchange, BLM was 

obligated to allow grazing authorized by the state 

leases. Allotment Management Plans are currently 

being developed that will address grazing in the 

riparian areas on public lands along the Babocomari 

River. (See General Response 6.) 

Response100-9 

The subject changes to the boundaries of Swamp 

Springs-Hot Springs Watershed and Guadalupe 

Canyon Areas of Critical Environmental Concern have 

been made in this Resource Management Plan/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Other Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern boundaries are considered in one or more of the alternatives. 

ResponselOOThe uses referenced will be, in most cases, more 

intensively managed under an Area of Critical Environmental Concern designation. All Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concerns have special values, but not 

the same values and do not necessarily require the 

same management direction or intensity. Approval of 

all Areas of Critical Environmental Concern management plans will be subject to the completion of National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance documents. 

Most Areas of Critical Environmental Concern values 

can be protected from minerals impacts with the 

approval of mitigation measures in a mining plan. 

Similarly if grazing levels will adversely affect the 

values of the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 

BLM can reduce those levels or eliminate them from 

pan or all of the Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern. (See General Response 6.) 

ResponselOOAll anticipated management actions can be implemented within the Wilderness Management Plan for 

the areas; therefore, the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern designation and management plan would be 

duplicative. The special values of the Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern area would be recognized in 

the management plan developed for the designated 

Wilderness Area. 

Response100-12 

BLM cannot implement any action that will affect a 

listed species without requesting input from the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Each area proposed for vegetation treatment, regardless of method, will be subject 

to an individual environmental assessment with 

opportunity for public participation. (See General 

Response 6.) 

Response100-13 

The Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement states that BLM can “transplant 

and augment populations of priority wildlife species” 

(Page 30, # 4). This allows reintroduction of any of the 

priority species listed. The text has been changed with 

respect to the aplomado falcon and woundfin. 

Decisions regarding the management of the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area are incorporated 

into this proposed plan (Resource Management Plan/ 

Final Environmental Impact Statement) by reference. 

Response100-14 

The Bureau does not introduce or reintroduce wildlife 

species. BLM coordinates and cooperates with 

agencies having those responsibilities. 

387 
All requests for transplants etc., will be coordinated 

with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and other 

agencies as appropriate. BLM will comply with Executive Order 11987 concerning release of exotic organisms. 

Response100-15 

This specific action/recommendation is not appropriate 

in an Resource Management Plan. However in 

developing specific management prescriptions for the 

area BLM will work closely with the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies to assess the feasibility 

and, as appropriate, encourage a plan to build the 

Aravaipa Creek fish barrier. (Also, see Response 

Response100-16 

The actions associated with Alternative D (No Action) 

are based on current management approaches. 

These are detailed in the Management Situation 

Analysis. Since that analysis is available for public 

review at the District office, the wording does not need 

to be changed. 

Response100-17 

Change has been made. 

Response100-18 

Issues, sometimes involved with controversy, provide 

the focus for the planning process. Issues are based 

primarily on public input. Management concerns are 

primarily based on internal input and address those 

activities in which BLM must engage and which require 

identification and allocation of resources. 

Response100-19 

The term “Resource Conservation Area” is a management designation designed to provide management 

consideration to areas with special resource values 

that do not require the protection that an Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern designation confers. 

Response100-20 

All candidate species are also priority species and as 

such influence management objectives. Candidate 

species and their management are also discussed in 

Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives 

(see page 18, draft Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement). 

BLM is required to promote efforts to down-list or delist 

T&E species. Recovery objectives will be defined, 

implemented and monitored in approved recovery 

plans. Recovery teams should include BLM personnel 

when habitat of listed species include BLM-managed 

lands. 

Response100-21 

The general soil objective is to minimize accelerated 

erosion. In public meetings and as shown in the soils 

portion of the Management Situation Analysis, the San 

Simon Watershed was the main problem area. As 

other activity plans are written, specific soil management objectives will be incorporated into the plan if 

needed. (See General Response 6.) 

Response100-22 

All laws under which we function are incorporated in 

each alternative. Grazing decisions as determined 

through the grazing Environmental Impact Statements 

are incorporated by reference into each alternative. 

(See Chapter 2, Introduction, Paragraph 2.) 

Response100-23 

See text on page 18, Management Objectives Common to All Alternatives in draft Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response100-24 

Climatic changes referenced here recognize their 

effect on the production of wildlife habitat. Drought 

reduces this potential, while moisture will increase the 

potential. Climatic changes influence optimum wildlife 

population capability. 

Response100-25 

The Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement states that transplant and augmentation of priority and other native wildlife species should 

occur within the known historic range of the species 

being transplanted. 

Response100-26 

The text now includes revisions on indigenous 

vegetation. 

Response100-27 

Wildlife input to Allotment Management Plans is 

provided for all wildlife species and most particularly for 

priority species. (See General Response 6) 
Response100-28 

This is correct. While not mentioned specifically, it is 

inferred under “Management Guidance Common to all 

Alternatives” on page 18 of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement, Management Concern 1 Wildlife 

Habitat. 

Response100-29 

Candidate, threatened or endangered animals and 

plants are included in the term “natural resource 

values.” Evaluations for these types of plants and 

animals is a requirement of any land disposal action. 

(See General Response 6.) 

Response100-30 

Lands identified for acquisition are shown on Map 27 in 

this Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Lands for disposal are public lands 

found in the white area of Map 27 and are identified 

specifically in Appendix 5. 

Response100-31 

Special Recreation Management Area are defined on 

page 283 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response100-32 

The statement of river closure has been deleted from 

the Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. This issue will be addressed in the 

ensuing activity plan for the River. (See General 

Response 6.) 

Response100-33 

Appropriate revisions are in the Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Vaquelinia should properly be listed as a 

federal category 2 species. Although 

is unlikely to occur on BLM lands, it was 

included because the plant was submitted by your 

office in a Biological Opinion for the San Bernardino 

Geothermal Environmental Assessment prepared by 

BLM in 1980. 

Response100-34 

Correction to text has been made. 

Response100-35 

Beaver are presently found in Bonita Creek. Early in 

the recovery phase they did constitute a threat to the 

riparian vegetation recovering from destructive flooding 

in 1979-l 980. They now appear compatible with 

riparian objectives. The proposed plan does not 

consider any actions for the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area. The land use plan for that 

area has been incorporated into this document by 

reference. 

Response100-36 

Items 14 and 15 will be carried over into the other 

alternatives. However, the area below Coolidge Dam 

will be included in a Wild and Scenic River Environmental Impact Statement to be undertaken in the 

future. If designated, the withdrawal revocation will be 

pursued. (See General Response 6.) 

Response100-37 

Allotment Management Plans are revised as needed, 

according to BLM policy. Plans are generally revised 

when allottees change and when allotment evaluations 

reveal a need for a change in management. (See 

General Response 6.) 

Response100-38 

The structure now known as the Timber Draw Dam 

was the originally proposed Tanque structure. The 

Tanque structure was moved upstream due to poor 

dam foundation materials at the original location. 

Because the new location is closer to Timber Draw 

than to the old railroad water stop at Tanque, the name 

was changed. The function remains the same. 

Response100-39 

& Anderson gives the value of Table 

Mountain Mining District as 22.2 million dollars. The 

information in Chapter 3 provides background data 

only. More detailed mineral evaluations will be prepared prior to any mineral withdrawal actions. (See 

“Introduction,“.) 

ResponselOOThe list has been expanded to include the lowland 

leopard frog. 

Response100-41 

All habitat components of seven bat species will be 

protected because of their status as priority species, 

federally listed or candidate species. Other bat species 

will be afforded protection through specific management plans. (See General Response 6.) 

389 
 

Responsel00-42 

The following species have been added to the list on 

Table 3-3. 

Bylas springsnail	 (Apachecoccus 

Tryonia snail	 

Arizona grasshopper sparrow	 ( 

savannarum 

Responsel00-43 

The text has been revised in response to this comment. The reference to Cereus greggiivar. 

listed in the Federal Register (February 21, 1990) as in 

federal category 2 has been changed to 

var. We assume that the second 

species exists in the area and should be listed as 

federal category 3C. 

Table 3-4 lists Cochise pincushion cactus as a probable occurrence. Inventory data in the area of its 

known occurrence is limited. Until further inventories 

are completed, we will continue to list the cactus as 

probably occurring on public lands in the area. 

We have no data showing that cactus occurs on 

public lands in the Resource Management Plan area. 

Data on its distribution limit it to below 2,000 feet 

elevation and typical of the Sonoran Desert type 

vegetation. The range of distribution given for the 

cactus seems to limit it to lands administered by the 

Phoenix District, further to the west. 

The Federal Register (Feb 1990) lists 

as a federal category 2 species. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in a memo dated March 2, 1990, 

continues to list the plant as a category 2 species. We 

are reluctant to change the text until we receive a 

Federal Register notice to the contrary. 

The subject name change of 

var to var. 

has been made. 

Responsel00-44 

Such actions are required for environmental documentation of all proposed land uses. 

Responsel00-45 

The subject areas, listed on page 69 of the draft 

Environmental Impact Statement are: (1) Desert 

tortoise: a, e, f, h, i, k and I; (2) Topminnow: d 

through I. Your attention is directed to the last paragraph, column 2, page 69. (Also see General Response 6.) 

Responsel00-46 

The reference given described the existing situation 

within the Bonita Creek Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. On page 18 of the draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement the 

section, “Management Guidance Common to All 

Alternatives” specifies cooperation with National 

Marine Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service in 

planning and providing for the recovery of Threatened 

and Endangered species. Although the Bonita Creek 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern has been 

dropped because of the Box Riparian National 

Conservation Area designation, the prescriptions 

defined in the draft Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement will be carried 

forward. (See General Response 6.) 

Responsel00-47 

We agree. Box will be sampled and monitored for 

all Threatened and Endangered and candidate fish 

species. 

Responsel00-48 

See Response 100-l 4. 

Responsel00-49 

The following objectives are consistent with the 

proposed plan and have been added to this Resource 

Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Protect native fish and wildlife by exclusion or 

removal of nonnative species which may adversely 

affect native species. 

2. Protect and restore springs and seeps and their
 

native vegetation and wildlife.
 

Responsel00-50 

The presence of the Mexican garter snake has been 

confirmed in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. It is, however, the only known site in the 

Safford District. 

The following areas mentioned in your letter as well as 

others were considered but determined ineligible as 

follows: 

390 
391

Not reasonable flow or length 

San Simon
 

Guadalupe Canyon
 

Black Wash
 

Oak Grove Canyon
 

Hot Springs Creek
 

Spring Canyon
 

Creek
 

Wildcat Canyon
 

Horse Camp Canyon
 

Parsons Canyon
 

Virgus Canyon
 

Markham Creek
 

Fishhooks Canyons
 

Numerous others
 

Less than 40% public land along identified segment 

Bass Canyon
 

Canyon
 

Eagle Creek
 

Cherry Springs
 

(See Appendix 3 for explanation.) 

Response 103-l 

See Response 20-l. 

Response 103-2 

The statement of river closure has been deleted. This 

issue will be addressed in an ensuing activity plan for 

the River. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 105-l 

See response 76-l. 

Response 11 O-l 

This information is part of the description of the 

Affected Environment. The source of the data 

was the Valley National Bank “Arizona Statistical 

Review.” Analysis of the alternatives does not show 

that there would be any significant adverse impacts on 

the economic sector. 

Response 11 l-l 

The impact analysis of the alternatives is focused 

on identifying those actions that may significantly 

affect the quality of the human environment. Because 

the actions are relatively general and because subsequent specific activity-level plans depend on National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance review, the 

impacts of implementing actions are generally not 

significant. If an action that would adversely affect an 

economic sector is contemplated, a benefit-cost 

analysis would be part of the environmental compliance document. 

The impact analysis section (Chapter 4) has been 

reconsidered and, where necessary, revised. The 

impacts have been evaluated on a geographic (local, 

Districtwide) basis and have been reclassified as 

appropriate. 

Response 11 l-2 

See General Response 

Response 11 

In 1981 only the San Francisco River was studied. 

BLM is required to assess Wild and Scenic Rivers in 

the Resource Management Plan pursuant to BLM 

planning regulations. The lower San Francisco was 

recognized as an integral part of the system and 

should be analyzed in this context. 

Response 11 l-4 

This has been readdressed. Also, see Response 

111-l. 

Response 11 l-5 

Between the two statements you quoted is the statement “Regulations require that mining operations be 

carried out in a manner that does not cause undue or 

unnecessary degradation of the environment.” The 

next sentence has been revised to include “undue or 

unnecessary.” 

Response 11 l-6 

The text has been changed. Bullet 4 now reads 

“Which lands should be closed to the operation of the 

mining laws.” Bullet 5 has been deleted. Terms, 

conditions and special stipulations are the function of a 

mining plan or site-specific action and will vary in each 

case. See General Response 6. 

Response III-7 

The Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement describes 13 Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concerns totalling 31,949 acres. Of 

that acreage, 9,829 have requests for withdrawal from 

mineral entry prescription. Also see Response 91-l. 
Response 11 l-8 

The water in question is the surface flow within the 

stream. Safford’s water supply is basically 

water from the watershed. Many resource values in 

the Bonita Creek area depend on the quality of the 

surface water, i.e. fish, wildlife and riparian vegetation. 

BLM is required by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 to protect these values, and 

monitoring of these values is consistent with our 

management responsibility. 

Monitoring shows the surface water flow in Bonita 

Creek is of high quality. Consequently, the stream has 

been nominated for protection under Arizona’s Unique 

Waters designation. (See “Unique Waters,” page 29 of 

the Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement.) The water quality will be protected 

and enhanced through appropriate management of the 

watershed below the reservation boundary in accordance with Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality criteria for the Unique Water designation. 

Should the water quality decline, measures will be 

undertaken as necessary, to restore the stream to its 

original high quality. 

Response 11 l-9 

See Response 91-l. 

Response 11 l-l 0 

If a valid mining claim exists at the time of mineral 

withdrawal, the inherent rights of that claim will be 

honored. 

Response 

The lands referenced adjacent to the tailings facilities 

near Morenci have been identified for disposal in the 

Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 11 I-12 

This withdrawal table includes the acreages from the 

proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns. 

Response 11 l-l 3 

The Arizona Electric Power Company line is contained 

within a proposed utility corridor. The text has been 

changed to state that new rights-of-way outside the 

corridor would not be allowed within the Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern boundary. Existing 

way, if not perpetual, would probably be renewed. 

Response 11 l-l 4 

At the time of preparation of state air quality standards, 

many of the smelters were operational and were 

producing sulfur dioxide which has been implicated in 

acid precipitation. Since that time some smelters in the 

area have either ceased operations or have changed 

to alternative methods of concentration. The Environmental Protection Agency lists the communities cited in 

the text of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

as non-attainment areas due to sulfur. We recognize 

the problem of air pollution is a complex one and single 

causes are not the entire problem. Literature on the 

subject consistently points out that airborne pollutants 

may travel hundreds of miles before returning to earth 

as dry fallout or acid rain. The stability of the 

readings locally would seem to indicate that the area 

smelters are not the major contributing factors of the 

local acid rain. Other sources of pollution such as 

automobiles, power plants and agriculture probably 

contribute to the airborne pollutants in the Safford 

District. 

Response III-15 

Correction has been made to the text. 

Response Ill-l 6 

The information in Chapter 3 provides background data 

relevant to analyzing significant impacts. It is not 

meant to be exhaustive. See “Introduction” Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, p. 125. 

Response 11 I-17 

The Eagle Creek Bat Cave Area of Critical Environmental Concern listed in the Preferred Alternative 

includes only public lands administered by BLM, with 

management tied directly to the cave and Mexican 

free-tailed bats. 

Response 11 l-l 8 

A change has been made to the text. 

Response 11 l-l 9 

Exchange is the preferred form of acquisition. See 

General Response 6. 

Response 11 I-20 

The proposed Box Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern boundary includes that portion of the area 

deserving special protection which lies outside the 

boundaries of the Box Riparian National Conservation Area. 

392 
Response 111-21 

See Response 11 l-l 3. 

Response 111-22 

This item referring to actions under Alternative B is 

consistent with an emphasis on greater protection. The 

social and economic impacts associated with the 

implementation of this alternative were not found to be 

significant. 

Response 11 l-23 

The focus of the Resource Management Plan is to 

consider acquisition of lands and to analyze the 

impacts of acquiring lands that are ecologically important to management of adjacent public lands without 

regard to their availability. 

Mixed land ownership does not preclude designation of 

an Area of Critical Environmental Concern on public 

lands. Management is possible through the development of a cooperative management agreement signed 

by all parties. (See General Response 6.) 

Response Ill-24 

BLM procedures require an analysis of Wild and 

Scenic Rivers in the Resource Management Plan 

planning process. See Response 11 l-3 and Appendix 

3 for additional information. 

Response 111-25 

The text has been modified. 

Response 11 l-26 

See Response 11 l-23. 

Response 111-27 

See Response 11 l-l 1. 

Response 11 l-28 

The private land in Section 12, Township 5 South, 

Range 29 East is limited to a small mineral patent. 

This, along with numerous scattered parcels of public 

lands, were not shown due to the small scale of the 

Resource Management Plan map. 

Response 112-l 

See Response 102-l. 

Response 112-2 

Legal subdivisions were used in determining the 

boundary of the area. In all cases the boundary 

includes the River corridor except where private 

lands come near the river corridor. These boundaries 

are also consistent with other designations pending for 

the area. 

Response 112-3 

Classification has been reexamined in this Resource 

Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response 112-4 

See Response 102-l. 

Response 112-5 

See Response 102-l. 

Response 113-l 

The draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement, page 16, in the section, “Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives,” states 

that the Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan ‘will be 

incorporated into all alternatives considered in this 

plan.” 

Response 113-2 

Tortoise management issues were addressed throughout the draft document. We refer you specifically to the 

following: 

a. Page 23, Alternative A, Issue 1, Access. This 

contains two approaches applicable to desert 

tortoise management. Item 2 minimizes the impacts 

of existing and proposed access; Item 5 addresses 

road closures. Also, Objective 8E requires mitigation to reduce rights-of-way impacts. 

b. Page 26, Table 2-l. This identifies Threatened and 

Endangered species in the Swamp Springs-Hot 

Springs Watershed Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern as a value and proposes a management 

prescription that would benefit the desert tortoise 

present within the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern boundary. 

c. Page 29, Issue 3, Off-Highway Vehicles. This 

stipulates that only one small area containing no 

known desert tortoise habitat will be open to off 

highway vehicles within the District. The remainder 

393 
will be closed to off highway vehicles or limited to 

existing roads and trails. By including Category III 

habitat in an off highway vehicle restriction area, we 

have exceeded Objective of the Rangewide 

Plan, which only discusses Categories I and II 

habitat. 

ct. Page 30, Management Concern Wildlife Habitat. 

This identifies the desert tortoise as a priority 

species in item lc. It recommends actions that 

would benefit tortoise management in inventory, 

habitat management, monitoring, habitat improvement, prescribed fire, wildfire suppression, activity 

plans, categorization and Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns. 

e. Page 31, Management Concern 2, Lands and 

Realty. This requires consideration of tortoise 

habitat as a factor in land disposal evaluations and 

as a reason for acquisition of lands. It is consistent 

with Objective 8 of the Rangewide Plan. 

f .	 Pages 135-l 36. This material describes the desert 

tortoise habitat requirements. 

g. Pages 247-248. This Appendix contains specific 

management objectives for the desert tortoise in the 

Safford Resource Management Plan. 

Response 113-3 

The BLM planning manual requires that Resource 

Management Plan resource management objectives 

follow specific directions included in the “Supplemental 

Program Guidance” (Manual 1620-l 622). The 

related determinations in this Resource Management 

Plan comply with the Supplemental Program Guidance. By incorporating the Rangewide Plan into this 

Resource Management Plan by reference, tortoise 

objectives for the Resource Management Plan have 

been clearly defined. 

Response 113-4 

Apparently there is a misunderstanding here on 

inventory efforts. A search for potential habitat areas 

began in 1987, and inventories were started in July 

1988. Funds were allocated for about four work 

months for desert tortoise inventory in 1988 and 1989. 

Since these inventories are not completed we need to 

continue the inventories to meet the the Resource 

Management Plan’s 1992 deadline for categorization. 

Response 113-5 

The Safford District has met or is in the the process of 

meeting all objectives set forth in the Desert Tortoise 

Management Plan. The Resource Management 

Plan is not the appropriate document to display all of 

the discrete actions to meet those objectives. See 

Response 113-2 for some of the major issues which 

relate to desert tortoise management. Also, see 

General Response 6. 

Response 113-6 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for 

implementing National Environmental Policy Act 

require that a range of alternatives be considered. 

The range of alternatives in this Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement provide 

realistic options for multiple use management. 

Response 113-7 

The statement has been revised. BLM evaluates the 

quality of wildlife habitat very carefully prior to any land 

transaction being completed. If the land being exchanged has high-quality habitat, then the action would 

probably not go forward. Low impacts would then 

occur because only lower quality habitat is being 

removed from BLM management. (See General 

Response 6.) 

Response 

We regret the omission of the Desert Tortoise Council 

from the list of individuals and organizations. The 

Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement has been corrected. 

Response 113-9 

Copies of this Resource Management Plan/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement were sent to all those 

on our mailing list and will be sent to anyone else 

requesting copies until stocks are exhausted. 

Response 116-1 

As stewards of the land, BLM is required to complete 

an activity plan for the Aravaipa area. The plan will 

address the concerns of recreation use. A plan does 

not increase recreation activity but sets an appropriate 

framework for recreation to occur that does not affect 

other sensitive resources. We have no plans to 

increase the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness visitor use 

limit. 

Response 117-l 

The existing gate at Eagle Creek Bat Cave is currently 

locked. Interpretive conservation messages will be 

addressed within the Area of Critical Environmental 

394 
Concern management plan. Firearms prohibitions can 

be initiated by BLM within the cave, but land ownership 

by Phelps Dodge necessitates their agreement to 

broaden firearm restrictions. (See Responses 76-1, 

76-2 and 86-l and General Response 6.) 

Response 118-I 

BLM is evaluating the need for a better gate, and your 

offer of design assistance is appreciated. Conservation messages will be developed as part of an interpretive plan for the cave. 

Response 119-1 

Acquisition of additional lands will only be pursued if 

there is a willing seller. The need for a better gate at 

Eagle Creek Bat Cave is being evaluated and will be 

addressed in the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern plan. Educational messages will be developed as part of an overall interpretive program for the 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. (See General 

Response 6.) 

Response 120-I 

Refer to page 134 of Resource Management Plan/ 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response 124-1 

Seasonal restrictions on off-highway vehicle use can 

be established in areas such as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concerns where the values need to be 

protected. However, closure of all riparian areas to 

highway vehicles during nesting or breeding seasons 

would not be reasonable since it could adversely 

restrict other uses of public lands that would not disturb 

nesting raptors. Restriction of vehicles to existing 

roads will provide sufficient protection since nesting 

raptors select sites with a tolerable level of disturbances. Observations indicate that disturbance from 

vehicles on established roads is much less than from 

pedestrians who travel slower and will meander 

towards interesting areas such as defended nests. 

Response 125-1 

The Resource Management Plan identifies the Black 

Hills and Round Mountain Rockhound Areas as 

needing some recreation planning and development. 

A project plan will be prepared to determine the type 

and amount of development at each rockhound area. 

As part of the project plan preparation, we will consider 

ripping (plowing) small portions of the rockhound 

areas. The project plan will also include an environmental document to determine the impacts of implementation. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 125-2 

This site has potential to be developed as a public 

rockhound area. This location has been added to this 

Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement as an area needing some recreation 

planning and development. A project plan and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

documents will be prepared prior to any development. 

(See General Response 6.) 

Response 127-1 

See Response 5-1. 

Response 129-1 

See Response 124-1 

Response 129-2 

See General Response 4. 

Response 130-I 

These access routes have been identified for future 

negotiation of easements to allow access for the public 

into the area. The district is also developing a transportation plan which will identify all areas in need of 

reasonable public access. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 131-l 

See Response 5-1. 

Response 132-1 

The BLM Safford District has no authority to change 

the Wilderness Act or BLM Wilderness Management 

policy as regards the use of minimum tools. Specific 

Wilderness management prescriptions are prepared for 

designated Wilderness areas in compliance with the 

Wilderness Act, BLM Wilderness policy and Arizona 

BLM guidelines in Wilderness Management Plans. 

Approval of these plans is subject to prior completion of 

National Environmental Policy Act compliance documentation (see General Response 6.) 

Response 132-2 

See Response 20-l. 

Response 132-3 

In the desert ecosystem that comprises most of the 

Safford District, wildlife populations fluctuate widely 

because of shifts in rainfall and vegetation. Our habitat 
management objective is to reduce these population 

fluctuations by providing supplemental resources such 

as water sources and/or reduced livestock numbers 

during droughts. BLM will support Arizona Game and 

Fish Department proposals for increased hunting 

opportunities (for game species) or support transplants 

of Threatened and Endangered species when populations are very high. The optimum populations would 

be based on the reproductive potential, longevity, 

management objectives of each species and the 

ecological conditions present in an area as well as the 

role the species plays in an ecologically functional 

community. It will be somewhere between the minimal 

viable population and the carrying capacity of an area. 

Optimum population has now been defined in the 

Glossary. 

Response 135-I 

Roads in riparian areas will be examined to determine 

if they can be moved to routes with less environmental 

impact than they now present. Any action to remove or 

close roads in riparian areas will be subject to the 

completion of a National Environmental Policy Act 

compliance document, and will be coordinated with 

riparian objectives and the District Transportation Plan. 

Response 135-2 

Visual Resource Management Class I designations are 

generally reserved for congressionally designated 

areas such as wilderness areas or for Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concerns where designation is based 

solely on scenic values. 

Response 

See Response 124-1 

Response 

See General Response 4. 

Response 135-5 

Actions pertaining to the San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area are not addressed in this Resource 

Management Plan. See page 15, Draft Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response 135-6 

The values of wildlife resources are considered in all 

land acquisition and disposal actions. All aspects of 

habitat management are reviewed. 

Response 141-I 

See Response 

Response 142-I 

See Response 5-l. 

Response 143-I 

See Response 5-l. 

Response 144-I 

See General Response 2. 

Response 144-2 

See Appendix 6, pages 247-249, of the draft Resource 

Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response 145-I 

See Response 15-1. 

Response 145-2 

See General Response 4. 

Response 145-3 

See Response 135-1. 

Response 145-4 

See Response 135-2. Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern designations of any new land acquisitions can 

only occur through preparation of an Resource Management Plan amendment and public review. 

Response 145-5 

See Response 135-6. 

Response 145-6 

Areas behind erosion control dams are routinely 

fenced off and livestock excluded until revegetation is 

accomplished. Livestock are then allowed to use the 

area under a grazing system designed to protect the 

revegetated area. 

Response 146-I 

See Response 112-l. 

396 
Response 147-I 

BLM policy is to manage livestock in riparian areas to 

minimize impacts and to enhance these areas. All 

Allotment Management Plans have or will have riparian 

management objectives tailored to the needs of the 

riparian area. The Safford District has also prepared a 

riparian area management policy for the District. (See 

General Response 6.) 

Response 147-2 

Planning will be detailed to this level in a subsequent 

activity plan. 

Response 147-3 

See Response 147-2. 

Response 

Tamarisk control is desirable and is presently occurring 

in the Aravaipa Canyon area. Hand grubbing is the 

only alternative available in the Aravaipa Canyon 

Wilderness, and this method is satisfactory. 

Reinfestation from sources outside the Wilderness 

Area can be controlled by this manual method. 

Response 148-I 

See General Response 2. 

Response 148-2 

See Response 144-2. 

Response 149-I 

See Response 147-1. In addition, Tule Springs is not 

on public lands. 

Response 150-I 

We prefer to allow natural revegetation to occur 

wherever possible, but we will retain the option of 

reintroducing native species where necessary. We 

have included an option of removing non-native 

vegetation (such as tamarisk or alianthus) from riparian 

areas where practical. (Issue 4, Item 9) 

Response 150-2 

See Response 112-l. 

Response 150-3 

Livestock grazing is prohibited within the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area. Grazing on 

other public lands are addressed in individual Allotment 

Management Plans. You may want to also examine 

the data and maps in the Safford District grazing 

Environmental Impact Statements (Upper 

Simon, Eastern Arizona) and to look at the Range 

Program Summary documents. Grazing also was 

discussed on pages 139-140 in the draft Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response 

This has been corrected. 

Response 152-I 

See Response 14-2. 

Response 152-2 

The land status map in the draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement will not be 

reprinted. New maps or revisions now show the 

realignment of the San Carlos Indian Reservation and 

Coronado National Forest boundary. 

Response 152-3 

Data indicates that access is needed across the 

reservation for the use of the recreating public. The 

BLM will work with the Tribe to resolve any concerns 

and to reach mutually acceptable solutions. 

Response 152-4 

The draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement stated that the “San Carlos Tribe has 

not expressed an interest in seeing the River 

designated a pan of the National Wild and Scenic 

River System and in providing for its management” 

244). At the time of activity-level planning each 

specific proposal identified in the Resource Management Plan will be addressed. The Tribe will be invited 

to join in the planning effort at that time. BLM realizes 

that these proposals may potentially affect tribal lands. 

BLM also agrees issues of trespass will require 

coordination and cooperation. 

Response 152-5 

Managing cultural resources for public values, which 

includes socio-cultural values of Native Americans and 

other groups, is one of the three objectives specified 

for cultural resources under all Resource Management 

Plan alternatives. The proposed ethnographic studies 

for Bonita Creek and Aravaipa Canyon under Alternatives A, B, and C would provide for the identification 

of traditional values. The identification of 

397 
socio-cultural values described in Alternative would 

also provide for the identification of traditional 

values. 

Response 152-6 

Aboriginal hunting rights of the San Carlos Apache 

Tribe on public lands are not abrogated in any way by 

the Resource Management Plan. Hunting of game 

animals is an activity regulated by the Arizona Department of Game and Fish, as is the taking of fish. 

Gathering, except for firewood, is permitted subject to 

state requirements regarding certain protected species. 

Response 153-I 

Only those portions of the Jackson Cabin Road which 

are in need of immediate repair will be upgraded. It will 

be retained as a 4x4 route. 

Response 153-2 

Turkey Creek has one pair of black hawks. The 

typographical error has been corrected. 

Response 153-3 

See Response 76-2. 

Response 153-4 

Eagle Creek is almost entirely privately owned. Unless 

significant land exchanges could be accomplished, 

BLM will have little influence on the uses of the riparian 

portion of the canyon, which is also the area of access. 

Response 153-5 

See Response 98-2. 

Response 153-6 

Correction to text has been made to alleviate any 

confusion. 

Response 153-7 

After the Resource Management Plan is selected, 

specific management plans and actions will be developed with appropriate National Environmental Policy 

Act compliance documentation. A Resource Management Plan Implementation Plan containing implementation priorities, a monitoring plan and mitigation 

measures will be developed after the Record of 

Decision selecting the Resource Management Plan 

is issued. 

Response 

Allotment Management Plans do consider wildlife 

needs. These two actions relate to special considerations given priority species. 

Response 

The discussion on page 135 of the draft Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

has been revised to make it consistent with Chapter 2. 

Response 153-I 0 

Montezuma quail have specific habitat requirements 

and a group of priority species requiring oak-woodlands habitat can be managed simultaneously. Scaled 

quail and Gambel’s quail have less specific habitat 

requirements, so there is little overlap with other 

species with similar management needs. 

Response 153-I 1 

The spelling error has been corrected. 

Response 153-I 2 

Selection of Alternative A or B would authorize the 

planning and introduction of the Gould’s turkey as 

requested by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

The introductions would take place in areas with high 

densities of oak trees near riparian areas. 

Response 153-I 3 

Continued close coordination between the Forest 

Service and BLM concerning prescribed fire should 

alleviate any management conflicts between the 

agencies. 

Response 153-I 4 

The definition of public lands appears in the Glossary 

and is appropriate for lands administered by the 

Response 153-15 

Close coordination between BLM and the Forest 

Service is a prerequisite to the successful management of the Ranch or any other similar area. 

BLM has not established a management goal for 

“preservation” of this area but would manage for the 

best uses consistent with resource values, should 

additional private or state lands be acquired. 

398 
Response 153-I 6 

The Arizona Trail and the 

Teresa Trail are two separate entities. The Arizona 

Trail does not cross the Safford District. The 

Teresa Trail is only a proposal at this 

time. The BLM will coordinate with the Forest Service 

office in preparing any specific plans that would involve 

the lands they administer. 

Response 153-17 

An intensive archaeological inventory of all lands in the 

Safford District is not considered a reasonable action 

because of the high costs that would be incurred in 

surveying almost one and a half million acres of public 

land. With regards to vandalism, the District has 

conducted some field inventories to document damage 

and acquire information on patterns of vandalism to 

cultural properties. As funds become available, further 

field inventories focusing on areas most affected by 

vandals will be completed and the information added to 

the existing data base. 

Response 153-18 

The Safford District has no intention of using predictive 

modeling as a substitute for conducting on-the-ground 

inventories. This is specifically prohibited in BLM 

manual guidelines on cultural resource management. 

The major usefulness of predictive modeling is in the 

area of planning, especially regarding the budgeting 

and evaluation work needed to assess a given area’s 

cultural resource sensitivity. Models are very useful 

for determining the funding and personnel needed 

for conducting on-ground inventories, particularly 

those involving large tracts of land. Budget figures 

are calculated from the quantity and nature of the 

resources predicted to occur. Without the use of such 

models, large-scale inventories often run out of money 

long before the work has actually been completed. 

Predictive models are also useful for estimating the 

cultural resource values of lands being considered for 

either acquisition or disposal. 

Response 153-I 9 

Special attention has been directed to the documentation of rock art due to its extremely vulnerable nature. 

Many of the known sites in the District are being 

eroded due to natural forces, while others are often the 

object of vandalism. 

Revision of the existing District Rock Art Cultural 

Resource Management Plan (the “research design”) 

will simplify many of the documentation requirements 

that have inhibited past rock art recording efforts within 

the District. The revision is expected to represent a 

modest expenditure for BLM. 

Response 153-20 

The District has an active volunteer program to assist 

in collecting ethnographic and other types of oral 

history information. We anticipate that adequate funds 

will be obtained to facilitate research. 

Response 154-I 

Opening of Virgus Canyon Road could increase 

disturbance to wildlife on approximately 9,000 acres of 

public lands. Rebuilding the road will make it accessible to four wheel drive vehicles. 

BLM is encouraged to provide legal access to large 

blocks of public land where resource conflicts would be 

minimal. Approval of a District Transportation Plan and 

specific actions such as construction of the Virgus 

Canyon Road is subject to the prior completion of 

National Environmental Policy Act compliance documentation. See General Response 6. 

Response 154-2 

See General Response 2. 

Response 

Recreational use of the Hot Well Dunes area includes 

hunting, off-road vehicle use, camping, bathing and 

picnicking. BLM has placed several trash cans in the 

area to help control litter from the users. BLM has not 

yet established a campground facility. 

The Resource Management Plan calls for designating 

the Hot Well Dunes area as a Special Recreation 

Management Area to manage current recreation 

use. An activity plan will then be prepared before 

designating the area as an open off road vehicle use 

area and developing facilities. As part of this plan, a 

complete cultural and paleontological inventory will be 

conducted to determine impacts to the resources and 

to provide mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce 

the impacts. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 154-4 

Specific recovery plan details are not within 

responsibilities as they are prepared by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. BLM will follow the direction of the 

recovery plans as they pertain to the District. This 

direction is indicated on page 19 of the draft Resource 

399 
Management Plan/Draft Environmental impact 

Statement. 

Recovery plan objectives of each Threatened and 

Endangered wildlife species involved are reviewed 

by BLM for coordination between agencies responsible 

for the species and those agencies with habitat 

responsibilities. 

Response 154-5 

See Response 5-l. 

Response 154-6 

Management objectives will be specific for each Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern. Management plans 

to meet those objectives will necessarily be specific 

also. Livestock grazing is one of the uses that will 

have to be evaluated to determine the effects of 

grazing within a particular Area of Environmental Concern. If the grazing will not compromise any 

resource values being managed, then it may continue. 

If the grazing cannot be managed successfully, then it 

may be discontinued. 

Response 155-l 

The term “limited off-highway vehicle use” is defined on 

page 281, Glossary in the draft Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Use of 

the existing road through Turkey Creek will not be 

restricted by the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. 

Response 155-2 

See Response 132-3. 

Response 156-1 

See General Response 2. 

Response 156-2 

See General Response 2. 

Response 1563 

BLM current policy and practice is to leave 60 percent 

of the vegetation after grazing. 

Response 

The San Simon Environmental Impact 

Statement and Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental 

Impact Statement state the standards by which grazing 

impacts will be judged. The Record of Decision and/or 

Rangeland Program Summary for the two Environmental Impact Statements give the categorization for each 

allotment in the District and status of management. On 

pages 139-l 40 of the draft Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement is a complete 

definition of the three management categories. 

Response 156-5 

In the specific case of riparian vegetation, the “benchmarks” are the few relict areas that have never, or 

seldom ever been directly disturbed by human activities. Based upon the physical and biological factors 

that resulted in these relict locations we have established goals for the riparian areas being actively 

managed. The ecological potential of each riparian 

area may differ due to physical parameters and 

therefore “good” condition vegetation may look and 

function differently in individual areas. 

For other plant communities we will use relict areas 

(such as the Desert Grassland Area of Critical Environmental Concern), historical accounts (ethnoecology), 

scientific literature and/or the best professional judgment to determine the ecological potential. In some 

communities, such as the desert grasslands, we also 

include the desired objectives of management since 

the ecological climax is less stable hydrologically and 

will support fewer livestock and less wildlife species 

than when fires occasionally burn patches of brush and 

grasses. 

Response 156-6 

The purpose of a Resource Management Plan is to 

provide general management guidance (43 CFR 

1601 .O-5 (k)(7)). Implementation priorities will be 

defined when the Safford Resource Management Plan 

is selected. 

Budget considerations or estimates before the plan is 

selected would be premature because of the general 

nature of the Resource Management Plan process and 

the subsequent activities involved in preparing specific 

plans and associated National Environmental Policy 

Act compliance documentation. Budget considerations 

for the other BLM areas mentioned in the comment are 

not relevant for this Resource Management Plan/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Detailed information 

on the BLM budget process can be obtained from 

personnel in the Safford District Off ice. 

Response 156-7 

See Response 5-l. 

400 
Response 

Portions of Turtle Mountain and Day Mine Wilderness 

Study Areas were evaluated for Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern consideration during the 

development of the draft Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement. They did not meet 

the basic Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

criteria and were dropped from further Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern study. (Table 3-6: Markham 

Creek, Trujillo Canyon and Turtle Mountain.) 

Evaluations of the three Wilderness Study Areas you 

nominated did not meet basic Area of Critical Environmental Concern criteria. The documentation for these 

evaluations is now included in Appendix 2. 

Response 156-9 

Discussion included in Response 

Response 156-I 0 

Discussion included in Response 156-8 

Response 156-I 1 

Discussion included in Response 156-8. 

Response 

BLM has tried to avoid overlapping designations of 

land. Management prescriptions for the Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern will be included in the 

management prescriptions of the Wilderness Management Plan. (Also, see General Response 6.) 

Response 156-I 3 

This option will be considered when the management 

plans are developed. If a single management plan 

cannot be defined for the entire area, then the Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern may have to be 

divided. 

Response 156-I 4 

Eligibility and classification have been analyzed in the 

Wild and Scenic River Study reports in identified in 

Appendix 3. Clarifications have been made in this 

Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Response 156-I 5 

The Hot Well Dunes area is designated as an open 

road vehicle use area partly because it is near several 

population centers. If, after National Environmental 

Policy Act compliance documentation is completed, the 

area is developed as an open off -road vehicle use 

area, it will be clearly signed as such, and will be 

closely monitored by BLM personnel. All other areas 

will either be closed to off highway vehicle use or be 

designated as limited to existing roads and trails. 

Response 156-I 6 

The Resource Management Plan presents reasonable 

goals which could be achieved in the scope of 

this plan. As you have indicated, influences beyond 

our control could limit our success and therefore make 

our 75 percent goal unobtainable. 

Response 156-17 

See Response 147-1 

Response 156-I 8 

See Response 147-1 

Response 156-I 9 

The Safford District Riparian Area Management Policy 

indicates no need to exclude every riparian area from 

livestock grazing to meet riparian area objectives. 

BLM has actively engaged in meeting these objectives 

through development of along Creek 

and the River and many smaller areas. 

are only one of many management tools for 

improving riparian vegetation. 

Response 

See Response 11 l-20. 

Response 156-21 

Data shows no appreciable harm has been done to 

Aravaipa Creek by livestock grazing in the Aravaipa 

watershed. Appropriate livestock management in the 

northern portion of the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern will provide adequate protection to the 

watershed values. 

Response 156-22 

The area nominated for Research Natural Area 

designation is included in the Proposed Action. The 

other riparian areas you referenced were inventoried 

but have not been nominated because they did not 

qualify or because they are adequately protected by 

other designations or legal requirements. Also see 

Response 174-4. 

401 
Response 156-23 

See Response 100-8. 

Response 156-24 

Impacts of mining operations including release of any 

toxic metals or chemicals must be considered in any 

mining plan approval. Mitigating actions and stipulations to eliminate or minimize impacts are defined on a 

site-specific basis in accordance with the 43 CFR 3809 

regulation and the completion of National Environmental Policy Act compliance documentation. (See 

General Response 6.) 

Response 156-25 

Under the 1872 Mining Law, as amended, mining of 

locatable minerals is not discretionary with the BLM. 

The 43 CFR 3809 regulations require the approval of 

mining plans which include measures to mitigate 

impacts. 

Response 156-26 

See General Response 5. 

Response 156-27 

Less than one-third of the original Rock Art Cultural 

Resource Management Plan has been implemented 

since its inception six years ago. Revisions to the plan 

which would simplify documentation requirements and 

allow implementation at a more appropriate pace are 

contemplated. 

One of the primary reasons for developing a regional 

research design is to help to identify the scientific 

values of a region’s cultural resources. Measurement 

of scientific values would be extremely difficult without 

a regional research design to tell us exactly what kind 

of phenomenon constitutes a “scientific value.” 

See Response 153-18. 

Response 156-28 

The need for a more effective gate at the Eagle Creek 

Bat Cave is currently being evaluated. Since most of 

the canyon bottom is owned by Phelps Dodge, access 

and firearm restrictions are beyond the scope of this 

Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. Educational messages are part of the cave 

management that will be developed in the site-specific 

plan. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 156-29 

See Response 100-43. 

Protection and enhancement of the watershed in the 

Aravaipa area are concerns of BLM. Herbicides and 

pesticides would only be used after stringent evaluation and the development of National Environmental 

Policy Act compliance documentation entailing public 

participation. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 159-l 

See General Response 2. 

Response 161-l 

The BLM Safford District has nominated the 21 mile 

long Old Safford-Clifton road as the Black Hills Back 

Country Byway. Other areas could be nominated if 

public support warrants. The Back Country Byways 

program is not a function of the Transportation Plan. 

Response 161-2 

The Bureau and Arizona Game and Fish Department 

agreements for wildlife water maintainance are valid 

regardless of changes to special management designations. On several allotments, such as the 

and Southrim, perennial springs and creeks are so 

abundant that the loss of the few developed waters 

would have little impact on wildlife. On other, less 

watered allotments, the livestock waters are vital to 

maintaining optimum wildlife populations. BLM will 

request aid from Arizona Game and Fish Department 

and conservation organizations to help maintain 

important water sources. 

Response 162-I 

See General Response 3. Actions proposed in 

Alternative B may well be included in the Proposed 

Plan. If determined necessary, BLM will negotiate 

Memorandums of Understanding or Cooperative 

Agreements with Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality or other parties for the bioassessments. 

Response 162-2 

Appendix now Appendix 9, lists all the sites on the 

Safford District where some water quality sampling has 

occurred. The frequency of collection varied from a 

one-time sample to a number of samples each year for 

a number of years. The frequency depended on the 

management objective. The number and type of water 

quality measurements also varied according to objectives 

402 
During the current fiscal year, data from seven perennial streams are being collected, five of them two or 

more times. The BLM consulted with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on the design of the 

monitoring program. All water quality data will be 

entered in STORET at the earliest possible time. 

Response 162-3 

None of the parcels of land identified for disposal or 

exchange in Appendix 7, now Appendix 5, are located 

adjacent to or straddle any major waters of the United 

States. 

Response 

BLM will continue to be flexible in updating Allotment 

Management Plans and protecting the resources. 

Monitoring and inventorying soil erosion, riparian 

habitat and water quality will continue. The results of 

the inventories and monitoring will provide BLM with 

information to make the necessary revisions in any 

type of management. 

Response 162-5 

See General Response 2. 

Response 162-6 

See General Response 2. 

Response 162-7 

See General Response 2. 

Response 

See Response 15-1 

Response 

The San Simon floodplain is managed by a variety of 

methods, all of which are designed and working to 

improve the riparian habitat. Behind the Barrier 

detention dam, livestock are excluded from a 300-acre 

area to provide protection while vegetation recovers. 

Above the San Simon Fan structure, livestock are on a 

rotational grazing system providing periodic rest from 

livestock grazing. Farther above the Fan structure, in 

the Contest Well seeding, cattle are on a seasonal 

system, grazing during the winter months only. 

Response 162-I 0 

See Response 156-19. The public lands in the proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern have 

retained their important resource qualities under 

management systems that will be continued or 

improved to enhance riparian, water quality, soil 

stability, vegetation and wildlife resources. 

Response 162-I 1 

The causes of soil erosion have been documented 

over the years and are well understood. They include 

historic overgrazing, roads, drought followed by heavy 

rains, soil types that are easily eroded and improper 

agricultural methods creating head cutting. What 

remains is a long, laborious process of recovery. The 

recovery process requires good livestock management, restoration of stream gradients, and vegetation 

manipulation where appropriate. 

Response 162-I 2 

The livestock management practices for the allotments 

on Bear Springs Flat were implemented in the early 

Monitoring indicates that our soil erosion 

objectives are being met under current management 

and use. 

Response 162-I 3 

Standards for unacceptable erosion in the Hot Well 

Dunes Area have not been established. 

Response 162-I 4 

Maps showing erosion susceptibility are in the “San 

Simon Soil Survey” and erosion condition maps can be 

examined at the District Off ice. Production of maps at 

the scale required to show erosion condition on a small 

area in the planning area is not considered feasible. 

Response 162-I 5 

When vegetation manipulations are proposed on a 

specific area, National Environmental Policy Act 

compliance documentation will be completed on a 

project with site-specific objectives, designation of 

target species, evaluation of impacts and prescription 

for future management. 

Response 162-I 6 

See Response 162-l 5. 

Response 162-17 

See General Response 4. 

403 
Response 162-I 8 

Appendix 9 lists only those sites where samples 

were collected or testing was performed to determine 

the quality of the water. For an in-depth explanation, 

please refer to the Water Resources section in 

Chapter 3, subheading Water Quality (draft Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, 

129). A number of sites were sampled in the late 

1970s; most sampling occurred by the mid-l 

The criteria for water quality sampling or testing were 

basically concern for public health, management 

concerns or objectives and Unique Waters program. 

Water quality monitoring of the River has been 

conducted by several agencies including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Geological Survey and Arizona 

Department of Health Services. Water quality monitoring of the River is not currently a management 

objective. BLM has constructed fencing adjacent to 

the Box to reduce the effect of livestock on the 

area. 

Guadalupe Canyon lands were acquired from the state 

in a land exchange in 1988. BLM is bound by agreements between the ranchers and the state for the term 

of the permits. 

Response 162-I 9 

Only significant benefits and impacts are considered in 

the draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement. There may be significant benefits to 

riparian vegetation and to wildlife habitat, but not within 

the plan. Water quality will improve, but not to 

a significant degree. 

Response 162-20 

The Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 included 

12,711 acres in the Aravaipa Canyon and 6,600 acres 

in the Canyon (Galiuro) Wilderness areas. 

Response 162-21 

See Response 112-l. 

Response 162-22 

BLM has specific restrictions for rights-of-way involving 

corridors and communication sites and for 

way outside designated corridors (43 CFR 2806 and 

2600). National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

and specific site requirements can determine sideboards. These are considered when determining 

terms and conditions for rights-of-way, which can vary 

considerably depending on requests and site-specific 

requirements. 

Response 162-23 

Providing corridors one-mile wide is a common practice where feasible. The purpose is to reduce overcrowding and interference problems. The corridor 

width for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area was restricted to a 660 foot width because of 

the environmentally sensitive riparian area. 

The proposed corridors currently have major existing 

right-of-way facilities. Section 503 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 states that 

corridors may be designated without further 

review.” Designation of these areas as corridors would 

also support the Western Utilities Groups’ corridor 

recommendation study. 

Any future right-of-way grants within these proposed 

corridors will depend on case-by-case environmental 

assessments. 

Because of scattered public land patterns and avoidance areas within portions of the Safford District, the 

usefulness of corridor designations in some areas is 

limited. Although Resource Management Plan Map 27 

depicts the proposed corridors as crossing public, 

private and state lands, we only have jurisdiction over 

the public lands. Any future corridor user/applicant will 

need to work with other landowners to secure the 

necessary easements where the proposed corridor 

would cross their lands. 

Response 162-24 

BLM is required to inquire and conduct on-the-ground 

examinations for evidence of contamination and 

presence of hazardous materials in conjunction with 

other required inspections on all properties to be 

acquired. If the presence of hazardous materials is 

suspected, the case will immediately be referred to the 

State Director for further investigation and guidance. 

All acquisitions require a statement from the land 

owner that the non-federal lands are free of hazardous 

materials. 

Response 162-25 

Because they involve regrading existing road surfaces 

and removing obstructions, the proposed road reconstruction projects are not expected to cause significant 

impacts. Therefore, they were not discussed. 

404 
Response 162-26 

Rehabilitation measures for eroded areas where roads 

will be closed will be determined at the time of closure. 

Although not at a level appropriate for Resource 

Management Plan consideration, these measures 

will range from simply road closings and allowing 

natural revegetation to occur, to ripping and reseeding 

roadbeds. 

Response 162-27 

Data indicates that a limited designation will provide 

adequate protection to riparian areas. We recognize enforcing restrictions are a problem given 

the extensive area we manage. However, the 

problem still exists whether enforcing a limited or 

closed designation. 

Response 162-28 

The Resource Management Plan calls for designating 

the Hot Well Dunes area as a Special Recreation 

Management Area. A Recreation Area Management 

Plan will then be prepared before development as an 

open off-road vehicle use area. This plan will include 

an inventory of vegetation and wildlife species, as well 

as a plan for monitoring the effects on resources. The 

associated National Environmental Policy Act compliance documentation will determine impacts to air 

quality, water quality, soils, vegetation, wildlife, cultural 

and paleontological resources. Mitigation measures 

will be identified and implemented to reduce the 

impacts. 

Response 162-29 

Data indicates these impacts are minimal with no 

significant adverse effects to these resources. 

Response 162-30 

See General Response 5. Salable minerals such as 

sand and gravel are discretionary actions with BLM 

and require case by case evaluations and National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance documentation. 

(See General Response 6.) 

Response 162-31 

See General Response 5. Requirement of an approved mining plan under 43 CFR 3809 regulations 

would provide adequate protection. (See Response 

162-30.) 

Response 162-32 

Cumulative impacts are discussed in the Environmental Consequences section of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Future minerals actions are either 

discretionary or require a mining plan or mining notice 

(43 CFR 3809) developed for a particular action. 

Environmental assessments will be completed 

and mitigations identified for each mining plan to 

address the effects of a particular action. (See General 

Response 5.) 

Response 162-33 

Stipulations are developed for mining activities in 

accordance with the mining laws and regulations. The 

stipulations are specific to each mining plan. 

Response 162-34 

A section has been included in Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences to address this issue. 

Response 162-35 

The Environmental Protection Agency will be included 

in the list of agencies to be notified when these activity 

level documents are developed. 

Response 163-l 

Decisions made in the San Pedro River Riparian 

Management Plan have been incorporated by reference into this document and are not subject to further 

review. 

Response 163-2 

Reconstruction of any roads will be subject to completion of National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

documents. (See General Response 6.) 

Response 163-3 

See Response 156-l 9. 

Response 163-4 

See Response 156-l 9. 

Response 163-5 

The prescription for management of the Desert Grasslands now includes the exclusion of livestock grazing. 

405 
Response 163-6 Response 165-I 

Preparation of an existing roads and trails map will be 

part of the District Transportation Plan being developed. It will not be available for distribution with this 

final Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Response 163-7 

BLM will work to accomplish the actions you have 

identified as rapidly as possible because they are basic 

to any management plan. The actions, through Item 5, 

described in the draft Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement are sequentially 

presented. Results achieved through implementation 

of these actions are often a slow process in the desert 

environment. 

Response 163-8 

We have received a number of recommendations 

supporting this proposal and have added them to our 

proposed acquisitions. Refer to Map 27 for locations of 

proposed land acquisition areas. 

Response 

Seeding is not planned in vegetation treatment areas. 

If seeding is done, native species would be utilized, 

consistent with Executive Order 11987 which prohibits 

release of most exotic species. 

Response 163-10 

A listing of sensitive species will not be included in the 

appendix due to its length and recent taxonomic 

changes. The Arizona Natural Heritage Program 

maintains a list of sensitive species in the state. 

Response 163-I 1 

Detailed monitoring plans will be included in the 

Implementation Plan and in the activity plans as they 

are developed. 

Response 164-I 

The lack of good access to Turtle Mountain has been 

and continues to be a hindrance to managing of the 

allotment. A road proposal could be evaluated in the 

District Transportation Plan and considered after 

completion of site-specific National Environmental 

Policy Act compliance documents. 

The Area of Critical Environmental Concern boundary 

does include this portion of Turkey Creek. There 

have been some changes to the prescription in this 

Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. (Also see Response 156-l 9.) 

Response 

Equestrian use of the tablelands has been and will 

continue to be an acceptable use of the area. Trails, 

corrals and other facilities will be addressed later in a 

more specific activity plan. 

Response 166-I 

Livestock grazing issues were addressed in the Upper 

Simon and Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental Impact Statements. Grazing is not an issue in 

this document. (See General Response 2.) 

Response 166-2 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns are valid 

multiple-use management designations. Their identification and designation is given priority in the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Sec. 201 

Response 166-3. 

See Response 11 l-23. 

Response 166-4 

Resource monitoring will be a function of the activity 

plans which will implement many of the decisions of 

the Resource Management Plan. Soils inventories 

have been completed for much of the District as well 

as plant community inventories using Brown, Lowe and 

Pase. Habitat Management Plans have been developed, but are scheduled for revision to conform to 

more natural boundaries. The Habitat Management 

Plans include monitoring activities. The Allotment 

Management Plans developed for the livestock grazing 

program also stipulate monitoring. 

Response 166-5 

BLM is responsible for managing wildlife habitat. 

Wildlife populations and their management are the 

responsibilities of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. BLM provides input into the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department process to determine population 

levels. 

406 
BLM has not relinquished authority to manage forage 

resources on the Safford District. Arizona Game and 

Fish Department Strategic Plans and BLM Allotment 

Management Plans are given consideration in the 

planning process. Allocation of the forage resource is 

the result of decisions made through various planning 

alternatives. 

Multiple use implies competing resources cannot be 

maximized on the same acre at the same time. The 

Bureau’s responsibility is to ensure that a proper 

balance in the allocation of the forage resource is 

accomplished so that the basic resource, the vegetation, is not sacrificed. 

Response 166-6 

Appendix 6, now Appendix 4, discusses various wildlife 

habitat types for priority species. Vegetation in the 

draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement, (P.144) refers to the riparian type 

vegetation as important to livestock. 

Response 166-7 

No reference to the effects of grazing on desert tortoise 

is given in Appendix 4. 

Response 166-8 

Bighorn sheep were first observed in the Box by a 

member of Coronado’s expedition in 1540. In 1825, an 

early explorer, James Ohio noted “multitudes of 

mountain sheep” in the same area. The 

of sheep in the area was reported in 1979 by Kenyon 

Udall, an area rancher. The rapid increase in numbers 

since then indicates the livestock grazing practices 

were compatible with the bighorn habitat needs. 

Response 

Wildlife populations are usually regulated by 

climatic factors such as rainfall. Occasionally 

dependent factors like disease become important. 

Documented examples of predators limiting prey 

populations exist but are special cases and should not 

form the basis for wildlife management policy. There 

are provisions within agreements between Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, BLM and Arizona Plant 

Health Inspection Service that could allow predator 

control to protect mule deer, but they have never been 

used in the Safford District. Deer numbers appear to 

closely follow the rainfall amounts consistent with 

Arizona Game and Fish Department research results. 

Response 

Wildlife populations are the responsibility of the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. The BLM responsibility 

and role is to ensure adequate habitat to meet the 

needs of all wildlife species. 

Response 167-I 

BLM is currently taking action to open access to the 

public lands at this location. 

Response 168-I 

Livestock grazing is one of the recognized multiple 

uses of public land listed in the Taylor Grazing Act, and 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

Regulation of grazing fees are not within the scope of 

this document. 

Response 169-I 

See Response 5-1. 

Response 170-l 

The lands you describe are included in Alternative B. 

The BLM planning process and the National Environmental Policy Act enable the decisionmaker to select 

from any of the alternatives when making a decision. 

The Preferred Alternative of the draft document is an 

option, not a decision and while it usually represents a 

middle ground of land use options, the Proposed 

Resource Management Plan may contain portions 

from any of the alternatives evaluated. 

Response 171-l 

Right-of-way avoidance does not mean exclusion. The 

approval of an application for a second pipeline is 

subject to the prior completion of National Environmental Policy Act compliance documents. (See General 

Response 6.) 

Response 171-2 

The proposed Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern will be designated as an 

avoidance area. This will minimize or eliminate 

conflicts with sensitive areas, but will not necessarily 

prohibit authorizations of rights-of-way. The text of the 

Resource Management Plan has been changed 

accordingly. 

Response 

Your comments are noted. 

407 
Response 172-I 

The 1988 Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Management 

Plan is included in the list of references (draft Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, 

285) and is referred to other times in the text. 

Response 172-2 

The Ranch Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern boundary has been revised. 

Response 172-3 

See General Response 5. 

Response 172-4 

Vehicle use in Turkey Creek has not significantly 

affected the resources in the riparian area. The 

potential for impacts to the area will be addressed in 

a site-specific activity plan through the development 

of National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

documents (See General Response 6). Significant 

increases in visitor use or indiscriminant activity are 

not anticipated. The nature of the terrain in 95 percent 

of the area curtails off-road travel. Rebuilding of 

Ditmars Road has been deleted from Alternative A. 

Response 172-5 

Removal of exotic fish from streams to protect endangered native fish is an activity-level action of habitat 

maintenance and improvement. Actions identified in 

the wildlife portion of the Resource Management Plan 

would support this potential activity. 

Response 172-6 

A basic assumption in the analysis of anticipated 

impacts (including increased demand for recreation) is 

that “Funding and personnel would be available to fully 

implement any alternative” (draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, p. 159). 

Response 172-7 

Erosion was addressed districtwide in the Management 

Situation Analysis developed as part of the planning 

process. Small areas may have erosion problems and 

will be dealt with in specific activity plans. The areas 

needing the most attention are noted in the Resource 

Management Plan. 

Response 

included in the Resource Area Management 

Situation Analysis, which is incorporated into this 

Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Response 

Existing cooperative agreements are maintained in the 

District Office and are can be reviewed at the District 

Office. Listing these agreements without including the 

contents would be of limited value. In addition, the list 

would need continual revisions as new agreements are 

developed and others expire. 

Response 172-I 0 

An implementation plan with priorities will be prepared 

following issuance of the Record of Decision for the 

Resource Management Plan. Until the specific Resource Management Plan has been selected, we 

cannot be certain of specific Resource Management 

Plan actions. 

Response 172-I 1 

See Response 156-5. 

Response 172-I 2 

If soil erosion problem areas are noted during routine 

field work or through other monitoring activities, they 

will be addressed. 

Response 172-I 3 

The roads identified in the Resource Management Plan 

are necessary for public and administrative access. 

The District Transportation Plan involves a complete 

road inventory, road classification, road numbering and 

identification, and a final determination of need. A final 

District Transportation Plan is not necessary to identify 

individual road needs. 

Response 172-14 

The proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

management prescription will be incorporated into the 

Wilderness Management Plan to the extent that the 

prescriptions are consistent with the Wilderness Act. 

Response 172-I 5 

An action item has been added to the Riparian section 

in Chapter 2, Management Guidance Common to All 

Alternatives. 

The Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Management Plan is 

408 
 

Response 172-I 6 

There is no Aravaipa Canyon Watershed Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern in the Preferred 

Alternative of the Resource Management Plan. Your 

point is well taken with respect to Alternative B in which 

the Aravaipa Canyon Watershed Area of 

Environmental Concern did not provide for right-of-way 

avoidance. The topography of this Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern as well as others in the vicinity 

precludes most right-of-way needs. Alternative routes 

are more efficient and cost effective. We have included this prescription in the alternative. 

Response 172-17 

The proposed Special Recreation Management Area 

boundary includes Turkey Creek. 

Response 172-18 

This site has been subjected to two unauthorized 

releases of native and exotic fishes. Appropriate Fish 

and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation has already 

been initiated to resolve the problems at Watson Wash 

because of the seriousness of the situation. 

Response 172-I 9 

See Response 162-31. 

Response 172-20 

See Response 100-33. 

Response 172-21 

See Response 

Response 172-22 

These species have been identified in Table 2-3. 

Response 172-23 

BLM has identified the pipeline road 

for access to that particular area for administrative 

purposes. 

Response 172-24 

All actions of this nature would be subject to National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance procedures. 

(See General Response 6.) 

Response 172-25 

See Response var. 

has not been documented as occurring on 

public lands within the District. 

Response 172-26 

The referenced discussion is from the wilderness 

suitability report. the passage of the Arizona 

Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, references to the 

suitability report have been deleted from this Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response 172-27 

The authority for designation of Wild and Scenic Rivers 

hasbeenchanged. 

Response 172-28 

See Responses 156-5 and 172-5. 

Response 173-I 

The discussion of management objectives for Priority 

Species/Habitats has been changed to reflect the 

management goals of the current strategic plan. 

Response 173-2 

Those lands in the lower San Pedro River corridor that 

possess significant riparian wildlife potential have been 

identified in this Safford District Resource Management 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Response 174-I 

See Response 167-l. If this problem is not resolved 

before printing of this document, this area will be added 

to the list for acquisition of public access. 

Response 174-2 

Changes have been made to reflect these dates. 

Response 174-3 

The Dry Spring Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

has been included as part of the Needles Eye Wilderness Area through the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act. 

Response 1744 

See Response 174-3. Appropriate Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern prescriptions will be carried 

forward to the Wilderness Management Plan, but dual 

status will not be sought. 

409 
Response 174-5 

The lands you reference are identified in Alternative B 

and are now also part of the Preferred Alternative. The 

original boundary described in the draft was based on 

an existing fenceline. 

Response 174-6 

When Allotment Management Plans are developed, 

wildlife habitat input is obtained and incorporated into 

the plan, regardless of the status of species or habitats 

within the allotment. 

Response 174-7 

Corrections have been made to text. 

Response 

See Response 173-2. 

Response 174-9 

These lands have been identified for acquisition. 

However, they are low in the District’s acquisition 

priorities because of limited access caused by land 

ownership patterns. In addition, lands with riparian 

values and Threatened and Endangered species have 

higher priories for acquisition. Access acquisition is 

identified in Appendix 1. 

410 
Glossary 

Activity Plan. A more detailed plan of actions to 

implement planning decisions over a specified time 

period. Examples include allotment management 

plans, recreation area management plans, habitat 

management plans and cultural resource project plans. 

Air Quality Classes. Classes established by the 

Environmental Protection Agency to define the amount 

of air pollution considered significant within an area. 

Class I areas where any change in air quality would 

be considered significant and therefore would not be 

allowed. 

Class II areas where the pollution normally accompanying moderate well-controlled growth would be 

considered allowable. 

Class Ill areas where air pollution up to the national 

standards would be allowed. 

Allotment. A land area where one or more operators 

graze their livestock. It generally consists of public 

land but may include parcels of private and stateowned land. The number of livestock and seasons of 

use are stipulated for each allotment. 

Allotment Management Plan. A livestock grazing 

management plan for a specific allotment, based on 

multiple-use resource management objectives. The 

allotment management plan considers livestock 

grazing in relation to other uses of the range and in 

relation to renewable resources-watershed, vegetation and wildlife. An allotment management plan 

establishes the seasons of use, number of livestock 

permitted on the range and needed rangeland 

developments. 

Ambient Air Quality. Related to the quantity of 

pollutants found in a mass or body of air surrounding or 

encompassing an area. 

Aquatic. Growing or living in or frequenting water. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. A public 

land area where special management attention is 

required to protect important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife or natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural 

hazards. 

Benefit. Any impact from an action that produces 

intentional or causal positive or beneficial results. 

Blancan Age Assemblage. Refers to the different 

species of mammals that characterize the Blancan 

Land Mammal Age in North America. The Blancan 

Age occurred from 4,300,000 years ago to 1,900,000 

years ago. Mammals typical to the period include 

Equus (horse), Borophagus and Chasmoporthetes 

(carnivores), Stegomastodon (elephant-like), and 

Hemiauchenia (camel), among others. 

Bosque. A woodland dominated by trees over 15 feet 

tall. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An agency 

of the U.S. Department of the Interior responsible for 

the balanced management of the public lands and 

resources and their various values so that they are 

considered in a combination that will best serve the 

needs of the public. Management is based on the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield; a 

combination of uses that takes into account the longterm needs of future generations for renewable and 

non-renewable resources. These resources include 

recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness, natural, 

scenic, scientific and cultural values. 

Candldate Species. Any plant or animal species not 

protected under the Endangered Species Act but under 

consideration by the Fish and Wildlife Service for 

inclusion on the list of federally threatened or endangered species. 

Cenozoic Era. A geologic era that began about 

65,000,000 years ago and has lasted through the 

present time. 

Chaparral. A plant community characterized by 

evergreen shrubs, usually less than 15 feet tall. 

Clenega. A riparian community characterized by low 

sedges growing on saturated, highly organic, reducing 

soils. 

Community. An aggregate of organisms that form a 

distinct ecological unit. Such a unit may be defined in 

terms of plants, animals, or both. 

Conglomerate. Sedimentary rock consisting of 

relatively large rounded grains (about gravel-sized) 

cemented together with much finer grains (sand or 

silt-sized). 

Conifer. A cone-bearing tree or shrub. 

Cretaceous Period. A subdivision of the Mesozoic 

Era that occurred from about 145 million to 65 million 

years ago. 

413 
Cultural Resource. The fragile and nonrenewable 

remains of human activity, occupation, or use; as 

reflected in districts, sites, artifacts, ruins, works of art, 

architecture, and natural features. These resources 

include physical remains, areas where significant 

human events occurred (even though evidence of the 

event no longer remains), and the environment immediately surrounding the resource. Also, traditional 

lifeway values are abstract, nonmaterial cultural 

resources that make up a group’s shared values. 

Cultural Resource Inventory Classes. 

Class I a prepared study of existing cultural 

resource data from published and unpublished 

documents, various institutional site inventory 

records, state and national registers, and other 

sources leading to a compilation and analysis of all 

available data and synthesis of the data. 

Class II a professionally conducted, statistically 

based sample survey designed to characterize the 

probable density, diversity and distribution of 

cultural properties within a project area. Sample 

units are inventoried with the methods described 

under Class III. Several phases with differing 

sample designs and intensities may be conducted. 

Class III a professionally conducted, systematic and 

intensive survey of a given area, aimed at locating 

and recording all cultural properties. Crew members 

commonly walk parallel, closely-spaced transects 

until the area has been thoroughly examined. 

Cultural Resource Site. A physical location of past 

human activities or events. Sites vary in size, ranging 

from the location of a single cultural resource object to 

a cluster of cultural resource structures with associated 

objects and features. 

Cumulative Impacts. The collective impacts of all 

actions affecting a particular resource. 

Dispersed Recreation. Recreation activities that do 

not require developed sites or facilities. 

Disposal. Transferring of land out of federal ownership by various methods such as exchange, sale, 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act and/or state 

indemnity selection, 

Diversity. The relative abundance of plant and wildlife 

species, communities, habitats or habitat features per 

unit of area. 

Ecosystem. A complex self-sustaining natural system 

that includes living and non-living components of the 

environment and the interactions that bind them 

together. Its functioning involves the circulation of 

matter and energy between organisms and their 

environment, 

Encinal. A woodland dominated by oak trees. 

Endangered Species. Any plant or animal species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part 

of its range. 

Environment. The surrounding conditions, influences 

or forces that affect or modify an organism or an 

ecological community and ultimately determine its form 

and survival. 

Environmental Assessment. The procedure for 

analyzing the impacts of a proposed action on a given 

environment and the documentation of the analysis. 

An Environmental Assessment is similar to an environmental impact statement but is generally smaller in 

scope. An Environmental Assessment may be preliminary to an Environmental Impact Statement. 

Environmental Impact Statement. An analytical 

document prepared for use by decisionmakers to 

weigh the environmental consequences of a potential 

decision. An Environmental Impact Statement should 

accurately portray potential impacts to the environment 

of a particular course of action and its possible alternatives. 

Ephemeral. Lasting only a short period of time. 

Erosion. The wearing away of the soil and surface by 

running water, wind, ice or other geological agents. 

Ethnographic Study. The structured and systematic 

fieldwork-based study and description of specific 

cultures. 

Extensive Recreation Management Area. Areas 

where recreation is unstructured and dispersed, and 

where minimal recreation-related investments are 

required. These areas, constituting the majority of the 

public lands, give recreation visitors the freedom of 

recreation choice with minimal regulatory constraints. 

Extirpated. Refers to species that once occupied an 

area but have since been eliminated from that part of 

their range. 

Fauna. Animals or animal life. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976. The law that gives BLM the legal authority to 

establish public land policy; establish guidelines for 

414 
administering such policy; and provide for the management, protection, inventory, development and enhancement of the public lands. 

Fire Management. The integration of fire suppression, 

prescribed fire and fire ecology knowledge into multiple 

use planning, decisionmaking and land management 

activities. 

Floodplain. The flat ground along a stream or river 

covered by water during high flood stage. 

Flora. Plants or plant life. 

Forage. All browse and herbaceous foods, available 

to grazing animals, that may be grazed or harvested 

for feeding. 

Fossil. Any remains, trace or imprint of an ancient 

plant or animal that has been preserved by natural 

processes. 

Gallery Forest. A forest community dominated by 

very large, mature trees that lack a significant understory of younger, replacement individuals. 

Geophysical Exploratlon. Exploring for minerals by 

remote sensing means, such as by seismic work. 

Geothermal Energy. Energy derived from the earth’s 

natural heating of groundwaters, such as a hot spring. 

Herptiles. Amphibians and reptiles as a combined 

group. 

Habitat. A specific set of physical conditions that 

surround a single species, a group of species or a 

large community. In wildlife management, the major 

components of habitat are considered to be food, 

water, cover and living space. 

Habitat Management Plan. A written and officially 

approved plan (for a specific geographical area of 

public land) that identifies wildlife habitat and related 

objectives, establishes the sequence of actions for 

achieving objectives and outlines procedures for 

evaluating accomplishments. 

Hardrock Mining. The extraction of locatable minerals, except for placer deposits. 

Hazardous Materials. Any substance that poses a 

threat to the health or safety of people or the environment. These include any material that is toxic, ignitable, corrosive or radioactive. 

igneous Rock. Rock formed by the cooling of magma 

within the earth (intrusive) or on the earth’s surface 

(extrusive or volcanic). 

Impact. In this document, any adverse change to the 

ecosystem from implementing an action. 

Inholding. A parcel of State or private land surrounded by public lands. 

lnstream Flow. Surface water flowing freely in a 

natural stream channel in sufficient quantity to preserve 

the associated resource values. A term commonly 

associated with a water right. In-stream flow can be 

obtained by submitting an application, to appropriate a 

specified quantity of surface water, to the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources. The application 

requires specific rationale for granting an instream flow, 

such as the maintenance of fisheries, riparian habitat, 

recreation use or wildlife. Also required as part of the 

application are the establishment of minimum flows 

and the development of a hydrologic assessment to 

demonstrate that the requested quantity of water is 

available. 

lnterlm Management Policy. BLM’s guidelines for 

management of lands under wilderness review to 

preserve their wilderness values. The policy will 

applies to Wilderness Study Areas until Congress 

decides to designate the areas wilderness or release 

them for other uses. 

Intermittent Flow. Water flow occurring in a natural 

channel for longer than several weeks after a major 

storm but ceases flow during extended dry periods. 

Any flow lasting longer than 2 weeks, but less than 11 

months. 

lrvlngtonlan Vertebrate Fauna. Refers to the animals 

with backbones characterizing the Irvington Land 

Mammal Age in North America. The Irvington Age 

occurred from 1,900,000 years ago to 500,000 years 

ago. Characteristic animals include Mammuthus 

(elephant), Smilodon (stabbing cat), Paramylodon 

(ground sloth), among others. 

Issues. Controversies or concerns about existing and 

potential land and resource allocations; levels of 

resource use, production or protection; and BLM’s 

management practices. 

Land Treatment. Alteration of the soil and/or vegetation of an area by mechanical or chemical means or by 

burning. 

Leasable Minerals. Those minerals or materials 

designated as Leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act 

415 
of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, 

sulphur, potassium and sodium minerals, and oil and 

gas. Geothermal resources are also leasable under 

the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. 

Locatable Minerals. Any mineral or material that can 

have a mining claim filed for it under the Mining Law of 

1872, as amended. Generally includes metallic 

minerals such as gold and silver and other materials 

not subject to lease or sale (some bentonites, limestone, talc, some zeolites, etc.). Whether a 

particular mineral deposit is locatable depends on 

such factors as quality, quantity, mineability, demand 

and marketability. 

Location. The act of fixing the boundaries of a mining 

claim according to law or the claim itself. 

Management Concern. Planning issues that are not 

controversial and normally require less detailed 

analysis to resolve. Management concerns are 

often identified by BLM staff and present opportunities 

to improve management of the public lands and 

resources. 

Management Framework Plan. A land use plan that 

provides a set of goals, objectives and constraints for a 

specific planning area. An MFP guides the development of detailed plans for management of each 

resource in the planning area. 

Management Situation Analysis. A BLM reference 

document describing the affected environment of a 

planning area, including current management practices 

and programs. The MSA is a basic descriptive and 

analytic reference for resource condition, trend, 

demands and capabilities in the planning area and 

provides the basis for formulating and analyzing plan 

alternatives. 

Mesic. Moist areas. 

Mesozoic Era. A geologic era that occurred about 250 

million and lasted to 65 million years ago. 

Metamorphic Rock. Sedimentary or igneous rock that 

has been altered by heat or pressure. 

Mineral Entry. The filed location of mining claims by 

an individual to protect his/her right to a valuable 

mineral. 

Mineralization. The processes taking place in the 

earth’s crust resulting in the formation of valuable 

minerals or ore bodies; the occurrence of potentially 

valuable minerals. 

Mineralized Area. An area that has exposures or 

near-surface deposits of potentially valuable minerals. 

Mining District. A section of country, usually designated by name, that has described or understood 

boundaries where minerals are found and mined under 

rules and regulations prescribed by the miners, consistent with the Mining Law of 1872. 

Miocene Epoch. An epoch of the Tertiary Period 

occurring from about 24 million to 5 million years ago. 

Mitigation/Mitigating Measure. Methods or actions 

implemented for the purpose of reducing or eliminating 

the adverse impacts of an action. 

Monitor. To scrutinize or check systematically with a 

management goal of collecting certain specified 

categories of data. 

Multiple Use Management. Management of the 

various surface and subsurface resources so that they 

are used in combinations that will best meet the 

present and future needs of the public, without unnecessary or undue degradation of the productivity of the 

land and the quality of the environment. 

National Register of Historic Places. A list, kept by 

the Secretary of the Interior, of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American 

history, architecture, archaeology and culture. 

Natlonal Register Quality Site. A cultural resource 

site determined to be eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places by virtue of its local, state or 

national significance. 

Non-attalnment Area. An area where air quality 

standards are violated for one or more given pollutants. 

An area may be non-attainment for one pollutant and 

attainment for others. 

Non-point Pollutlon Source. A collection of accumulated pollutants in the stream, runoff, seepage and 

percolation contributing to the degradation of the 

quality of surface or groundwater that cannot be 

attributed to direct discharge from a specific source, 

usually by a method of conveyance. 

No Surface Occupancy. A fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation that prohibits occupancy or disturbance on 

all or part of the lease surface in order to protect 

special values or uses. Lessees may exploit the oil 

and gas or geothermal resources under leases restricted by this stipulation through use of directional 

drilling from sites outside the no surface occupancy 

area. 

416 
Off-highway Vehicle. Any motorized or non-motorized, tracked or wheeled vehicle designed for crosscountry travel over any type of natural terrain. 

Off-highway Vehicle Designations. 

Open Areas Areas where off-highway vehicles may 

be operated with no special restrictions. Areas 

where there are no compelling resource protection 

needs, user conflicts or public safety issues that 

warrant limiting cross-country travel. 

Closed Areas Areas where all vehicle use is 

permanently or temporarily prohibited to protect 

natural resources, promote visitor safety or reduce 

use conflicts. 

Limited Areas Areas where off-highway vehicle use 

is limited in some manner to meet specific resource 

management objectives. Restrictions can include 

limitations on the number or types of vehicles, on 

time or season of use, to permitted or licensed use 

only, to designated or existing roads and trails, etc. 

Oligocene Epoch. A geologic epoch in the Tertiary 

Period occurring from 37 million to 24 million years 

ago. 

Optimum Population. Populations based on the 

reproductive potential, longevity, management objectives and the ecological conditions present, as well as 

the role species play in an ecologically functional 

community. The optimum will be somewhere between 

the minimal viable population and the carrying capacity 

of an area. It may fluctuate widely due to changing 

environmental factors such as rainfall and vegetation. 

Ore. A mineral deposit of high enough quality to be 

mined at a profit. 

Outstanding Natural Area. A natural area established to preserve scenic values and areas of natural 

wonder. 

Paleontological Resources. Fossils; the remains of 

animals and plants that provide information about life in 

past geologic ages. 

Paleontological Site Classification System. A fossil 

site classification system developed and used by BLM. 

Three different classes are distinguished: 

Class I Areas within formations or portions of 

formations that are known to contain or have 

produced fossils of significant scientific interest. 

Fossils are exposed on the surface or are very 

likely to be discovered with detailed field surveys in 

the area. 

Class II Fossils are present, but while their scientific 

value has not been established, high scientific 

values are not anticipated. 

Class III Little likelihood of finding fossils of significant scientific interest. Further consideration of 

fossils is unnecessary unless future discoveries or 

information require a change in classification. 

Paleontology. The science that deals with the life of 

past geologic ages. It is based on the study of the 

fossil remains of organisms and in a restricted sense is 

the study of fossils. 

Paleozoic Era. A geologic era occurring from about 

600 million to 250 million years ago. 

Patent. A grant made to an individual or group 

conveying fee simple title to selected public lands. 

Patented Claim. A claim on which title has passed 

from the federal government to the mining claimant 

under the Mining Law of 1872. 

Perennlal Stream. A stream that flows yearlong, at 

least in one segment. 

Petroglyph. A figure or symbol cut, carved or pecked 

into stone. 

Phreatophyte. Water loving plants. 

Physlographic Province. An area with similar 

geographical features and climate. 

Pictograph. A figure or symbol drawn or painted on a 

stone surface. 

Placer Deposit. An alluvial or glacial deposit, as of 

sand or gravel, containing particles of gold or other 

valuable minerals. 

Planning Criteria. Factors BLM evaluates to develop 

solutions to the issues and management concerns. 

Planning criteria focus the preparation of the resource 

management plan, establishing limits on the analysis 

that are needed to resolve the issues and concerns. 

Planning Issues. See Issues. 

Planning Area. The geographical area for which 

a resource management plan is prepared and 

maintained. 

417 
Pleistocene Assemblage. The species of mammals 

characteristic of the Pleistocene geologic epoch (or last 

great ice age), occurring from about 1 million years ago 

to 11,000 or 12,000 years ago. Mammals typical to the 

period include the mammoth, camel, horse, dire wolf, 

etc. 

Pliocene Epoch. A geologic epoch at the end of the 

Tertiary period, lasting from about 5 million to 

1,600,000 years ago. 

Precambrian Period. The period of time before the 

Cambrian Period; lasting from the beginning of the 

planet to about 600 million years ago. 

Prescribed Fire. The skillful application of fire 

(planned ignition or natural starts) to fuels under 

planned conditions of weather, fuel moisture, soil 

moisture, etc. that will allow confinement of the fire to a 

predetermined area and produce the intensity of heat 

and rate of spread required to accomplish resource 

objectives. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. Non-motorized and undeveloped types of outdoor recreation 

(hiking, backpacking, camping, hunting, etc.). 

Priority Species. Animal and plant species and 

habitats having special significance for management. 

They include endangered, threatened and special 

status species; species of high economic or recreational value; and aquatic, wetland and riparian 

habitats. Also included are populations of animals or 

plants recognized as significant for one or more factors 

such as density, diversity, size, public interest, remnant 

character or age. 

Proposed Species. Any plant or animal species that 

is proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered 

species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Prospect. An attempt to determine mineral values or 

the site of this attempt. 

Public Land. Lands administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Quaternary Period. A geologic period lasting from 

about 2 million years ago to the present. 

Raptor. A bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly 

curved beak, such as hawks, eagles, owls, vultures 

and falcons. 

Reclamation. Returning disturbed lands to a form and 

productivity that will be ecologically balanced and in 

conformity with a predetermined land management plan. 

Research Natural Area. An area that is established 

and maintained for the primary purpose of research 

and education because the land has one or more of 

the following characteristics: (1) A typical representation of a common plant or animal association; (2) an 

unusual plant or animal association; (3) a threatened or 

endangered plant or animal species; (4) a typical 

representation of common geologic, soil or water 

features; or (5) outstanding or unusual geologic, soil or 

water features. 

Resource Area. The smallest administrative subdivision of a BLM District. 

Resource Conservation Area. A management 

designation that provides management consideration 

to areas with special resource values not requiring the 

protection that an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern designation confers. 

Resource Management Plan. A BLM planning 

document that presents systematic guidelines for 

making resource management decisions for a 

resource area. A Resource Management Plan is 

based on an analysis of an area’s resources, their 

existing management and their capability for 

alternative uses. Resource Management Plans are 

issue-oriented and developed by an interdisciplinary 

team with public participation. 

Right-of-way. A legal right to use, occupy or access 

land or water areas for specified purposes. 

Right-of-way Avoidance Area. Areas of public land 

with highly sensitive resource values that are generally 

prohibited from utility and transportation facility development. Exceptions may be granted if the proposed 

facility benefits or does not adversely affect sensitive 

resources. 

Right-of-way Corridor. A linear area of public lands 

with defined and recognizable boundaries and capacities having ecological, technical, economic, social or 

similar advantages for the present and future location 

of rights-of-way. Corridors must also be identified and 

designated by legal public notice. 

Right-of-way Exclusion Area. Areas of public lands 

that are prohibited from utility and transportation facility 

development. Rights-of-way may be granted only 

when required by law. 

Rlparlan Area. An area of land directly influenced by 

permanent water, either on the surface or as free 

subsurface water in the rooting zone of waterdependent vegetation. 

418 
Riparian Vegetation. A plant community dependent 

upon free water on the surface or free water in the soil. 

Salable Minerals. Common variety minerals used 

mostly for construction projects (e.g., sand and gravel). 

Saline Soil. Soil containing soluble salts in an amount 

that impairs growth of plants. 

Salinity. The relative concentration 01 free salt ions in 

solution. Salinity is usually expressed in terms of the 

number of parts per million. 

Section. A 1 square mile area forming one of the 36 

subdivisions of a standard township. 

Sensitive Species. Those species designated by a 

BLM State Director, in cooperation with a state agency 

responsible for managing the species, as sensitive. 

Sensitive species are those species (1) under status 

review by the Fish and Wildlife Service/National 

Marine Fisheries Service, (2) whose numbers are 

declining so rapidly that federal listing may become 

necessary, (3) with typically small and widely dispersed 

populations or (4) inhabiting ecological refugia or other 

specialized or unique habitats. 

Scoping. An early and open process for determining 

the issues to be addressed in an Environmental Impact 

Statement and for identifying the significant issues 

related to a proposed action. Scoping may include 

public meetings, field interviews with interested individuals and user groups, discussions with resource 

specialists and managers, direct mailings, etc. 

Sediment. Soil or mineral material transported by 

water and deposited in streams or other bodies of 

water. 

Sedimentary Rock. Rock consisting of consolidated 

sediments (e.g., shale, siltstone, sandstone and 

limestone). 

Shrub. A plant that has a persistent woody stem, a 

relatively low-growth habit and generally produces 

several basal shoots instead of a single trunk. 

Significance. A high degree of importance as indicated by either quantitative measurements or qualitative judgments. Significant issues and impacts require 

explicit consideration in the preparation of a plan. 

Significance may be determined by evaluating characteristics pertaining to location, extent, consequence 

and duration of an action or impact. 

Special Recreation Management Area. An area 

requiring explicit recreation management to achieve 

BLM’s recreation objectives and to provide specific 

recreation opportunities. Special Recreation Management Areas are identified in management plans that 

may also define the management objectives for the 

area. BLM’s recreation investments are concentrated 

in these areas. 

Special Status Species. A grouping of wildlife 

species that includes Proposed Species, Threatened 

and Endangered Species, Candidate Species, 

StateListed Species and Sensitive Species (see 

definitions for these terms elsewhere in this Glossary). 

State-Listed Species. Those vegetation or wildlife 

species proposed for listing or listed by a state in a 

category implying potential endangerment or extinction. Listing is either by state legislation or regulation. 

Stipulation. A requirement, usually dealing with 

protection of the environment, that is made part of a 

lease, grant or other authorizing document. 

Threatened Species. Any plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant part of its range. 

Terrestrial. Living on land. 

Tertiary. A geologic period lasting from about 65 

million million years ago to 2 million years ago. 

Unique Waters. A program of the State of Arizona 

designed to protect highquality waters associated with 

exceptional recreation, ecological and wildlife values. 

The designation requires the submission of a nominating petition with rationale for the nomination and 

proof of ability to monitor, maintain and manage the 

stream segment. The designation is approved by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 

Upland Vegetation. Vegetation outside riparian 

zones. 

Valid Exlstlng Rights. Legal interests attached to a 

land or mineral estate that cannot be divested from the 

estate until that interest expires or is relinquished. 

Vehicle Trail. A track, made by the passage of 

vehicles, regularly used for vehicle travel. Desert 

washes may be included as trails if they have a history 

of use. 

Vegetation Type. A plant community with distinguishable characteristics described by the dominant vegetation present. 

419 
Viable Population. A population of sufficient numbers 

to maintain itself over time. 

Vibroseiser Line. Method of geophysical exploration. 

Visual Resources. The visible physical features on 

the landscape (land, water, vegetation and structures). 

Scenery. 

Visual Resource Management. The inventory, 

designation and implementation of management 

objectives to maintain the desired scenic quality of the 

public lands. Management of BLM activities to mitigate 

adverse impacts to scenery to acceptable levels. 

Visual Resource Management Classes. Classes 

with specific objectives for maintaining or enhancing 

scenic quality, including the kinds of modifications to 

the landscape that are acceptable to meet the established objectives. 

Class I (preservation) provides for natural, ecological changes only. This class includes wilderness 

areas, some natural areas, some wild and scenic 

rivers and other similar sites where landscape 

modification should be restricted. 

Class II (retention of the landscape character) 

includes areas where changes in any of the basic 

elements (form, line, color or texture), caused by 

management activities, should not be evident in the 

characteristic landscape. 

Class Ill (partial retention of the landscape character) includes areas where changes in the basic 

elements caused by management activities may be 

evident in the characteristic landscape. The 

changes, however, should remain subordinate to the 

existing landscape character. 

Class IV (modification of the landscape character) 

includes areas where changes may subordinate the 

original composition and character. They should, 

however, reflect what could be a natural occurrence 

in the characteristic landscape. 

Water Quality. The chemical, physical and biological 

characteristics of water with respect to its suitability for 

a particular use. 

Watershed. The region draining into a river, river 

system or body of water. 

Way. See Vehicle Trail. 

Wetlands. Lands including swamps, marshes, bogs 

and similar areas such as wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats and natural ponds. 

Wild and Scenic River System. A system established by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect 

rivers and their immediate environments that have 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, 

fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar 

values. Rivers can be designated in one of three 

classes: 

Wild Rivers- rivers that are free of impoundments 

and pollution and generally inaccessible except 

by trail, with essentially primitive watersheds or 

shorelines. 

Scenic Rivers - rivers free of impoundments, with 

shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads. 

Recreational Rivers - rivers readily accessible by 

road or railroad, that may have some development 

along shorelines and may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Wilderness. An area formally designated by Congress as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. A wilderness, in contrast with those areas 

where people and their works dominate the landscape, 

is recognized as an area where the earth and its 

community of life are untrammeled, where people visit 

but do not remain. It is an area of undeveloped land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human habitation, that is 

protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions and which (1) generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at 

least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to 

make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecologic, geologic, or other features of scientific, education, scenic or historic value. 

Wilderness Study Area. A roadless area or island 

that has been inventoried and found to have wilderness characteristics. An area to be studied to determine its suitability for designation as wilderness. 

Wildlife. Animals living in the wild that have not been 

domesticated by humans. 

Withdrawals. The closure of public lands to uses 

under sales, settlement, location and entry. Withdrawals limit use to maintenance of public values or 

reserves for a particular use or program. Withdrawals 

can also transfer jurisdiction of public lands to another 

federal agency. 

Xeric. Dry areas. 
 

 

References 

Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, 

Geological Survey Branch. 1983. Metallic Mineral 

Districts of Arizona. Tucson, AZ. 

Arizona Department of Health Services, Bureau of 

Water Quality Control. 1984. Water Quality Assessment for the State of Arizona: Water Years 1982­

83. Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources. 

1987-88. Active Mines Map. Tucson, AZ. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Map of 

Game Species Densities. Phoenix, AZ. 

Brown, Lowe, and Pase. 1979. A Digitized Classification System for the Biotic Communities of North 

America, with Community (series) and Association 

Examples for the Southwest. Joumal of the 

Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. Tempe, AZ. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 1978a. Manual 8100 - Cultural Resource 

Management. Washington, D.C. 

____. 1978b. Upper Gila - San Simon Grazing Environmental Impact Statement. Safford, AZ. 

____. 1981. Winkelman Management Framework
 

Plan Safford, AZ.
 

____. 1982a. Manual 8340 - Off-road Vehicles.
 

Washington, D.C.
 

____. 1982b. Manual 8342 - Designation of Areas and 

Trails Washington, DC. 

____. 1983. Manual 8560 - Management of Designated Wilderness Areas. Washington, DC. 

____. 1984a. Manual 8400 - Visual Resource Management. Washington, DC. 

____. 1984b. Mineral Resources Policy. Washington, 

D.C. 

____. 1985a. Draft Guidelines: Management of 

Pelentological Resources. Washington, D.C. 

____. 1985b. Instruction Memorandum No. AZ-85­

152, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

Between the Bureau of Land Management and 

State Land Department for Land Exchange. 

Phoenix, AZ. 

1985c. Manual 9 1 10 - Transportation Facilities. 

Washington, D.C. 

____. 1986a. Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental 

Impact Statement. Phoenix, AZ. 

____. 1986b. Manual 84 10 - Visual Resource 

Inventory. Washington, D.C. 

____. 1987a. 43 CFR Part 1610, Resource Management Planning. Washington, D.C. 

1987b. 43 CFR Part 3100, Oil and Gas Leasing. 

Washington, D.C. 

____.1987c. 43 CFR Part 3200, Geothermal 

Resource Leasing. Washington, D.C. 

____. 1987d. 43 CFR Part 3400, Coal Management. 

Washington, D.C. 

____. 1987e. 43 CFR Part 3500, Leasing of Solid 

Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale. 

Washington, D.C. 

____. 1987f. 43 CFR 3800, Mining Claims Under the
 

General Mining Law. Washington, DC.
 

____. 1987g. Instruction Memorandum No. 87-274, 

Riparian Area Management Policy. Washington, 

D.C. 

____. 1987h. interim Management Policy and 

Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review. 

Washington, D.C. 

____. 19871. Safford District Wilderness Environmental 

Impact Statement. Safford, AZ. 

____. 1987j. Fish and Wildlife 2000. Washington, 

D.C. 

____. 1988a. Manual 6840 - Special Status Species 

Management. Washington, DC. 

____. 1988b. Wilderness Management Plan, Aravaipa 

Canyon Wilderness, Arizona. Safford, AZ. 

____. 1989a. Arizona Mojave Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement. Phoenix, AZ. 

____. 1989b. Cultural Properties in the Gila Resource 

Area With Standing Architectural Structures. 

Safford, AZ. 

____. 1989c. Environmental Impact Statement, 

Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 13 Western 

States, in preparation. Washington, D.C. 

421 
 

____. 1989d. Gila Resource Area Management 

Situation Analysis. Safford, AZ. 

____. 1989e. Safford District Fire Management Activity 

Plan. Safford, AZ. 

____. 1989f. San Pedro River Riparian Management 

Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Safford, 

AZ. 

____. 1989g. San Simon Resource Area Management 

Situation Analysis. Safford, AZ. 

Bureau of Mines. 1986. Availability of Federally 

Owned Minerals for Exploration and Development in 

Western States: Arizona. Washington, D.C. 

____. 1988a. Mineral Investigation of the Muleshoe 

Study Area, Cochise and Graham Counties, 

Arizona, MLA 43-88. Denver, CO. 

____. 1988b. Mineral Resources of the Aravaipa 

Study Area, Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona, 

MLA 38-88. Denver, CO. 

Bureau of Mines and Geological Survey. 1989. 

Mineral Summaries, Bureau of Land Management 

Wilderness Study Areas in Arizona. Denver, CO 

and Menlo Park, CA. 

Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture. 

1982. National Wild and Scenic River System Final . . . . Revised Guidelines for Eligibility Classi- fication and 

Management of River Areas. Federal Register, Vol. 

47, No. 173. Washington, D.C. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1986. 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Coronado 

National Forest Plan. Tucson, AZ. 

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1984. Map Showing Mineral Resource Potential of 

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas in Arizona. Menlo 

Park, CA. 

____. 1987. Mineral Resources of the Needle’s Eye
 

Wilderness Study Area, Gila County, Arizona,
 

Survey Bulletin 1703-B. Denver, CO. 

Keith, S.B., D.E. Gest, E. Dewitt, N.W. Toll and B.A. 

Everson. 1983. Metallic Mineral Districts and 

Production in Arizona. Arizona Bureau of Geology 

and Mineral Technology Bulletin 194. Tucson, AZ. 

Lindsay, Everett H. 1979. Paleontological Inventory of 

the Safford District. Unpublished manuscript 

prepared by the University of Arizona, Department 

of Geosciences, for the Bureau of Land Management. Tucson, AZ. 

McColly, R.A. and N.B. Anderson. 1987. Availability 

of Federally Owned Minerals for Exploration and 

Development in Western Stares: Arizona, 7986. 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Special Report. Washington, 

D.C. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1982. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory, Arizona 

Component. Washington, D.C. 

Simons, F.S., P.K. Theobald, R.R. Tidball, J.A. 

Erdman, T.F. Harms, A. Griscom and G.S. Ryan. 

1987. Mineral Resources of the Black Rock Wilderness Study Area, Graham County, Arizona. U.S. 

Geological Survey, 1703-C. Denver, CO. 

____. 1987. Mineral Resources of the Needle’s Eye 

Wilderness Study Area, Gila County, Arizona. 

Geological Survey, 1703-B. Denver, CO. 

Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of San 

Simon Area, Arizona, Parts of Cochise, Graham, 

and Greenlee Counties. Washington, D.C. 

____. 1981. Soil Survey of Gila - Duncan Area, 

Arizona, Parts of Graham and Greenlee Counties. 

Washington, D.C. 

Tomida, Yukimitsu. 1987. Small Mammal Fossils and 

Correlation of Continental Deposits, Safford and 

Duncan Basins, Arizona, USA. National Science 

Mus- eum. Tokyo, Japan. 

University of Arizona. 1985. Managing Water Quality 

in a Water Scarce State. Tucson, AZ. 

Valley National Bank of Arizona. 1988. Arizona 

Statistical Review. 44th Edition. Phoenix, AZ. 

Waddell, Tom. 1979. State and Provincial Status 

Reports, as cited in the First Black Bear Workshop, 

Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ. 

Witcher, J.C., C. Stone and W.R. Hahman, Sr. 1982. 

Geothermal Resources of Arizona, map produced 

by the Arizona Geological Survey. Tucson, AZ. 

422 
Appendices 

Table of Contents 

Page
 

Appendix 1 - Locations for Acquisition of Legal Access ..............................................................................431
 

Appendix 2 - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluations .............................................................435
 

Appendix 3 - Wild and Scenic River Study Reports .....................................................................................453
 

Appendix 4 - Management Objectives for Priority Species/Habitats ............................................................473
 

Appendix 5 - Lands That Meet FLPMA Requirements for Sale ...................................................................477
 

Appendix 6 - Visual Resource Management Class Objectives ....................................................................485
 

Appendix 7 - Legal Description for Lands Proposed for Mineral Withdrawal ...............................................487
 

Appendix 8 - Legal Description for Lands Proposed for Mineral Leasing Withdrawal ..................................493
 

Appendix 9 - Water Quality Testing Sites ....................................................................................................495
 

Appendix 10 - Reasonable Foreseeable Development for Leasable Mineral Activities ................................497
 

Appendix 11 - Mineral Potential Classification System .................................................................................499
 

Appendix 12 - Cultural Resource Management Objectives and Use Categories ..........................................501
 

Appendix 13 - Desert Tortoise Categorization Criteria ..................................................................................503
 
 

Appendix 1 
 

Locations for Acquisition of Legal Access
 

Legal access will be acquired across private, state or Indian Reservation lands, for public and/or administrative 

vehicular use, in the following locations. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

Alternatives A and C 

Murray Springs Road T. 21 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 26.
 

Guadalupe Canyon Road T. 24 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 14,15,16,21.
 

Baker Canyon Road T. 23 S., R. 32 E., Sec. 31;
 

T. 23 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 1. 

Emigrant Canyon Road T. 14 S., R. 28 E., Secs. 25,36; 

T. 14 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 31; 

T. 15 S., R. 29 E., Secs. 3,4,5, 6, 10. 

Buckeye Canyon Road T. 13 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 26,27,34; 

T. 14 S., R. 27 E., Sec. 9. 

Mascot Mine Road T. 14 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 16, 21, 28, 29. 

Mineral Park Road T. 14 S., R. 26 E., Secs. 8,9, 11, 14, 15, 16. 

Happy Camp Canyon Road T. 13 S., R. 28 E., Secs. 3,7,8,9. 

Walnut Gulch Road T. 13 S., R. 26 E., Secs. 23, 26, 35. 

Little Doubtful Canyon Road T. 12 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 26, 27,35. 

Doubtful Canyon Road T. 12 S., R. 32 E., Sec. 35; 

T. 13 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 3,9. 

West Peloncillo Mountains Roads, including Midway Canyon 

T. 12 S., R.31 E., Secs. 11, 12, 13, 24; 

T. 12 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 7, 18. 

Day Ranch Road T. 10 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 21,29. 

Upper San Francisco River Road 

T. 3 S., R. 30 E., Secs. 20,29 32; 

T. 4 S., R. 29 E., Secs. 12, 13; 

T. 4S., R. 30 E., Secs. 5, 6,7, 18, 19, 30. 

Black River Road T. 4 S., R. 28 E., Secs. 25,26; 

T. 4 S., R. 29 E., Secs. 19, 20, 30. 

Upper Bonita Creek Road 

T. 4 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 27,34; 

T. 5 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 3, 10, 11, 14,23. 

431 
 

 

17. West Ranch Road T. 5 S., R. 26 E., Secs. 26,35; 

T. 6 S., R. 26 E., Secs. 2,33; 

T. 7 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 4. 

18. Black Point Road T. 6 S., R. 25 E., Sec. 7. 

19. New Bryce Road T. 6 S., R. 25 E., Sec. 6. 

20. Red Knolls Road T. 5 S., R. 23 E., Sec. 25; 

T. 5 S., R. 24 E., Secs. 30,31. 

21. Black Rock Road Across San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and private lands along Black Rock Wash. 

22. Goodwin Wash Road Across San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and private lands along Goodwin Wash. 

23. Whittaker Ranch Road T. 6 S., R. 17 E., Secs. 17, 19, 20. 

24. Rug Road T. 7 S., R. 18 E., Sec. 14; 

T. 8 S., R. 18 E., Sec. 1,5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 

25. Old Aravaipa Road T. 5 S., R. 19 E., Secs. 24, 25, 26, 36. 

26. Dry Camp Road T. 6 S., R. 19 E., Secs. 5,8. 

27. Wagner Ranch Road T. 6 S., R. 17 E., Secs. 13,23,24. 

28. Oak Spring Canyon Road T. 6 S., R. 17 E., Sec. 26; 

T. 6 S., R. 18 E., Secs. 31,32. 

29. Wood Ranch Road T. 6 S., R. 17 E., Secs. 23,24. 

30. Upper Deer Creek Road T. 6 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 3; 

T. 5 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 34. 

31. Gila River Road below Coolidge Dam T. 3 S., R. 18 E., Secs. 17, 18. 

32. El Capitan Road T. 2 S., R. 15 E., Secs. 23,25,26. 

33. Cutter Road Across San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and private lands from Cutter to Mescal Creek. 

34. Chilito Mine Road T. 4 S., R. 15 E., Secs. 22, 23, 27, 34; 

T. 5 S., R. 15 E., Secs. 2,9, 11. 

35. Cherry Springs Canyon Road T. 12 S., R. 20 E., Secs. 4,9. 

36. Jackson Cabin Road T. 12 S., R. 20 E., Secs. 11, 12, 13; 

T. 12 S., R. 21 E., Secs. 19, 30,31; 

T. 13 S., R. 21 E., Secs. 5,6. 

37. Muleshoe Pipeline Road T. 12 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 31. 

38. St. David Cienega Road T. 18 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 20. 

39. Charleston Admin. Road T. 20 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 36. 

432 
 

 

Alternative B 

1. Murray Springs Road T. 21 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 26. 

2. Guadalupe Canyon Road T. 24 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 14,15,16,21. 

3. Emigrant Canyon Road T. 14 S., R. 28 E., Secs. 25, 36; 

T. 14 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 31; 

T. 15 S., R. 29 E., Secs. 3,4,5, 6, 10. 

4. Buckeye Canyon Road T. 13 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 26,27,34; 

T. 14 S., R. 27 E., Sec. 9. 

5. Mascot Mine Road T. 14 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 16, 21,28,29. 

6. Mineral Park Road T. 14 S., R. 26 E., Secs. 8,9,11,14,15,16. 

7. Walnut Gulch Road T. 13 S., R. 26 E., Secs. 23,26,35. 

8. Doubttul Canyon Road T. 12 S., R. 32 E., Sec. 35; 

T. 13 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 3,9. 

9. West Peloncillo Mountains Roads, including Midway Canyon 

T. 12 S., R. 31 E., Secs. 11, 12, 13, 24; 

T. 12 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 7,18. 

10. Day Ranch Road T. 10 S., R. 32 E., Secs. 21,29. 

11. Upper San Francisco River Road 

T. 3 S., R. 30 E., Secs. 20, 29 32; 

T. 4 S., R. 29 E., Secs. 12,13; 

T. 4 S., R. 30 E., Secs. 5, 6,7, 18, 19, 30. 

12. Black River Road T. 4 S., R. 28 E., Secs. 25,26; 

T. 4 S., R. 29 E., Secs. 19,20,30. 

13. Upper Bonita Creek Road T. 4 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 27,34; 

T. 5 S., R. 27 E., Secs. 3, 10, 11, 14, 23. 

14. West Ranch Road T. 5 S., R. 26 E., Secs. 26,35; 

T. 6 S., R. 26 E., Secs. 2,33; 

T . 7 S., R. 2 6 E., Sec. 4. 

15. Black Point Road T. 6 S., R. 25 E., Sec. 7. 

16. New Bryce Road T. 6 S., R. 25 E., Sec. 6. 

17. Red Knolls Road T. 5 S., R. 23 E., Sec. 25; 

T. 5 S., R. 24 E., Secs. 30,31. 

18. Black Rock Road Across San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and private lands along Black Rock Wash. 

19. Goodwin Wash Road Across San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and private lands along Goodwin Wash 

20. Whittaker Ranch Road T. 6 S., R. 17 E., Secs. 17, 19, 20. 

433 
 

21. Rug Road T. 7 S., R. 18 E., Sec. 14; 

T. 8 S., R. 18 E., Sec. 1, 5, 12,13,14, 15, 16. 

22. Dry Camp Road T. 6 S., R. 19 E., Secs. 5,8. 

23. Wagner Ranch Road T. 6 S., R. 17 E., Secs. 13,23,24. 

24. Wood Ranch Road T. 6 S., R. 17 E., Secs. 23, 24. 

25. Upper Deer Creek Road T. 6 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 3; 

T. 5 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 34. 

26. Gila River Road below Coolidge Dam T. 3 S., R. 18 E., Secs. 17, 18. 

27. Cutter Road Across San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and private lands from Cutter to Mescal Creek. 

28. Jackson Cabin Road T. 12 S., R. 20 E., Secs. 11,12,13; 

T. 12 S., R. 21 E., Secs. 19,30,31; 

T. 13 S., R. 21 E., Secs. 5,6. 

29. Muleshoe Pipeline Road T. 12 S., R. 21 E., Sec. 31. 

434 
 

Appendix 2
 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluations 

Gila ....................................................................................................................... 437 Box Outstanding Natural Area
 

Turkey Creek Riparian ........................................................................................................................................... 438 
 

Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area ...............................................................................
 

.............................................................................................................................................. 446
 

Table Mountain Research Natural Area ................................................................................................................. 439 
 

Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area ............................................................................................................ 440 
 

Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed ................................................................................................................ 441
 

Bear Springs Badlands ............................................... ........................................................................................... 442 
 

Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area ....................................................................................................... 443 
 

Bowie Mountain Scenic ........... ............. 444
 

DOS Cabezas Peaks
 

Eagle Creek Bat Cave ........................................................................................................................................... 446
 

Willcox Playa National Natural Landmark ........................................................................................................................ 448 
 .............................................................................................................. 447
 

111 Ranch Research Natural Area
 

Areas Considered but Not Designated ................................................................................................................... 449 
 

435 
� 

� 

Appendix 2 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluations 

Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: The Gila Box area is well known for its many 

significant values. The area contains riparian vegetation along the rivers and is known for the overlap of Sonoran 

and Chihuahuan Desert vegetation. The Gila Box contains a number of mesquite bosques significant to wildlife and 

an increasingly rare vegetation community. The area has moderate to high values in known and projected prehistoric archaeological sites and in the numerous historic sites. The rivers may support populations of the threatened 

loach minnow and spikedace. Endangered bald eagles winter in this area. The area has significant features in the 

highly eroded volcanic and conglomerate geological formations. Also included is the last free-flowing stretch of the 

Gila River in Arizona. The Gila and San Francisco rivers are both perennial. The area is noted for its wildlife 

populations, especially raptors like the black and zone-tailed hawks and bald eagles. The twisting canyons, steep 

cliffs, erosional features, vegetation, flowing streams and geological formations combine to make this an outstanding 

scenic area. Finally, the Gila Box is used extensively for recreation, including floatboating, hiking, picnicking, fishing 

and off-highway vehicle use. This area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a 

result of BLM inventories. 

This area meets the relevance criterion because it has significant historic values (numerous homesteading sites), 

prehistoric values (numerous known and projected archaeological sites) and scenic values (twisting canyons with 

erosional features, perennial streams and interesting geological formations). It also has a fish and wildlife resource 

in the native fish and bald eagles. 

This area meets the importance criterion because it has more than locally significant qualities in the “last free-flowing 

stretch of the Gila River in Arizona”, the perennial condition of the rivers and the outstanding scenic quality of the 

area. The bald eagles, perennial streams, fishery resource and the scenic qualities are all sensitive and vulnerable 

to adverse change, especially from surface disturbing activities. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: A portion of the area was evaluated for wilderness 

designation, though none of the area was recommended. This area is also being studied for possible designation 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Gila Box was proposed as an Outstanding Natural Area in past planning 

efforts. This area also includes about 10 acres of mesquite bosques nominated as a separate Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern but included in this evaluation. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The Gila Box area should be designated as an Outstanding Natural Area Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern of 2,411 acres because the special values identified above meet the relevance and 

importance criteria and are in need of special management for their protection and enhancement. In addition, the 

Gila Box is a well-known canyon to many people both in and out of Arizona, making it a highly sensitive area. 

4. Special Management Prescriptions - Preferred Alternative 

- withdraw the area from mineral entry. 

prohibit surface occupancy for mineral leasing activities. 

- close the area to mineral material sales, 

- designate the area “Limited” to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicle use to existing roads and trails. 

- acquire private inholdings, as they become available. 

prohibit authorization of rights-of-way. 

437 
� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

prohibit woodcutting and gathering for home use. Gathering dead and down wood for campfires is permitted. 

manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve the scenic qualities of the Gila 

Box. 

5. Alternatives Considered: In Alternative B, an Area of Critical Environmental Concern would be established to 

include 2,994 acres of public land. This alternative includes the lands in the Preferred Alternative, as well as 

additional lands along the San Francisco River. The management prescription would be the same as under the 

Preferred Alternative with the following exceptions: the river bottoms would be closed to off-highway vehicle use; 

wildfires in riparian areas would be suppressed; and authorization of rights-of-way would be prohibited in the Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern outside the existing Arizona Electric Power Company right-of-way. 

Alternative C has been eliminated through congressional designation of the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation 

Area. All lands which were included in Alternative C are now within the boundaries of the National Conservation 

Area. 

Turkey Creek Riparian 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: Protection and enhancement of riparian vegetation is 

a high priority for BLM. Turkey Creek and Oak Grove and Maple canyons contain riparian communities, wildlife, 

cultural and scenic resources that warrant Area of Critical Environmental Concern designation. This area was 

identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a result of BLM inventories and by a nomination 

from The Nature Conservancy. 

This area meets the relevance criterion because it has significant cultural and scenic values, a wildlife resource and 

a natural process or system in the riparian vegetation. 

The importance criterion is met because the canyons have more than locally significant qualities in the cultural 

resources, riparian vegetation, wildlife and scenery. These qualities also make the area fragile, sensitive and 

vulnerable to adverse change. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: The Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness adjoins portions of 

the proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The recommended boundary is a portion of a 40,000-acre 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern proposed by The Nature Conservancy. 

3. Rationale for Designatlon: The Turkey Creek riparian area should be designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern since sensitive resources require special management for protection and enhancement. Maple 

Canyon contains a high quality mixed broad-leaf riparian community that includes big-toothed maple at its lowest 

known elevation in Arizona. Turkey Creek and Oak Grove Canyon contain riparian, wildlife, cultural and scenic 

values that require special management of recreation, livestock, access and vegetation to improve ecological 

conditions in the 2,326 acre area. The watersheds of the canyon areas do not contain special resources and will be 

properly managed to protect downstream values according to decisions of the Preferred Alternative. 

4. Special Management Prescriptions - Preferred Alternative 

designate the area limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicle use to existing roads and trails. 

close Turkey Creek Canyon and Oak Grove Canyon (in Area of Critical Environmental Concern) to vehicle use 

beyond the Oak Grove Canyon corral. 

manage livestock to avoid yearlong use, consistent with the goals of the Aravaipa Watershed Coordinated 

Resource Management Plan. 

. monitor water quality and provide input to activity plans to maintain the desired water conditions. 

manage the area to accelerate recovery of riparian vegetation to reach good ecological condition by 1997. 

438 
� 

� 

� 

� 

- acquire adjacent riparian areas and lands within the watershed, as they become available. 

- prohibit woodcutting and gathering for home use. Gathering dead and down wood for campfires is permitted. 

manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve scenic quality. 

5. Alternatives Considered: In Alternative B, an Area of Critical Environmental Concern would be established to 

include the approximate 50,290 acres of public lands in the Aravaipa watershed. Livestock grazing on the South 

Rim Allotment would be suspended for the life of this plan except for the terms of the existing permit. Adjacent lands 

in the watershed will be acquired from willing owners. Upland vegetation communities will be rehabilitated using fire, 

mechanical, structural and chemical treatments. Roads and earthen dams will be stabilized to reduce erosion. BLM 

will integrate watershed treatments with livestock allotment management plans and other activity plans and will 

develop cooperative agreements with adjacent landowners. Management will emphasize rehabilitation and protection of upland and riparian areas using active management to accelerate processes. The Area of Critical Environmental Concern would become a right-of-way avoidance area. 

In Alternative C, the Area of Critical Environmental Concern will encompass primarily the 22,510 acres on the south 

rim of Aravaipa Canyon. This proposal is coupled with designation of no additional wilderness. Management 

emphasis will be to accelerate rehabilitation of the upland areas by initiating cooperative livestock and watershed 

management research. Livestock on allotment within the watershed will be managed consistent with goals developed in the Aravaipa Watershed Coordinated Resource Management Plan. Riparian habitat will be managed 

similar to methods in Alternative A. 

Table Mountain Research Natural Area 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: The area was nominated by The Nature Conservancy due to the presence of two important plant communities. The top of Table Mountain contains an alligator 

juniper savanna, a plant community known in less than 20 locations. The adjoining Sycamore and Saddle canyons 

contain a white oak woodland containing Mexican blue oak at the northernmost limit of its range. 

This area meets the relevance criterion because it contains a natural process or system in the presence of two plant 

communities. 

The importance criterion is met because the two plant communities have more than locally significant qualities 

giving them special worth and distinctiveness. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: The nominated area is separate from all other proposed areas. The area originally nominated by The Nature Conservancy included approximately 40,000 acres on 

the south rim of Aravaipa Canyon and portions of the north rim. This boundary is retained in Alternative Cfor the 

Turkey Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern, however the Preferred Alternative includes only the areas 

with special resources. In Alternative B the Table Mountain Research Natural Area would be within the 70,000-acre 

Aravaipa Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The Table Mountain Research Natural Area should be designated to manage 

the special botanical values within the 1,220-acre boundary. The plant communities represent important public 

resources that require management different from surrounding public lands if they are to be maintained. 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

designate the area limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicle use to existing roads and trails. 

prohibit woodcutting and gathering for home use. Gathering dead and down wood for campfires is permitted. 

prepare a prescribed burn plan that will allow fire to continue its role in the ecology of the Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

- manage livestock to limit concentrated use. 

439 
� 

� 

� 

� 

- withdraw the area from mineral entry. 

close the area to vegetation sales. 

- limit research to the effects of natural processes on this plant community. 

5. Alternatives Considered: In Alternative B, management would differ in that the area would be withdrawn from 

mineral entry, no surface occupancy would be permitted for mineral leasing activities, livestock would be excluded 

from the area and the area would be a Research Natural Area within the Aravaipa Watershed Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. In Alternative C, is the same as Alternatives A and B except that a mining plan will be 

required for all operations and the area would be a Research Natural Area within the South Rim Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. 

Desert Grasslands Research Natural Areas 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: Desert grasslands on upland soils provide the 

majority of grazing lands in the desert southwest, provide critical habitat for 13 state-listed wildlife species and are 

important for watershed stabilization. Relict grasslands provide baseline conditions on which to establish management objectives and gauge management progress. Retention of some undisturbed desert grassland areas is of 

value to BLM management and scientific research. Three areas (two are on isolated buttes and the other on top of 

a steep ridge) represent minimally disturbed desert grasslands on two different soils. This area was identified as a 

potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a result of BLM inventories and by nomination from The Nature 

Conservancy. 

The area meets the relevance criterion because it contains a natural process or system in the relict grasslands. 

These grasslands are in three locations on two soil types. 

The importance criterion is met because the area contains more than locally significant qualities that give it special 

worth and distinctiveness in the relict grasslands. These grasslands are also sensitive, rare or vulnerable to adverse 

change. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: None 

3. Rationale for Designation: Special management is required to maintain these relict areas for research purposes and to permit only those research projects that would not adversely affect current conditions. The Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern will encompass 380 acres on Mescal Ridge; 90 acres on the Pilares; and on 

Sombrero Butte, 60 acres of BLM, 60 acres of private and 240 acres of state land, to be acquired. 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative. 

withdraw 380 acres in the Mescal Ridge Grassland from mineral entry. 

_ acquire adjacent state and private parcels, as they become available. 

_ prepare a prescribed burn plan that will allow fire to continue its role in the ecology of the Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

limit research to the effects of natural processes on the grasslands. 

exclude livestock. 

5. Alternatives Considered: In Alternative B, management will designate the area closed to off-highway vehicle 

use, close the area to mineral material sales and prohibit surface occupancy for mineral leasing in addition to 

prescriptions in Alternative A. Alternative Cdiffers from Alternatives A and B in that a mining plan will be required. 

440 
� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: Portions of the area were identified by BLM as a 

potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern based on riparian, wildlife and scenic values. A larger area was 

recommended by The Nature Conservancy for the above resources plus cultural and watershed values. Review of 

the areas determined that the important cultural resources are located on private lands and the scenic values are of 

only local importance. The significant resources are located in the major riparian areas of the Swamp Springs and 

Hot Springs drainages and include riparian vegetation, communities of five species of native fishes and raptor 

nesting habitat. 

This area meets the relevance criterion because it contains a fish and wildlife resource of native fish and nesting 

raptors. The area also contains a natural process or system in the riparian vegetation. 

The importance criterion is met because of the more than locally significant qualities of riparian vegetation, native 

fish and breeding raptors. These qualities are also fragile, sensitive, rare and vulnerable to adverse change. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: Part of the proposed Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern, east of the Jackson Cabin Road and adjacent to the existing Forest Service Galiuro Wilderness, was 

determined to be suitable for designation as wilderness. The boundaries proposed by BLM and The Nature Conservancy were adjusted to include other riparian areas with special resources and lands in between them that could be 

managed to enhance those resources. Excluded were lands that could not be effectively managed or those that did 

not add to the protection of important riparian resources. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The special resources found in the Swamp Springs and Hot Springs drainages 

require special management. Portions of the watershed also require special management attention to aid ecological 

stability and increase the speed of riparian recovery. Some adjoining areas have been included to link the important 

riparian areas and to increase management efficiency. A 22,883-acre Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

should be designated, including 17,438 acres of BLM, 4,478 acres of The Nature Conservancy lands and 967 acres 

of state land, to be acquired. 

4. Special Management Provlsions - Preferred Alternative 

manage the area to accelerate recovery of riparian vegetation to reach good ecological condition by 1997. 

_ exclude livestock to facilitate rehabilitation of riparian and upland vegetation communities within the Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. 

_ manage the area to accelerate recovery of upland vegetation communities. 

acquire legal public access on the Jackson Cabin road where it crosses private lands. Maintain this road to a 

four-wheel drive standard for public and administrative use. Acquire legal access to Pipeline Road for administrative use only. 

consolidate public land ownership within Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Acquire additional lands
 

within Redfield, Hot Springs and Bass Canyon watersheds.
 

_ permit recreation, scientific and administrative uses compatible with protection of the riparian resources and 

restoration of upland vegetation. 

require a mining plan of operation for all future mining activity. 

_ prohibit woodcutting and gathering for home use. Gathering dead-and-down 

wood for campfires is permitted. 

designate the area limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicles to existing roads and trails. Designate the 

riparian area of Hot Springs Canyon closed to off-highway vehicle use. 

441 
5. Alternatives Considered: Under Alternative B the entire Muleshoe Ranch outside the Redfield Canyon Wilderness Area would be designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and the state land to be acquired on 

Redfield Creek would be included in the boundary. The size would be approximately 19,400 acres. Management 

would emphasize rehabilitation of riparian and upland communities using mechanical, chemical, fire, vegetative and 

livestock management methods. Area of Critical Environmental Concern prescriptions will be retained on lands 

designated wilderness. 

In Alternative C only the lands containing the larger riparian areas outside the Redfield Canyon Wilderness Area will 

be included in the Area of Critical Environmental Concern boundary. This covers 2,556 acres (with 770 acres 

owned by The Nature Conservancy) within Hot Springs Canyon and adjoining riparian areas. Management emphasis will be to achieve ecologically good riparian condition by 1997. Management action will be initiated to acquire 

private lands as they become available; exclude livestock; limit off -highway vehicle use to existing roads and trails; 

develop cooperative management agreements with adjacent landowners; and permit recreational, scientific and 

administrative uses compatible with protection and management of riparian resources. 

Bear Springs Badlands 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: The nominated Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern is located in a geological badlands setting composed of ridges, small mesas, hillocks, spires and other 

erosional landforms. The geologic strata in these landforms are extremely well-delineated and many can be seen 

several miles away due to their contrasting and visually impressive assortment of colors (green, orange and yellow 

hues). 

The fossilized bones of Blancan Age mammals that lived approximately 3 million 4 million years ago are exposed on 

many of the erosional landforms. Fossilized bones include those from elephant-like mammals (Gomphotheriid), 

three-toed horse (Nannippus phlegon), camel (Hemiquchenia and Camelops) and Pliohippus (horse). Also located 

in the badlands are the fossilized tracks of camel and horse (Equus). 

This badlands area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a result of BLM inventories showing the high scientific and public values of its paleontological resources. Specifically, its fossilized bones 

are potentially capable of providing substantive information about vertebrate evolution. The fossilized tracks represent one of the few places in North America where one can see such excellent examples of preserved mammal 

trackways. 

This area meets the relevance criterion because it contains a significant scenic value in its impressive erosional 

features. The area also has a natural process or system in the Class I fossils and tracks of various Blancan Age 

mammals. 

The importance criterion is met because of the more than locally significant Class I fossils and tracks. The fossils 

and tracks are also fragile, sensitive, rare, exemplary and vulnerable to adverse change. 

2. Relationship to Areas of Other Special Management: None. 

3. Rationale for Designation: Bear Springs Badlands should be designated an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern due to the presence of scientifically important Class I fossils dating to the late Tertiary geologic period. 

Areas such as these should be preserved for scientific study because they provide one of the best records of 

mammalian communities during that period. Further, the fossilized tracks provide a rare opportunity to study and 

appreciate the interaction of animals that lived millions of years ago. 

The nominated area contains 2,927 acres under the Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative, an additional 320 

acres of state land in the north half of Section 9 in Township 7 South, Range 23 East would be added if acquired. 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

_ intensively inventory the paleontological resources to determine their nature and extent. 

442 
� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

_ require a paleontological collection permit for all fossil collecting. 

_ facilitate scientific and recreational use of the area. 

_ manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve its scenic quality. 

prohibit road construction 

designate the area limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicles to existing roads and trails. 

mitigate livestock and soil erosion control actions that will have adverse impacts on fossils. 

withdraw the area from mineral entry. 

prohibit surface occupancy for mineral leasing activities. 

close the area to mineral material sales. 

� right-of-way avoidance area. 

5. Alternatives Considered: Alternative B would include about 4,127 acres. The management prescription would 

be similar to the Preferred Alternative except it would limit vehicle use to that necessary for administrative purposes. 

Alternative C would include about 2,007 acres. Management differs from the other atternatives primarily in that 

3809 regulations would be used to manage mining activity. 

Guadalupe Canyon Outstanding Natural Area 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: This area has a number of special resources, 

including an overlap of Chihuahuan, Rocky Mountain and Sierra Madrean vegetation; an extensive riparian forest 

dominated by sycamores; unconfirmed reports of jaguars and Mexican wolves, both endangered species; one of the 

premier birdwatching areas in Arizona; and numerous species of Mexican wildlife, especially birds, that enter the 

United States in only a few places. The area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as 

a result of BLM inventories and by a nomination from The Nature Conservancy. 

This area meets the relevance criterion because it has significant wildlife resources in the numerous species that 

enter the United States from Mexico, including threatened and endangered animals. The area also has a unique 

natural system in the overlap of Chihuahuan, Rocky Mountain and Sierra Madrean vegetation communities. 

This area meets the importance criterion because it has more than locally significant qualities (threatened and 

endangered animals, unique botanical and wildlife representations and a riparian area along Guadalupe Creek). 

These same qualities are, in some cases, endangered and vulnerable to adverse change. Guadalupe Canyon is 

widely known as one of the premier birdwatching areas in the United States National priority concerns include the 

protection of riparian areas and for threatened and endangered species. 

2. The lands in Guadalupe Canyon are adjacent to public lands in New Mexico that are designated as an Outstanding Natural Area. Nearby is a Forest Service zoological/botanical area in upper Guadalupe Canyon. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The area should be designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern of 

989 acres because the special values identified above meet the relevance and importance criteria; it needs special 

management for the protection and enhancement of these values; and it is perceived by the public as a highly 

sensitive area. BLM has completed one land exchange and is contemplating additional acquisitions specifically for 

these high-value resources. 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

designate the area limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicle use to existing roads and trails. 

443 
� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

develop and implement an allotment management plan to manage livestock. 

_ prepare a prescribed burn plan that will allow fire to continue its role in the ecology of the area. 

acquire private inholdings, as they become available. 

prohibit woodcutting and gathering for home use. Gathering dead-and-down wood for campfires is permitted. 

manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve the scenic and natural quality of 

Guadalupe Canyon. 

5. Alternatives Considered: In Alternative B an Area of Critical Environmental Concern would be established to 

include 5,838 acres of public lands. This alternative includes the lands in the Preferred Alternative, as well as 

additional lands in the Baker Canyon drainage. The management prescription would be the same as under the 

Preferred Alternative. Alternative C is the same as the Preferred Alternative. 

Bowie Mountain Scenic 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: Bowie Mountain was proposed as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern primarily for the scenic values in the natural setting that surrounds Ft. Bowie National 

Historic Site. Additional scenic values are found in the steep cliffs on the south side of Bowie Mountain. BLM 

currently has a protective buffer on 590 acres surrounding parts of the National Historic Site. In addition, historic 

heliograph stations can be found on Bowie Mountain and Helens Dome. The entire area has historical connections 

to the fort. This area has past use by peregrine falcons, both for nesting and migration, and the habitat may be 

reoccupied in the future. This area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a result 

of BLM inventories. 

This area meets the relevance criterion in that it has significant historic features (heliograph stations) and significant 

scenic values (the natural setting around Ft. Bowie and the steep cliffs on the south side of Bowie Mountain). 

This area meets the importance criterion because any surface-disturbing activity in the viewshed would adversely 

change the scenic qualities now found in the area. The maintenance of the natural setting was recognized in 

the San Simon Management Framework Plan through the establishment of a protective buffer around Ft. Bowie 

National Historic Site. The Area of Critical Environmental Concern proposal seeks to expand that protection to the 

entire viewshed, as well as to the highly scenic southern slopes of Bowie Mountain. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: Much of the proposed Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern is within the Bowie Mountain Wilderness Study Area, an area not recommended for wilderness designation. In addition, 590 acres are currently within the protective buffer around Ft. Bowie National Historic Site. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The lands in the Bowie Mountain area should be designated as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern of 4,190 acres because the special values identified above meet the relevance and importance criteria and need special management to protect these values. Both the public and the National Park Service 

have expressed concerns about retaining the natural setting around Ft. Bowie, thereby making this a highly sensitive area. 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

withdraw 2,230 acres in the viewshed of Ft. Bowie National Historic Site from mineral entry. Require a mining 

plan of operations for all future mining entry in the remainder of the Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

prohibit surface occupancy for mineral leasing activities in the viewshed. 

close the area to mineral material sales in the viewshed. 

designate the area limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicles to existing roads and trails. 

444 
� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

_ suppress wildfired to protect the scenic backdrop, and structures of the Ft. Bowie National Historic Site. 

� acquire private inholdings, as they become available. 

� prohibit woodcutting and gathering for home use. Gathering dead-and-down wood for campfires is permitted. 

manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class I area to preserve the scenic backdrop of Ft. Bowie 

National Historic Site. 

_ designate as a right-of-way avoidance area. 

5. Alternatives Considered: Alternative B involves the same acreage as the Preferred Alternative. The only 

difference in the management prescription is that the entire 4,190 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. In 

Alternative C the Area of Critical Environmental Concern would include only 2,562 acres and focus on the Ft. Bowie 

viewshed. The management prescription is the same as for the Preferred Alternative. 

Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: This area was nominated by BLM due to the presence of important plant communities. Coronado Mountain contains a unique plant association of Arizona cypress 

and Mexican pinyon in a climax condition. The area also contains both pointleaf and Pringle’s manzanita, species 

poorly represented in other Research Natural Areas in Arizona. Intermixed with the manzanitas is an interesting 

population of netleaf oaks growing as shrubs. The area is also of interest for studies of the primary and secondary 

succession of plant communities affected by fire. This area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a result of BLM inventories. 

This area meets the relevance criterion in that it has a natural process or system in the unique plant association of 

Arizona cypress and Mexican pinyon. It also has the potential for studies of primary and secondary succession in a 

fire affected plant community. 

This area meets the importance criterion in that the plant characteristics listed above are of more than local significance and have qualities or circumstances that make the plants unique. This area would make a significant addition 

to the plant communities and species found in the Research Natural Area network. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: Only about half the top of Coronado Mountain is under 

BLM management and being considered for Area of Critical Environmental Concern designation. The other half is 

under management of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The lands in the Coronado Mountain area should be designated as a Research 

Natural Area of 120 acres because the identified special values meet the relevance and importance criteria and 

need special management to protect these values. 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

withdraw from mineral entry. 

prepare a prescribed burn plan that will allow fire to continue its role in the ecology of the Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

_ prohibit woodcutting and gathering. 

manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve the scenic and natural qualities 

of the Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

prohibit authorization of rights-of-way 

445 
� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

5. Alternatives Considered: Alternative B is the same as the Preferred Alternative. In Alternative C only 50 acres 

would be designated with the management prescription the same as under the Preferred Alternative. 

DOS Cabezas Peaks 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: The DOS Cabezas Peaks are a noteworthy landmark, both currently and historically. The area contains a small relict grove of aspens and a number of plants 

normally found in coniferous forest associations, now missing from this range. Because of these plants, the area 

has some potential for research on processes and interrelationships of isolated and relict species. The type and 

size of the rock outcroppings are noteworthy. The peaks can be seen from long distances and are quite scenic. 

This area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a result of BLM inventories. 

This area meets the relevance criterion on two points. It has significant scenic value in that the peaks are wellknown and a highly visible landmark. It also shows evidence of relict plants from the wetter and cooler climates of 

15,000 to 20,000 years ago and, as such, fits into the natural process or system characteristic. 

This area meets the importance criterion in that it is sensitive and vulnerable to adverse change, especially from 

surface-disturbing activities. 

2.	 Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: None. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The DOS Cabezas Peaks should be designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern of 25 acres because the special values identified above meet the relevance and importance criteria and 

need special management to protect these values. 

4.	 Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

close the area to mineral material sales. 

require a mining plan of operations for all future mining activity. 

designate the area limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicle use to existing roads and trails. 

prepare a prescribed burn plan that will allow fire to continue its role in the ecology of the Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
 

_ prohibit woodcutting and gathering for home use. Gathering dead-and-down wood for campfires is permitted.
 

_ manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve its scenic quality.
 

prohibit authorization of rights-of-way. 

5. Alternatives Considered: Alternative B is the same as the Preferred Alternative. In Alternative C the area is 

not considered for designation as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern but allocated to mineral development. 

Eagle Creek Bat Cave 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: This area has one significant value. The Eagle 

Creek Bat Cave is a maternity cave for the Mexican free-tailed bat, a species in serious decline throughout its range. 

This area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a result of BLM inventories and 

from a nomination from the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

This area meets the relevance criterion in that it has a wildlife resource in the Mexican free-tailed bats, a rapidly 

declining species. 

This area meets the importance criterion because there is public and environmental concerns about the Mexican 

free-tailed bats and their maternity cave. The bats are a rapidly declining species, vulnerable to adverse change. 

446 
� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: This area is part of a larger area proposed as an 

Outstanding Natural Area in past planning efforts. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The Eagle Creek Bat Cave should be designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern of 40 acres because the special values identified above meet the relevance and importance criteria 

and the area needs special management to protect these values. 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

withdraw the area from mineral entry. 

_ prohibit surface occupancy for mineral leasing activities. 

close the area to mineral material sales. 

_ acquire private lands at the mouth of the cave, as they become available. 

_ manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve the scenic and natural values. 

prohibit guano extraction from the cave. 

limit public access into the cave, particularly during maternity season. 

monitor and patrol the cave to detect and prevent adverse impacts to the cave and the bats. 

5. Alternatives Considered: In Alternative B, an Area of Critical Environmental Concern would be established on 

3,160 acres of public land in Eagle Creek Canyon. Included in this acreage is the Eagle Creek Bat Cave, as well as 

those public lands forming the canyon. Additional values to be protected under this alternative include prehistoric 

and historic archaeological sites, a wintering population of endangered bald eagles, interesting and highly eroded 

conglomerate and volcanic geological formations and a significant scenic resource. The management prescription 

is the same as under the Referred Alternative with the exception of land acquisition. The acquisition area includes 

State and private lands in most of the canyon from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests to Eagle Creek’s 

confluence with the Gila River. 

Alternative C includes the same lands as the Preferred Alternative. The management prescription is similar to that 

of the Preferred Alternative except the area would not be withdrawn from mineral entry, a mining plan of operations 

would be required for all future mining activity, the area would not be closed to mineral material sales and guano 

extraction would be permitted if it does not adversely affect the bat population. 

Willcox Playa National Natural Landmark 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: The Willcox Playa is a designated National Natural 

Landmark. The National Natural Landmark program recognizes significant natural features throughout the country. 

A register of landmarks is maintained by the National Park Service. The Willcox Playa is recognized primarily for its 

geological values, that being a remnant Pleistocene lake and a typical example of playa lakes in the Southwest. 

The playa is also of interest because of plants adapting to playa conditions. The area has good potential for 

archaeological sites around the edges of the playa. The area is occasionally visited by the endangered whooping 

crane. The Croton Springs area (on private land) has been the scene of studies on deposits of prehistoric pollen. 

Several rare endemic species of insects and crustaceans are known from the playa. This area was identified as a 

potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern as a result of BLM inventories and from a nomination from The 

Nature Conservancy. 

This area meets the relevance criterion because it is representative of a natural process or system (a typical Southwestern playa lake and a remnant of a Pleistocene lake) and also a fish and wildlife resource (occasional use by 

whooping cranes and the presence of rare, endemic insects and crustaceans). 

447 
 

� 

� 

� 

This area meets the importance criterion because it has more than locally significant qualities in its designation as a 

National Natural Landmark, giving it special worth and meaning. The botanical, cultural and wildlife values are 

sensitive, rare, unique and/or vulnerable to adverse change. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: The Willcox Playa is a designated National Natural 

Landmark. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The lands in the Willcox Playa National Natural Landmark should be designated as 

an Area of Critical Environmental Concern of 2,475 acres because the special values identified above meet the 

relevance and importance criteria and are in need of special management. 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

_ designate the area closed to off-highway vehicle use. 

_ acquire state and private lands, as they become available. 

_ prohibit woodcutting and gathering. 

manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve its scenic and natural values. 

prohibit authorization of rights-of-way. 

5. Alternatives Considered: This area would retain its landmark designation in the No Action Alternative. Alternative B is the same as the Preferred Alternative. In Alternative C the area is not considered for designation as an 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern, but allocated to off-highway vehicle use. 

111 Ranch Research Natural Area 

1. Description of the Value, Resource, System or Hazard: The 111 Ranch area contains an extensive and 

significant deposit of Blancan Age mammal and other fossils. At least 21 described genera of mammals and two 

previously undescribed nonmammalian species (including the most complete fossil giant tortoise of its kind ever 

found) have been reported from the area. The 111 Ranch area is one of few known Class I fossil sites in southeastern Arizona, representing late Tertiary deposits. Of considerable scientific interest, the fossils represent one of the 

better early Pliocene assemblages of the Southwest that are overlain by middle Pliocene deposits. The Blancan 

vertebrate fauna evidenced in the depositional sequence is an extremely valuable climatological and chronological 

indicator for the scientific community. This area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

as a result of BLM inventories. 

This area meets the relevance criterion because the significant fossil deposits meet the requirements for a natural 

process or system. 

This area meets the importance criterion because it contains more than locally significant fossil deposits. They have 

special worth and cause for concern, especially when compared to any similar resource. In addition, they are 

fragile, sensitive and vulnerable to adverse change, especially from surface-disturbing activities. 

2. Relationship to Other Areas of Special Management: None. 

3. Rationale for Designation: The 111 Ranch area should be designated as a Research Natural Area Area of
 

Critical Environmental Concern of 2,688 acres because the area meets the relevance and importance criteria,
 

contains scientifically important Class I fossils and needs special management for the protection of these values.
 

4. Special Management Prescription - Preferred Alternative 

designate the area limited to off-highway vehicle use. Limit vehicle use to existing roads and trails. 

448 
� 

� 

� 

� 

require paleontological inventory and mitigation of impacts for all surface-disturbing activities, such as livestock 

facilities and wildlife waters. 

prohibit woodcutting and gathering. 

manage the area as a Visual Resource Management Class II area to preserve its scenic and natural values. 

require a paleontological collection permit for all fossil collecting. 

5. Alternatives Considered: Alternative B is the same as the Preferred Alternative. In Alternative C only 1,728 

acres would be designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The management prescription in 

Alternative C is the same as under the Preferred Alternative. 

Areas Considered but not designated 

Day Mine 

The Day Mine area consists of a portion of the Gila Mountain range extending from the upper bajadas, up and over 

the vertical rock escarpment, across the badland formations north and east of the crest, to the perennial Left Hand 

Fork of Markham Creek. Plant communities include Sonoran Desert near the northeastern edge of its range, 

disclimax grassland-shrub, closed chaparral, border pinyon pine forest and mixed broadleafed riparian areas. The 

proposed area also contains a number of prehistoric cultural properties and some visually striking scenery overlooking the central portion of the Safford Valley. 

The proposed area includes Markham Creek and its watershed. This drainage was identified as a potential Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern during the inventory process. Its aquatic, riparian, wildlife and cultural resources 

were found to be “Relevant” to the Area of Critical Environmental Concern system. Upon evaluation the proposal 

was rejected as the resources lacked, either individually or in combination, more than local “Importance”. The 

stream was similar to many other areas and was not in relict ecological condition; wildlife species and populations 

contained some regionally localized species (black and zone-tailed hawks and lowland leopard frogs) but none have 

federal status: cultural and scenic properties were only of local interest. 

The addition of the badlands, Gila Mountain crest and the upper bajadas west of Markham Creek does increase the 

number of plant and animal communities and scenic importance. The border pinyon pine forest is not included in 

any known regional Area of Critical Environmental Concern but does exist in the Chiricahua National Monument, in 

several existing Forest Service Wilderness Areas and in the Fishhooks Wilderness immediately north of this potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The addition of the Sonoran Desert community still does not create a 

unique assemblage of vegetation types as this mix is found in the Santa Catalina, Galiuro and Pinal Mountain 

ranges as well as in the Gilas. Some additional cultural properties are included but none are of more than local 

importance. 

The scenic qualities of the vertical escarpment of the Gila Mountains certainly is of local importance. The formation 

is readily visible from a considerable distance and an inappropriate development would be apparent to many people 

in the local area. The visual importance should be recognized and the value protected with a Visual Resource 

Management Class II rating. However, the scenic resource is relatively distant from the local population centers and 

so not visible to a large number of travelers so it lacks the necessary “more than local significance” to meet the 

“Importance” criteria. 

In summary, the proposal encompasses an area with a number of resources “Relevant” to the Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern process. However, the resources are known to exist in a number of other locations already 

protected by federal designations and they lack regional “Importance.” For this reason Day Mine area does not 

qualify as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and is dropped from further consideration. 

449 
Turtle Mountain 

The proposal includes the area between Eagle and Bonita Creeks, the Gila River and the San Carlos Apache 

Reservation. Plant communities include mixed broadleaf riparian areas at several springs, disclimax grasslandshrub, desert grasslands, encinal woodlands and open chaparral types. Wildlife includes both typical desert and 

mountain species and Rocky mountain bighorn sheep at the southwest edge of their range in North America, but no 

federally listed or proposed species. There are a few cultural properties, mostly historic remnants of previous 

livestock operations. Scenic resources do not include any striking features. 

The proposed area includes two areas already evaluated during the Resource Management Plan development 

process-Turtle Mountain Grassland and Trujillo Canyon. See discussion in this Appendix. BLM guidance identifies the opportunity to include lands between separate Area of Critical Environmental Concerns if it enhances 

management of the individual Area of Critical Environmental Concerns. The west slope of Turtle Mountain is within 

the Bonita Creek watershed and special management attention could enhance riparian resources. This potential is 

recognized in Alternative B. A very small improvement could possibly be obtained by the enhanced management of 

watershed of the Gila Box by linking it to Turtle Mountain. However, little would be gained for management of Eagle 

Creek Bat Cave. The lack of similar terrain, management problems, or access routes across Turtle Mountain linking 

the separate proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concerns greatly reduces the potential for enhanced management efficiency. Rather, the link between the proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concerns is that of the 

congressionally designated Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area. 

Several resources within a separate Turtle Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern will meet the 

“Relevance” criteria, but none fully meet the criteria for “more than local importance.” Therefore, Turtle 

Mountain does not qualify as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern because it fails to meet the requirements 

for Relevance, Importance and Need for Special Management. 

Fishhooks Canyon: This area was nominated in the 1973 Geronimo Management Framework Plan as an Outstanding Natural Area. In 1986 the area was nominated as an Research Natural Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern by The Nature Conservancy for its botanical resources. On-site evaluation of the resources documented 

that the area had been subjected to a long period of livestock grazing, and its location adjacent to the San Carlos 

Indian Reservation would make the special management prescriptions impractical. The Nature Conservancy 

withdrew its nomination based on the additional information and the Bureau dropped the area from further Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern consideration. Riparian values will be protected through the District’s riparian policy. 

Scenic values are protected by Visual Resource Management interim Class II. 

Javelina Peak 

The Javelina Peak area consists mostly of gently rolling lowlands, with the focal point being the rugged Whitlock 

Mountain range in the area’s northeast portion. These mountains rise abruptly from the San Simon Valley floor and 

culminate in the rugged, steep-sided 5,592-foot-high Javelina Peak. A small area of highly eroded badlands lies at 

the western base of Javelina Peak. The southern portion of the area is dominated by heavily vegetated dunes. 

The area contains desert shrub, creosote bush and mesquite vegetation types. Common plants include whitethorn, 

cholla and prickly pear cactus, wolfberry, creosote bush, mesquite, yucca, catclaw, Mormon tea, four-winged 

saltbush and various grasses. 

Resources within the Javelina Peak Area of Critical Environmental Concern include some that meet the Relevance 

criterion to include: plant communities, cultural and paleontological properties and wildlife. However, none fully 

meet the criterion for “more than local importance” or “need for special management”. The Chihuahuan desertscrub 

and semi-desert grassland communities are similar to many other areas and are not an outstanding representation 

of these vegetation types. The cultural resources are believed to be significant only at the local level. Two paleontological areas appear to be of more than local importance. However, because of their location no special management needs have been identified for either area. 

No threatened or endangered plants have been found in the area. The night-blooming cereus, a species under 

review for listing as threatened and endangered, might occur in the area. This plant grows on rock ledges where it 

would not be disturbed by anticipated land uses. 

450 
The peregrine falcon, a threatened and endangered species, is thought to exist in the area and is of more than local 

importance. However, these birds do not nest or forage in the area, but rather fly over, stopping occasionally to rest 

and feed. No resource uses that would adversely affect the peregrine falcon, thus no special management is 

needed. 

Javelina Peak does not qualify as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern because it fails to meet the requirements for Relevance, Importance and Need for Special Management. 

Johnny Creek: The area was proposed for study as an ONA in the 1973 Geronimo Management Framework Plan. 

Review and study of the resources has determined that the scenic and riparian values did not meet the ‘Relevance 

and Importance” criteria and the area was dropped from consideration as an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. The riparian values will receive protection through the riparian policy, and scenic resources by Visual 

Resource Class Ill management designation. 

Markham Creek: Riparian, wildlife, fisheries, scenic and cultural values present in the Markham Creek Canyon 

were the basis for the suggested Area of Critical Environmental Concern nomination. The area was dropped from 

consideration as the resources did not meet the “lmportance” criteria. The natural and cultural resources will receive 

protection and management through other decisions in this plan. 

Red Knolls: The Red Knolls geologic formation was evaluated for Area of Critical Environmental Concern status 

based primarily on concern for human safety. It was dropped from further consideration when it was determined 

that no practical management that would reduce the hazards, and nomination would likely attract additional visitors 

who could not be excluded from the unstable formations. 

Salt Creek: The proposal was based upon scenic, cultural and riparian resources. On-site evaluation and consultation with authorities documented that the resources did not meet the “Importance” criteria and the area was 

dropped from review. The riparian and cultural values will receive management attention by other decisions in this 

document. 

Trujillo Canyon: The area was investigated to determine if riparian or cultural resources required Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern designation and special management. The resources met the “Relevance” criteria but did 

not meet the “Importance” criteria and the area was dropped from further consideration. 

Turtle Mountain Desert Grassland: The area suggested for Area of Critical Environmental Concern designation 

contained relevant and important desert grassland resources. However, the preferred management prescription 

was not special management. The proposed area was dropped from further consideration due to the lack of special 

management needs. Other relict grasslands are proposed for Area of Critical Environmental Concern status. 

Mescal Mountain-Needles Eye: This proposal was a combination of five separate areas suggested for review in 

the Winkelman Management Framework Plan or nominated by The Nature Conservancy. The Mescal Creek 

portion was dropped as the wildlife and riparian resources, while relevant and important, did not require special 

management and will be adequately protected in all alternatives considered in this plan. The entire area is within 

the Needles Eye Wilderness Area. No special management needs were identified for botanical resources on the El 

Capitan portion other than retention in public ownership. Riparian, wildlife and scenic resources along the Gila River 

below Coolidge Dam are within the Needles Eye Wilderness Area and will receive adequate protection through 

management common to all alternatives in this plan. The other two areas (Desert Grassland and Dry Spring 

Research Natural Areas) are proposed for designation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

Swamp Springs Canyon: This area was identified as a potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern in the 

1980 wilderness inventory conducted by BLM. It is part of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern recommended 

by The Nature Conservancy in 1988. The resources in this area qualify as an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern, but better management would be provided if the area was combined with other lands as part of the 

Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern proposal. Therefore, Swamp 

Springs Canyon has been dropped from consideration as an individual parcel except in Alternative C. Portions of 

the proposed area are within the proposed additions to the Redfield Canyon Wilderness. 

451 
Sycamore Canyon: This area was recommended for Area of Critical Environmental Concern status for its riparian 

and scenic values in the BLM 1980 wilderness inventory. On-site review determined that it lacked regional importance on its own merits. However, it was found to be important as part of the Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and inclusion in that boundary would facilitate special management 

attention to that nominated area. Portions of the Sycamore Canyon area are within the Redfield Canyon Wilderness 

Area. 

Government Peak: This area was considered in the San Simon Management Framework Plan as a Research 

Natural Area. An on-site evaluation showed that the area had been heavily grazed by cattle, had no unique plant 

associations and offered little from a botanical standpoint for designation as an Research Natural Area. This area 

was carried forward from past planning and evaluated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Government 

Peak met the ‘Relevance” criterion because it has a significant visual resource in the large area of exposed granite 

boulders and outcrops. This area, however, did not meet any of the categories under the “Importance” criterion. 

The scenic quality of this area will be protected through a Visual Resource Management Class III designation. This 

area is within the DOS Cabezas Mountains Wilderness Area. 

Happy Camp, Howell and Tar Box Canyons: Howell Canyon was considered in the San Simon Management 

Framework Plan as a Research Natural Area. An on-site evaluation showed that portions of the area had received 

heavy cattle grazing, and that the overall area offered little in the way of unique or typical plant communities for 

designation as an Research Natural Area. This area was carried forward from past planning and evaluated as 

an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Happy Camp, Howell and Tar Box Canyons did not meet either the 

“Relevance” or “Importance” criteria. The riparian values in these canyons will receive protection through the 

riparian policy. This area is within the DOS Cabezas Mountains Wilderness Area. 

452 
Appendix 3
 

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility and Classification 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 455
 

Gila Box Segment .................................................................................................................................................. 458 
 

Coolidge Dam to Hayden Segment.. ...................................................................................................................... 461
 

Aravaipa Creek Segment ....................................................................................................................................... 464
 

Turkey Creek Segment .......................................................................................................................................... 466 
 

Swamp Springs Segment ...................................................................................................................................... 467 
 

Hot Springs Canyon Segment ............................................................................................................................... 467
 

Bonita Creek Segment ........................................................................................................................................... 468 
 

San Pedro River Segment ..................................................................................................................................... 469 
 

453 
Wild and Scenic Rivers
 

Introduction
 

As required by BLM Planning Regulations and Guidelines for Fulfilling Requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, BLM must study those rivers which potentially qualify for addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. Two rivers in this area (the Gila and San Francisco) were identified by the National Park Service in 1982 

as needing further study. They will be addressed in this document. Other rivers included were identified by BLM 

personnel and through public input during the draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

review process. 

The river study process involves making an eligibility, classification and suitability determination. This Resource 

Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement addresses only eligibility and classification as required by 

the Guidelines and will defer suitability determination until a later date due to the need for further public involvement. 

Only through the detailed suitability and further public involvement will BLM make a recommendation through the 

Secretary of the Interior to Congress on suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers. Only Congress has the authority to 

designate a Wild and Scenic River through this process. 

Eligibility Determination 

Eligibility determination is made through the evaluation of two criteria: (1) whether the river is free-flowing, and (2) 

whether it possesses one or more outstandingly remarkable values. Free-flowing is defined by Sec 16 (b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as “existing or flowing in natural conditions without impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modifications of the waterway.” Outstandingly remarkable values include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or similar values. 

It has been suggested that any flowing water in the arid Southwest is outstandingly remarkable in and of itself, 

constituting a “similar value”. Also, a waterway could be regarded as free-flowing regardless of its intermittency, 

cubic feet per second flow rate (cfs) or length of the segment. Essentially, this could make hundreds of washes and 

intermittent streams eligible, even though they are a common occurrence throughout the region. 

We believe that the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was not to reserve or protect an entire region’s waterways but rather to analyze and select those areas which may warrant the additional protection of a Congressional 

designation based not on their collective worth but on their individual, outstandingly remarkable hydrologic value, if 

present. This means that a river could be eligible based on its hydrologic value even if no other value is present as 

specifically mentioned in the act as long as it is considered free-flowing. 

In this Appendix, those waterways which demonstrated individual outstandingly remarkable hydrologic value to the 

region or nation have been considered. This selection was based on a reasonable yearly flow, cfs and length. 

Therefore, if a waterway possesses outstandingly remarkable hydrologic values we can reasonably assume it is 

free-flowing. Rivers which do exhibit reasonable yearly flow, cfs and length also possess at least one other outstandingly remarkable value, primarily due to the presence of an obligate riparian system. 

Those waterways which do not possess outstandingly remarkable hydrologic values or are in areas of less than 40 

percent public land include the following: 

San Simon River Virgus Canyon 

Black Wash Bass Canyon 

Mescal Creek Cherry Springs 

Parsons Canyon Hot Springs Canyon 

Fishhooks Canyon Spring Canyon 

Eagle creek House Carnp Canyon 

Guadalupe Canyon Markham Creek 

Oak Grove Canyon Redfield Canyon 

Eagle Creek Numersous other washes 

455 
These waterways have been determined ineligible under the criteria described above. 

Classification Determination 

The criteria for determining classification are as follows: 

Wild Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, 

with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive 

America. 

Scenic Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely 

primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads. 

Recreational Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have 

some development along their shorelines and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the 

past. 

These criteria are further defined in the Federal Register at 47 FR 39457-9 

Classification of the segments also establishes guidelines for interim management until a decision on designation 

can be reached. 

Interim Management/Protection Considerations 

River values and characteristics of candidate river segments and study areas are protected by interim management 

considerations until studies and Congressional action have been completed. Once a river segment is determined 

eligible and the appropriate prospective classification determined (Wild, Scenic or Recreational), it must be afforded 

adequate interim protection until a final decision can be reached. Management activities and authorized uses shall 

not be allowed to adversely affect either eligibility or classification, subject to valid existing rights. 

The free-flowing characteristics of identified river segments cannot be modified to allow stream impoundments, 

diversions, channelization and riprapping to the extent BLM is authorized under law. Subject to valid existing rights, 

outstandingly remarkable values of the segment or area must be protected and enhanced if possible. Management 

and development of the identified river and its corridor cannot be modified to the degree that its classification would 

be changed from wild to scenic, or from scenic to recreational. 

Classification Standards/Interim Management 

The following guidelines set forth standards for making interim management decisions on study rivers by classification (wild, scenic or recreational). These guidelines will be applied to public lands under BLM administration. They 

do not apply to privately owned lands. 

Standards for Wild Rivers 

Timber Production: Cutting of trees will not be permitted except when needed in association with a primitive 

recreation experience (such as clearing for trails and protection of users) or to protect the environment (such as 

control of fire). Timber outside the boundary but within the visual corridors will be managed and harvested in a 

manner that provides special emphasis to visual quality. 

Water Supply: All water supply dams and major diversions are prohibited. 

Hydroelectric Power: No development of hydroelectric power facilities would be permitted. 

Flood Control: No flood control dams, levees or other works are allowed in the channel or river corridor. The 

natural appearance and essentially primitive character of the river area must be maintained. 

456 
Mining: The majority of eligible rivers identified as having a wild classification in this appendix are contained 

within a designated wilderness or National Conservation Area which have been withdrawn from mineral entry and 

mineral leasing laws. Only Hot Springs Creek and a small portion of the lower Gila River are outside these areas 

and have not been identified in this document for withdrawal from mineral entry and leasing laws. BLM will deny 

new mining claims and mineral leases within 1/4 mile of these rivers. Subject to regulations (43 CFR 3809) 

prescribed to protect the rivers being considered, other existing mining activity would be allowed to continue, but 

must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation and visual impairment. 

Reasonable access would be permitted. 

Road Construction: No roads or other provisions for overland motorized travel would be permitted within a 

narrow, incised river valley or, if the river valley is broad, within 1/4 mile of the riverbank. A few inconspicuous 

roads leading to the boundary of the river area at the time of study will not disqualify wild river classification. Also, 

unobtrusive trail bridges could be allowed. 

Agriculture: Agriculture is restricted to a limited amount of domestic livestock grazing and hay production to the 

extent currently practiced. Row crops are prohibited. 

Recreation Development: Major public use areas, such as large campgrounds, interpretive centers or administrative headquarters are located outside the wild river area. Simple comfort and convenience facilities, such as 

fireplaces or shelters may be provided as necessary within the river area. These should harmonize with the 

surroundings. 

Structure: A few minor existing structures could be allowed assuming such structures are not incompatible with 

the essentially primitive and natural values of the viewshed. New structures would not be allowed except in rare 

instances to achieve management objectives (i.e., structures and activities associated with fisheries enhancement programs could be allowed). 

Utilities: New transmission lines, gas lines, water lines, etc. are discouraged. Where no reasonable alternative 

exists, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. Where new rights-of-way are 

indicated, the scenic, recreational and fish and wildlife values must be evaluated in the selection of the site. 

Motorized travel: Motorized travel on land or water could be permitted, but is generally not compatible with this 

classification. 

Standards for Scenic Rivers 

Timber Production: A wide range of silvicultural practices could be allowed provided that such practices are 

carried on in such a way that no substantial adverse effect on the river and its immediate environment would 

occur. The river area should be maintained in its near-natural environment. Timber outside the boundary but 

within the visual scene area should be managed and harvested in a manner that provides special emphasis on 

visual quality. 

Water Supply: All water supply dams and major diversions are prohibited. 

Hydroelectric Power: No development of hydroelectric power facilities would be allowed. 

Flood Control: Flood control dams and levees would be prohibited. 

Mining: Subject to regulations in 43 CFR 3809 prescribed to protect the values of rivers being considered, new 

mining claims and mineral leases could be allowed and existing operations allowed to continue. However, 

mineral activity must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation and pollution, 

and visual impairment. 

Road Construction: Roads may occasionally bridge the river area and short stretches of conspicuous or longer 

stretches of inconspicuous and well-screened roads or screened railroads could be allowed. Consideration will 

be given to the type of use for which roads are constructed and the type of use that will occur in the river area. 

457 
Agriculture: A wider range of agricultural uses is permitted to the extent currently practiced. Row crops are not 

considered as an intrusion of the “largely primitive” nature of scenic corridors if there is no substantial adverse 

effect on the natural-like appearance of the river area. 

Recreation Development: Larger-scale public use facilities, such as moderately sized campgrounds, public 

information centers and administrative headquarters are allowed if such structures are screened from the river. 

Modest and unobtrusive marinas could also be allowed. 

Structures: Any concentrations of habitations are limited to relatively short reaches of the river corridor. New 

structures that would have a direct and adverse effect on river values would not be allowed. 

Utilities: This is the same as for wild river classifications. 

Motorized Travel: Motorized travel on land or water may be permitted, prohibited or restricted to protect the river 

values. 

Standards for Recreational Rivers 

Timber Production: Timber harvesting would be allowed under standard restrictions to protect the immediate 

river environment, water quality, scenic, fish and wildlife and other values, 

Water Supply: Existing low dams, diversion works, riprap and other minor structures are allowed, provided the 

waterway remains generally natural in appearance. New structures are prohibited. 

Hydroelectric Power: No development of hydroelectric power facilities is allowed. 

Flood Control: Existing flood control works may be maintained. New structures are prohibited. 

Mining: Subject to regulations (43 CFR 3809) prescribed to protect values of rivers being considered, new mining 

claims and mineral leases are allowed and existing operations are allowed to continue. Mineral activity must be 

conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, sedimentation, pollution and visual impairment. 

Road Construction: Paralleling roads or railroads could be constructed on one or both riverbanks. There can be 

several bridge crossings and numerous river access points. 

Agriculture: Lands may be managed for a full range of agricultural uses, to the extent currently practiced. 

Recreation Development: Campgrounds and picnic areas may be established near the river. However, recreational classification does not require extensive recreation development. 

Structures: Small communities as well as dispersed or cluster residential developments are allowed. New 

structures are allowed for both habitation and for intensive recreation use. 

Utilities: This is the same as for wild and scenic river classifications. 

Motorized Travel: Motorized travel on land or water may be permitted, prohibited or restricted. Controls will
 

usually be similar to surrounding lands and waters.
 

Gila Box Segment 

Location/Description of Segment 

The study area is in Graham and Greenlee counties in southeastern Arizona. The Gila and San Francisco rivers 

flow through a steep-walled canyon within the Gila Box area. This area, known for its 1 OOO-foot deep canyons, lies 

between the Gila Mountains and the Black Hills. Running water, rugged and colorful terrain, highly eroded geologic 

formations and diversity of plants and animals produce outstanding scenery. 

458 
Climatic conditions in the study area are similar to those found throughout the region. In southeast Arizona, lowlands alternate with mountains to create abrupt changes in climatic conditions over short distances. Annual rainfall 

averages 7 to 16 inches in the valleys, with most falling in the late summer months. Dry conditions are most common from April to June, with less severe dry conditions occurring in the fall. 

The study area includes 15,413.62 acres, of which 14,113.80 acres are under BLM administration with the remainder in private ownership. This includes 34 miles of river, with 30.75 miles under BLM administration. The remainder 

is in private ownership. 

The study area begins in the NE1/4 Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 30 East and runs downstream to the SW1/ 

4 Section 29, Township 6 South, Range 28 East. This section includes the Gila River portion of the study area. A 

total of 26 miles of the Gila River are being evaluated. 

The San Francisco section begins in the NW1/4 Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 30 East and runs downstream 

to its confluence with the Gila River (Section 21, Township 5 South, Range 29 East). Eight miles of the San Francisco River are being evaluated. 

Several special features enhance the river’s potential for inclusion in the wild and scenic river system. The portion 

under consideration is free-flowing for the entire length. Natural qualities of this river have made it an increasingly 

popular rafting and canoeing area. Riparian vegetation, uncommon in the southwestern United States, greatly 

enhances wildlife habitat. This area is well-known for its population of wintering bald eagles. In addition, there are 

many outstanding scenic areas with steep cliffs, colorful bluffs, deep canyons and excellent examples of geological 

erosion. Prehistoric and historic sites have been recorded that qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Evaluation of River Values 

The study area is a free-flowing river that contains many outstandingly remarkable values including scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, hydrologic, historic and cultural values. Twisting canyons, steep cliffs, erosional 

features, vegetation, free-flowing streams and geologic formations contribute to the outstanding scenery. The Gila 

and San Francisco are both perennial rivers. 

Many opportunities for a wide variety of recreational activities are available. The rivers provide outstanding opportunities for hiking/backpacking, seasonal floatboating, camping, photography, seasonal off-highway vehicle use and 

sightseeing. There are also good opportunities for hunting, fishing, rock climbing, horseback riding and 

birdwatching. Floatboating use is steadily increasing during late winter and early spring. The exceptional natural 

condition of the area, rugged topography, twisting canyons and flowing rivers all help to provide outstandingly 

remarkable opportunities for recreation. 

The area is composed of volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks ranging from Pleistocene to Oligocene. These flows and 

pyroclastics are chiefly andesites and basaltic andesites. Geothermal features at Gillard Hot Springs as well as 

outstandingly remarkable geologic features include highly eroded volcanic and conglomerate formations can be 

found. 

Animal life in the study area is greatly enhanced by the perennial rivers and their riparian vegetation. Riparian 

vegetation contributes to terrestrial wildlife density and diversity. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons, state and 

federally listed endangered species, occur in the area. Other state-listed species in the study area are the ferruginous pygmy owl, belted kingfisher, black-bellied whistling duck, black hawk, osprey, snowy egret and great egret. 

Coati and the Arizona mountain kingsnake and are of concern in the study area due to their limited distribution in 

Arizona. 

Aquatic species include game fish such as channel and flathead catfish. Many other aquatic species depend on the 

perennial rivers, including the federally threatened loach minnow and state-listed razorback sucker, both found in the 

study area. 

Big game species in the study area are javelina, mountain lion, mule deer and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. 

Game birds are quail, dove, numerous duck species, geese and band-tailed pigeons. A very rich assortment of 

nongame species occur due the presence of water and the riparian habitat. 459 
The Gila and San Francisco rivers are perennial. Since perennial rivers are very uncommon in the Southwest, the 

hydrologic values are outstandingly remarkable. They are also extremely important for the vegetation, fish and 

wildlife and recreation values associated with these rivers. 

This segment of the Gila River has outstandingly remarkable cultural resource values. At least 11 historic and 14 

prehistoric sites are located in the study area. Undoubtedly, many more have yet to be recorded. Two historic and 

two prehistoric sites qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Other River Values 

In addition to those values described above, the river also contains the following significant values. Four major 

vegetation types are present in the study area-grassland, mountain shrub, desert shrub and riparian vegetation. 

Riparian vegetation is worthy of preservation due to the disappearance of the majority of this type in the arid Southwest. Riparian vegetation is characterized by Fremont cottonwood, Gooding willow, Arizona sycamore, Arizona 

walnut, velvet ash, seep willow, burro brush, netleaf hackberry and mesquite. The condition of the riparian vegetation in the study area is poor to fair in most places, with limited amounts in good condition. Riparian values of these 

rivers, however, are still significant due to the limited distribution of this vegetation type. 

Eligibility Determination 

BLM has determined that 34 miles are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This 

includes 8 miles of the San Francisco River and 26 miles of the Gila River. 

Classification Determination 

This section identifies the classification that best describes each eligible river segment as viewed in its existing 

condition. Five segments have been classified. 

Segment 1 (Gila River NW1/4 Sec. 3, T. 6 S., R. 30 E. to SE1/4 Sec. 26, T. 5 S., R. 29 E.). Segment 1 includes a 

total of 6.85 miles, of which 0.90 mile crosses private land. This segment includes 2,801.55 acres of public land and 

240.00 acres of private land. 

A Scenic classification best describes this segment of the river. This area possesses outstandingly remarkable 

scenic, recreation, geologic and fish and wildlife values. This segment is very scenic and is a popular starting point 

for people floating the river. The area is accessible by only one road. Also, there are only a few minor developments along the river. This section is free from impoundments and the shorelines are largely primitive and undeveloped. 

The Old Safford-Clifton Road bridge crosses this segment of the river. In addition to this main road, several trails 

lead into this segment. A small picnic site is located near the bridge and receives some overnight use during the 

floating season. Two ranching headquarters are located along this portion of the river. 

The road and other minor developments do not significantly affect the naturalness or other outstanding values of this 

area. Therefore, the Scenic classification best fits this segment. 

Segment 2 (Gila River SE1/4 Sec. 26, T. 5 S., R. 29 E. to NE1/4 Sec. 22, T. 6 S., R. 28 E.). Segment 2 includes 

15.20 miles, of which 0.25 mile crosses private land. This segment includes 8,110.20 acres of public land and 

360.00 acres of private land. 

A Wild classification best describes this segment of the river. This area possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic and cultural values. Segment 2 is free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trails. The shoreline is largely primitive and undeveloped. The Wild classification is consistent with the current study of this area for wilderness potential. 

Segment 3 (Gila River NE1/4 Sec. 22, T. 6 S., R. 28 E. to SW1/4 Sec.29 T. 6 S., R. 28 E.). Segment 3 includes 

4.50 miles. This segment includes 1,391.86 acres of public land and 5.00 acres of private land. 

460 
 

A Scenicclassification best describes this segment of the river. This area possesses outstandingly remarkable 

scenic, recreation, geologic, and fish and wildlife values. Segment 3 is free-flowing and free from any impoundments. It includes a popular take-out point at Bonita Creek for people floating the river and a picnic site at Spring 

Canyon. This segment is accessible in places by roads but the shoreline is largely primitive and undeveloped. 

These developments and roads do not significantly affect the naturalness or other outstanding values of this area. 

Therefore, a Scenic classification best describes this segment of the river. 

Segment 4 (San Francisco River SE1/4 Sec. 21 T. 5 S., R. 29 E., the confluence with the Gila River, to SW1/4 Sec. 

14, T. 5 S., R. 29 E.). Segment 4 includes 3 miles, of which O.lO-mile crosses private land. This segment includes 

560.00 acres of public land and 280.00 acres of private land. 

A Wild classification best describes this segment of the river. Segment 4 possesses outstandingly remarkable 

scenic, fish and wildlife and geologic values and is generally inaccessible except by trails. Trails and other developments do not affect the natural character of this segment. This segment is free from any impoundments and the 

shorelines are largely primitive. A Wild classification is consistent with the current study of this area for wilderness 

potential. 

Segment 5 (San Francisco River SW1/4 Sec. 14, T. 5 S., R. 29 E. to NW1/4 Sec. 7, T. 5 S., R. 30 E.). Segment 5 

includes a total of 5 miles, of which 1.75 miles crosses private land. This segment includes 1,250.19 acres of public 

land and 414.82 acres of private land. 

A Recreationalclassification best describes this segment of the river. Segment 5 possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, fish and wildlife, and geologic values. It is readily accessible by roads and has evidence of an old 

railroad grade. The area has also been adversely affected by other activities occurring along the shoreline. The 

waterway, however, remains natural and riverine in appearance. 

Coolidge Dam to Hayden Segment 

Location/Description of Segment 

The stretch of the Gila River being evaluated covers 32 miles from Coolidge Dam to Hayden in southeastern 

Arizona within Gila and Pinal counties. The county line is the center of the river. The stretch of river is entirely 

within the BLM Safford District. 

From the dam, the river cuts through the Mescal Mountains forming a deep and narrow gorge, then passes through 

the open terrain of the southern end of the Dripping Spring Valley and enters another canyon area as it flows 

through the southern Dripping Spring Mountains to Winkelman. The canyon in the Mescal Mountains contains 

several deeply incised and constricted passages including the Needle’s Eye. Steeply dipping limestone forms much 

of the geology of the upper half of the study area while volcanic formations make up the study area’s lower portion. 

The elevation of the river below Coolidge Dam is about 2,320 feet above sea level and drops to about 1,910 feet 

near the tailings pond at the study area’s lower end. The width of the river/flood plain varies from 60 feet to over 600 

feet. Major drainages entering the Gila River in the study area include Dick Spring Canyon, Mescal Creek, Dripping 

Spring Wash, the San Pedro River and from the San Carlos Indian Reservation, Hawk Canyon, Deer Creek and 

Ash Creek. 

Vegetation along the river-banks and in the floodplain is dense riparian growth consisting of cottonwood, sycamore, 

ash, willow and mesquite. Years of controlled water releases including periods of low flow and lack of large natural 

floods due to the dam have created extremely thick growth along the river in the upper portion of the study area. In 

many places large trees are established in the river channel and low branches reach out into or stretch completely 

across the flow. At times these branches may be submerged by the flow. The channel in the lower half of the study 

area is also affected by the dense growth, though not so extensively. Out of the floodplain, desert shrub vegetation 

of saguaro, ocotillo, palo Verde and other Sonoran species is predominant. 

461 
The climate of the area is characterized by hot summer days often exceeding 100 degrees F, cool to mild days and 

cold nights in the winter and pleasant temperatures in the spring and fall. Precipitation averages 9 to 10 inches 

annually, coming mostly during thunderstorms. 

Little cultural development is found along the river in the study area. The upper portion of the study area is inaccessible by vehicle for much of its length. The river is paralleled by Highway 77 in the lower portion and passes through 

the towns of Winkelman and Hayden at the end of the study area. 

The study area contains 8,515 acres of public, state, private and San Carlos Indian Reservation land. Table A-l 

gives a statistical summary of acres and river miles in each land ownership category. 

Table A-l. Study Area Land Ownership 

Acres River Miles 

Public Land 6,130 24.5 (19.1)* 

Sate Land 700 1.4 (0.4)* 

Private Land 1,505 5.6 (0.5)* 

San Carlos Reservation 180 0.5 

TOTAL 8,515 32.0 (20.0)* 

‘miles in common with San Carlos Indian Reservation 

Evaluation of River Values 

The entire stretch of the river has no impoundments or diversions. Straightening has not occurred along the river, 

though Highway 77 has a minor effect on some places where the fill comes down to the river’s edge. Otherwise, no 

riprapping has been done along the river. 

Outstandingly remarkable scenic, geologic and fish and wildlife values are present in the study area. Visual resource evaluation of the upper portion of the area has resulted in an “A” rating (highest category) in Scenic Quality 

under the BLM’s Visual Resource Management system. The area is managed as Class II with the objective of 

retaining the existing character of the landscape. The remaining portion of the river canyon is also highly scenic. 

The study area’s outstandingly remarkable geologic features include the steeply tilted limestone formations, the 

Needle’s Eye and other deeply incised, narrow stretches of the river canyon. The effect of the river’s down-cutting 

over the centuries is also a remarkable feature. The presence of a flowing river in a desert environment is recognized and highly valued. 

Outstandingly remarkable fish and wildlife values are associated with the study area. Bald eagles winter along the 

river in the upper section of the study area. Other federally listed threatened and endangered and other uncommon 

animal species such as the peregrine falcon, snowy egret, blackcrowned night heron, osprey, black hawk, zonetailed hawk, northern beardless tyrannulet and Mississippi kite may occur here. Gila monster and possibly desert 

tortoise may occur in the study area. 

Other River Values 

The study area contains other notable values. Portions of the river receive recreation use for fishing, picnicking, 

camping and tubing. Some cultural resource values are present but little is known of the overall study area. The 

Gila River canyon is expected to contain significant cultural resource values. 

462 
 

 

Fish and wildlife other than those listed above also rely on the river for habitat. Warm-water fish such as channel 

catfish, flathead catfish, largemouth bass, green sunfish and carp are found in the river. A large number of waterfowl occur along this stretch of the Gila River. Many species of both game and non-game animals (mule deer, 

white-tailed deer, javelina, desert bighorn sheep, elk, mountain lion, bobcat, gray fox, ringtail, coati, dove and quail) 

may frequent the river and study area at different times. 

The dense vegetation that has grown up along the river not only has riparian and wildlife habitat values, but has also 

proved invaluable in reducing flood severity and in controlling erosion. The dense growth of trees and shrubs slows 

or impedes the velocity of large flows, thereby reducing the damage caused by flooding. 

Eligibility Determination 

BLM, as well as determinations of the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, find the Gila River from Coolidge Dam to 

Hayden to be free-flowing and possessing outstandingly remarkable values. Scenic, geologic and unspecified other 

values have been identified. The above Evaluation of River Values section also documents the study river’s freeflowing and outstandingly remarkable values. All 32 miles of the study river are eligible for further study. 

Classification Determination 

For the purposes of determining the potential classification of the Gila River in this study, three segments of differing 

characteristics have been identified. These segments are divided on the basis of obvious changes in land ownership, changes in river character and the presence of differing types and amounts of development. 

Each of the segments identified below is classified according to the condition of the river and the adjacent lands as 

they existed at the time of the study. Each river segment and its immediate environment is considered as a unit. 

The potential classifications to be assigned as established in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are Wild, Scenic or 

Recreational. 

Segment 1 begins at the Coolidge Dam (SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec. 17, T.3S, R. 18E.) and ends near a point where the 

river road turns away from the river southward toward the old Hook and Line Ranch headquarters (intersection of 

the river and the quarter-section line of Sec. 24, T. 3S., R. 17E.). The segment is about 5.5 miles long. Approximately 580 acres of public land on what is generally the north side of the river are contained in the segment study 

area. About 180 acres of San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation lands are within the segment. 

In the upper 0.5 mile of the river, the dam, power plant, associated facilities and other developments have an 

obvious and significant effect in the Segment 1 study area. The area also has a switchbacked road leading down to 

the river and a bridge that provides access across the river to the south and east side. A gauging station is located 

at that point. Much of the river in this segment has been affected by operations of the dam. The discharge from the 

dam extends down the river a considerable percentage of the segment’s distance. Earthen material has been 

removed from the canyon slopes leaving a visible scar. From the bottom of the switchbacked road, the road to the 

power plant parallels the west bank of the river. 

A low grade dirt road follows the majority of the river’s length, crossing a bridge and exiting the study area near its 

lower end, crossing another bridge back into the reservation. The Hawk Spring Road enters the study area about 

two-thirds of the way down the segment. A corral and hay shed are near the junction of the Hawk Spring Road with 

the river road. The river flowing through this area has retained its relatively natural character. 

Segment 1 is classified as Recreational. The river is readily accessible by a low-grade dirt road that follows the river 

for most of the segment. Two bridge crossings exist in the segment. Another road intersects the river road about 3 

miles down from the segment’s beginning. A minor agricultural development, consisting of a corral and hay roof 

supporting a grazing operation, is near the river at that point. 

Segment 2 begins near a point where the road on the reservation side turns away from the river southward toward 

the old Hook and Line Ranch headquarters (intersection of the river and the quarter section line of Sec. 24, T. 3 S., 

R. 17 E.) and ends near a road coming down a ridge from the north about 1.5 miles east of Dripping Spring Wash 

(intersection of the river and the west quarter section line of Sec. 14, T. 4 S., R. 16 E.). Segment 2 is about 12.5 

miles long. The segment study area contains about 2,630 acres of public land on the north side of the river. 

463 
 

A 44 kv powerline crosses about 2 miles of the Segment 2 study area and parallels the Gila River near the mouth of 

Mescal Creek. A road was bladed out to one of the towers some years ago but is no longer passable. The road 

does not reach the river. A small corral in the canyon bottom and the remains of a mining prospect on the canyon 

slopes are the only other evidences of development. The shoreline and river flowing through this segment are 

essentially primitive in character and inaccessible except by trail. 

Segment 2 is classified as Wild The river is not accessible by road along this segment. The powerline crossing the 

segment study area is not easily noticeable and does little to detract from the natural character of the area. It was 

constructed in the 1920s with almost no vehicle access and its towers have taken on a rusty and non-metallic 

appearance that blends in with the surrounding landscape. The powerline passes through about 2 miles of the 12.5 

mile-long segment. Other developments do not affect the essentially primitive conditions. Waters of the river 

appear unpolluted, providing aesthetic qualities, habitat for the propagation of fish and wildlife, and primary source of 

contact for recreation. The amount of livestock grazing occurring within the segment study area is limited and 

considered to have no effect on the primitive character of the area. Overall, the watershed and shorelines of the 

segment are essentially primitive. 

Segment 3 begins near the end of a road coming down a ridge from the north about 1.5 miles east of Dripping 

Spring Wash (intersection of the river and the west quarter section line of Sec. 14, T. 4 S., R. 16 E.) and ends south 

of the eastern edge of the Hayden-Winkleman tailings pond. Segment 3 is about 14 miles long. The segment 

contains about 2,920 acres of public land, 700 acres of state land and 1,505 acres of private land, totalling 5,125 

acres. The private land occurs in separate parcels with the river flowing through each one for a total of 5.6 miles. 

The river flows through state land in three separate stretches totalling 1.4 miles. The remaining 7.0 miles of river in 

this segment flows through public land. 

Highway 77, a two-lane paved road, parallels the river along much of Segment 3. The river is accessible by vehicle 

from the highway in several places. Small lengths of three other low-grade dirt roads enter the study area though 

only one reaches the river. Two undeveloped picnic and fishing sites maintained by BLM are adjacent to the river in 

the NW1/4, Sec. 28, T. 4 S., R. 16 E., and SW1/4, Sec. 5, T. 5 S., R. 16 E. Fill from the highway reaches the river’s 

edge in some places but has not significantly affected the channel or the character of the river. The waterway 

remains generally natural in appearance. 

Segment 3 is classified as Recreational. The river is readily accessible by road. Highway 77 parallels the river for 

about 9 miles of the 14-mile-long segment. Several short side-roads approach the shoreline from the highway. One 

other dirt road drops down the river at the upper end of the segment. Some residential and agricultural development 

is present along the waterway on the private parcels in the segment study area. No impoundments or major diversion are known to have existed along the river. Some minor modification of the waterway has occurred from 

highway construction as fill reached the shoreline in places. Portions of the town of Winkelman (residential and 

some business areas) and the adjacent copper mining operations are within the lower portion. However, the 

waterway generally retains its natural and riverine appearance. 

Aravaipa Creek Segment 

Location/Description of Segment 

Aravaipa Creek is north of the Galiuro Mountains in eastern Pinal County and western Graham County, Arizona. 

The creek lies 90 miles southeast of Phoenix and 55 miles northeast of Tucson (the two largest metropolitan areas 

in Arizona) and 40 miles west of Safford, Arizona. 

The stretch of river under consideration covers 11.0 miles from the mouth of Turkey Creek to a point approximately 

0.5 mile downstream of the confluence of Hell’s Half Acre Canyon. The area is contained between the NW 1/4 SW 

1/4 Sec. 19, T.6S, R.19E. and the NW1/4 SE1/4, Sec. 19, T.6S., R.17E.. The segment is entirely within the 

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness designated by Congress on August 28, 1984. 

Aravaipa Canyon has long been recognized for its natural qualities and significant ecological attributes. Beneath 

scenic towering cliffs, Aravaipa Creek flows perenially, supporting lush riparian vegetation in stark contrast to the 

464 
 

 

shrubs of the Sonoran Desert on the canyon slopes. The 1 ,OOO-foot-deep canyon is home for a variety of wildlife, 

including 46 mammals, 46 reptiles, 7 native fish and 8 amphibian species. In addition, more than 200 bird species 

ranging from permanent residents to rare or migrant species may be found in this area. 

Climatic conditions in the study area are similar to those found throughout the region. In southeast Arizona, lowlands alternate with mountains to create abrupt changes in climatic conditions over short distances. Annual rainfall 

averages 7 to 16 inches in the valleys, with most falling during the late summer months. 

Evaluation of River Values 

The Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness provides high-quality habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species. The perennial water of Aravaipa Creek, besides furnishing habitat, allows for the growth of the canyon’s riparian vegetation. 

The high cliffs and dissected uplands provide habitat for additional wildlife. 

Desert bighorn sheep, wiped out in the 1930s and reintroduced in the late 1950s and 1973, have increased dramatically and are expanding their range. The number of bighorn sheep in the Aravaipa area is estimated at 160. A 

small group of bighorn is commonly seen along the north side of the canyon by visitors in the canyon bottom and 

appears to be tolerant of people hiking or backpacking. The remainder of the sheep use the canyon slopes side 

canyons and tablelands north of Aravaipa Creek. 

Federally listed and candidate threatened and endangered species are found within the area. Three pair of Peregrine falcons are found within the area. The desert tortoise lives in the western part of the area in Sonoran desert 

habitat in low density. The black hawk, though having no federal status, is listed as a State of Arizona candidate 

species. This raptor is uncommon in Arizona and the continuation of the species could be in jeopardy in the future. 

Nesting black hawks are sensitive to disturbance. 

Aravaipa Creek contains seven native fish including the loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) and the spikedace (Meda 

fulgida). Those two species have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The other native 

fish found in Aravaipa Creek are roundtail chub, longfin date, speckled dace, Sonoran sucker and desert mountain 

sucker. The variety of aquatic habitats-shallow riffles, deep pools, sandy bottoms and gravel bottoms-allows for 

the variety of fish species. Frequent and often heavy flooding maintains the native assemblage of fish. Exotic 

species tend to be flushed out of the system by flooding, but some (like the green sunfish) persist in pools in the side 

drainages. Therefore, it is an outstandingly remarkable fish and wildlife resource. 

Aravaipa Creek is also an outstandingly remarkable area for primitive recreation. The creek is a popular destination 

for day hiking, backpacking, birdwatching, photography, wildlife observations and sightseeing. Hunting occurs in 

portions of the wilderness during the fall and winter. Horseback riding in the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness also 

takes place but less frequently. Most visits happen during the spring and fall when temperatures are moderate and 

storms are uncommon. However, the climate allows year-round use. 

The majority of visitors to Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness come from Tucson and Phoenix, although people from 

throughout the United States and the world do visit Aravaipa Canyon. The scenery, the desert stream and its 

tributaries and the opportunities for birding and observing bighorn sheep are the most famed attractions. 

Visitor use statistics for Aravaipa Canyon have been kept since the mid-1970s. Over that period, visitor use has 

remained rather stable with the exception of the years 1980-82 when use increased dramatically, probably because 

of publicity about the pending wilderness designation. After the flood of October 1983, visitor use lessened for a 

year but has since returned to that of the 1970s (about 10,000 visitors per year). 

Other River Values 

The canyon area is rich in nongame species, particularly riparian bird species, but also mammals, amphibians and 

reptiles. Yellow-billed cuckoos, buff-collared nightjars, beardless flycatchers, black hawks and zone-tailed hawks 

are some of the uncommon species doing well in the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness. Ringtail cats, coatis, bobcats, 

gray fox and raccoons are among the 46 mammals known living in the canyon. 

465 
 

The spectacular canyon, carved to a depth of 1,000 feet by Aravaipa Creek is noted for its scenic beauty. Combined with the well-developed riparian system, Aravaipa is known as one of Arizona’s scenic jewels, changing its 

characteristics with each season. 

Aravaipa is also rich in cultural history dating from as long as 10,000 years ago. 

Eligibility Determination 

BLM has determined that 11 miles of Aravaipa Creek are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

Classification Determination 

This section identifies the classification which best describes the eligible river segment(s) as viewed in its existing 

condition. One segment has been identified. 

Segment 1 (Aravaipa Creek NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec. 19, T.6S.R.19E. to NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 13, T.6.S. R17E.). 

Segment 1 includes a total of 11 miles through public land. A Wild classification best desribes this segment of the 

river. The area possesses outstandingly remarkable wildlife, fish, recreation and scenic values. This area is very 

popular for backpacking. The segment is free from impoundments and the shoreline is undeveloped. 

Turkey Creek Segment 

Location/Description of Segment 

The study area is in Graham County, Arizona, approximately 40 miles southwest of Safford. The creek flows 

through a shallow, carved canyon and well-developed mixed broadleaf riparian zone. Turkey Creek flows for about 

2.5 miles for the majority of the year between the mouth at Aravaipa Creek and a point near its confluence with Oak 

Grove Canyon and the road to the tablelands. The creek involved falls between the SE1/4 SW1/4, Sec. 32 T.6S. 

R.19E. and SE114 NW1/4, Sec. 19 T.6S. R.19E.. The creek is a main tributary to the east end of the Aravaipa 

Canyon Wilderness. Turkey Creek is readily accessible by a low-grade dirt road that parallels and occasionally 

crosses Turkey Creek for the entire section of the study area. 

Evaluation of River Values 

Outstandingly remarkable values include a cultural site comprising a cliff dwelling previously occupied by the Salado 

people, known to have lived only in a relatively small portion of Arizona. In addition high scenic values, recreational 

values including camping and hiking are found here. The area is popular due in part to its proximity to Aravaipa 

Canyon Wilderness. 

Other River Values 

Sensitive wildlife species and the presence of a well-developed, mixed broad leaf riparian system upon which most 

other values depend. 

Eligibility Determination 

BLM has determined that 2.5 miles are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Classification Determinations 

This section identifies the classification that best describes each eligible river segment as viewed in its existing 

condition. One segment has been identified. 

466 
 

 

Segment 1 (Turkey Creek SE1/4 SW1/4, Sec 32 T.6S. Rl9E. to SE1/4 NW1/4, Sec. 19 T.6S. R19E.). Segment 1 

includes 2.5 miles which flows through public land. A Recreationalclassification best describes this segment of the 

river. The area possesses outstandingly remarkable cultural, recreational and scenic values. A Salado cliff dwelling 

interpreted to the public and the draw of the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness area provides excellent opportunities for 

historic preservation and recreation. A road parallels and occasionally crosses Turkey Creek for the entire length of 

the segment. Some fences and a wooden corral are the only modern structures. 

Swamp Springs Segment 

Location/Description of Segment 

The study area is located in Graham County in southeastern Arizona. The stretch of narrow canyon under study 

flows through 2 miles of public lands from a point 1 mile west of the Jackson Cabin Road to its confluence with 

Redfield Canyon. The stream contains water throughout the year but is reduced to short flowing reaches and 

standing pools during drier periods. This segment is situated from NE 1/4 Sec. 34 T.11S. R.20E. to NE 1/4 Sec. 32 

T.11 S. R.20E. 

Swamp Springs comprises a significant amount of riparian lands in the locale. The entire watershed is contained on 

public lands. 

Evaluation of River Values 

Outstandingly remarkable values include the presence of two species of native fish (an uncommon occurrence in 

the desert southwest) and one federal candidate and state threatened species--the yellow-billed cuckoo. The 

common black hawk, a state candidate species, also occurs in the area. 

Other River Values 

The presence of a majority of the riparian lands in the vicinity, the scenic and recreational values including hiking, 

birding and wading in this drainage are other attributes. The area is currently being considered for wilderness 

designation. 

Eligibility Determination 

BLM has determined that 2 miles are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Approximately 0.5 mile of this stream, located at the mouth, flows through state lands. 

Classification 

This section identifies the classification that best describes each eligible river segment as viewed in its existing 

condition. One segment has been identified. 

Segment 1 (Swamp Springs NE1/4, Sec. 34 T.11S. R.20E. to NE1/4, Sec. 32 T.11S. R. 20E.). Segment 1 includes 

2 miles, of which approximately 0.5 mile flows through state land. A Wild classification best describes this segment 

of the river. The area possesses outstandingly remarkable fish and wildlife values. 

Hot Springs Canyon Segment 

Location/Description of Segment 

The study area is located in Cochise County in southeastern Arizona. The river flows through a broad canyon 

containing narrow sections for a length of 6 miles, 1 mile of which flows through State and private lands. The area is 

located between NE1/4, Sec. 36 T.12S. R.20E. and NW1/4, Sec 5 T.13.S R.20E. 

467 
Evaluation of River Values 

The outstandingly remarkable feature of Hot Springs Canyon is the existence of four species of native fish and 

nesting gray hawks-one of 55 pair in the United States. Six continuous miles of flow within a deep scenic canyon 

is enhanced by the riparian vegetation lining the shores. 

Other River Values 

The area possesses habitat necessary for at least nine species of breeding raptors. The area is scenic and offers 

opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, birding, wading and camping. There is some off-highway vehicle access 

at the lower end of the segment. 

Eligibility Determination 

BLM has determined 6 miles are eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 1 mile of 

which crosses state and private lands. 

Classification Determination 

This section identifies the classification that best describes each eligible river segment as viewed in its existing 

condition. One segment has been identified. 

Segment 1 (Hot Springs Canyon NE 1/4 Sec. 36 T.12S. R20E. to the NW 1/4 Sec. 5 T.13S. R20E.). Segment 1 

includes a total of 6.0 miles of which 1 .O miles crosses private and state land. A Wild classification best describes 

this segment of river. The area possesses outstandingly remarkable fish values. There are no developments or 

roads along this segment. 

Bonita Creek Segment 

Location/Description of Segment 

The study area is located in Graham County in southeastern Arizona. The mouth of Bonita Creek can be reached 

by driving 15 miles northeast of Safford on the Sanchez road. The legal description extends from the SW1/4, Sec. 

27 T.4S. R27E. to lands at the mouth of the creek at NW1/4 NE1/4,Sec. 29 T.6S. R. 28E. The creek flows for a 

distance of approximately 15 miles south of the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation through a moderately broad 

canyon which closes to steep-walled sections in some locations. A low grade dirt road, periodically washed out by 

flash floods, winds along and crosses the creek in many locations for its entire length to the reservation boundary. A 

few large parcels of private land are contained in the creek bottom. Two miles of Bonita Creek cross private lands. 

Evaluation of River Values 

Resources which are outstandingly remarkable include habitat for federally listed and proposed Threatened and 

Endangered wildlife species, 15 miles of riparian habitat, a perennial creek with water quality qualifying for state 

Unique Water designation, National Register quality cultural resource sites, an area with one of the highest numbers 

of breeding bird species found in the United States, the greatest standing crop biomass of fishes recorded in a 

southwestern stream and a very scenic canyon. Bonita Creek is the water supply for the City of Safford. The city 

maintains a pipeline and pump station facilities within the creek drainage as well as picnic facilities for recreationists. 

Outstandingly remarkable values include habitat for federally and state listed and proposed Threatened and Endangered species including bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Gila chub, yellow-billed cuckoo, razorback sucker, and black 

hawk. The breeding bird diversity is among the greatest in the United States. Other outstandingly remarkable 

values include numerous historic and prehistoric cultural sites including several well-preserved cliff dwellings and a 

historic cabin. The proposed National Historic Safford-Morenci Trail crosses the drainage. 

468 
 

Other River Values 

Other values which enhance the area’s overall social and ecological value include recreational hiking, camping, 

birding, scenic backcountry driving and water play. The area also has a critical water supply which demonstrates 

the outstanding quality of the water. Fifteen linear miles of riparian habitat are also present along this perennial 

stream. 

Eligibility Determination 

BLM has determined that a total of 15 miles are eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, 2 miles of which flow through private lands. 

Classification Determination 

This section identifies the classification that best describes each eligible river segment as viewed in its present 

condition. 

Segment 1 (Bonita Creek SW1/4 SE1/4, Sec. 27 T.4S R27E. to NW1/4 NE1/4, Sec. 29 T.6S. R28E.). Segment 1 

includes a total of 15 miles of which 2 cross private land. A Recreationalclassification best describes this segment 

of river. The area possesses outstandingly remarkable fish and wildlife, cultural/historic and recreational values as 

well as a critical source of high quality water to the City of Safford. A low-grade road weaves along and crosses the 

entire length from the mouth of the creek to the Reservation lands. A minor water diversion facility and recreation 

sites are maintained by the city along the lower portion. 

San Pedro River Segment 

Location/Description of Segment 

The study area is located in Cochise County in southeastern Arizona. The study area is the segment of the San 

Pedro River contained in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area between the Mexican border and St. 

David Arizona. 

The study area begins in the NW1/4, Sec. 19, T.24S, R.22E. and runs downstream to the NW1/4, Sec. 21, T.18S., 

R.21 E. A total of 46 miles of the San Pedro River has been evaluated, with 38.25 miles under BLM administration. 

The study area lies in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, characterized as possessing gently sloping 

valleys separated by abruptly rising mountains. The climate is arid to semi arid. Summers are warm, averaging 95 

degrees daily maximum in June. Winters are relatively mild with average maximums in January of 61 degrees F 

and lows of 34 degrees. Precipitation averages about 13 inches annually with 50-60 percent of that total falling in 

July-September and 20 percent in December-February. 

Evaluation of River Values 

The study area contains many outstandingly remarkable values including scenic, recreation, fish and wildlife, 

hydrologic, paleontological, historic and cultural values. The riparian forest along the San Pedro River is the area’s 

most recognizable visual feature. The riparian forest offers a dramatic visual change from the surrounding country’s 

vegetation, dominated by such Chihuahuan Desert shrubs as creosote, catclaw, tarbush, whitethorn and mesquite. 

Natural qualities of this river have made it a very popular area for recreational activities, including birding, wildlife 

viewing, hiking, camping, horseback riding and nature study. Riparian vegetation, uncommon in the southwestern 

United States, greatly enhances wildlife habitat. The San Pedro’s perennial flow, though sometimes a trickle, is a 

rare occurrence in the Southwest. In addition, the area contains prehistoric and historic sites that qualify for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places. 
Animal life in the study area is greatly enhanced by the perennial river and its riparian vegetation. The area supports over 300 species of birds, 80 species of mammals, two native species and several introduced species of fish, 

and more than 40 species of amphibians and reptiles. 

Notable birds include over 25 species of raptors (many hawks, including the rare gray hawk), the Mississippi kite, 

crested caracara, green kingfisher and yellow-billed cuckoo. 

Mammals include many species of rodents, several bats, mountain lion and bobcat. Other mammals, like the 

whitetail deer, mule deer, javelina, cottontails and jackrabbits, are fairly common. 

The portion of the San Pedro River in the study area is perennial. Since perennial rivers are uncommon in the 

Southwest, the hydrological values are outstandingly remarkable. They are extremely important for the vegetation, 

fish and wildlife, and recreation values associated with the river. 

The paleontological resources of the area rank among the top two paleontological areas in Arizona. They rank in 

the top five for the late Cenozoic (approximately 1 million-5 million years before present) terrestrial deposits in North 

America. The area ranks as the top area in the western hemisphere for paleontological sites associated with early 

mankind because the number of sites, the excellent chronological control of those sites and the potential for additional sites. The fossils of the area have a high potential for yielding important information on mammal evolution and 

intercontinental dispersal, the earliest humans to occupy North America, late Cenozoic geology and life, vegetation 

and climatic changes. 

The cultural resources of the study area represent a diverse array of site types, cultures and time periods. The 

human occupation of the area began about 11,200 years ago. Many sites have exceptionally high scientific and/or 

public values at an international level of importance. The study area provides a unique opportunity for the scientific 

study, public interpretation and conservation of the full array of cultural resources found in southeast Arizona. 

Other River Values 

In addition to those values described above, the river also contains the following significant values. The study area, 

dominated by an extensive riparian corridor, is a composite of several vegetation communities. Long, healthy 

stretches of Fremont cottonwood and Gooding willow dominate the riparian corridor, along with lesser amounts of 

Arizona ash and walnut, netleaf hackberry and soapberry. Chihuahuan desertscrub, typified by species such as 

tarbush, creosote and acacia, dominate the uplands bordering both sides of the river while mesquite and sacaton 

grass dominate the bottomland adjacent to the riparian corridor. 

Eligibility Determinations 

To be eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the river segment being studied must be freeflowing and possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values. 

BLM has determined 46 miles of the San Pedro River are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. 

Classification Determination 

This section identifies the classification that best describes the eligible portions of the San Pedro River as viewed in 

its existing condition. 

Segment 1 (San Pedro River NW1/4, Sec. 19, T.24S. R.22E. to NW1/4, Sec 21, T.18S. R. 21 E.). Segment 1 

includes a total of 46 miles which flows through public land. The area possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreation, fish and wildlife, hydrologic, paleontological, historic and cultural values. The area is readily accessible 

by roads. State Highways 82,90 and 92 cross the study area. Two county roads, Charleston and Hereford also 

provide access to the river. In addition to the five paved roads, several dirt roads provide access to the area. 

470 
The Southern Pacific Railroad (Benson to Douglas rail line) parallels the river from Hereford to the northern boundary of the study area. This is an active railroad line. Also, several old railroad grades are located in the study area. 

Many rights-of-way including natural gas pipelines, water pipelines, utility easements, powerlines and telephone 

lines cross the study area. Noticeable concentrations are at the Charleston Road crossing and in the HerefordPalominas area. 

The St. David Irrigation District has a diversion structure and canal in the northern portion of the study area. The 

small diversion structure diverts water into the canal for use on fields near St. David. 

The area also has been adversely affected by past activities in the area. These activities include livestock grazing, 

sand and gravel operations, mining and farming. 

A Recreationalclassification best describes the entire study area. The study area is readily accessible by five paved 

roads and numerous dirt roads. Almost the entire length is paralleled by an active railroad line. The area has been 

affected by numerous rights-of-way and other activities occurring along the shoreline. However, the waterway 

generally retains its natural and riverine appearance. 

471 
Appendix 4
 

Management Objectives for Priority Species/Habitats
 

Alternatives A, B, and C
 

1. Riparian/Aquatic Habitat and Species Dependent on Riparian/Aquatic Habitat 

Riparian and aquatic habitat supports 60 percent of Arizona’s wildlife species and 75 percent of species listed as 

threatened or endangered, yet they are one of the smallest communities comprising about 1/2 percent of the Safford 

District. Because wildlife and fishes are concentrated in these small areas, riparian and aquatic habitat management has been the focus of the Wildlife Program. The primary objectives are as follows: 

a.	 Maintain and improve riparian areas to achieve 75 percent in good ecological condition by 1997. 

b.	 Increase the amount (length and width) of riparian vegetation to provide more wildlife habitat. 

c . Increase the complexity (number of vegetation layers and plant species) of riparian communities for more 

niches and greater biological diversity. 

d.	 Manage for three age classes (large decadent, mature and sapling) of riparian trees. 

e.	 Manage for development of a complete shrub and grass/forb component. 

f.	 Increase the duration and length of surface water flow in drainages. 

g.	 Improve water quality. 

h.	 Conduct inventories to document current use of riparian and aquatic habitats by fish and wildlife and to 

identify management needs or transplant opportunities. 

i.	 Increase number of fish and amphibian populations by transplants, in conjunction with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

j. Monitor riparian and aquatic habitat to document conditions and response to management actions by 

vegetation, water conditions and animal use. 

k.	 Protect native fish and wildlife by exclusion or removal of non-native species which may adversely affect 

native species. 

l.	 Protect and restore springs and seeps and their native vegetation and wildlife. 

2. Species identified for Reintroductions in Fish and Wildlife Service Plans 

One of the primary tools available for wildlife management is transplanting species from captive populations or 

areas where they are common to suitable habitat currently unoccupied or with a non-viable population. Such 

transplants are always done in conjunction with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service when a federally listed or candidate species is involved. Opportunities exist for many species (such 

as Gila topminnow, spikedace or wild turkey) that are currently present on public lands to be transplanted to suitable, unoccupied habitat elsewhere in the District. The management objective for these species is to increase the 

number of viable populations on public lands. Different problems exist for species totally extirpated from the District 

and special attention is focused on this group of fishes and wildlife. 

473 
Only two federal recovery plans specifically identify Safford District for reintroduction of extirpated species: woundfin 

minnow and the aplomado falcon. The Endangered Species Act mandates Bureau support, and Alternatives A and 

C emphasize these species. Other extirpated species were present within the District, but their recovery plans do 

not identify public lands here for reintroductions. In Alternative B, BLM will shift management emphasis to support 

potential efforts to reintroduce all extirpated species. These species include grizzly bear, wolf, ocelot, jaguar, 

Colorado River squawfish and Mexican garter snake. Habitat management for game species would be de-emphasized to free personnel and funding for these other species. 

3. Deserl Tortoise 

BLM completed a rangewide management plan for desert tortoise in November 1988. The Bureau’s goal is “...to 

manage habitat so as to ensure that viable desert tortoise populations exist on public lands. This will be accomplished through cooperative resource management aimed at protecting the species and its habitat.” 

The District’s first objective is to determine the distribution and relative population of desert tortoise on public lands. 

Then, based upon four criteria, (1) importance of the habitat to maintaining viable populations, (2) resolvability of 

conflicts, (3) tortoise density and (4) population status, specific management actions will be initiated. In view of the 

relative health of the Sonoran Desert population of desert tortoise and the small, isolated parcels of suitable habitat 

managed, Safford District may have few opportunities to enhance habitat conditions. The District, however, will 

make every effort to protect and enhance viable desert tortoise populations on public lands. 

4. Desert and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep 

Both Rocky Mountain and desert bighorn sheep utilize public lands within the Safford District. The management 

goal for desert bighorns is to increase the capability of habitat by 10 percent to support populations of sheep in all 

potential areas. Objectives include the following: 

a. Support Arizona Game and Fish Department reintroductions. 

b. Develop water sources in suitable habitat. 

c. Develop livestock and fire management systems compatible with sheep needs. 

d. Mitigate other actions to prevent avoidable adverse impacts. 

e. Conduct BLM inventories and support other inventory and monitoring efforts of bighorn sheep and their 

habitat. 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are currently using the northeast corner of the District and are rapidly increasing 

their range and numbers in the Eagle Creek area. Management objectives are to monitor the distribution and size of 

this population, especially in relation to the distribution of desert bighorns in the Peloncillo Mountains. 

5. Mule Deer 

Most public land in the Safford District supports mule deer; however little habitat contains high numbers. Arizona 

Game and Fish Department objectives are to increase the capability of the habitat by 7 percent on BLM lands. 

Bureau objectives parallel those of the state. Specific management objectives are as follows: 

a.	 Improve forage conditions through better livestock management and use of controlled burns. 

b.	 Provide yearlong water at 3-mile intervals in important habitat. 

c.	 Block up public lands to improve management efficiency and to support viable populations 

d.	 Mitigate avoidable adverse impacts by other programs and authorized actions. 

e.	 Conduct BLM inventories and support other inventories and monitoring efforts of mule deer and their 

habitat. 

474 
 

6. Prong horn Antelope 

Public lands in the Safford District provide habitat for one population of pronghorn. Arizona Game and Fish Department strategic plans call for a 15 percent increase in pronghorn habitat capability on BLM lands. District objectives 

are to improve habitat for the one herd so that it will support a viable population: 

a. Improve forage condition. 

b.	 Provide water, where it is a limiting factor. 

c . 	 Reduce mortality factors, as identified. 

d.	 Conduct or support monitoring or inventory efforts of pronghorn and their habitat. 

Improved management techniques of desert grasslands may create new areas with habitat suitable for pronghorn. 

Opportunities for transplants to produce new populations will be investigated and conducted in cooperation with 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, where warranted. 

7. Oak Woodlands and Species dependent on Oak Woodland Habitat 

Oak woodlands provide crucial habitat for several priority wildlife species. Management efforts will benefit all these 

species and so the goals overlap. Priority species include white-tailed deer, Montezuma quail, wild turkey and black 

bear. Arizona Game and Fish Department strategic plan goals are for no change in white-tailed deer, turkey and 

black bear populations on public lands. Specific management objectives are as follows: 

a.	 Increase perennial grass height to provide better cover for whitetailed deer fawns, Montezuma quail and 

nesting turkeys. 

b.	 Increase food quality and quantity for all wildlife species. 

c.	 Reintroduce Merriam’s and Gould’s turkeys to areas with suitable habitat, in cooperation with Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. 

d.	 Increase white-tailed deer numbers 10 percent through better livestock management and use of prescribed fire. 

Bear and Montezuma quail numbers will benefit as habitat conditions improve, increasing in numbers and distribution. 

8. Saguaro-Palo Verde 

The eastern edge of the Sonoran Desert lies in the Safford District. Where this community is dominated by saguaro 

cactus and palo verde shrubs, it is the most structurally and floristically diverse desert type in the world. Several 

priority species such as desert tortoise and javelina key into this community. Other wildlife of possible future concern, such as Harris hawks and purple martins, also concentrate here. Management objectives are as follows: 

a.	 Maintain this community in good or better ecological condition. 

b.	 Mitigate disturbances to prevent avoidable adverse impacts. 

c.	 Control fire to prevent loss of this fire-sensitive community. 

d.	 Block up the land ownership pattern to acquire management units. 

475 
9. Desert Grassland 

Desert grasslands in the Safford District include Sonoran desert, Chihuahuan desert and plains grassland types. All 

are fire-dependent communities. Historic management methods resulted in shrub, cactus and juniper invasion at 

the expense of perennial grasses. Priority species such as pronghorn, bighorn sheep and the extirpated aplomado 

falcon, plus other species of growing concern such as Cassin’s sparrows, Brewer’s sparrows and the massasaga 

are adversely affected as grasses decline. Currently 13 grassland-dependent wildlife species are included in the list 

of state threatened species. 

The management objective of the Safford District is to reduce invading shrubs, cactus and junipers and increase 

native perennial grasses in the most productive portions of the public lands. Methods will include changes in 

livestock and fire management practices. Benefits to riparian and aquatic areas will also occur due to improved 

watershed conditions. Some changes in distribution and local populations of species that prefer shrublands, such 

as javelina, may occur as this objective is attained. 

10. Wetlands 

Riparian and aquatic habitat is very important to most of the District’s wildlife. Wetlands, as a type of riparian 

community characterized by saturated soil at the land/water junction, are especially crucial to waterfowl, shorebirds 

and amphibians. Currently only an estimated 100-200 acres of wetlands are found in the District. Previous planning 

efforts have identified the need for additional wetlands. In Alternative B wetland habitat would be separated from the 

riparian and aquatic topic to give it special emphasis. Management objectives are as follows: 

a. Prevent avoidable disturbances to improve existing wetlands. 

b. Construct low dams, water diversions and water spreading projects to develop additional wetlands. 

c. Acquire additional wetlands from willing owners, and develop as necessary. 

d. Acquire water rights to ensure continued supply. 

11. Other Species and Habitats of Interest 

Many wide-ranging species must be managed by Districtwide practices and policies. Bureau policy, NEPA and the 

Endangered Species Act provide general guidance for management and mitigation. Consultation with Arizona 

Game and Fish Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service provides additional support. The District’s goal is to 

protect and enhance habitat for all prioriiy species on public lands. All actions will be evaluated for possible effects 

to wildlife and Arizona Game and Fish Department or Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted where applicable. 

Site-specific habitat improvements will be identified in activity plans and adverse impacts will be mitigated in individual actions or plans as proposed. 

476 
 

 

Appendix 5
 

Lands that Meet Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Requirements for Sale
 

Alternatives A, B, and C
 

The following public lands qualify for sale under Section 203(a)(l) of Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976. The tracts are difficult and uneconomical to manage because of their location or other characteristics. 

Although they qualify for sale, the preferred method for disposal is by exchange or Recreation and Public Purposes 

Act lease/patent. 

These parcels identified for disposal are not to be considered all-inclusive. Unforeseen future land management concerns or public demand may necessitate the need for other public lands not within the disposal areas to be 

sold or exchanged. The parcels considered at that time will be subject to the same BLM planning process and 

National Environmental Policy Act as those identified in this document. 

Land for Sale Under 

Alternatives: 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona	 A B C 

T. 2 S., R. 14 E.,
 

Sec. 7, NE1/4NE1/4 excluding mineral patent; X X X
 

Sec. 31, lots 1 and 2, NE1/4NW1/4. X x x
 

T. 2 S., R. 15 E.,
 

Sec. 20, lot 1 S1/2NE1/4, N1/2SE1/4,
 

SE1/4SE1/4, unpatented mineral survey; X X X
 

Sec. 29,	 lots 5, 9, 10-13 incl., E1/2NE1/4,
 

N1/2SE1/4, unpatented mineral survey in
 

N1/2 and W1/2; X x x
 

Sec. 31,	 NE1/4, N1/2SE1/4. X X X 

T. 3 S., R. 29 E., 

Remaining public land in
 

Sec. 32 X x x
 

Sec. 35 X x x
 

Sec. 36. X x x
 

T. 4 S., R. 28 E., 

Remaining public land in
 

Sec. 12, E1/2NE1/4 (within). X x x
 

T . 4 S., R. 29 E., 

Remaining public land in
 

Sec. 1 X x x
 

Sec. 6, S1/2S1/2 (within); X X X
 

Sec. 10 X X X
 

Sec. 2 x x x
 

Sec. 3 X x x
 

Sec. 4 X x x
 

Sec. 7 X x x
 

Sec. 8 X x x
 

477
 
Land for Sale Under
 

Alternatives:
 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

Sec. 11
 

Sec. 12
 

Sec. 18
 

Sec. 29, NE1/4NW1/4 (within).
 

T. 5 S., R. 23 E.,
 

Sec. 9, NE1/4NE1/4;
 

Sec. 11, E1/2NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 13, W1/2SW1/4SW1/4, SE1/4SW1/4SW1/4.
 

T. 5 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 12
 

Lot 2
 

NE1/4NW1/4
 

NW1/4NW1/4
 

N1/2SE1/4NW1/4
 

SW1/4SEl/4NW1/4
 

N1/2SE1/4SE1/4NW1/4
 

SW1/4SEl/4SE1/4NW1/4
 

N1/2SW1/4NW1/4
 

N1/2SE1/4SW1/4NW1/4
 

Lot 3
 

Lot 4
 

N1/2 Lot 5
 

N1/2S1/2 Lot 5
 

N1/2 Lot 6
 

SE1/4 Lot 6
 

N1/2SW1/4 Lot 6
 

N1/2 Lot 7
 

SW1/4 Lot 7
 

W1/2SW1/4 Lot 7
 

N1/2NW1/4 Lot 10
 

NW1/4NE1/4 Lot 10
 

N1/2NE1/4 Lot 11
 

T. 6 S., R. 16 E.,
 

Sec. 27, unplotted parcel in SE1/4NW1/4.
 

T. 6 S., R. 17 E.,
 

Sec. 7, south of San Carios bdy.;
 

Sec. 8, south of San Carlos bdy.
 

T. 6 S., R. 22 E.,
 

Sec. 26, all south of San Carlos bdy.
 

T. 6 S., R. 24 E.,
 

Sec. 9, El /2SW1/4.
 

T. 6 S.,	 R. 25 E.,
 

Sec. 8, S1/2NE1/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 13
 

Sec. 14
 

Sec. 24
 

C 

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X 

A 

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X

X 

478 
 

 

 

 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

Sec. 25, N1/2, N1/2SE1/4, SE1/4SE1/4 

Sec. 26, N1/2SE1/4 

Sec. 22, SE1/4NE1/4; 

Sec. 25, SW1/4SW1/4NW1/4; 

Sec. 26, N1/2NW1/4NE1/4, E1/2SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4, 

SE1/4NW1/4NE1/4 

T. 6 S., R. 26E.,
 

Sec. 31, Lots l-3,5-6, 9, 12, 15, 16
 

Sec. 32, Lot 5, NE1/4, N1/2SW1/4, N1/2SE1/4
 

Sec. 33, Lots 1-12, Lots 15, 16
 

T.6 S., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 33, all 

Sec. 34, N1/2, SW1/4, N1/2SE1/4 

Sec. 35, Lot 4, N1/2NE1/4, NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4 

Sec. 36, Lots 7, 8, NE1/4, N1/2NW1/4 

T. 6 S., R. 28 E.
 

Sec. 31, Lots 1 through 5
 

T. 6 S., R. 30 E.,
 

Sec. 1, lots 14, 18, 22;
 

T. 7 S., R. 16 E.,
 

Sec. 10, lot 7, SE1/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 11, S1/2S1/2; 
 

Sec. 12, S1/2SW1/4;
 

Sec. 13, N1/2NW1/4, E1/2SE1/4NW1/4;
 

Sec. 14, N1/2N1/2, W1/2SW1/4NW1/4;
 

Sec. 15, lot 12, NE1/4NE1/4.
 

T. 7 S.,	 R. 27 E.,
 

Sec. 1, Lots 1 through 3, SE1/4NE1/4
 

Sec. 4, lots 1-5 incl., S1/2N1/2, SW1/4;
 

Sec. 7, lots 1 and 2, NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4;
 

Sec. 8, lots 1, 2,3, NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4;
 

Sec. 9, lots 14-19 incl.;
 

Sec. 21, N1/2SW1/4NE1/4.
 

T. 7 S., R. 31 E.,
 

Sec. 34, E1/2NE1/4SE1/4, W1/2NE1/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 35. NW1/4NW1/4SW1/4.
 

T. 8 S., R. 16 E.,
 

Sec. 21, NW1/4;
 

Sec. 24, E1/2NE1/4;
 

Sec. 29, SE1/4SW1/4.
 

T. 8 S., R. 17 E.,
 

Sec. 19, E1/2SW1/4 (R&PP).
 

Land for Sale Under 

Alternatives: 

A B C 

X X X
 

X x x
 

x x x
 

X x x
 

X x x
 

X x x
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X x x
 

X x x
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

x - X 

x - X 

x - X 

x - X 

x - X 

x - X 

X X X
 

X x x
 

X x x
 

X X X
 

X x x
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

x - X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

479 
 
 

 

Land for Sale Under 

Alternatives: 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

T. 8 S., R.	 26 E.,
 

Sec. 10, NE1/4NE1/4
 

Sec. 20, lots 1 and 2;
 

Sec. 21, E1/2NE1/4NE1/4, W1/2NW1/4SW1/4
 

Sec. 29, lots 17, 19, 20,21, N1/2NW1/4NE1/4,
 

W1/2E1/2NW1/4.
 

T. 8 S., R. 31 E.,
 

Sec. 11, E1/2NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 35, E1/2E1/2.
 

T. 8 S., R. 32 E.,
 

Sec. 9, E1/2SE1/4;
 

Sec. 10, W1/2SW1/4;
 

Sec. 30, W1/2NW1/4SE1/4.
 

T. 12 S., R. 29 E.,
 

Sec. 29, SE1/4SW1/4.
 

T. 13 S., R. 30 E.,
 

Sec. 26, E1/2NE1/4SE1/4, N1/2SE1/4SE1/4,
 

SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4, W1/2SE1/4SEl/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 35, SE1/4.
 

T. 13 S., R.	 31 E., 
 

Sec. 20, SW1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 29, W1/2NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 31, lot 2.
 

T. 14 S., R. 30 E.,
 

Sec. 1, S1/4;
 

Sec. 11, E1/2SE1/4;
 

Sec. 13. NE1/4.
 

T.	 14 S., R. 31 E., 
 

Sec. 4, SW1/4SW1/4,
 

E1/2SE1/4;
 

Sec. 5, SE1/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 6, lot 6, NE1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 8, NE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4, W1/2SE1/4;
 

Sec. 9, N1/2NW1/4;
 

Sec. 17, NE1/4, SW1/4, SE1/4;
 

Sec. 18, S1/2SE1/4;
 

Sec. 19, SE1/4;
 

Sec. 20, S1/2S1/2;
 

Sec. 21, NE1/4, SE1/4;
 

Sec. 22, NW1/4;
 

Sec. 23, SW1/4NE1/4, W1/2SE1/4.
 

T. 14 S., R. 32 E.,
 

Sec. 19, lot 4.
 

C 

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X
 

B 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X
 

A 

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X

X 

X
 

480 
Land for Sale Under 

Alternatives: 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona	 A B C 

T. 15 S., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 3, SW1/4NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4; X x x 

Sec. 11, SW1/4NE1/4. X x x 

T. 15 S., R. 28 E., 

Sec. 4, W1/2NE1/4SW1/4. X x x 

T. 16 S., R. 22 E., 

Sec. 1, S1/2SW1/4, SW1/4SE1/4 excluding 

mineral patent; x - X 

Sec. 2, lots 12, 13, 14 excluding mineral patent, 

NW1/4NW1/4NW1/4 excluding mineral patent; x - X 

Sec. 3, lots 5, 8, 9, 10, 14-18 incl.; x - X 

Sec. 4, lot 5, N1/2SE1/4, SW1/4SE1/4; x - X 

Sec. 6, lots 3-7 incl., SE1/4NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4; X 

Sec. 8, N1/2SW1/4, SW1/4SW1/4, NW1/4SE1/4; x - X 

Sec. 9, SW1/4SW1/4; x - X 

Sec. 10, lots 1 and 2, SW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4SW1/4; x - X 

Sec. 12, NE1/4SE1/4, S1/2SE1/4 excluding mineral 

patent; X 

Sec. 13, lot 7, N1/2NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4 excluding 

mineral patent; x - X 

Sec. 17, SW1/4NE1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, SE1/4; x - X 

Sec. 18, lot 4, N1/2SE1/4, SE1/4SE1/4; x - X 

Sec. 21, W1/2NW1/4; x - X 

Sec. 22, MS 2356; x - X 

Sec. 23, lot 5, MS 2356; x - X 

Sec. 24, lots 4-7 incl. x - X 

T. 16 S., R. 23	 E., 

Sec. 4, SE1/4NW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4; x - X 

Sec. 6, lots 7 and 8; x - X 

Sec. 23, lot 2, W1/2NE1/4, S1/2, 

MS 585, unpatented mineral surveys; X 

Sec. 24, MS 586. x - X 

T. 16 S., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 30, SE1/4SE1/4; X x x 

Sec. 31, NE1/4NE1/4; X X X 

Sec. 34, SE1/4NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4. X x x 

T. 16 S., R. 30 E., 

Sec. 14, SW1/4NE1/4. x - X 

T. 17 S., R. 31 E., 

Sec. 5, SE1/4SE1/4. x - X 

T. 17 S., R. 32 E., 

Sec. 6, lot 2. x - X 

T. 18 S., R. 25 E.,
 

Sec. 1, lots 1 and 2, S1/2NE1/4, N1/2SW1/4,
 

481 
Land for Sale Under 

Alternatives: 

Gila and Salt Rlver Merldlan, Arizona	 A B C 

SE1/4SW1/4, SE1/4, excluding mineral patent; X 

Sec. 4, lot 4; X X X 

Sec. 5, lots 1, 10, 11; X x x 

Sec. 6, lots 6-10 incl., N1/2SE1/4, NE1/4SW1/4; X 

Sec. 7, lots 1 and 2, E1/2NW1/4. X 

T. 19 S., R. 22 E., 

Sec. 34,	 SE1/4SE1/4SW1/4NE1/4, 

S1/2NW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4NE1/4, 

N1/2SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, 

SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4SE1/4, 

NE1/4NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4. x x x 

T. 19 S., R . 24 E., 

Sec. 4, lot 4; x x x 

Sec. 9, SW1/4NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4; X x x 

Sec. 12, lots 1, 2, 3; X X X 

Sec. 13, lots l-9 incl.; x x x 

Sec. 14, lot 2, MS 2738; X x x 

Sec. 26, SW1/4. X 

T. 19 S., R. 25	 E., 
 

Sec. 4, S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4;
 

Sec. 9, NW1/4NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4;
 

Sec. 17, lots 1, 3, 9-15 incl., 17, 18;
 

Sec. 18, N1/2SE1/4NE1/4;
 

Sec. 20, lots 1-8 incl., SW1/4NW1/4,
 

W1/2SW1/4, unpatented mineral survey;
 

Sec. 21, lots l-8 incl. excluding mineral patent,
 

E1/2SE1/4 excluding mineral patent.
 

T. 19 S., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 17, SW1/4SW1/4. x - X 

T. 19 S., R. 28 E., 

Sec. 4, lot 4. x - X 

T. 20 S., R. 22 E., 

Sec. 11, lots 1-18 

Sec. 14, lots l-20 X X X 

T. 20 S., R. 26 E., 

Sec. 6, lots 1 0-13 incl. X 

T. 21 S., R. 22 E., 

Sec. 3, lot 3. X x x 

T. 21 S., R. 23 E., 

Sec. 7, SE1/4SE1/4; X x x 

Sec. 8, NW1/4NW1/4. X x x 

482 
Land for Sale Under 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

T. 22 S., R. 21 E.,
 

Sec. 15, SE1/4NE1/4;
 

Sec. 20, E1/2NW1/4.
 

T. 22 S., R. 23 E.,
 

Sec. 4, SW1/4SE1/4.
 

T. 22 S., R. 26 E.,
 

Sec. a, SW1/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 19, SE1/4NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4.
 

T. 22 S., R. 28	 E., 
 

Sec. 23, SW1/4NW1/4;
 

Sec. 30, lot 5;
 

Sec. 34, S1/2S1/2.
 

T. 22 S., R. 29 E., 

Sec. 15, W1/2E1/2, E1/2SW1/4;
 

Sec. 24, NW1/4NE1/4;
 

Sec. 31, SE1/4SE1/4.
 

T. 23 S., R . 23 E., 
 

Sec. a, lot 2;
 

Sec. 9, lot 5;
 

Sec. 28, SE1/4NE1/4.
 

T. 23 S., R. 25 E.,
 

Sec. 4, NW1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 5, NE1/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 10, SE1/4NE1/4.
 

T. 23 S., R. 27 E.,
 

Sec. 28, NW1/4SW1/4.
 

T. 23 S., R. 28	 E., 

Sec. 3, lots 1, 2, 4, SW1/4NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4; 

Sec. 10, SE1/4NE1/4; 

Sec. 11, N1/2NW1/4. 

T. 24 S., R. 25 E., 

Sec. 1, E1/2NE1/4SE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4SE1/4; 

Sec. 12, SE1/4NE1/4NE1/4, W1/2NE1/4NE1/4; 

Sec. 14, lots 1, 2, 3; 

Sec. 22, lots 1-4 incl.;
 

Sec. 23, lots 2, 3, 4;
 

Sec. 24, lots 1, 2.
 

T. 24 S., R.	 26 E., 

Sec. 6, lots 6,7, E1/2SW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4SE1/4; 

Sec. 19, lots 1-4 incl.; 

Sec. 24, lots l-4 incl. 

Alternatives: 

A C 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X
 

X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

X X X
 

483
 
Land for Sale Under 

Alternatives: 

Glla and Salt River Meridian, Arizona	 A B C 

T. 24 S., R. 28	 E., 
 

Sec. 11, SE1/4NE1/4, N1/2NW1/4NW1/4, W1/2SW1/4; x x x
 

Sec. 13, E1/2NW1/4; X X X
 

Sec. 22, lots 1-4 incl.; X x x
 

Sec. 23, lots 1-4 incl.; x x x
 

Sec. 24, lots l-4 incl. X x x
 

T. 24 S., R. 29 E., 
 

Sec. 1, SW1/4NE1/4; X x x
 

Sec. 5, SE1/4SW1/4, SE1/4SE1/4; x x x
 

Sec. 6, E1/2NE1/4; X x x
 

Sec. 19, lots l-5 incl. x x x
 

T. 24 S., R. 30 E., 
 

Sec. 19, lot 1; X x x
 

Sec. 20, lots 1-4 incl. X x x
 

484 
Appendix 6 
 

Visual Resource Management Class Objectives
 

Bureau Manual 8410, Visual Resource Inventory (BLM 1986), places the management of visual resources (scenery) 

into four management classes. 

Class I The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for 

natural ecological changes; it does not, however, preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. 

Class II The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of 

the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Class III The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Class IV The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require major modification of the 

existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These 

management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. Every attempt should be 

made, however, to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance and repeating the basic elements. 

485 
 

Appendix 7 

Legal Description for Lands Proposed

for Mineral Withdrawal 

The following lands are proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry under the Mining Law of 1872. 

Alternative A 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

1. Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2,411 acres 

T. 5 S., R. 30 E., 

Sec. 30, lots 3 and 4, SW1/4SE1/4, E1/2SW1/4; 

Sec. 31, lots 5, 6, 9-11, 15, 16, 18, 19, E1/2, SE1/4SW1/4; 

Sec. 32, SE1/4SE1/4, W1/2SE1/4, W1/2. 

T. 6 S., R. 30 E., 

Sec. 3, lots 9-l 2, S1/2NW1/4; 

Sec. 4, lots 1 and 8-15, S1/2NW1/4; 

Sec. 5, lot 1. 

2. Table Mountain Research Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1,220 acres 

T. 7 S., R. 18 E., 

Sec. 9, S1/2SW1/4SW1/4; 

Sec. 15, SW1/4; 

Sec. 16, all; 

Sec. 17, E1/2NE1/4; 

Sec. 22, W1/2. 

3. Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 380 acres 

T. 3 S., R. 16 E., 

Sec. 16, lots 1-4, S1/2S1/2; 

Sec. 21, N1/2NE1/4; 

Sec. 22, N1/2NW1/4. 

4. Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2,927 acres 

T. 6 S., R. 23 E., 

Sec. 26, SW1/4SW1/4; 

Sec. 27, S1/2NE1/4, S1/2; 

Sec. 34, lots 3 and 4, NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4. 

T. 7 S., R. 23 E., 

Sec. 1, SW1/4SW1/4, SE1/4SE1/4; 

Sec. 2, S1/2; 

Sec. 3, lots 3 and 4, S1/2NW1/4, S1/2; 

Sec. 4, S1/2; 

Sec. 10, N1/2; 

Sec. 11, N1/2; 

Sec. 12, N1/2. 

487 
 

5.	 Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2,230 acres 

T. 15 S., R. 28 E., 

Sec. 11, S1/2; 

Sec. 12, S1/2S1/2; 

Sec. 13, N1/2, SE1/4, E1/2SW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4; 

Sec. 14, NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4, E1/2NW1/4SE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4, NE1/4SE1/4NW1/4. 

T. 15 S., R. 29 E.,
 

Sec. 7, SW1/4SE1/4, SW1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 18, all;
 

Sec. 19, N1/2N1/2.
 

6.	 Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 120 acres 

T.3S., R.29E. 

Sec. 31, NW1/4NE1/4, SW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4SE1/4, SW1/4SE1/4 

7.	 Eagle Creek Bat Cave Area of Critical Environmental Concern 40 acres 

T. 5	 S., R. 29 E., 
 

Sec. 6, NE1/4SW1/4.
 

8.	 Fourmile Canyon Campground 159 acres 

T. 7	 S., R. 20 E., 

Sec. 18, lots 1 and 2, NE1/4NW1/4, 

9.	 Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring 

T. 4 S., R. 24 E., 

Sec. 22,	 SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, 

NE1/4NW1/4NE1/4SE1/4. 

1 0 	 District Office Site (proposed) 12 acres 

T. 7 S., R. 25 E., 

SE1/4NW1/4. 

Station 10 acres 

SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/2NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4, 

Sec. 24, that portion of the W1/2NW1/4NE1/4 lying north of the Golf Course Road. 

11 Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 120 acres 

No legal description will be listed, as required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

12 Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 160 acres 

No legal description will be listed, as required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

13. Midway Cave Archaeological Site 40 acres 

No legal description will be listed, as required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

488 
 

 

Alternative B 
 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

1.	 Gila Box Outstanding Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2,994 acres 

T . 5	 S., R. 29 E., 

Sec. 11, 

Sec. 12, 

Sec. 14, 

Sec. 15, 

Sec. 16, 

Sec. 20, 

Sec. 21, 

Sec. 22, 

T . 5	 S., R. 30 E., 

Sec. 7, 

Sec. 30, 

Sec. 31, 

Sec. 32, 

T . 6	 S., R. 30 E., 

Sec. 3, 

Sec. 4, 

Sec. 5, 

SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4;
 

lot 1 and 5-16, SW1/4, S1/2NW1/4;
 

N1/2, SW1/4;
 

S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4, S1/2SW1/4;
 

S1/2SE1/4;
 

S1/2S1/2;
 

E1/2, SW1/4;
 

all;
 

lots 3, 4, 6, and 7;
 

lots 3 and 4, SW1/4SE1/4, E1/2SW1/4;
 

lots 5, 6,9-1 1, 15, 16, 18, 19, E1/2, SE1/4SW1/4;
 

SE1/4SE1/4, W1/2SE1/4, W1/2.
 

lots 9-12, S1/2NW1/4;
 

lots 1 and 8-15, S1/2NW1/4;
 

lot 1.
 

2. Table Mountain Research Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1,220 acres 

T . 7	 S., R. 18 E., 

Sec. 9, 

Sec. 15, 

Sec. 16, 

Sec. 17, 

S1/2SW1/4SW1/4;
 

SW1/4;
 

all;
 

E1/2NE1/4;
 

Sec.	 22, W1/2. 

3.	 Desert Grasslands Research Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 790 acres 

T . 3	 S., R. 1 6 E., 
 

Sec. 16, lots 1-4, S1/2S1/2;
 

Sec. 21, N1/2NE1/4;
 

Sec. 22, N1/2NW1/4.
 

T. 6 S., R. 19 E.,
 

Sec. 17, S1/2SW1/4SW1/4, SW1/4SE1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 20, W1/2NE1/4NW1/4, NW1/4NW1/4.
 

T . 8	 S., R. 1 8 E., 

Sec. 22, 

Sec. 23, 

Sec. 26, 

Sec. 27, 

E1/2SE1/4; 

W1/2W1/2SW1/4; 

W1/2W1/2NW1/4; 

E1/2E1/2. 

489 
 

4.	 Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern 4,127 acres 

T. 6	 S., R. 23 E.,
 

Sec. 26, SW1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 27, S1/2NE1/4, S1/2;
 

Sec. 34, lots 1-4, N1/2, N1/2S1/2;
 

Sec. 35, lot 4, W1/2NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4.
 

T. 7	 S., R. 2 3 E.,
 

Sec. 1, SW1/4SW1/4, SE1/4SE1/4;
 

Sec. 2, lots 3 and 4, S1/2NE1/4, S1/2NW1/4, S1/2;
 

Sec. 3, lots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2;
 

Sec. 4, lots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2;
 

Sec. 10, N1/2;
 

Sec. 11, N1/2;
 

Sec. 12, N1/2.
 

5.	 Coronado Mountain Research Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 120 acres 

T.3S.R.29E
 

Sec. 31 NW1/4NE1/4, SW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4SE1/4 SW1/4SE1/4
 

6.	 Eagle Creek Canyon Outstanding Natural Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern 3,642 acres 

T. 4	 S., R. 2 8 E., 
 

Sec. 3, lot 3, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4;
 

Sec. 4, lots 1-4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2;
 

Sec. 5, lots 1 and 2, SE1/4NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4;
 

Sec. 9, E1/2E1/2;
 

Sec. 23, SW1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 25, SW1/4SE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 26, NW1/4SE1/4, N1/2SW1/4, SW1/4SW1/4, NW1/4;
 

Sec. 35, SE1/4, NW1/4.
 

T . 5	 S., R. 2 8 E., 

Sec. 1, lots 1 and 4, SE1/4NE1/4, S1/2SE1/4, E1/2SW1/4, S1/2NW1/4; 

Sec. 12, N1/2NE1/4; 

Sec. 13, E1/2NE1/4. 

T. 5 S., R. 29 E.,
 

Sec. 6, NE1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 7, E1/2E1/2, NW1/4NE1/4, W1/2W1/2;
 

Sec. 18, NE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SE1/4, W1/2SW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 19, E1/2E1/2, SW1/4NE1/4, SW1/4SW1/4, NW1/4NW1/4;
 

*Sec. 30, W1/2NE1/4. 

*This 80-acre parcel is also located in the Gila Box ONA ACEC. 

7.	 Fourmile Canyon Campground 159 acres 

T. 7 S., R. 20 E.,
 

Sec. 18, lots 1 and 2, NE1/4NW1/4, SE1/4NW1/4.
 

8.	 Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Station 10 acres 

T. 4 S., R. 24 E., 

Sec. 22,	 SW1/4SEl/4SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4, 

NE1/4NW1/4NE1/4SE1/4. 

490 
 

9.	 District Office Site (proposed) 12 acres 

T. 7 S., R. 25 E., 

Sec. 24, that portion of the W1/2NW1/4NE1/4 lying north of the Golf Course Road. 

10.	 Yuma Wash Archaeological Site 120 acres 

No legal description will be listed, as required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

11.	 Tres Alamos Archaeological Site 160 acres 

No legal description will be listed, as required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

12.	 Midway Cave Archaeological Site 40 acres 

No legal description will be listed, as required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

Alternative C 

Gila	 and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

1.	 Bowie Mountain Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2,562 acres 

T . 	 15 S., R. 28 E., 

Sec. 11, S1/2; 

Sec. 12, S1/2S1/2; 

Sec. 13, N1/2, SE1/4, E1/2SW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4; 

Sec. 14, NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4, E1/2NW1/4SE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4, NE1/4SE1/4NW1/4. 

T. 15 S., R. 29 E.,
 

Sec. 7, SW1/4SE1/4, SW1/4SW1/4;
 

Sec. 18, all;
 

Sec. 19, N1/2N1/2.
 

2.	 Fourmile Canyon Campground 159 acres 

T . 	 7 S., R. 20 E.,
 

Sec. 18, lots 1 and 2, NE1/4NW1/4, SE1/4NW1/4.
 

3.	 Oliver Knoll Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Station 10 acres 

T. 4 S., R. 24 E., 

Sec. 22,	 SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4, 

NE1/4NW1/4NE1/4SE1/4. 

4.	 District Office Site (proposed) 12 acres 

T. 7 S., R. 25 E., 

Sec. 24, that portion of the W1/2NW1/4NE1/4 lying north of the Golf Course Road. 

491 
Appendix 8 

Legal Description of Lands Proposed

for Mineral Leasing Withdrawal 

Alternative A 

No lands are proposed for withdrawal from mineral leasing under this alternative. 

Alternative B 

No lands are proposed for withdrawal from mineral leasing under this alternative. 

Alternative C 

No lands are proposed for withdrawal from mineral leasing under this alternative. 

493 
Appendix 9 
 

Water Quality Testing Sites
 

Water Quality Testing Sites

Alternatives A, B, and C
 

Legal Type of Reason for 

Site Name Description Analysis Sampling 

Aravaipa Creek T. 6 S., R19 E., chemical/ public health/ 

Sec. 19, SW1/4NE1/4 biological Unique Waters 

Aravaipa Creek T. 6 S., R. 17 E., chemical/ public health/ 

Sec. 13, NW1/4SE1/4 biological Unique Waters 

Aravaipa Creek T. 6 S., R. 18 E., chemical/ public health/ 

Sec. 16, NW1/4NW1/4 biological Unique Waters 

Aravaipa Creek T. 6 S., R. 18 E., chemical/ public health/ 

Sec. 17, NW1/4NE1/4 biological Unique Waters 

Virgus Canyon T. 6 S., R. 18 E., chemical/ 

Sec. 27, SE1/4 biological data base 

Hell’s Half T. 6 S., R. 18 E., bacterio­ public health 

Acre Canyon Sec. 18, SW1/4SW1/4 logical 

Javelina Canyon T. 6 S., R. 18 E., bacterio­ public health 

Sec. 7, SE1/4SE1/4 logical 

Horse Camp T. 6 S., R. 18 E., bacterio­ public health 

Canyon Sec. 9, SW1/4SW1 /4 logical 

Booger Canyon T. 6 S., R. 18 E., bacterio­ public health 

Sec. 15, NE1/4NW1/4 logical 

Paisano Canyon T. 6 S., R. 18 E., bacterio­ public health 

Sec. 14, NW1/4NW1/4 logical 

Hell Hole Canyon T. 6 S., R. 18 E., bacterio­ public health 

(Deer Creek) Sec. 13, SW1/4SW1/4 logical 

Parsons Canyon T. 6 S., R. 18 E., bacterio­ public health 

Sec. 24, SW1/4NW1/4 logical 

Turkey Creek T. 6 S., R. 19 E., bacterio­ public health 

Sec. 19, NW1/4SE1/4 logical 

Fourmile Canyon T. 7 S., R. 19 E., chemical/ public health 

Campground Sec. 18, NE1/4NW1/4 biological 

495 
Site Name 

Aravaipa Well 

Aravaipa Well 

Bonita Creek 

Bonita Creek 

Bonita Creek 

San Pedro River 

San Pedro River 

Hereford Well 

Hereford Well 

Boquillas Ranch 

Well 

San Pedro House 

Well 

Fairbank Well 

Fairbank Well 

Redfield Canyon 

Bass Canyon 

Hot Springs 

Canyon 

Hot Well 

Legal
 

Description
 

T. 7 S., R. 19 E., 

Sec. 7, NE1/4SE1/4 

T. 6 S., R. 17 E., 

Sec. 24, NW1/4SW1/4 

T. 5 S., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 3, SW1/4SE1/4 

T. 5 S., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 36, SE1/4NW1/4 

T. 6 S., R. 28 E., 

Sec. 16, NE1/4SW1/4 

T. 23 S., R. 22 E., 

Sec. 9, SE1/4SE1/4 

T. 20 S., R. 21 E., 

Sec. 3, SW1/4NW1/4 

T. 23 S., R. 22 E., 

Sec. 10, SE1/4SW1/4 

T. 23 S., R. 22 E., 

Sec. 16, NW1/4SW1/4 

T. 20 S., R. 21 E., 

Sec. 15, SE1/4NE1/4 

T. 22 S., R. 22 E. 

Sec. 6, SE1/4NE1/4 

T. 20 S., R. 21 E., 

Sec. 3, SW1/4NE1/4 

T. 20 S., R. 21 E., 

Sec. 3. NW1/4SE1/4 

T. 11 S., R. 20 E., 

Sec. 32, NW1/4SW1/4 

T. 12 S., R. 20 E., 

Sec. 6, SE1/4NE1/4 

T. 12 S., R. 20 E., 

Sec. 32, SE1/4SE1/4 

T. 10 S., R. 28 E., 

Sec. 36, NE1/4NE1/4 

Type of 

Analysis 

chemical/ 

biological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chem/biological/ 

bacteriological 

chem/biological/ 

bacteriological 

chem/biological/ 

bacteriological 

chem/biological/ 

bacteriological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chem/biological/ 

bacteriological 

chem/biological/ 

bacteriological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chemical/ 

biological 

chemical/ 

biological 

Reason for 

Sampling 

public health 

public health 

Unique Waters 

Unique Waters 

Unique Waters 

public health/ 

data base 

public health/ 

data base 

public health 

public health 

public health 

public health 

public health 

public health 

Unique Waters 

Unique Waters 

Unique Waters 

public health 

496 
Appendix 10 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for

Leasable Minerals Activities
 

The only leasable minerals with potential for significant development during the life of this plan are oil and gas and 

geothermal energy. No significant reserves of other leasable minerals, such as coal, helium, potassium, phosphate 

or sodium are known to occur within the District. 

One factor that affects future development is the availability of lands for exploration and development. Under 

current management practices (Alternative D), the only constraints on public lands (other than wilderness areas) are 

a No Surface Occupancy stipulation for several riparian zones in the District. This stipulation would have relatively 

minor impacts on future development because these riparian zones represent narrow tracts of land (up to onequarter mile on each side of the riparian zone) that can still be reached by the drill bit by using standard directional 

drilling practices. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would expand the use of the No Surface Occupancy 

stipulations to include several Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, more riparian zones, three archaeological 

sites, one lambing area, and four administrative sites. All of these except the Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern represent small tracts of land that probably would have little or no impact on future leasable activities. The 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that would have this stipulation are Gila Box, Bear Springs Badlands, 

Guadalupe Canyon, Bowie Mountain and Eagle Creek Bat Cave. 

Another factor that affects future development is the potential for leasable minerals. With two exceptions, potential 

for oil and gas and geothermal energy throughout the District is none, low or unknown. None of these resources 

have been commercially produced in the District, so any ratings of moderate or high potential would be speculative 

at best. Several portions of the District have been classified as being “prospectively valuable” for oil and gas or 

geothermal energy but these classifications are based on geologic conditions rather than any actual discoveries or 

production. Thus, these areas are given a low potential rating, and the rest of the district is given a none or unknown potential rating. 

The exceptions are for geothermal energy resources in the Clifton area (classified as “prospectively valuable”). This 

area contains the only two Known Geothermal Resource Areas in the state, the Clifton and the Gillard. Although 

there has been no commercial production from these areas and the Bureau has no active geothermal leases in the 

District, these Known Geothermal Resource Areas contain the hottest springs in the state. Federal lands near the 

Clifton geothermal area are subject to standard lease conditions but the Gillard geothermal area is in the Gila Box 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern, subject to the No Surface Occupancy stipulation. Due to the lack of any 

production, these Known Geothermal Resource Areas are given a moderate potential rating. 

Since no oil and gas or geothermal energy has been produced from within the District, the degree of surface disturbance occurring as a result of field development is difficult to determine. In order to assess the cumulative environmental effects of issuing leases, several assumptions will be made concerning both hypothetical exploration and 

development of these resources in the District. These assumptions are as follows: 

1. With the exception of wilderness areas and designated National Conservation Areas, unleased areas would 

continue to be available for leases. 

2. Geologic history, source rock, reservoir rock, thermal maturation, sealing and trapping are assumed to all be 

appropriate for hydrocarbon origination, migration, accumulation and preservation in the sedimentary rocks at 

depths within the district. This is especially true for the Pedregosa basin, located in the southeastern portion of 

the District (see Greenwood, et al., 1977). 

3. Any economically recoverable oil and gas accumulations or geothermal resources occurring under leased 

lands will be developed. 

4. Exploration would continue at the same rate it has since exploration began in 1910. 

497 
5. For this analysis, let’s assume that an oil and gas field will be developed. 

6. Disturbance associated with each well pad and access would average 8 acres. 

7. Reclamation of disturbed areas would be successful, and all reclamation would commence immediately 

following cessation of exploration operations or depletion of the resource. Reclamation, consisting of reshaping the surface, soil stabilization and reestablishment of vegetation would be completed within 10 years. 

8. Laws and regulations concerning the protection of other resource values including cultural resources and
 

threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be complied with and would be effective.
 

Based on the above assumptions, one oil and gas exploration well would be drilled on the average of every one and 

one-half years in the District. This would result in approximately 10 exploration wells being drilled over the life of the 

plan. Surface disturbance resulting from this exploration would total approximately 80 acres. Assuming that no 

production would be established from any of these exploratory wells, reclamation would be begin immediately 

following exploration operations. Reclamation would be successful and all disturbed areas would be fully reclaimed 

within 10 years of exploration operations. 

For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that one oil or gas field would be developed over the life of the plan. 

Assuming a field size of 3,500 acres and an average well spacing of 80 acres, approximately 44 wells would be 

required to develop the hypothetical field. Assuming 8 acres disturbed per well, approximately 350 acres would be 

disturbed through field development. 

498 
Appendix 11
 

Mineral Potential Classification System*
 

Level of Potential
 

0 The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes and the lack of mineral occurrences do not 

indicate potential for accumulation of mineral resources. 

L The 

and 

geologic environment and the inferred 

preservation of mineral resources. 

geologic processes indicate low potential for accumulation 

M The geologic environment, 

geochemical/geophysical

mineral resources. 

the inferred geologic processes and 

anomaly indicate moderate potential 

the reported occurrences or valid 

for accumulation and preservation of 

H	 The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, the reported mineral occurrences and/or 

valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly and the known mines or deposits indicate high potential for 

accumulation of mineral resources. The known mines and deposits do not have to be within the area 

that is being classified but have to be within the same type of geologic environment. 

Level of Certainty 

The available data are insufficient and/or cannot be considered as direct or indirect evidence to support 

or refute the possible existence of mineral resources within the respective area. 

The available data provide indirect evidence to support or refute the possible existence of mineral 

resources. 

The available data provide direct evidence but is quantitatively minimal to support or refute the possible 

existence of mineral resources. 

The available data provide abundant direct and indirect evidence to support or refute the possible 

existence of mineral resources. 

* As used in this classification, ‘potential” refers to potential for the presence (occurrence) of a concentration of one 

or more energy and/or mineral resources. It does not refer to or imply potential for development and/or extraction of 

the mineral resource(s). It does not imply that the potential concentration is or may be economical. 

499 
Appendix 12 

Cultural Resource Management Objectives

and Use Categories 

Cultural Resource Management Objectives
 

All cultural resource properties, both known and projected to be present, will be managed under each alternative 

according to the management objectives established for the property. The management objectives are determined 

by the type of values (scientific, public use) held by the property. A site may have more than one management 

objective assigned and the objectives do not have to be fully compatible. The management objectives established 

for a given site may be changed as new data is acquired or management goals change. The following management 

objectives were established for the RMP. 

1.	 Manage for Information Potential. Cultural resources included under this objective are capable of contributing useful scientific, historic or management information. This information potential is to be protected to the 

extent needed, by physical or administrative means, until the potential has been realized through appropriate 

study. 

2. Manage for Public Values. Cultural resources included under this objective possess identified socio-cultural, 

education, recreation or other public values. Their locations are to be managed in a manner that gives adequate consideration to these values. 

3. Manage for Conservation. Cultural resources included under this objective have overriding scientific or 

historic importance. They are to be managed to maintain them in their present condition and to protect them 

from potential conflicting land or resource uses. 

Cultural Resource Use Categories 

All cultural properties will be allocated to uses. A cultural property should generally be allocated to a single use-the 

primary intended use-and management prescriptions formed to allow non-conflicting uses. Use allocation will be 

deferred to Cultural Resource Management Plans. The following are the Bureau’s Cultural Resource Use Categories. 

A.	 Scientific Use is a category that applies to any cultural property determined to be suitable for consideration 

as the subject of scientific or historic study utilizing current research techniques. This includes studies 

resutting in its physical alteration and signifies that the property need not be conserved in the face of an 

appropriate research or data recovery (mitigation) proposal. (Management Objective: Manage for Information Potential.) 

B.	 Management Use is a category that may be applied to any cultural property considered most useful for 

controlled experimental study resulting in its physical alteration. This is conducted by BLM or other entities 

concerned with the management of cultural properties. Expenditure of cultural properties or cultural resource 

data may be justified for purposes of obtaining specific information ultimately aiding in the management of 

other cultural properties. Experimental study may be aimed toward a better understanding of kinds and rates 

of natural or human-caused deterioration, effectiveness of protection measures and similar lines of inquiry. 

(Management Objective: Manage for Information Potential.) 

C . 	 Public Use is a category that may be applied to any cultural property found to be appropriate for consideration as an interpretive exhibit-in-place, a subject of supervised participation in scientific or historic study, or 

related education and recreation uses by members of the general public. (Management Objective: Manage 

for Public Values.) 

501 
D . 	 Socio-cultural Use is a category to be applied to any cultural resource that is perceived by a specified social 

and/or cultural group as having attributes contributing to maintaining the heritage or existence of that group. 

This use category signifies that the cultural resource is to be managed in a way that takes those attributes 

into account, as applicable. (Management Objective: Manage for Public Values.) 

E.	 Conservation for Future Use is a category reserved for cultural resources that are unusual because they 

are scarce; have research potential that surpasses the current state-of-the-art; or are of singular historic 

importance, architectural interest or comparable reasons. Therefore, they are not currently appropriate for 

consideration as the subject of scientific or historic study resulting in their physical alteration. They are 

considered worthy of segregation from other land or resource uses threatening the maintenance of their 

present condition and will remain in this use category until the following provisions are met in the future. 

(Management Objective: Manage for Conservation.) 

1. No other property exists that could yield the information required to meet the priority regional (southeast 

Arizona) research objectives. 

2. All properties of this type allocated to public use have been developed to their greatest capacity for public 

use and no other property exists that could meet a high public need and demand for public use. 

3. The change in allocation to another use is determined by the District Manager to be the best use of the 

property at the time to meet the District’s and the Bureau’s cultural resource management goals. 

4. Another properly has been discovered that would be as suitable for allocation to conservation use and it 

will be so allocated. 

5. The property was allocated to conservation use because its research potential surpassed the current state 

of the art and research methodologies have developed to the point where the property’s research values 

can now be appropriately recovered. 

F.	 Discharged Use means either: (1) that a cultural resource that previously qualified for assignment to any of 

the categories defined above no longer possesses the qualifying characteristics for that use or for assignment to an alternative use � or (2) that a cultural property’s scientific use potential was so slight that it was 

exhausted at the time the property was recorded and no alternative use is appropriate **. Allocation to 

discharged use also means that records pertaining to the property represent its only remaining importance 

and that its location no longer presents a management constraint for competing land uses. 

* A small, shallow rock-shelter could be fu//y excavated, thereby realizing its scientific use potential, or it could be 

completely looted, destroying its potential. Knowledge that once existed is still important and it would continue to be 

represented in the inventory records. 

** A small lithic scatter could be sufficiently recorded on discovery that no further field study could be needed. 

Because field inspection and recording of individual cultural properties must precede the recommendation and 

allocation, classes of unrecorded cultural properties may not be allocated to discharged use in advance of discovery. 

502 
Appendix 13
 

Desert Tortoise Categorization Criteria
 

These are goals and criteria for three categories of desert tortoise habitat areas. The criteria are ranked by importance to the categorization process, with Criterion 1 being the most important. 

Category I Category II Category III 

Items Habitat Areas Habitat Areas Habitat Areas 

Category	 Maintain stable, Maintain stable, Limit tortoise habiGoals	 viable populations & viable populations & tat and population 

protect existing tor- halt further declines to the 

toise habitat values; declines in tortoise extent possible by 

increase populations, habitat values. mitigating impacts. 

where possible. 

Criterion	 Habitat area essen- Habitat area may be Habitat area not 

1	 tial to maintenance essential to mainte- essential to mainteof large, viable nance of viable nance of viable 

populations. populations. populations. 

Criterion Conflicts resolvable. Most conflicts Most conflicts not 

2 resolvable resolvable. 

Criterion	 Medium to high den- Medium to high den- Low to medium den3	 sity or low density sity or low density sity not contiguous 

contiguous with contiguous with with medium or high 

medium or high medium or high density. 

density. density. 

Criterion Increasing, stable Stable or decreasing Stable or decreasing 

4 or decreasing population. population. 

population. 

Source: Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on the Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan, 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991--591-222/41603 REGION 10 

503