EA Template ADD PROJECT NAME, FOREST NAME...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southwestern Region

Environmental Assessment Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System

Santa Catalina Ranger District Coronado National Forest Pima County, Arizona

June 2017 FINAL

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper, June 2017

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Environmental Assessment for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System i

Content

Project Scope and Background ................................................................................................ iii Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need ................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Document Structure ....................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................ 7 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 8 1.4 Decision Framework ..................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 8 1.6 Issues ............................................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 2 - Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................... 11 2.2 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated From Detailed Study .................................. 16 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 19

Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 23

3.1 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Recreation Resource .................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 24 3.2.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative .................................................................... 29

3.3 Transportation .............................................................................................................. 45 3.3.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 45 3.3.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative .................................................................... 47

3.4 Air, Soil, and Water ..................................................................................................... 53 3.4.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 53 3.4.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative .................................................................... 62

3.5 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 68 3.5.1 Affected Environment – Threatened and Endangered Species .......................... 68 3.5.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative – Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 68 3.5.3 Affected Environment – Sensitive Species ........................................................ 70 3.5.4 Summary of Effects by Alternative – Sensitive Species .................................... 70 3.5.5 Affected Environment – Management Indicator Species ................................... 73 3.5.6 Effects Analysis – Management Indicator Species ............................................ 74

3.6 Visual / Scenic Resources ............................................................................................ 78 3.6.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 78 3.6.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative .................................................................... 79

3.7 Heritage Resources ...................................................................................................... 82 3.7.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 82 3.7.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative .................................................................... 83

3.8 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................. 85 Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................. 87 Chapter 5 - References ............................................................................................................. 89 Chapter 6 - List of Preparers .................................................................................................... 93 Appendix A - Overview Maps ................................................................................................. 96

ii Environmental Assessment for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System

List of Tables

Table 1 – Summary Comparison of Alternative in Response to Key Issues ...................... 19 Table 2 – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ........................................... 23 Table 3 – Noise Sources and Their Effects ......................................................................... 46 Table 4 – General Ecosystem Survey Units Descriptions .................................................. 53 Table 5 – Water Quality Categories .................................................................................... 57 Table 6 – Tanque Verde Creek Watershed Condition Assessment .................................... 59 Table 7 – Sabino Creek Watershed Condition Assessment ................................................ 59 Table 8 – Bear Creek Watershed Condition Assessment .................................................... 59 Table 9 – Summary of Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Species............... 69 Table 10 – Summary of Project Effects to Sensitive Species ............................................. 73 Table 11 – Species selected for MIS analysis for Sabino Canyon ...................................... 74 Table 12 – Poverty rate, 2010, Pima County ...................................................................... 85 Table 13 – Race and ethnicity in Pima County ................................................................... 85

List of Figures Figure 1 – Arrival Time and Number of Vehicles by Season ............................................. 44 Figure 2 – General Ecosystem Survey (GES) Units in Sabino Canyon.............................. 54 Figure 3 – 6th Code Watershed Boundaries and Sabino Canyon ....................................... 55 Figure 4 – ADEQ Water Quality Map ................................................................................ 58 Figure 5 – Watershed Conditions ........................................................................................ 60 Figure 6 – Air Quality Map................................................................................................. 61

Environmental Assessment for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System iii

Project Scope and Background The Sabino Canyon Recreation Area (SCRA) is located in northeastern Tucson in the eastern foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains. It is roughly 2 square miles in area and is bordered to the north and east by the Pusch Ridge Wilderness and residential developments to the south and west (Feasibility Study 2010). SCRA contains approximately six miles of paved road (closed to motorized public travel), over 12 miles of trails, and the perennial Upper Sabino Creek. Sabino Creek provides a unique riparian habitat for a rich diversity of plant and animal species including the federally-listed Gila chub (Gila intermedia)1, Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis)2, and Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)3. Other commonly seen wildlife species include rattlesnakes, deer, bobcats, and hawks. The SCRA is a popular retreat for local residents, schoolchildren on field trips, naturalists, and out-of-town visitors. Users come to hike, bike, watch wildlife, swim and wade in the many shallow pools of water, and picnic alongside Sabino Creek. The SCRA is within a 45 minute drive from most residential areas of Tucson and is often considered the jewel of southeast Arizona. Nearby development has resulted in local residents who visit one or more times a week to walk, jog, or bicycle. There are now roughly 75 residential lots or parcels within ¼ mile and 500 within ½ mile of entrances to the canyon along the local road network. There are 275 residential lots or parcels within ¼ mile, and 725 within ½ mile, of entrances to the recreation area as the crow flies. Roughly 2,000 lots or parcels are within one mile, which is less than a five-minute drive. Private vehicle visitation is approximately 520,000 people annually and it is believed the SCRA receives more than 1 million visitors per year (Feasibility Study, 2010).4 Actual visitation into the SCRA can be difficult to quantify as the public may visit at any time of day and in addition to arriving by private vehicle may also travel on foot, horseback, or by bicycle. Tucson residents visited the canyon even before the creation of the Santa Catalina Forest Reserve in 1902, but the SCRA in its current form did not take shape until the Great Depression. In the 1930s, a plan to build a large dam farther up in the canyon moved forward. The Emergency Relief Administration, and later the Works Progress Administration, constructed an access road to the dam site, building nine stone bridges (technically ‘vented low-water crossings’) in Upper Sabino before the project was halted for lack of funding. Later ERA and Civilian Conservation Corps workers completed extensive camping and picnic facilities in Lower Sabino Canyon, including the existing dam and a small recreational lake that is now filled with sediment (Lazaroff 1993). In the years following, many visitors made specific day trips to Sabino Canyon to explore, picnic, and hike. Driving up the 3.7 mile road to picnic, view scenery, and hike was a popular activity. SCRA visitation and popularity increased concurrent with Tucson’s population growth and for more than 30 years, residents and tourists were free to drive their personal vehicles within the canyons. By the 1960s, traffic jams and vehicle exhaust fumes were commonplace on weekends and holidays. On busy weekends, the roads would become so congested that people and vehicles 1 Gila intermedia; Gila chub was listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2005, and has since been reintroduced into Sabino Creek. 2 Poeciliopsis occidentalis; Gila topminnow was previously listed for protection has been reintroduced into Sabino Creek in 2015. 3 Coccyzus americanus 4 This report is not a “decision document” and was not intended to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Throughout this analysis, the Feasibility Study is used as a reference with some concepts being analyzed as part of the proposed action and analyzed within this document.

Project Scope and Background

iv Environmental Assessment for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System

became trapped until others left. On Easter weekend in 1967, over 4,000 visitors and almost 2,000 private vehicles were reported in the SCRA at once. The very experience that many people were coming to enjoy was being destroyed by overuse (Feasibility Study 2010). In the 1960s and 1970s, the Forest Service invested heavily in the infrastructure of the recreation area. New roads were built, electricity and water-sewer lines were installed, and many new restrooms and recreation facilities were constructed. The first visitor information center in the Forest Service's Southwest Region was erected here in 1963. History of the Sabino Canyon Shuttle System In 1973, a flood destroyed several approaches to river crossings in the upper canyon, and the road was closed temporarily to private vehicles to accommodate installation of sewer lines. The closure provided an opportunity to address the problems in the canyon, including noise and air pollution, litter, vandalism, rowdiness, and congestion. Debate included whether or not private vehicles should be permanently banned in the canyon. At issue, in part, was to continue providing access to Sabino Canyon to disabled communities (Feasibility Study 2010). A draft environmental statement was issued in 1975 outlining the concept of a public transportation system in the canyon. Four primary objectives were identified:

• Enhance the experience of forest visitors; • Emphasize the natural and environmental factors of the experience • Provide interpretive and educational services and opportunities; and • Maintain and improve the quality of the ecosystem (soil, water, air, vegetation, and

wildlife). A shuttle system was recommended as the best solution to pollution and vehicle congestion issues in the canyons. In 1978, a parking lot, ticket booth, new restrooms, and roofed shelters for waiting visitors were constructed near the Visitor Information Center. Shuttle service began that year to Upper Sabino Canyon and was extended to Lower Sabino Canyon and Bear Canyon in 1981 (Feasibility Study 2010). The shuttle operation changed management in 1985, and the present operator, Sabino Canyon Tours, Inc. (SCT), has provided service since. As the only authorized transportation service within the SCRA, the SCT shuttle service has gained in popularity. Many visitors come to the SCRA solely to ride the shuttle and view it as an attraction itself. Other visitors use the shuttle as a mode of transportation to gain further access into the SCRA. SCT currently operates the shuttle service along two paved routes in SCRA. The Sabino Canyon route travels from the visitor information center 3.7 miles northward through Sabino Canyon on Forest System Road (FSR) 100, crossing the Sabino Creek nine (9) times. The Bear Canyon route travels 1.9 miles eastward on FSR 100A, with one (1) creek crossing in lower Sabino Canyon (Figure 7). The crossings themselves are often referred to as “bridges,” but are actually vented low-water crossings. They are designed to accommodate ordinary low flows through the vents, but are inundated at higher flow events. The crossings were constructed partially of native materials, and have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Ryden 1993). The Sabino Canyon route makes nine (9) regularly scheduled stops along the 3.7 mile route, whereas the Bear Canyon route makes three (3) stops along the 1.9 mile loop. The fleet includes both gasoline and diesel-powered single vehicle shuttles, with a capacity of 48 passengers on two


Environmental Assessment for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System v

axles and combination shuttles composed of the single vehicle shuttles towing trailers, which carry a combined 67 passengers on a total of four axles. All existing trailers are equipped with two-axle mechanically-linked steering. In general, two combination shuttles at a time make the trip along the Sabino Canyon route, and one single shuttle makes the Bear Canyon route. During the peak season (mid-December through May) the Sabino Canyon route operates seven (7) days per week, every 30 minutes starting at 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:30 pm. During the off-peak season (June to mid-December) the Sabino Canyon route operates Monday through Friday, every hour starting at 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:00 pm; and on weekends and holidays departing every 30 minutes starting at 9:00 am, with the final shuttle leaving at 4:30 pm. The Bear Canyon route operates year round, seven (7) days per week, every hour starting at 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:00 pm. The shuttle system currently accommodates approximately 150,000 people per year (Feasibility Study 2010). SCT reports that it has served an average of 134,839 passengers annually between 2007 and 2012. Variation in service ranged from 97,253 passengers in 2007 to 143,578 passengers in 2010. During the peak season, the shuttle service runs a minimum of 16 round trips per day on the Sabino Canyon route, while during the off-peak season a minimum of eight (8) round trips per day are made. The shorter Bear Canyon route makes a total of eight (8) round trips per day throughout the year. In 2015, SCT reported that 5,557 roundtrips were made on the Sabino Canyon route, and 2,864 round trips were made on the Bear Canyon Route. In 2014, 5,351 roundtrips were reported in Sabino Canyon, and 2,872 were reported in Bear Canyon. Additional operations include: evening rides during the months of April, May, June, September, October, and November, three times per month; and on a limited basis, group/charter rides for special events. Round trips vary in that SCT adds or subtracts shuttles to accommodate the number of riders seeking the service on any given day.

One shuttle traverses the vented low-water crossings on the Sabino Canyon route 18 times per round trip. During the peak season, there are 16 round trips per day, traversing the vented low-water crossings 288 times per day. During the off-peak season, there are eight (8) round trips per day, traversing the vented low-water crossings 144 times per day. This results in approximately 81,000 trips over the vented low-water crossings per year, for the Sabino Canyon route. One shuttle traverses the vented low-water crossings on the Bear Canyon route two (2) times per round trip, year round. There are eight (8) round trips per day, making 16 trips over the vented low-water crossings per day. This results in approximately 6,000 trips across the vented low-water crossings per year, for the Bear Canyon route. In total, this equates to approximately 87,000 trips across the vented low-waters crossings per year for both Sabino and Bear Canyons, for the current operations of SCT. As stated above, trips vary due to the company adding or subtracting shuttles to accommodate the number of riders seeking the service on any given day.

Sabino Creek regularly overtops the roads as the discharge from the creek exceeds the maximum capacity of the vents. The frequency of overtoppings vary in any given year based on precipitation amounts, duration, location in the Sabino Creek drainage basin, and status of the various vents to accept flow. Vents are subject to plugging by streambed material, as each vented low-water crossing has fully silted-in long ago. Under current conditions, approximately half of the crossings on the Sabino Canyon route will overtop on 13% of days in any given year (Cissel 2015). These crossings retain sediment as it moves through the creek during high flow events. To avoid buildup of sediment in a manner that impacts shuttle operations, shuttle personnel remove stream sediment by shovel and heavy equipment from the driving surface of the vented


vi Environmental Assessment for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System

low-water crossings. Stream sedimentation are deposited either up or down stream of the crossing in or adjacent to the ordinary high water mark of the creek.

During periods of high stream flows after a storm or spring run-off event, the vented low-water crossings are impassable due to the level of the water. To ensure passenger safety during these flood events, the shuttle travels as far as Stop #2 in Sabino Canyon and to mile post one (1) in Bear Canyon, which do not require passage over the flooded roadways at the vented low-water crossings. These changes in service are known as “whitewater” tours. There is no definitive flow measurement at which shuttle operations shift to whitewater tours. The decision is made by the concessionaire upon inspection of the crossing based on owner’s professional judgement and experience.

Over the past 40 years, visitation to the SCRA has increased and resulted in noted conflict between the shuttle and non-motorized transportation users (hikers and bicyclists). In February of 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center conducted a study in partnership with the Forest Service to evaluate transportation within the SCRA, including these conflicts. This study noted that “the tram vehicles are considered by many to be old.” Much of the current shuttle fleet has been in use since Sabino Canyon Tours began operation in 1985. Three of the shuttles were manufactured in 1978, one in 1985, two in 1990, and the last in 1991. The feasibility study adds that, “for its capital programs, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defines the minimum useful life of the most heavy-duty vehicles to be 12 years or over 500,000 miles. Trams are considered lighter duty vehicles which have correspondingly shorter service life.” (Feasibility Study 2010). The shuttle service provides audible interpretation of the natural and built environments along the Sabino Canyon route. Shuttle drivers deliver interpretive narration via a microphone and public address system, and broadcast with speakers mounted throughout the shuttles. The narrative message can be heard by shuttle riders and non-shuttle riders, on pavement, on some system trails, and other areas within the SCRA. Common complaints from visitors are noise and exhaust from the shuttle’s diesel engines and noise from the interpretive message given. A wide cross-section of visitors, both riders and non-riders, have made suggestions regarding the shuttle service and shuttle vehicles, including acquiring quieter, less-polluting vehicles, and providing narrative interpretation that cannot be heard by non-shuttle visitors (Feasibility Study 2010). These complaint themes are consistently captured and are acknowledged in the Feasibility Study, the 1993 SCRA Recreation Concept Plan, the SCRA 2015 Sustainable Recreation Concept Plan5, comment cards received by the visitor information center, comments received during scoping of this analysis, and verbally to Forest officials. Despite complaints, since inception the Sabino shuttle system has been a success. The shuttle has expanded visitor access and enhanced visitor experiences. Even though visitation into the SCRA is greater than one million with an estimated 120,000 to 150,000 riders on the shuttle – the system has resulted in reduced resource impacts overall.

5 The 2015 Sabino Canyon Sustainable Recreation Concept Plan is not intended to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Throughout this analysis, the Concept Plan is used as a reference with some elements being analyzed as part of the proposed action and analyzed within this document.

Environmental Assessment for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System 7

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

1.1 Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is generally organized into the following sections: • Purpose and Need: This section includes information on the project proposal, the purpose of

and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

• Description and Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section

provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as any alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

• Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of

implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

• Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies

consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses

presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, is on file in the project planning record located at the Santa Catalina Ranger District Office, 5700 N. Sabino Canyon Road, Tucson, AZ 85750. 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this action is to accommodate current and anticipated visitation levels and uses, enhance visitor experiences, and protect natural and cultural resources in the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. There is a need to authorize a shuttle system, and associated terms and conditions for its operation and maintenance, within the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area in a way that complies with the Coronado National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan6 (Forest Plan 1986). There is a need to improve shuttle system safety, reduce noise, reduce potential for

6 Coronado National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan provides direction to continue and expand (as needed) the Sabino Canyon Shuttle System and to provide for the economic and social needs of the people of southeast Arizona (Forest Plan 1986).


8 Environmental Assessment for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Shuttle System

user conflicts/accidents, meet State and local emission standards, and protect water quality, federally-listed species, and historic properties.

1.3 Proposed Action In compliance with Forest Service policy and Forest Plan objectives, the Santa Catalina Ranger District proposes to authorize the operation and maintenance of a shuttle system. The authorization would direct shuttle operations and implementation of design features as described in detail in Chapter 2. Passenger shuttle operations would be focused on the six (6) miles of paved road (FSRs 100 and 100A) within Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. The authorization would also allow operation of and access to (along FSRs 804 and 804A) a vehicle storage and maintenance yard approximately one (1) acre in size, and a space to provide information and sell tickets. A change in the location of these facilities is not proposed under this NEPA analysis, and no ground disturbing activities would occur. Importantly, the Proposed Action identifies the sideboards for future operations. These sideboards would be considered conditions of approval in a Coronado National Forest decision to authorize the proposed action requiring compliance with current safety and emission standards, limits to noise exposure, protection of heritage and natural resources, maintenance of visual quality, and ensuring Americans with Disabilities Act compliance. The type of vehicle technology is not explicitly identified. The proposed action is described in more detail in Chapter 2. 1.4 Decision Framework Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions:

• Should shuttle operations cease (Alternative 1)? • Should shuttle operations be altered, as presented in Alternative 2? • Should shuttle operations continue as-is (Alternative 3)? • Should shuttle operations include early and late operations, as presented in Alternative 4? • What design features and mitigation measures would apply? • Is a more in-depth analysis (Environmental Impact Statement) needed? • Whether or not to approve the Proposed Action or any of the alternatives in part.

If the deciding official determines that there are no significant impacts, the decision will be documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice. 1.5 Public Involvement The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on September 3, 2015. The proposed action was presented to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping (October 14 – November 12, 2015). The scoping document was sent to the following: 691 individuals, 70 stakeholders representing non-government organizations (NGOs) and private organizations, twelve (12) representatives from local tribes, 17 state/county/town officials, and 13 federal agency officials. From these scoping activities, 132 scoping comments were received. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, tribes, and the permittee (see Issues section), the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address.



In addition, as part of the public involvement process, a 30-day comment period on the proposed action was initiated on September 13, 2016, with a legal notice published in the Arizona Daily Star. 239 comments were received. All substantive comments received before reaching a decision were considered to the extent feasible, resulting in some changes in the text of the final EA. 1.6 Issues The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: key issues and other issues. Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. Other issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the Proposed Action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of key issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in the project record.

This section identifies the issues that serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action and alternatives, giving opportunities during analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision-maker and public to understand. Based on the scope of the project, the following issues were identified for further analysis:

Issue #1 Noise – Canyon visitors do not like noise associated with the shuttle narration message and engine noise, resulting in negative comments about the shuttle.

This issue was addressed in alternatives by developing several design features pertaining to shuttle fleet and noise. The design features establish a maximum decibel level for shuttle related sounds and prohibits the sound of a narration message outside the shuttle. Further, requirements for fleet model years were incorporated. The effects of noise associated with both shuttle narration and engine noise are analyzed in the recreation and transportation sections of Chapter 3.

Issue #2 Air Quality – Shuttle exhaust affects visitors within the SCRA.

This issue was addressed in some alternatives by developing several design features requiring exhaust emissions to be in accordance with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) emission standards. Requirements include that non-diesel vehicles operate with a functional three-way catalytic engine exhaust after-treatment system, meaning the vehicles must be On Board Diagnostics 2 (OBD2)-equipped as provided by the original equipment manufacturer. Additional design features require diesel powered vehicles to be USEPA Tier 3 or 4 emissions compliant as well as factory-compliant with OBD2. This issue was further analyzed in the recreation effects analysis of Chapter 3. The current shuttle fleet operates within the Coronado National Forest, which is outside the ADEQ emissions testing area.

Issue #3 Shuttle operations – Canyon visitors want a different shuttle schedule resulting in comments requesting fewer shuttle trips, more shuttle trips, alternative times, differing stops and complete shuttle elimination.

Additional alternatives were developed and the proposed action (Alternative 2) was modified to address the needs of different user groups, which is further discussed in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Alternative 2 was modified to provide clarity on and include some flexibility in the operating



schedule. Alternative 4 was developed to accommodate SCRA visitors arriving early or leaving late in association with backcountry travel. Both Alternative 2 and 4 are analyzed in Chapter 3. Additionally, Alternatives 5 and 7 were considered to evaluate other shuttle operation options such as reduced shuttle days or elimination of Stop #9 within the route. However, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration; rationale is discussed in Chapter 2 Alternatives.

Issue #4 Wildlife – Shuttle operations harm wildlife and may impact listed species.

This issue was addressed in alternatives by analyzing effects of shuttle operations on wildlife and incorporating several design features into the proposed action to reduce effects to wildlife. Design features include requirements for shuttle inspections pertaining to fluid leaks and removal from service if leaks are found, prescriptions for sedimentation removal from low water crossings, yielding to wildlife on the pavement, and updated shuttle technology. Impacts to wildlife are further discussed in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3.

Issue #5 Alternative Technology – SCRA visitors would like to see alternative fuels used resulting in negative comments about gasoline/diesel engines.

The type of technology used to power shuttles is beyond the scope of this project, yet prescriptions for shuttle technology have been carefully considered. The purpose of this project is to authorize a shuttle system in SCRA without dictating the specific technology that will be used. Several design features were established to address requirements for gas, diesel, and alternative fuel powered vehicles. Additionally, alternative vehicle technology application and limitation is further discussed in the transportation section of Chapter 3.

Issue #6 Public Safety – Conflicts could be reduced if there was better coordination between pedestrians and shuttle operations (including travel speed and driving) for both to safely use the roadways.

This issue was addressed in alternatives by adding several design features pertaining to safety, which include a maximum shuttle speed of 15 mph within SCRA and requirements for shuttle fleet. Public Safety and user conflict are further discussed in the Transportation and Recreation section of Chapter 3.


Chapter 2 - Alternatives This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for this project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative. 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action alternative, operation and maintenance of a shuttle system would not be authorized. Consequently, no shuttle services would be available along the six miles of paved roadway in the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area (SCRA). The vehicle storage yard (approximately one acre) and a space for providing information and selling tickets would not be permitted, although would remain in place. A separate NEPA analysis would be completed to determine whether to remove, repurpose, or maintain these facilities. Non-motorized transportation uses would remain unchanged and vehicle access would continue to be prohibited for the general public. The existing paved roadway in Sabino and Bear Canyons would remain and routine maintenance would be completed by the Forest Service. Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action The Santa Catalina Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest proposes to authorize operation and maintenance of a shuttle system. The authorization would direct shuttle operations and implementation of design features as described below. Passenger shuttle operations would be limited to the six (6) miles of paved road (FSRs 100 and 100A) within Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. The authorization would also allow operation of and access to (along FSRs 804 and 804A) a vehicle storage and maintenance yard approximately one (1) acre in size, and a space to provide information and sell tickets. A change in the location of these facilities is not proposed under this NEPA analysis, and no ground disturbing activities would occur. Under the proposed action, the following shuttle operations would be permitted to occur: Sabino and Bear Canyon Routes Shuttle operations would occur five (5) to seven (7) days per week. Shuttle service for passengers meeting demand during peak season and peak days, up to

150,000 passengers over a year. Shuttle service for groups for special events. Annual shuttle free days for three (3) days during the year.

Sabino Canyon Route Nine (9) regularly scheduled shuttle drop off and pick up locations along the 3.7 mile

route in Sabino Canyon. During peak season (mid-December through May), there would be a maximum of 32

round-trips per day, excepting emergency situations. During the off-peak season (June to mid-December), a minimum of eight (8) round-trips

per day, one (1) per hour, would be authorized.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives


During peak season (mid-December through May), shuttle operations would depart every 30 minutes from 9:00 am with the final shuttle departing at 4:30 pm in Sabino Canyon.

During the off-peak season (June to mid-December), weekday shuttle operations would depart every hour beginning at 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:00 pm.

During the off-peak season (June to mid-December), on weekends and holidays, shuttle operations would depart every 30 minutes beginning at 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:30 pm.

Evening rides would be allocated to a maximum of 18 round-trips per year. Shuttle service for 6,000 round-trips per year.

Bear Canyon Route Three (3) regularly scheduled stops at existing locations along the 1.9 mile route in Bear

Canyon. A maximum of eight (8) round-trips, no less than one (1) per hour, departing every hour

beginning at 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:00 pm. Design Features Design features are measures to avoid or reduce adverse environmental effects. This analysis incorporates a number of design features developed in response to public comments on the proposal to avoid or lessen the potential effects to resource areas by actions associated with the Proposed Action. The following design features were developed to establish sideboards for future shuttle operations. Importantly they do not mandate specific technologies or provide solutions to key issues. Most were developed in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and policy. For several of the design features, no regulatory provisions exist and so design features are prescriptive in nature in order to mitigate potential problems. For example, a requirement for shuttles to fit within the clearing limits of the vented low water crossings. They are considered to be in place in the analysis of environmental consequences for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) discussed in Chapter 3. Implementation of design features would be considered a condition of approval in a Coronado National Forest decision to authorize the proposed action. Exhaust Emissions Design Features (1) If a fuel-burning vehicle is used, shuttle equipment would meet all Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) street-legal motor vehicle emissions requirements standards for the model year and vehicle type classification, gross vehicle weight, or other classification applicable to ADEQ. Shuttle vehicles shall be considered to be operating in the Emissions Control Area of Pima County.

(2) Proof of vehicles’ inspections and emissions compliance with ADEQ standards would be provided to the USFS annually.

(3) If a fuel-burning non-diesel powered vehicle is used, shuttle vehicle must be equipped

and operate with a functional three-way catalytic engine exhaust after-treatment system in the original location of such a device when supplied by the original vehicle manufacturer. In order to be compliant both with ADEQ exhaust emission requirements and also to ensure initial and continued compliance with continued functionality of the catalyst system(s), all vehicles must be OBD2-equipped as provided by the original equipment manufacturer.



(4) If a fuel-burning diesel powered vehicle is used, shuttle vehicles shall be USEPA Tier 3

or 4 emissions compliant and otherwise factory-compliant with OBD2 and must also be equipped and continue to be equipped and operate with a functional diesel oxidation catalyst system for exhaust after-treatment in the original location of such a device as supplied by the original vehicle manufacturer. These vehicles must be fueled only with on-highway ultra-low Sulphur diesel fuel.

Safety (5) Shuttle vehicles will be of the following type classifications, as defined by the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and all shuttle vehicles shall be designed to operate on public roads:

o Passenger Car o Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (e.g. SUV, van) o Bus (including School Bus) o Trailer o Low Speed Vehicle (LSV)

(6) Shuttle vehicles must fully comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

(FMVSS) for the vehicle type classification, allowable speed range, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the particular vehicle used. This requirement applies to the entire vehicle including any stage in the production of vehicles originally manufactured as ‘incomplete vehicles’.

(7) Drawn, non-powered shuttle vehicles (i.e. trailers) shall, at a minimum, be equipped to be compliant with FMVSS Standard 500 unless the trailer is physically incapable of moving faster than 20 mph. Driver control shall not be considered physical incapability. Trailers shall be able to negotiate the curves and width restrictions in the SCRA, without touching any constructed roadside or low-water crossing features. The requirement for compliance with FMVSS Standard 500 is to protect vehicle (trailer) occupants from falling out or being ejected. Standard 500 applies to vehicles that are manufactured to fall into a speed range of 20-25 mph, which is easily achievable in Sabino Canyon through the inaction of the vehicle driver to restrain the speed, particularly when driving downgrade. Also: The National Highway Transportation Safety Act (NHTSA) applies to “motor vehicles”, per Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. This includes trailers. Sabino Canyon Road, Bear Canyon Road, and various other paved roads within SCRA are ‘public roads’ and therefore fall under NHTSA regulation.

(8) Powered shuttle vehicles and equipment must meet the minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment per NHTSA/FMVSS for the classification and model year of manufacture of that vehicle or equipment, as evidenced by equipment manufacturer applied original vehicle equipment certification label(s). Each piece of equipment shall at a minimum, be compliant with FMVSS Standard 500 unless physically incapable of moving faster than 20 mph. Driver control shall not be considered physical incapability. If any powered shuttle vehicle is designed, or physically capable of traveling faster than 25 mph, it shall be classified as a ‘highway legal’ vehicle and so equipped. All shuttle vehicles shall be able to negotiate



the curves and width restrictions in the SCRA, without touching any constructed roadside or low-water crossing features.

(9) Shuttle speed would not exceed 15 miles per hour in the SCRA. (10) Shuttle vehicles and equipment shall be maintained to remain in compliance with the

above requirements (Design Features 1 – 9) at all times, or such individual pieces of the fleet shall be immediately removed from service until compliance is achieved.

Noise (11) All shuttle vehicle noise shall be compliant with 23 CFR 772.11, Table 1. Further, such

compliance will satisfy Activity Category C for shuttle riders while occupying shuttle vehicles at the centroid of the shuttle vehicle passenger area, and Activity Category A for all visitors in SCRA who are not riding a shuttle vehicle.

(12) Overall in-motion shuttle vehicle noise, measured from a distance of 50 feet from any

direction and any portion of the vehicle, shall be limited to a maximum of 65 dBA. Overall idling shuttle vehicle noise, measured from a distance of 50 feet from any direction and any portion of the vehicle, shall be limited to a maximum of 65 dBA.

Water Quality (13) Shuttles would be visually inspected daily for oil, gas, and other fluid leaks. Inspection

results would be maintained in a log, available for Forest Service review. Leaking vehicles and vehicles with internal fluid drops visibly present would be removed from service until fully repaired.

(14) The shuttle would not operate when water depth is greater than the bottom of the frame or

oil/transmission pan, at the first historic vented low-water crossing (just past Stop #2). (15) Sedimentation removal from vented low-water crossings would not be placed in stream

channel and would be removed from site to a specified location provided by the Forest Service. Heavy equipment may be used, but vehicles must stay within the clearing limits of the road and fit within all of the historic vented low-water crossing. Removal shall be in compliance with Section 404, of the Clean Water Act of 1970.

Wildlife (16) Shuttle drivers would yield to wildlife crossing the paved road of the route. (17) Noise from interpretive message and in-motion shuttle vehicle operation would be

minimized to lessen disturbance to wildlife in Sabino and Bear Canyons. See Noise Design Features above.

Cultural and Historical Resource Protection (18) Shuttle vehicles would stay within the clearing limits of the road and fit within all of the

historic vented low-water crossings.

(19) Trailers and Shuttles shall be able to negotiate the curves and width restrictions in the SCRA, without touching any constructed roadside or low-water crossing features.



Scenery Management Considerations (20) Shuttle colors would be a medium dark, neutral brown or greyish brown and must be

approved by the Forest Service. Accessibility (21) Shuttles would meet Accessibility Specification for Transportation Vehicles as defined by

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 49 CFR, Part 38.1 through 38.179 all applicable Sections, plus Appendices and figures.

Alternative 3 - Current Operations Under Alternative 3, operation and maintenance of the existing shuttle system would continue to be authorized. The existing shuttles are 1970s-era gasoline powered and 1980s era diesel powered fleet. Single shuttle vehicles have a capacity of 48 passengers on two axles, and combination shuttles with trailers have a capacity of 67 passengers on four axles. Operations and frequency of service would be consistent with current levels as described below. Passenger shuttle operations would be limited to the six (6) miles of paved road (FSRs 100 and 100A) within Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. Operation of, and access to (along FSRs 804 and 804A), a vehicle storage and maintenance yard, approximately one (1) acre in size, and a space to provide information and sell shuttle tickets would also be allowed. A change in the location of these facilities is not proposed under this NEPA analysis, and no ground disturbing activities would occur. Under this alternative, the following shuttle operations would continue to occur: Both Sabino and Bear Routes An average of 133,000 passengers per year would be accommodated, between both

routes. Group/charter rides would be authorized on a limited basis for special events.

Sabino Canyon Route Nine regularly scheduled stops along the 3.7 mile route in Sabino Canyon. During peak season (mid-December through June), shuttle operations would occur seven

(7) days per week, every 30 minutes from 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:30 pm.

During the off-peak season (July to mid-December), shuttle operations would occur Monday through Friday, every hour from 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:00 pm. On weekends and holidays, shuttle operations would depart every 30 minutes from 9:00 am, with the final shuttle departing at 4:30 pm.

During peak season (mid-December through June), a minimum of 16 round trips per day would be authorized.

During the off-peak season (July to mid-December), a minimum of eight (8) round trips per day would be authorized.

Evening rides would be authorized three (3) times per month during the months of April, May, June, September, October, and November.

Bear Canyon Route Three regularly scheduled stops along the 1.9 mile route in Bear Canyon. This route operates year round, seven (7) days per week, every hour starting at 9:00 am,

with the final shuttle departing at 4:00 pm. A maximum of eight (8) round trips throughout the day would be authorized.



Alternative 4 - Proposed Action with Early and Late Shuttle Trips Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, in that this alternative includes all the elements identified in the Proposed Action to allow operation and maintenance of a shuttle system. Shuttle operations and design features would be identical; however, Alternative 4 includes adding one early morning shuttle leaving milepost zero between the hours of 6 and 9 a.m. and one late evening shuttle arriving at milepost zero between the hours of 5 and 9 p.m. Compared to Alternative 2, these additional shuttle round-trips would provide early morning and late evening access to hikers and backpackers accessing and departing the backcountry. 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration Alternative 5 - Three-Day Operations This alternative would limit shuttle operations to three (3) days per week with operations occurring on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The limited schedule alternative was not carried forward for analysis for the following reasons: Three-day per week operations would not meet the need of continuing and expanding (as needed) the Sabino Canyon Shuttle System and providing for the economic and social needs of the people of southeast Arizona as identified in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan 1986). Three-day per week operations would not meet the need of reducing user conflict. During peak season, full shuttles can be observed Monday through Thursday, eight (8) hours per day for the majority of shuttle trips up the canyon. A reduced shuttle operation of this magnitude would result in thousands of riders being unable to travel further within the SCRA by shuttle with two likely outcomes: unsatisfied canyon visitors who desire a shuttle ride and significantly increased traffic on the three days shuttle operations do occur. The latter would be problematic as increased riders on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would result in a need for more shuttle trips resulting in increased conflict with non-shuttle canyon visitors. Three-day per week operations would not be economically feasible as attracting and keeping high quality shuttle employees would be difficult with only a part-time work schedule (approximately 24 hours per week). A work schedule less than full time results in an annual salary below poverty guidelines as identified by the Department of Health and Human Services for 2 or more persons in a household. Further, health insurance and other benefits would be minimal to nonexistent due to the part time work status of the employees. To compensate for the reduced work schedule and to retain employees, shuttle rider prices would be artificially high in order to pay higher wages. Higher prices would likely result in reduced ridership and therefore reduced revenue leading to an inability to sustain a viable operation. For these reasons the suggested three-day per week operations is unviable and not necessary to address a reasonable range of alternatives (36 CFR 220.7[b][2][i]). Alternative 6 - Aerial Tram or Light Rail An aerial tram or a light rail is economically infeasible, speculative, and ineffective in that neither would meet the project purpose and need. Construction of an aerial tram or a light rail would be a significant undertaking requiring extensive capital investment and would take years to implement. Additionally, a proponent interested and capable (financially and technically) in pursuing this



type of undertaking would be required. For these reasons, both an aerial tram and a light rail are beyond the scope of this analysis and were not considered further. Alternative 7 - Steep Hill Elimination This alternative was proposed in combination with a recommendation to require alternative technology. Under this alternative, the final steep hill climb accessing Stop #9 from the Sabino Canyon shuttle route would be eliminated. Due to the grade of the hill between these stops, some shuttles using alternative fuel would not have the power to travel up the steep hill when the shuttle and trailer were fully loaded with passengers. Under this alternative, the Sabino Canyon shuttle route would end at Stop #8, however, this location cannot accommodate a shuttle with trailer and still turn-around. As a result shuttles trips would occur without the trailer which would result in decreased shuttle ridership by about 50%. In order to meet current rider demand, shuttle trips would have to be increased which would likely lead to increased conflict and complaints by non-shuttle riders recreating in SCRA. A second option under this alternative would be for shuttles with trailers to travel to Stop #4 as there are only two locations where a shuttle with a trailer can safely turn around in Sabino Canyon (Stops #4 and #9). Limiting shuttle trips to Stop #4 would impact SCRA visitors desiring to see the whole canyon by shuttle as the canyon continues on approximately two (2) miles beyond this stop. This would not meet the purpose of need and Forest Plan direction to “continue and expand as needed the Sabino Canyon Shuttle System” because shuttle access in the SCRA would be considerably reduced. Designation of specific technology is beyond the scope of this analysis and the need to lessen potential for user conflicts. Direction in the Forest Plan would not be met if travel on the steep hill between Stop #8 and Stop #9 were eliminated. Alternative 8 - Limited Operations This alternative would limit shuttle operations to hours between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm (5 hours per day). The limited schedule alternative was not carried forward for analysis for the following reasons: Five hour per day operations would not meet the need of continuing and expanding (as needed) the Sabino Canyon Shuttle System and providing for the economic and social needs of the people of southeast Arizona as identified in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan 1986). Five hour per day operations would not meet the need of reducing user conflict. During peak season, full shuttles can be observed Monday through Thursday, eight (8) hours per day for the majority of shuttle trips up the canyon. A reduced shuttle operation of this magnitude would result in thousands of riders being unable to travel further within the SCRA by shuttle with two likely outcomes: unsatisfied canyon visitors who desire a shuttle ride and significantly increased traffic during shuttle operating hours. The latter would be problematic as increased riders between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm would result in a need for more shuttle trips resulting in increased conflict with non-shuttle canyon visitors. Five hour per day operations would not be economically feasible as attracting and keeping high quality shuttle employees would be difficult with only a part-time work schedule (approximately



35 hours per week). A work schedule less than full time results in an annual salary below poverty guidelines as identified by the Department of Health and Human Services for 2 or more persons in a household. Further, health insurance and other benefits would be minimal to nonexistent due to the part time work status of the employees. To compensate for the reduced work schedule and to retain employees, shuttle rider prices would be artificially high in order to pay higher wages. Higher prices would likely result in reduced ridership and therefore reduced revenue leading to an inability to sustain a viable business for a shuttle system operator. For these reasons the suggested five hour per day operations is unviable and not necessary to address a reasonable range of alternatives (36 CFR 220.7[b][2][I]). Alternative 9 - Shuttles for Families with Small Children and Disabled This alternative would provide a shuttle service for families with small children and disabled only. This alternative was not carried forward for analysis for the following reasons: Alternative 9 would not meet the need of continuing and expanding (as needed) the Sabino Canyon Shuttle System and providing for the economic and social needs of the people of southeast Arizona as identified in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan 1986). Shuttle operations only for families with small children and disabled would require a standby service whenever these user groups visited Sabino Canyon. As a result, eight hour per day operations would be required however customer ridership would be uncertain and unpredictable likely resulting in costs exceeding revenue. The long term economic feasibility is questionable which would result in limited or no third party interest and ultimately an inability to meet the purpose and need of improving the current Sabino Canyon Shuttle System. Other models for provision of service could make this approach successful however are outside the scope of this analysis. For these reasons Alternative 9 is unviable and not necessary to address a reasonable range of alternatives (36 CFR 220.7[b][2][I]). Alternative 10 - 8 Month Per Year Operations This alternative would limit shuttle operations to October through May. Alternative 10 was not carried forward for analysis for the following reasons: Shuttle operations occurring eight months per year would not meet the need of continuing and expanding (as needed) the Sabino Canyon Shuttle System and providing for the economic and social needs of the people of southeast Arizona as identified in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan 1986). Eight months of shuttle operations would not be economically feasible as attracting and keeping high quality shuttle employees would be difficult with only a seasonal work schedule. A work schedule less than full time results in an annual salary below poverty guidelines as identified by the Department of Health and Human Services for 2 or more persons in a household. Further, health insurance and other benefits would be minimal to nonexistent due to the part time work status of the employees. To compensate for the reduced work schedule and to retain employees, shuttle rider prices would be artificially high in order to pay higher wages. Higher prices would likely result in reduced ridership and therefore reduced revenue leading to an inability to sustain a viable business for a shuttle system operator.



For these reasons the suggested eight months per year operations is unviable and not necessary to address a reasonable range of alternatives (36 CFR 220.7[b][2][i]). 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives A summary of the effects of implementing each alternative are described by each resource in the text of chapter 3. This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 1 - Summary Comparison of Alternatives in Response to Key Issues Key Issue Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Alternative 3 Current

Operations

Alternative 4 Proposed Action with Early and

Late Shuttle Trips

Noise With no shuttle operations noise would not be an issue.

Interpretative narration would not be heard outside the shuttle. Incorporation of design features to reduce, eliminate, or otherwise change the volume, frequency and occurrence of noise would limit maximum shuttle noise to less than Alt 3.

Interpretative narration heard outside shuttle by pedestrians on pavement and in some areas throughout the canyon. Shuttle levels ranged from 60-70 dB-A depending on the canyon terrain.

Interpretative narration would not be heard outside the shuttle. Incorporation of design features to reduce, eliminate, or otherwise change the volume, frequency and occurrence of noise would limit maximum shuttle noise to less than Alt 3.



Key Issue Alternative 1 No Action



Operations


Late Shuttle Trips

Air Quality With no shuttle operations, air quality would not be an issue.

Fuel-burning shuttle equipment would be required to have catalyst-equipped exhaust after-treatment systems and also with ADEQ regulatory scheme which applies to the Emissions Control Area of Pima County. These requirements do not currently apply to all vehicles which could operate in SCRA.

The current shuttle fleet does not use engine exhaust catalyst after-treatment and is of a technology that when operating properly has engine exhaust which is objectionable to some people. The current shuttle fleet is compliant with ADEQ requirements.

Fuel-burning shuttle equipment would be required to have catalyst-equipped exhaust after-treatment systems and also comply with ADEQ regulatory scheme which applies to the Emissions Control Area of Pima County. These requirements do not currently apply to all vehicles which could operate in SCRA.

Shuttle Operations

Would not exist under this alternative.

Shuttle operations occur five (5) to seven (7) days per week between the hours of 9:00am and 4:30pm,

Up to 150,000 passengers per year would be authorized, between both routes.

A maximum of 6,000 round-trips authorized per year.

Shuttle operations occur seven (7) days per week between the hours of 9:00am and 4:30pm.


No annual maximum trips.

Shuttle operations will occur five (5) to seven (7) days per week between the hours of 9:00am and 4:30pm.


A maximum of 6,000 round-trips authorized per year. One early morning and one late evening shuttle for backcountry access.



Key Issue Alternative 1 No Action



Operations


Late Shuttle Trips

Wildlife Beneficial impact to the sensitive species in the project area.

Shuttle operations would create potential for sensitive wildlife mortality from being incidentally run over or hit. Reduce auditory impacts to wildlife.

Potential for sensitive wildlife mortality from being incidentally run over or hit. Sounds from current shuttle operations have the potential to impact species’ ability to hunt, communicate, and avoid predators.

Increase in potential for hitting species that are more active during dusk and dawn, such as some bat and bird species.

Reduce auditory impacts to wildlife.

Alternative Technology

N/A Design features pertaining to shuttle fleet, exhaust emissions, and safety would be implemented.

1980s and older gasoline and diesel powered motor vehicles and various unpowered trailers would be used.

Design features pertaining to shuttle fleet, exhaust emissions, and safety would be implemented.

Public Safety

Shuttle conflicts with pedestrians would not exist.

Pedestrian/shuttle conflict would still exist although may be reduced through the incorporation of design features.

Pedestrian/shuttle conflict remains unchanged from the current condition.

Pedestrian/shuttle conflict would still exist although may be reduced through the incorporation of design features.


Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences This report summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. 3.1 Cumulative Effects The Council on Environmental Quality has defined cumulative impact as “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). These activities and occurrences have contributed incrementally to changes in ecological conditions in the project area and may continue to influence conditions in the project area over the term of the project. Foreseeable future actions are those for which a proposed action has been approved or those proposed for NEPA analysis in the future. Other possible future actions are considered too speculative to include in this analysis. The following projects or activities could contribute toward cumulative impacts within the analysis area (Table 2). Past actions are considered to have contributed to the current conditions. The cumulative effects discussions deal primarily with present activities and anticipated future actions that would combine cumulatively with the effects of each alternative considered in this analysis. The discussion of future actions focuses on those actions that are most relevant to cumulative impacts to a specific resource and generally does not include minor, routine, continual activities such as road maintenance, camping, wildlife grazing, and/or hiking. Table 2 – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Contributing to Cumulative Effects

Project/Activity Name Timeframe under which activities have or will occur

Resources Potentially Affected by the Activity1

Santa Catalina Firescape NEPA is ongoing, implementation is expected in 2017-2027 All

Invasive Weed Treatments Ongoing V, S, WL, Sc Cactus Picnic Ramada Fall 2016 S, R, Sc SCRA Visitor Center Parking lot expansion

Expected NEPA commencement 2021

All

SCRD Travel Management NEPA is ongoing, implementation is expected in 2017

All

USGS gauging station maintenance

Ongoing W

Marshall Gulch Renovation NEPA is ongoing All Sediment removal from vented low water crossings in SCRA

Ongoing WL, S, W, R, Sc, H

Recreation Events Ongoing R North Parking Lot Implementation 2017 All Facility Decommissioning Ongoing R, Sc

1 WL – wildlife, S – soils, V – vegetation, W – water, R – recreation, Sc – scenic quality, A – air, H – heritage

Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences


3.2 Recreation Resource

3.2.1 Affected Environment

The Sabino Canyon Recreation Area (SCRA) is 1,422 acres and is surrounded by the larger 57,000+ acre Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area to the north and east. The SCRA is a destination recreation area and is a popular retreat for local residents, naturalists, schoolchildren on field trips, and visitors from all over the world. The unique topography and climate, presence of water and riparian habitat, and accessibility has fostered the popularity of the area. Visitors come to hike, bike, observe wildlife, swim and wade in the many shallow pools of water, and picnic alongside Sabino Creek. The SCRA provides habitat for a rich diversity of plant and animal species with the perennial stream supporting the viability of these species. There are 15 trails, or parts thereof, that lie within or on the boundary of the SCRA, totaling approximately 12 miles. All of these trails, or a portion thereof, exist within ½ mile of either Forest Service Roads (FSR) 100 or 100A. All trails are unpaved, designated as non-motorized, and are open to multiple use; however, not all trails are suitable for all types of use. For example, because of the rocky, narrow, and steep slopes, equestrian use is not recommended on the 4.2 mile Phoneline Trail. There are numerous picnic tables, trash cans, restrooms, and potable water spigots that support leisure recreation throughout the SCRA. A seven-day-a-week visitor information center lies at the entrance to the SCRA. The visitor information center was first erected in 1964 and has gone through many renovations. The SCRA is a Recreation Fee Area under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Recreation fees collected at the SCRA provide crucial resources that allow the Forest Service to respond to increased demand, and to provide visitors with a quality recreation experience through enhanced facilities and services. Each year more than 1,000,000 people visit the SCRA. Visitors are attracted to the environment, the plants and animals, and accessibility to a unique desert environment. The SCRA has received much recognition, awards, and accolades from the Tucson community. The SCRA has been identified as the #1 place for outdoor activities in Tucson by 10best.com; Tucson Weekly has identified the SCRA as a destination for the “Best Hike” on multiple occasions; and, in 2015 the SCRA received a Certificate of Excellence award based on ratings from TripAdvisor. As of August 2016, Trip Advisor rated the SCRA as #2 out of 262 for things to do in Tucson. In 2016, the SCRA received the Experts’ Choice Award by TripExpert, based on professional reviews from over 70 top travel guides, magazines, and newspapers. There are two major paved roads that are used within the SCRA: FSR 100 and FSR 100A. FSR 100 extends northeastwardly into Sabino Canyon for 3.8 miles and crosses Sabino Creek nine (9) times using a road and bridge (vented low-water crossing) system; and FSR 100A extends eastwardly into Bear Canyon for 1.9 miles and crosses Sabino Creek once. FSR 100 receives the heaviest user groups’ traffic, including the number of shuttle trips. As noted in the 2013 Federal Transit Administration Impact Analysis for Federal Highways, U.S. Department of Transportation, “FTA Report”, approximately 85% of shuttle riders used the Sabino Canyon route as opposed to the Bear Canyon route (Valdez 2013). Shuttle operation is the primary transportation option as all roads within the SCRA are closed to motorized public travel through Closure Order (USDA 2016a). In 1978 the current shuttle service was authorized and since that time the shuttle service has become an attraction in itself also contributing to the popularity of the SCRA. Many visitors come solely to experience the canyon via the shuttle. Shuttle service occurs on both roads with nine (9) scheduled stops along FSR 100 and three (3) stops on FSR 100a. Though visitors may



disembark and walk between several stops, they usually ride the beginning and end portions of the road, especially given the steep incline between Shuttle Stops 7 and 9. Some visitors choose to walk back down the road from Stop 9. Of those, many re-board the shuttle again at some point (Feasibility Study 2010). Shuttle operations occur year round with hours of operations occurring from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Each year, between 100,000 and 160,000 people ride the shuttle with an annual average of 132,636 occurring between 2002 and 2012 (Valdez 2013). The exact percentage of canyon visitors arriving by private vehicle who also ride the shuttle is unknown. However, two different studies conducted under the U.S. Department of Transportation in 2010 and 2013 report 25-30% and 16% respectively (Feasibility Study 2010 and Valdez 2013). User Groups As routinely observed by the Forest Service and as noted in the Feasibility Study, the SCRA has a diverse group of users. These user groups’ association with the shuttle can be further classified and range from no occupancy (on the shuttle) to the shuttle as the primary attraction. The following paragraphs provide a discussion of SCRA user groups. Hikers Hikers visit the canyon specifically to hike on the off-road trail network within the SCRA and in the adjacent Pusch Ridge Wilderness. Some hikers use the road network and the shuttle to access trailheads within the SCRA. Hikers may be individuals, part of small informal groups, or part of larger, more formal organized groups. They are similar to other user groups with respect to daily and seasonal visitation with a preference for hiking in the winter when cooler temperatures allow for longer outings. Summer hikers are typically reduced in number, with visitation being of shorter duration and typically early in the day due to higher temperatures. “The most common complaint of hikers is the noise and smell of the diesel shuttle. The intensity of feelings against the shuttle depends on the individual and ranges from minor annoyance to major grievance” (Feasibility Study 2010). Pedestrians (on-road) Pedestrians primarily use the paved roads in Sabino and Bear Canyons with usage occurring throughout the day particularly in the winter months. Preference is given for mornings and early evenings when the shuttle is not operating (Feasibility Study 2010). However, it is unknown if use patterns are correlated with the absence/presence of the shuttle or a typical workday schedule. During the summer months, and especially when the temperature is over 100° Fahrenheit, pedestrians avoid daytime hours. Typically, the pedestrian user group is associated with fitness and exercise, and users may come alone or walk in groups while socializing. Growth in residential development near the SCRA has resulted in it becoming a popular daily destination for pedestrians. Among other complaints about the SCRA, the pedestrian user group has cited noise and fumes from the shuttle as ongoing issues (Feasibility Study 2010). Sightseers Sightseers include individuals or groups who are neither firmly included in any of the other discussed user groups. Sightseers include tourists, shuttle passengers, picnickers, swimmers, and walkers who are not regular visitors to the SCRA. Picnicking used to be a highly popular activity in the canyon, though restrictions on motorized use and the banning of alcohol in the SCRA have significantly reduced its popularity. Sightseers tend to visit during winter daytime hours, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., especially on weekends. Organized tour groups visit the SCRA on buses. The SCRA is a popular destination for ElderHostel tours. Because sightseers are not frequent visitors and may be from out of town, there are no organizations that represent the sightseer user group. Issues and suggestions for sightseers are largely communicated verbally to Forest Service staff and written on comment sheets. Most sightseers’ comments relate to operation of the shuttle and



visitor infrastructure in the canyon. With regard to the shuttle, sightseers have expressed a strong desire for quieter and environmentally-friendly alternative fuel vehicles (Feasibility Study 2010). Shuttle riders are predominately associated with the sightseer user group. In the 2013 FTA Report conducted to quantify the effect the current system was having on the human and ecological environment, approximately 80% of shuttle riders surveyed used the shuttle as a “ride” and not as transportation. Additionally, of the shuttle riders surveyed, 65% felt that transit into the SCRA was either “somewhat important” or “very important” (Valdez 2013). Naturalists “Naturalists include bird, lizard, and wildlife observers; amateur and professional ecologists, biologists, and geologists; and other visitors whose primary reason for visiting the canyon is to observe nature. These visitors may overlap with other visitor groups, particularly hikers. Naturalists are attracted to the riparian areas which are generally (and conveniently) near the road. Birders tend to concentrate in the lower canyon near the Sabino Dam. Naturalists tend to visit Sabino Canyon when animal activity is high, such as early in the morning, late afternoon, and at dusk. Summer temperatures are comfortable during these times as well. Spring and fall are popular times for birders to witness numerous avian species as they migrate north or south, respectively. Some naturalists are disturbed by the noise and exhaust from the shuttles’ diesel engines and are concerned about the noise and quality of the interpretation given on the shuttle” (Feasibility Study 2010). “The shuttle typically does not conflict with the most likely and popular times to observe nature (early mornings, late afternoons, and after dark). Some naturalists are concerned about excessive development of visitor infrastructure in the canyon. Naturalists have an interest in balancing the impact of man-made structures (including the bridges and roads) with preserving and reintroducing native species and access to areas where wildlife can be observed” (Feasibility Study 2010). Sabino Canyon Volunteer Naturalists (SCVN) is a non-profit community group that provides environmental education activities in the SCRA under an agreement with the Forest Service. The group consists of members of the community who enjoy nature and are trained to interpret the natural history of the Sonoran Desert and the riparian areas surrounding Sabino Creek. Many of the SCVN volunteers identify with one of the other identified user groups and are therefore not discussed further in this analysis. Cyclists Cyclists in the SCRA generally consist of casual and recreational riders who enjoy the 3.8 mile paved road [of Sabino Canyon] in a ‘beautiful riparian area.’ Currently, shuttle trips only occur between the hours of 9am and 5pm, seven days per week, with cycling occurring between 5pm and 9am, with no cycling allowed on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Hours of shuttle operations (and proposed alternatives) and cyclists in the SCRA overlap by 30 minutes at the end of the day, during the shuttle’s last 4:30pm departure time. Under Alternative 4, the cyclist user group would now have user conflicts with an early and/or late shuttle. Because shuttle trips could occur outside of the accustomed 9am to 5pm window, and because cyclists have come to enjoy the SCRA without any major issues or conflicts for over two decades, Alternative 4 would be classified into the major impact threshold, with adverse and long-term effects. The addition of one to two hours per day, up to five days per week, of possible user (cyclist) conflict with the shuttle, will be an increase of approximately four fold. [Currently, the shuttle operations and cycling times overlap by 30 minutes at the end of the day, for five days



per week; totaling 150 minutes weekly. Under Alternative 4, shuttle operations and cycling times may overlap for approximately two hours per day (possible one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening), for five days per week; 600 minutes.] The Forest Service will determine further mitigation measures to reduce shuttle and cycling conflicts in the future. Preservationists Preservationists represent a cross section of individuals from other user and stakeholder groups. These individuals express a preference to preserve and protect the vented low-water crossings (bridges) within the SCRA. The preservationist user group is accounted for in other user group categories and is therefore not further discussed in this analysis. Outfitter and Guides There are four long-term commercial special use permits authorizing outfitter and guide activities within the SCRA. Three of these special use permits allow for interpretive hiking services and one allows for guided biking tours. Two of the hiking permits allow for year-round guided hikes. The remaining hiking permit and the biking permit allow for intermittent use, usually two to four weeks per year, often in one or two week increments, specifically for high-end, out-of-town clientele. The biking permit only authorizes bike riding activities after the shuttle service has ceased operations for the day, usually after 5pm, as not to increase use conflicts within the SCRA. Outfitter guide activities identify with one of the above mentioned user groups and are therefore not discussed further in this analysis. Recreation Special Uses There are several special use recreation events (also known as rec events) that occur within the SCRA. All of the rec events are usually outdoor in-nature type of activities, such as “fun runs”, and are only authorized before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. While these time slots do not interfere with the operations of the shuttle service, they do often overlap with non-motorized user groups such as hikers, pedestrians, sightseers, and cyclists. Because there are such few rec events per year, about eight (8), the Forest Service has not received/recorded any known major conflicts with rec event activities and non-motorized user groups occurring within the SCRA. Special use recreation event activities identify with one of the above mentioned user groups and are therefore not discussed further in this analysis. Sabino Canyon Tours, Inc. Sabino Canyon Tours (SCT) was issued a 10-year term special use permit in 1985. It was amended in 1991 to extend the permit term through 2006. Since then, SCT has been operating under one- or two-year term permits. On June 30, 2017, the current two-year term permit will expire. SCT operates two shuttle routes, one along FSR 100 (Sabino Canyon Road) and the other along FSR 100A (Bear Canyon Road). The shuttle operator provides interpretation of the natural and built environments along Sabino Canyon Road. The interpretation is delivered to shuttle passengers by the driver via a microphone and public address system. Both routes depart from the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Visitor Information Center. The weekends from December through April (winter months) are the busiest. Long weekends such as Good Friday and Easter Sunday have historically been the busiest weekends for the shuttle service during the entire year. “The company [SCT] notes the potential for conflicts with pedestrians at peak visitation hours near bridges, especially when they are flooded” (Feasibility Study 2010).



Vehicles SCT owns and operates seven (7) shuttles in total. Four of the vehicles run on biodiesel and three run on gasoline. Vehicle capacity (shuttles with trailers) ranges from 48 to 64 passengers each with a total capacity of 372 seats (Feasibility Study 2010). The shuttle vehicles are considered by many to be old, as three were manufactured in 1978, one in 1985, two in 1990, and the most recent in 1991. Most of the current fleet has been in use since SCT began operations in 1985. The Federal Transit Administration for its capital programs defines the minimum useful life of the most heavy-duty vehicles to be 12 years or over 500,000 miles. Shuttles are considered lighter duty vehicles which have correspondingly shorter service life (Feasibility Study 2010). For additional discussion on vehicles see the Transportation section of this chapter. Interpretation is provided during the Sabino Canyon Run and is performed by shuttle drivers, whose narration is spoken into a microphone and broadcast to riders via speakers mounted throughout the shuttle (Feasibility Study 2010). The shuttle loudspeaker system is heard by both shuttle riders and non-shuttle riders and in 2013 was measured at 80 decibels at six (6) feet from the shuttle (Valdez 2013). Credit Cards and Ticket Prices Currently, SCT does not accept credit cards. Ticket prices are $10.00 for adults and $5.00 for children on the Sabino Canyon Shuttle, and $4.00 for adults and $2.00 for children on the Bear Canyon Shuttle. Children two years old and under are free. Requirements for credit cards and fee pricing are considered to be administrative in nature and do not require NEPA analysis. As a result, analysis of credit cards and ticket prices are excluded from this analysis and will not be further discussed. Mobility and Access One shuttle provides accommodations for wheelchairs which requires wheelchair bound passengers to remain in their wheelchair for the shuttle trip. A motor powered wheelchair lift raises the wheelchair to the seating platform. Access for elderly visitors, visitors with mobility impairments, and persons with disabilities requires the navigation of three (3) steps approximately eight (8) to 12 inches apart. A hydraulic step is available to reduce the distance from the ground level to the first step. No railing is present. On shuttles with a canopy, the canopy poles can be used to aid visitors by providing stability (Bowen 2016). Elderly visitors, mobility impaired, and persons with disabilities have expressed dislike pertaining to shuttle accessibility and limited wheelchair accommodations. In addition, comments have addressed the inability to easily ingress and egress from the shuttle, resulting in injury for some. Seventy-two (72) comments out of 439 expressed concern pertaining to safety and accessibility (SCRA comment data). Most of the comments pertained to elderly and persons with a disability having difficulty with ingress and egress from the shuttle and no available wheelchair access. User Conflicts The continued popularity of the SCRA has led to conflicts between diverse user groups. These issues were documented 15 years ago in Sabino Canyon’s 1993 Recreation Concept Plan and continue today. Cyclists, pedestrians, and the shuttle vie for time and space on the road (Feasibility Study 2010). The shuttle service has an impact on visitor experience regardless of mode of travel within the canyon. Some visitors who do not use the shuttle service have expressed interest in reducing or ceasing shuttle service altogether. On the other hand, the shuttle itself has become a popular attraction, and some riders may not be able to reach upper portions of the canyon without motorized assistance. A wide cross-section of visitors, both riders and non-



riders, have made suggestions regarding the shuttle service and shuttle vehicles, including acquiring quieter, less-polluting vehicles, and providing narrative interpretation that cannot be heard by non-shuttle visitors. (Feasibility Study 2010). “Non-motorized transportation system users (such as hikers) point out conflicts between the shuttle and the natural environment. Some visitors have complained that the diesel shuttles, built in the1970s, are loud and foul-smelling and that the audio emanating from the loudspeakers, used by the shuttle drivers to interpret natural and cultural themes to passengers, carries up and down the canyon” (Feasibility Study 2010). In 2013, similar sentiments were expressed with regard to exhaust in the impact analysis which reported 41% of shuttle riders felt exhaust from engines detracted from the experience (Valdez 2013). Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Direction According to the 1986 Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan), the SCRA is designated as Management Area 3A and 3B, to be “[managed] for a variety of developed recreation opportunities while mitigating the impact on the unique physical, biological, and cultural resources. Visual quality objectives will be met. Other activities will maintain or enhance the recreational opportunities. Watershed conditions will be improved or maintained.” Management Areas 3A and 3B, under the guidance of the Forest Plan, encourage non-consumptive and less impactful uses, such as swimming and picnicking, and promote developed infrastructure, such as interpretive signage and displays, picnic tables, restrooms, and water fountains. 3.2.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative Methodology Impacts on visitor access, use, and experience have been assessed using professional judgment to develop a qualitative analysis of the effects of proposed actions on visitor activities and experiences. Effects were evaluated by looking at impact thresholds, nature of the impacts, and duration relative to visitor experiences. Visitor experience is defined as the perceptions, feelings, and reactions a person has before, during, and after a visit to a forest. Everything about the transportation system, including its location, type, and design, strongly influences the quality of a visitor’s experience. Visitor experience also includes how one views available opportunities and the quality of services provided. Visitor experience is an essential, albeit intangible, resource to manage, maintain, and enhance (GRCA South Rim EA 2008). The following factors provide the methodology for this analysis: Impact Threshold Negligible - There would be no noticeable change in visitor experience. Minor – Visitor experience would remain stable although a change from the baseline

(current condition) would be slight and detectable. The change would not appreciably affect visitor experiences.

Moderate – Visitor experience would change and be readily apparent to others. Major – Visitors would be highly aware of their changed experience with the experience

markedly altered.

Nature of the Impact Adverse Impact – An adverse impact would degrade visitor experience with reduced

opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the resources.



Beneficial Impact – A beneficial impact would improve visitor experience and provide opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the resources.

Duration Short-term Impact – A short-term impact would last no longer than one year and only

affect one season’s use by visitors. Long-term Impact – A long-term impact would last for more than one year and be

permanent in nature. Data Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Comment Cards From 2010 through partial 2016, a total of 213 visitor comment cards, referencing 439 single comments on various subjects regarding the shuttle service, were received from visitors who come to the SCRA (USDA 2016b). Comments, both positive and negative in nature, have been received regarding visitor experiences, safety concerns, ecological biodiversity, the SCRA in general, and/or the shuttle service within the SCRA. After completing a comment analysis, comments were grouped by the following themes: pollution from exhaust, noise (both engine and narration), safety/accessibility, narration message (in general), shuttle presence, payment, customer service, habitat effects, and shuttle modernization. Most comments are hand-written and are received directly in-person by Coronado National Forest personnel, while other comments are received via electronic submission (email) or through notation via telephone conversations. SCRA visitor comment cards are passively available to the general public, and at no times are visitor comment cards solicited for any specific comments. For this data analysis, visitor comment cards provide a source of data about the SCRA and are referenced throughout this document. It should be noted that visitor comment cards have both advantages and limitations. Visitor comment cards provide intangible feedback where commenters typically provide feedback with an experience that is fresh in their minds, which provides an immediate sense if a service meets their expectations. In contrast, comments typically have low response rates with atypical customers resulting in a skewed view of a typical customer’s relatively low response rate, with extremes in satisfaction (Powers 2016). In regards to this environmental assessment section, non-specific comments, such as those expressing general positive feelings for SCRA, are not discussed, as they do not depict user conflict or provide information regarding specific aspects of the current shuttle system. Comments regarding specific aspects of the transit system, in particular issues that users identified with the current shuttle system, were analyzed and are discussed below. Eighty-three (83) comments, out of 439 in total, were received referencing “pollution”,

“stinky choking exhaust”, “health concerns due to exhaust”, or references to exhaust for various reasons (USDA 2016b).

Forty-four (44) comments, out of 439 in total, were received referencing “the lack of tranquility” or “serenity destroyed” due to “engine noise” or “noise from the driver due to narration”, or references to noise for various reasons (USDA 2016b).

Seventy-two (72) comments, out of 439 in total, were received referencing concerns pertaining to safety and accessibility (USDA 2016b).

Forty-five (45) comments, out of 439 in total, were received referencing the concerns of effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat (USDA 2016b).

Nineteen (19) comments, out of 439 in total, were received referencing suggestions about modernizing the shuttle service (USDA 2016b).



Eight (8) comments, out of 439 in total, were received indicating “enjoyment with the narration” and “delight” with the shuttle guide/narration. In contrast, seven (7) comments, out of 439 in total, were received that had negative comments about narration which ranged from difficulty hearing the message while in the trailer to inappropriate/inaccurate messages (USDA 2016b).

Trip Advisor Comment Data The Forest Service analyzed 447 comments, across 572 pages, of unsolicited Trip Advisor comments; comments ranged from the time period of 2012 through 2015. “Of these fewer than about [two (2)] dozen of these comments mentioned the [shuttle] without mentioning their experience with the [shuttle]; opinion about [shuttle] could not be determined nor implied whether they enjoyed, did not enjoy, or wanted improvements in the [shuttle]…Almost all TripAdvisor comments are positive in regards to the [shuttle] — a few are negative” (USDA 2016b). In essence, there is no way decipher the positive/negative comments about the SCRA from the positive/negative comments about the shuttle. Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects All User Groups For all user groups recreating in the SCRA during 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, the absence of a shuttle would be a major threshold impact and would be considered both adverse and beneficial with both a short and long term duration. The threshold impact would be major because the visitor experience would be dramatically altered within the SCRA and mimic a more natural forest environment where transportation is not readily available. Visitors would be highly aware of their changed experience with it being markedly altered without a shuttle. The duration is both short term and long term because the absence of a shuttle after 38 years of presence would be stark. This effect would be very noticeable in the short term, however would be lessened over the long term because no shuttle would become the “new normal” and eventually accepted. If no shuttle existed, the range of recreation opportunities available within the SCRA would be reduced. This would be beneficial to non-shuttle riders because the conflict would be eliminated. For shuttle riders, this would be an adverse impact affecting approximately 133,000 annual shuttle riders and approximately 2,650,000 people over 20 years. Many of these people would choose to not visit the SCRA at all. At both the local and national Forest levels, the Forest Service would not fully achieve the goal of providing a diverse range of quality natural and cultural resource based recreation opportunities as identified by the Framework for Sustainable Recreation (Sustainable Recreation 2010). The shuttle operation is unique to both Coronado National Forest and other forests across the country because of the ease of access it provides to a unique desert environment. This ease of access attracts a segment of the population that may typically not visit a forest which provides an opportunity for the Forest Service to connect these visitors to the land. These connections improve both the quality of life for individuals and provide an opportunity to the natural world becoming a value. Multiple studies have shown being in nature reduces stress and improves health, it sharpens our senses, improves our powers of observation and increases our sense of curiosity and wonder (Steen 2015). In association with this alternative, a total of 42 comments out of 439 (or 11 visitor comment cards out of 213) recommended eliminating the shuttle from the SCRA completely. There were various rationales provided for eliminating the shuttle, however the overriding reasoning related to the SCRA being a “peaceful, serene, beautiful setting” and the presence of a shuttle alters and interrupts the experience making if more like an amusement park than a National Forest.



The remainder of this analysis under this alternative focuses on the differences in visitor experiences by threshold impact and nature of the impact by user group. User groups in the SCRA when the shuttle is not operating are unaffected by the absence of a shuttle. Therefore, the lack of a shuttle would only have a negligible impact threshold to user groups visiting the SCRA when the shuttle is not operating, and is not further discussed under this alternative. Hikers The absence of a shuttle would be a major threshold impact and would be considered both adverse and beneficial with both a short and long term duration to hikers. The 2012 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) surveys for Coronado National Forest indicate that 67% of forest visitors reported hiking/walking, with almost 46% of those surveyed reporting it as a primary activity (NVUM 2012). Additionally, based on data from the Feasibility Study and the FTA Report, 16-30% of visitors arriving by vehicle ride the shuttle, so it is assumed that 16-30% of all hikers use the shuttle to access trails within the SCRA. For this group of hikers who also ride the shuttle, the absence of a shuttle would be an adverse impact requiring greater travel distances. Most hiking/walking would begin at the visitor information center requiring additional foot travel up to 3.8 miles (one way) and up to 7.6 miles (both ways) for the Sabino Canyon route, and 1.9 miles (one way) and up to 3.8 miles (both ways) for the Bear Canyon route. This additional mileage would result in different trail selections overall. There would be greater trail usage and resultant impacts on trails in the lower portions of the SCRA and less usage and impacts on trails further into the SCRA. As noted by the NVUM, both the average and median duration of a visit to the SCRA is approximately two (2) hours. The average hiking distance traveled is two and one half (2.5) miles per hour (Livestrong 2014). Therefore the majority of hikers would travel 5 miles. Based on this calculation, with no shuttle, the majority of hiker travel would occur within 2.5 miles of the visitor information center (in order to account for the return mileage). As a result, trails within this distance would have increased use and potentially require more frequent maintenance due to the use. The additional hikers on the trails would potentially result in “crowding” and also contribute to an adverse impact relative to visitor experience. For the remaining 70-84% of hikers/walkers who do not use the shuttle, the threshold impact would range from negligible to minor. This is because they never use the shuttle. During shuttle operating hours, the shuttle may be viewed as a nuisance while the hiker is on the road and/or in close proximity. However, once the hiker ventures onto trails and travels greater distance from the road, the shuttle is no longer a factor. For both groups (shuttle rider and non-shuttle riders) and depending on which trails they are hiking, the absence of a shuttle would be considered beneficial as the exhaust fumes and noise associated with a shuttle would be absent. This would result in a more traditional hiking experience with the sights and sounds of nature be more prevalent and unimpeded by the presence of a transportation system. Pedestrians (on-road) Under this alternative, pedestrians using the roadway from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm and predominately during the cooler months (November to April) are impacted. These impacts would be classified as both moderate and major thresholds, and would be considered both adverse and beneficial and of long term duration. The 2012 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data for Coronado National Forest does not separate hiking and walking, therefore it is assumed that 60% of visitors to Sabino Canyon are walking on the road. This estimation has been further confirmed by both



Santa Catalina District Ranger, Ken Born, and Recreation Staff Officer, Rudy Bowen, who have observed large numbers of pedestrians on the roads in the SCRA (Born & Bowen 2016). The percentage of pedestrians (on road) who also ride the shuttle is unknown, however it is believed to equate to the findings of both the Feasibility Study and FTA Report at 16-30% of pedestrians (on-road) riding the shuttle. The effects to the pedestrian user group overall are distinctly different from hikers because the roadway is shared with the shuttle for the entire visit. No shuttle would result in beneficial impacts to the pedestrian user group. As noted in the Feasibility Study, exhaust fumes and noise negatively affect the visitor experience for those not on the shuttle. The shuttle occupies much of the road forcing the pedestrian user group to either stop or walk single file so that the shuttle may pass. Similarly, the shuttles force pedestrians to wait while they cross the “bridges” (Feasibility Study 2010). It is well documented by the National Park Service that the number of buses which provide transportation for park visitors can detract from the visitor experience within National Parks. Multiple studies have correlated indicators of quality visitor experience to the number of visitors and buses seen. Generally, a very high quality visitor experience correlates with limitation of visitor levels (including buses) while at the other end of the continuum more visitors (including buses) results in a lowered quality visitor experience (University of Vermont 2009). It is likely, these same principles apply within the SCRA where the number of shuttles, and ultimately the number of times a visitor is passed by a shuttle, affects the visitors’ experience. Visitor comment cards received at the visitor information center also support this perspective as discussed above, where 5-10% of the commenting population would like to see no shuttle. Visitor experience is also influenced by sound where natural sounds contribute to high-quality experiences and motorized sounds detract from visitor experience. Weinzimmer el. al. found that motorized sources of noise had detrimental impacts on evaluations of landscape quality when compared with natural sounds. When motorized recreation noise is present, recreation values such as naturalness, solitude, freedom from annoyance and tranquility are reduced by 33-38% (Weinzimmer et, al. 2014). Because this alternative provides for no shuttle operations, visitor experiences would be improved overall through the elimination of noise, absence of exhaust smells, and the removal of physical disturbances. For the 16-30% of pedestrians (on-road) who ride the shuttle, absence of a shuttle would result in a moderate adverse threshold impact for the long term. Threshold impact was rated at moderate because the pedestrian user group is both walking and riding the shuttle. Without a shuttle, access into the SCRA would require further travel distances or not accessing upper areas of the SCRA. Similar to hiking, there is likely to be increased congestion within 2.5 miles of the visitor information center contributing to an adverse impact relative to visitor experience in the lower portions of the SCRA. As indicated in the Feasibility Study, many shuttle riders disembark in between stops, but usually begin their trip on the shuttle. Not all pedestrians (on-road) would travel the 7.6 miles roundtrip of roadway and the shuttle would not be available to disperse SCRA visitors throughout the SCRA. Therefore, all trips would begin at the visitor information center resulting in “crowding” of all visitors in the lower portions of the SCRA. The duration of this impact is always long term because the proposed duration of shuttle operations identified in this analysis is 20 years. Sightseers These effects would be classified as a major threshold impact and would be adverse with a long term occurrence. It is believed sightseers are the majority of clientele who ride the shuttle therefore the greatest degree of adverse impact would be felt by this group. Without a shuttle,



100,000 to 160,000 people would choose not to visit the SCRA. The exact number is unquantifiable, as much of the sightseer user group is attracted to the SCRA for the ease of access that the shuttle provides. This would result in several ripple effects including reduced revenue (discussed below), lost opportunity to connect visitors to the land, and reduced mobility and access. Over the course of 20 years, eliminating the shuttle could result in as high as 2,650,000 people not visiting the SCRA and having a nature experience resulting in missed opportunities for the Forest Service to connect with urban populations to expand support for conservation into the future. As noted in the 2010 Framework for Sustainable Recreation, “connecting people with their natural and cultural heritage is a vital thread in the fabric of society. Recreation is the portal for understanding and caring for natural resources and public lands. It provides opportunities and motivation to advance from fun and attraction, through awareness, education and understanding, to a role of citizen stewardship – one of “giving back” and supporting sustained management of natural resources” (Sustainable Recreation 2010). The shuttle provides an attractive opportunity for urban populations, families with children, and persons with disabilities to enter into nature. Naturalists The 2012 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) surveys for Coronado National Forest indicate that 60% of forest visitors reported viewing natural features with 14% of those surveyed reporting it as a primary activity (NVUM 2012). The effects to the naturalist user group from the absence of the shuttle would mimic those identified for hikers; the absence of a shuttle would be a major threshold impact and would be considered both adverse and beneficial with a short and long term occurrence. Importantly viewing natural features was not identified as a primary activity suggesting one could also be hiking/walking. Regardless of what the primary activity is (associated with viewing natural features), naturalists would be affected by the absence of the shuttle in the same way hikers/pedestrians are because shuttle operations are not required to do this activity. Mobility and Access Mobility and access would be greatly reduced in the absence of a shuttle. Based on the NVUM 6.6% of people visiting Coronado National Forest have a disability (NVUM 2012). It is assumed this same number of people visit the canyon and likely ride the shuttle. In the absence of a shuttle, 6.6% of people visiting the SCRA would be unable to access it because it is assumed that 100% of this population would be shuttle riders. Effects to mobility and access user groups would be the highest and therefore would be classified as a major threshold impact and always adverse impact because no alternatives exist for persons with disabilities to visit the SCRA. Over the long term, this mobility and access into the SCRA would be exacerbated as “baby boomers” age. As noted in the Forest Service Outfitter and Guide Accessibility Guidebook, “according to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are 57 million people with a disability living in the United States. This number is increasing by about 1 million each year. When you consider that most people, including those who have disabilities, recreate with family and friends, as much as 50% of the U.S. population will benefit from accessible programs and services. In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that, by the year 2030, more than 50% of the U.S. population will be more than 55 years of age. One thing is certain—with advances in medical technology and the aging of “baby boomers,” the percent of the U.S. population living with a disability will increase significantly, and many of these people will remain active over the coming years” (Zeller 2015). Approximately 68% of the population visiting the SCRA in 2012 were aged 50-70+ years old (NVUM 2012). There is no data with regard to the age of shuttle riders, however if we assume that shuttle riders mimic visitors to the SCRA, then 68% of shuttle riders are aged 50-70+ resulting in approximately 88,000 people. Based on census data projected into the future, we can expect an increase in users in this age range. Under this alternative, motorized access into the



SCRA would be unavailable for this segment of the population resulting in possible avoidance of the SCRA completely or lessened visitor experience (from what it would be if a shuttle were available to provide transportation). Facilities Under this alternative, facilities within 2.5 miles of the visitor information center would receive an increased amount of use because no shuttle would exist to disperse users throughout the SCRA. The increased usage is difficult to quantify, as it only correlates to shuttle riders which would be an approximate annual maximum of 130,000. However, it is believed a large percentage of shuttle riders would choose not to visit the SCRA at all and therefore would have no impact on facilities. The effects on facilities would be to an undetermined extent. However, in general the Forest Service could expect higher usages at the first eight (8) restroom facilities which occur within 2.5 miles of the visitor information center and lower usages of facilities the last two (2) restrooms. Less use of developed recreation facilities in the upper portions of the SCRA means there would be a reduction in general maintenance, including less toilet cleaning and toilet pumping. A reduction in overall maintenance services in the upper portions of the SCRA would result in a reduction of overall maintenance costs in that area of the SCRA. Conversely, the facilities within the lower portions of the SCRA would likely result in increased facility use among visitors, along with increased maintenance costs for developed recreation facilities and infrastructure. With a decrease of facility use in the upper portions of the SCRA, and an increase of facility use in the lower portions of the SCRA, costs would be neutral. However, maintenance personnel would shift their area of emphasis to the lower portions of the SCRA. With maintenance personnel focusing their efforts in the lower portions of the SCRA, response time to facilities would be quicker resulting in cleaner facilities more often. Facilities that are cleaned more often and responded to more quickly will have positive impressions upon visitors, resulting in an increase in visitor satisfaction. Revenue Under this alternative, the Coronado National Forest Fee Program revenue could decrease by approximately $300,000 annually. As noted in the 2012 NVUM survey, there are an average of 2.2 people per vehicle (NVUM 2012). With an annual average of 133,000 people riding the shuttle divided by 2.2, 60,289 private vehicles are associated with shuttle ridership. When the number of vehicles are multiplied by the recreation fee of $5.00, annual revenue to the Forest Service directly resultant from shuttle operations is $301,445. Recreation fees provide crucial resources that allow the Forest Service to respond to increasing demand by providing visitors with quality recreation experiences through enhanced facilities and services. An annual deficit of this quantity would be substantial to the Coronado Fee Program and would result in reduced maintenance at existing facilities, not meeting the needs of visitors, reduced quality in recreation, and reduced protection of the natural resource (Forest Service 2013). Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2-4) All action alternatives propose a concession run shuttle operation and in some ways will have the same effects on visitor experience regardless of the alternative selected. The physical presence of any shuttle would affect non-shuttle riding user groups in the same way relative to either forcing the user/user group to stop, move to the edge of the road way, or walk single file so that a shuttle may pass. Additionally, pedestrians would continue to be forced to wait while a shuttle crosses the vented low-water crossings (bridges), as both a user/user group and shuttle cannot occupy a vented low-water crossing at the same time. The conflicts that persists associated with user groups sharing the same roadway at the same time are unavoidable. The remainder of this analysis focuses on the differences in user group experiences.



Revenue Under all action alternatives, revenue into the Coronado National Forest Fee Program would be maintained at the annual average of approximately $600,000 (Forest Service 2016). The presence of a shuttle would continue providing both an “attraction” and serve as a mode of transportation for all user groups to access the SCRA, and/or provide quicker access to the trail system for backcountry hiking. As a result, these user groups would continue paying the $5.00 recreation fee and the Forest Service would be able to maintain facilities, meet the needs of visitors, provide for quality recreation, and protect natural resources within the SCRA and at the current levels of service. No further discussion pertaining to revenue is provided, as annual revenues to Coronado National Forest Fee Program would remain static as long as shuttle operations continue in the SCRA. Mobility and Access With the presence of a shuttle, mobility and access into the SCRA would be maintained and possibly enhanced. The remainder of this report will focus on the differences in mobility and access by alternative. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action with the incorporation of the design features and potential alternative technology shuttles would result in shuttle operations better aligning with the Forest Service’s Sustainable Recreation Framework. In particular, implementing “green” operations is identified as one of ten focus areas within the three spheres (environmental, social, and economic) that frame sustainability. “Green” operation guidance is to reduce the environmental footprint and serve as a model for visitors and other providers by incorporating sustainable travel industry best practices; “green technology” for facility and trail construction; and environmental management systems in all aspects of our operations. Further, sharing knowledge, skills, and best management practices among a broad network of practitioners, educators, and partners is also identified as guidance for implementing “green” operations (Sustainable Recreation Framework 2010). Importantly, this analysis does not dictate the type of technology and fuel-burning vehicles could be utilized under this alternative. If fuel-burning vehicles are utilized, this alternative incorporates requirements for shuttles to meet Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) standards with proof of annual emissions and to be OBD2 equipped as provided by the original equipment manufacturer. With newer fuel-burning technology, it is possible visitors would be unable to differentiate between the exhaust smells and engine noises associated with current operations. For all user groups under this alternative, visitor experiences would be influenced by these factors and recreation values would be reduced by 33-38% due to the presence of the shuttle (Weinzimmer et, al. 2014). All User Groups The proposed action would range from a minor to a moderate threshold impact and would have both adverse and beneficial impacts, and of long term duration for all user groups. There is a threshold impact range because this rating is dependent on the amount of time a user group interfaces with a shuttle. For most user groups, the threshold impact was rated at moderate because shuttles adhering to the design features identified within the proposed action would result in changed visitor experiences that would be readily apparent to others. However, shuttle operations have existed within the SCRA for nearly 40 years, so visitor experiences would not be changed so drastically as to result in a rating of major. It is expected that all user groups would



have positive responses to shuttles meeting the requirements of the proposed action, because all visitor experiences would benefit from the reductions in noise and air toxic emissions with requirements to meet noise and air quality standards and more accessible shuttles (Feasibility Study 2010). Hikers Under this alternative hikers would have a minor threshold impact, with beneficial impacts and of long term duration. The hiker user group was assigned a minor threshold impact because the incorporation of the design features would result in a change from the baseline (current operations) and because this change would not noticeably affect visitor experiences. There is minimal to no interface between hikers and a shuttle because hikers could choose to not use the paved roadway by traveling on system trails which begin near the visitor information center. For hikers that do choose to travel the paved roadway to access a system trail, once they have reached the trailhead and travel a distance away from the roadway, the shuttle is no longer a factor in their visitor experience. Many hikers have become accustomed to the presence of a shuttle in the SCRA over the past 35+ years. Incorporation of design features associated with this proposed action would be of beneficial impact overall due to the requirements for adherence to standards. However, depending on the technology selected for a future shuttle, engine noise and gasoline or diesel fumes could still be present. If alternative technology is utilized, engine noise and exhaust fumes would be reduced or eliminated resulting in a greater degree of beneficial impact to hikers. This range of benefit to hikers is very small due to the small overlap in space (on the paved roadway) for hikers and a shuttle. For the estimated 16-30% of hikers who are also shuttle riders, the effects of the proposed action would largely be the same as for hikers who do not ride the shuttle. This is because the purpose of riding the shuttle would be primarily for transportation to gain access further into the SCRA. Although a shuttle that incorporates the proposed design features may be more pleasant relative to accessibility, noise, and emissions. Visitor experience for the hiker user group would not be substantially altered from what it has been for many years. For both shuttle and non-shuttle riding hikers, interfaces with a shuttle are of short duration therefore changes in perceptions and attitudes are expected to be nominal resulting in very limited to no changes to visitor experiences. The most drastic and beneficial change for the hiker user group would be associated with narration. The absence of noise would allow for a more natural experience when hikers are on or in close proximity to the paved roadway. Pedestrians (on-road) The pedestrian user group would experience the most drastic effects under this alternative because their entire SCRA visitor experience is shared with the shuttle. As a result, there would be a moderate threshold impact with beneficial impacts and of long term duration. Similar to hiking but to a greater extent (due to the amount of time a shuttle and pedestrian travels would overlap), incorporation of design features results in beneficial impacts due to the requirements to meet standards. For the estimated 70-84% of pedestrians who do not use the shuttle, selection of this alternative would be an adverse impact overall because their preference is to have no shuttle. This alternative provides for a maximum of 32 round trips per day, with a maximum of four (4) round trips in an hour in Sabino Canyon; and a maximum of eight (8) round trips per day in Bear Canyon during peak season. Establishment of these maximums allows for pedestrians to plan for a predictable shuttle schedule and develop an expectation regarding disturbance associated with shuttle passage. These maximums would be an approximate 50% decrease in shuttle trips from



current operations during peak season. As noted in the NVUM data, the average duration of a visit is approximately two (2) hours to the SCRA (NVUM 2012). Therefore a pedestrian would encounter eight (8) shuttle trips in a two (2) hour visit. Fewer shuttle trips would be a positive effect when compared to current operations, because non-shuttle riding pedestrians prefer to have the least amount of shuttle trips thereby reducing conflict, potential for conflict, and disturbance. It has been found that “management strategies that increase the opportunity for nature, study, personal growth, and quiet fitness, are likely to be supported by a broad subset of visitors” (Giordano 2000). During off-peak season, shuttle trips would be limited to one trip per hour. The effects to non-shuttle riding pedestrians would be the same as described above, however to a lesser degree due to the reduced visitation in the SCRA. Sightseers The Proposed Action Alternative would have a moderate threshold impact with beneficial and adverse impacts and of long term duration. Sightseers would moderately be affected by this alternative similarly to the way hikers and pedestrians would be affected through requirements to meet state standards, federal law, and agency guidelines. As noted in the Feasibility Study, sightseers have expressed a strong desire for quieter and environmentally-friendly alternative fuel vehicles (Feasibility Study 2010). This alternative would meet those desires and result in fewer negative comment cards pertaining to these aspects. Nineteen (19) comments, out of 439 in total, were received referencing suggestions about modernizing the shuttle service (SCRA comment data). Since the sightseer user group is predominately also the shuttle riders, established daily shuttle trip maximums could have an adverse impact by resulting in longer wait times and potentially an inability to ride the shuttle at all. This would likely occur during peak season when visitation to the SCRA is highest. Currently, SCT provides service based on visitor demand – as the number of visitors waiting increases, the number of shuttles increase, up to the maximum of six (6) on the Sabino Canyon route. Under this alternative, shuttle trips would be capped regardless of the demand and would result in sightseers having a limited ability to ride the shuttle. This scenario would cause an increase in complaints to the Forest Service and at the visitor information center as some visitors would be upset by paying for the recreation fee and then being unable or required to wait to ride the shuttle (Lawson et al.). It should be noted, shuttle service availability disproportionately affects the SCRA visitor overall, as it is estimated that 16-30% of vehicles parked in the SCRA parking lot are from visitors who come to ride the shuttle. The SCRA receives over a million visitors annually, and approximately 133,000 of those visitors using the shuttle service. Multiple studies within National Parks have correlated indicators of quality visitor experience to the number of visitors and buses seen. Generally, a very high quality visitor experience correlates with limitation of visitor levels (including buses); while at the other end of the continuum, more visitors (including buses) results in a lowered quality visitor experience (University of Vermont 2009). Naturalists The effects to the naturalist user group would mimic those identified for all other users groups; the proposed action would have a minor to moderate threshold impact with beneficial impacts and of long term duration. The effects would be identical because viewing natural features occurs while hiking, and/or traveling the paved roadway (pedestrian), and/or as a sightseer. Mobility and Access Effects to the mobility and access user group would be classified as a moderate threshold impact with beneficial impacts and for the long term. The threshold impact was rated at moderate



because disabled visitor experiences would still exist. However, with shuttles that meet ADA requirements, a change in availability (from current condition) would be readily apparent to others. The impact would be beneficial because the Forest Service would be better meeting the needs of the mobility and access user group and ensure equal opportunity for all people, including people with disabilities. Under this alternative, shuttles would be required to meet ADA requirements for accessibility specifications for transportation vehicles. By meeting current ADA requirements, negative visitor comments pertaining to accessibility and provisions of services for people with disabilities would decrease. The 6.6% of forest visitors who have a disability, as indicated in the 2012 NVUM, would have access into the SCRA. Further, as noted in the Forest Service Outfitter and Guide Accessibility Guidebook and discussed under the No Action alternative, the SCRA can expect increasing numbers of elderly and people with disabilities over time. Under this alternative, all shuttles would adhere to ADA requirements and would therefore better meet the needs of people with disabilities and elderly, ultimately resulting in higher quality visitor experiences. Twenty (20) specific comments, out of 439 in total [4.5%], were received referencing concerns about ADA accessibility, injured/disabled, and/or elderly persons (SCRA comment data). Narration Under this alternative the interpretative narration would not be heard outside the shuttle. This would be a moderate to major threshold impact because visitors have differing levels of sensitivity and tolerance for noise associated with the narration. Impacts would be beneficial for all user groups as the narration would only be heard by the intended audience. The shuttle riding user group would be able to hear the narration message and non-shuttle riding user groups would not hear narration message. Limited Days Under this alternative, shuttle services would be reduced by zero (0) to two (2) days per week. This reduction seeks to balance maintaining current shuttle services with partial elimination of the shuttle and creates more opportunity when non-riding shuttle user groups would not have to compete for the road with the shuttle. Reducing the number of shuttle trips through the SCRA would reduce the number of conflicts between user groups. Currently, bicycle riding is prohibited two days per week, providing 104 days annually where other users can enjoy the canyon without bicycle-related conflicts. Reducing the number of shuttle operation days, while still maintaining a full day schedule at least 5 days per week, would reduce user conflicts related to shuttle operations, and more effectively meet the Sabino Canyon Sustainable Recreation Plan goal to “Provide a Spectrum of Compatible Activities for People to Enjoy the Canyon. (Sabino Canyon 2015). Effects to all user groups would be identical to those identified under No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) of this analysis, however to a lesser extent, and only on the one (1) to two (2) days the shuttle does not operate. Limited day operations would have both a beneficial and adverse impact. Whereas the non-shuttle-riding user group views it as positive, the shuttle riding user group, expecting shuttle service to operate as it always has, would view it as negative. Similar to the No Action Alternative, eventually, limited day operations would be accepted by all user groups once it became the “new normal”. Reducing any days from shuttle operations would have financial implications to the shuttle system operator, which must be taken into consideration. The shuttle system operator must be able to support the shuttle service provided from the revenue generated by the shuttle service (Feasibility Study 2010). Limited data is available regarding gross and net revenue for the shuttle operator. As a rough estimate it is believed gross revenue would be $1,330,000.00 by multiplying approximately 133,000 (yearly average passengers) by the ticket price of $10. A reduction of one (1) day per week would result in reduced annual revenue of approximately $188,000 annually. It



should be noted this calculation is limited as different ticket prices exist for children and the breakdown of adult versus children passengers is unknown. Additionally, daily revenue is different, as weekends experience substantially higher volumes of shuttle riders than weekday. Alternative 3 – Current Operations Direct and Indirect Effects The Current Operations Alternative provides the baseline for this analysis with the affected environment section and effects analysis for other alternatives having already provided some discussion of the effects. For all user groups, the threshold impact would be rated at negligible with the nature of impact being both beneficial and adverse and of long term duration. The threshold impact would be negligible because current operations have been unchanged for nearly 40 years. Visitor experience would be the same, as it has been for some time, therefore there would be no noticeable change. The duration is long term due to an expectation that the authorization will cover a time frame up to 20 years in length. The continuation of current operations would not align with the Forest Service’s Sustainable Recreation Framework regarding “green” operations. Guidance is to serve as a model for visitors by reducing the environmental footprint and incorporating “green technology” in all aspects of Forest Service operations (Sustainable Recreation Framework 2010). A desire for “green” technology is a common sentiment received on visitor comment cards; nineteen (19) comments, out of 439 in total, were received referencing suggestions about modernizing the shuttle service (SCRA comment data). Additionally, both the Feasibility Study and the FTA Report identify the desire by visitors for “green technology” (Feasibility Study 2010 and Valdez 2013). The FTA Report with regard to constituencies’ further states: “transportation professionals want to see best practice scenarios in federal lands” and overall recommendations suggest future shuttles to feature alternative fuels technology (Valdez 2013). In a more general sense, the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) in the development of the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (which incorporated public input from 7,265 individuals), identified environmental stewardship7 as a goal to help guide the work of PAG and its member jurisdictions, as well as other stakeholders and interest groups, who strive to improve our transportation network and quality of life in the region (PAG 2012). Narration Under this alternative, the interpretative narration would be spoken into a microphone and broadcast to riders by speakers mounted throughout the shuttle. The message would be heard by shuttle riders and non-shuttle riding visitors. Narration would be a moderate to major threshold impact because visitors have differing levels of sensitivity and tolerance for noise associated with the narration. Impacts would be beneficial for shuttle riders who desire a narration message and adverse for non-shuttle riders seeking a natural experience. The FTA Report measured the PA loudspeaker system at 80 dB from 6’ away (Valdez 2013). 80dB is equitable to a garbage disposal and is two times as loud as 70 dB, where dBs in the upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some and could result in damage after 8 hours of exposure (Purdue 2000). As noted by Weinzimmer et. al, multiple studies have shown unnatural noise influences visitors enjoyment and acceptability of outdoor recreation experiences (Weinzimmer et, al. 2014). Recreation values like naturalness, solitude, freedom from annoyance, and tranquility are reduced by 33-38% when recreational noise is present (Weinzimmer et, al. 2014). At noise levels above 35 dB, visitors can 7 Encompassed within environmental stewardship goal is to protect natural resources and [utilize] energy efficiency in transportation planning, design, construction, and management within Pima County (PAG 2012).



experience increased blood pressure and heart rate and at 52 dB, visitors can no longer have casual conversation which is important to small groups (Zion Soundscape Management Plan 2010). With regard to the narrative message, comments received on visitor comment cards were wide ranging providing both positive and negative responses. Eight (8) comments, out of 439 in total, were received indicating “enjoyment with the narration” and “delight” with the shuttle guide/narration (SCRA comment data). In contrast, seven (7) comments, out of 439 in total, received had negative comments about narration which ranged from difficult in hearing the message while in the trailer to inappropriate/inaccurate messages (SCRA comment data). The limitations pertaining to narration should be noted as the shuttle message content, delivery of the message (driver), and mechanism of delivery were lumped into this category. Additionally, it appeared all comments submitted under this category came from visitors who had ridden the shuttle. Hikers Under this alternative and as noted above, hiker visitor experience would be a negligible threshold impact with adverse and beneficial impacts with a short term impact. Although the impact would be negligible (due to no change from the baseline), hikers would continue to be adversely affected by the “noise and smell” of the shuttles (Feasibility Study 2010). However, due to the limited interface between hikers and the shuttle, the duration of these adverse impacts is short and in some cases nonexistent. Beneficial impacts would be to the 16-30% of hikers who are also shuttle riders and use the shuttle as a mode of transportation to access trailheads further into the SCRA. Although shuttle riding hikers may have different preferences for the shuttle, their tolerance levels for noises and smells may be higher due to the positive aspect of a shuttle (in general) providing access to trailheads. Under this alternative, there are no maximum shuttle trips and shuttles would operate 365 days per year. For hikers using the shuttle as transportation, this is likely to be beneficial as a shuttle would always be available to provide access to trailheads. For hikers in proximity to the roadway, this could be adverse due to the noise associated with the shuttle. The FTA Report measured diesel engines at 90 dB from six (6) feet away (Valdez 2013). In a one hour time period, as many as eight (8) shuttle trips could pass the same visitor. Although, in most cases hikers are leaving the roadway and traveling enough distance where the noise of the shuttle cannot be heard (excluding narration), disturbance to the hikers’ visitor experience can be expected. As noted in Weinzimmer et. al, “noise from motorized recreation has significant impacts on the experiences of potential park visitors and that noise is an important factor in determining the evaluation of the quality of the natural environment. (Weinzimmer et. al. 2014). Pedestrians (on-road) Pedestrians would also have a negligible threshold impact for the same reason described above. The nature of the impact would be adverse for the 70-84% of pedestrians who do not use the shuttle because, similar to the Proposed Action Alternative, the preference of non-shuttle riding pedestrians is to have no shuttle. For the pedestrian user group, this alternative would be adverse to a greater extent (when compared to the Proposed Action) due to no requirements for emissions and noise standards for a shuttle as identified by the design features. Conversely for the 16-30% of pedestrians who ride the shuttle this alternative also provides beneficial impacts because (like hikers) the shuttle is used as a mode of transportation for further access into the SCRA. At some point, all pedestrians experience user conflict with the shuttle as described by the User Conflict section of this analysis due to the complete overlap on the roadway for the shuttle and pedestrians.



A distinct difference under this alternative is the amount of disturbance to pedestrians (on-road) due to shuttle service availability. Under this alternative, there is no maximum number of shuttle trips in a day or in an hour, as service is based on demand. As the number of visitors waiting to ride a shuttle increases, the number of shuttle trips increases until no shuttles are available. Currently, the maximum number of shuttle trips per day during the peak season is unknown, however, with seven shuttles total and one always assigned to the Bear Canyon route a maximum of six (6) shuttles could operate in Sabino Canyon. As a result, with six (6) shuttles and a 40-minute turn around per shuttle, evenly distributed in a 2- hour time period, as many as twelve (12) shuttle passages could occur. This is an adverse effect on visitor experience overall due to the number of disturbances. Pedestrians prefer fewer shuttle trips overall, thereby reducing conflict, potential for conflict, and disturbance due to the shared roadway. Under this alternative, the number of trips would generate an undetermined disturbance to visitor experience, and a reduced naturalness feeling within the SCRA to a greater extent than the proposed action due to a greater number of trips allowed annually. Sightseers Under this alternative, sightseers would have a negligible threshold impact with beneficial and adverse impacts and of long term duration. Sightseers would be negligibly impacted because current shuttle operations form the baseline and is the only shuttle opportunity that has existed within the SCRA. Similar to other user groups, the beneficial impacts associated with this alternative are with the continued provision of a shuttle. Documentation in both the Feasibility Study and visitor comment cards indicates the desire for quieter and environmentally-friendly alternative fueled vehicle suggests this alternative would be adverse overall other than the continued provision of a shuttle. Nineteen (19) comments, out of 439 in total, were received referencing suggestions about modernizing the shuttle service (SCRA comment data). Under this alternative, visitor comment cards regarding the desire for more modern and environmentally-friendly alternatives, and comments regarding shuttle noise and narration would continue to be received by the Forest Service. Sightseers would have beneficial impacts under this alternative, with shuttle service based on visitor demand and no established maximum number of trips. Under this approach, sightseers would have more opportunity for a shuttle ride than under other alternatives. However, similar to the proposed action, shuttle service availability disproportionately affects the SCRA visitor overall, as it is estimated that 16-30% of vehicles parked in the SCRA parking lot are from visitors who come to ride the shuttle. The SCRA receives over a million visitors annually, and approximately 133,000 of those visitors using the shuttle service. This effect is not unique to this alternative as shuttle passages (in general) negatively affect visitors. The difference under this alternative is that the disturbance is exacerbated due to more shuttle passages. Multiple studies within National Parks have correlated indicators of quality visitor experience to the number of visitors and buses seen. Generally, a very high quality visitor experience correlates with limitation of visitor levels (including buses) while at the other end of the continuum more visitors (including buses) results in a lowered quality visitor experience (University of Vermont 2009). Naturalists The effects to the naturalist user group would mimic those identified for all other users groups; the proposed action would have a negligible threshold impact with both beneficial and adverse impacts and of short and long term duration. The effects would be identical because viewing natural features occurs while hiking, traveling the paved roadway (pedestrian), and/or as a sightseer.



Mobility and Access Effects to the mobility and access user group would be classified as a moderate to major threshold impacts with adverse impacts and for the long term. The threshold impact is presented as a range due to the increasing number of elderly and people with disabilities into the future. As the proposed shuttle system would be of 20 years in duration, it is likely the one shuttle with ability for two wheelchairs and the remaining six (6) shuttles with no wheelchair capabilities would not meet mobility and accessibility needs into the future, especially with this population segment increasing. Under this alternative, the Forest Service could expect to continue to receive negative comments on the visitor comment cards and would likely receive an increased number of visitor comment cards commensurate with the population. Overall, access into the SCRA would still be provided, however it would not meet guidelines set forth in the Forest Service Outfitter and Guide Accessibility Guidebook and ADA requirements would not be met. As a result, visitor experiences for people with disabilities and elderly would be of lower quality when compared to the Proposed Action Alternative. Alternative 4 - Proposed Action with Early and Late Shuttle Trips Direct and Indirect Effects The effects under this alternative are identical as discussed under the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2). In addition, effects would occur to all user groups resultant from the early and late shuttle trip. Under this alternative, effects to all user groups would be classified as moderate to major threshold impacts with both beneficial and adverse impacts for the long term. The threshold impact is identified as a range because early morning and late evening SCRA visitors would have differing levels of sensitivity and tolerance for shuttle operations at these hours. For all user groups except for those riding the shuttle, early morning and late evening operations would be an adverse impact because it would likely be viewed as an intrusion into the natural environment. Early and late shuttle trips would have an adverse effect to cyclists, as shuttle operations would conflict with the limited hours in which cyclists are currently allowed to ride in the SCRA. The perceptions about the adverse impact by all user groups except those riding the shuttle would likely be compounded as few visitors would be on the shuttle. Figure 1 below shows the average arrival time and number of vehicles by season over a 24 hour period from 1995 to 2001 (Feasibility Study 2010). Although the data is old, the arrival patterns are still relevant and can be observed today (Born and Bowen 2016).



Figure 1 - Arrival Time and Number of Vehicles by Season

Weekday Off-peak Weekend Off-peak Weekday Peak Weekend Peak The addition of an early and late shuttle would likely occur around 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. respectively. During the peak season, there are approximately 40 cars in the parking lot at these times. Approximately 16-30% of vehicles belong to shuttle riders, so we can assume approximately six (6) to 12 vehicles would use a shuttle service at these hours. Additionally, as indicated in the NVUM results, the average vehicle has 2.2 forest visitors (NVUM 2012) resulting in approximately 12 to 24 visitors riding the shuttle at these hours during the peak season. During off-peak season, the vehicle counts are one and a half times to triple the vehicle counts as seen during the peak season. This is attributable to the high day-time temperatures associated with the off-peak season, leading users to visit the canyon at early and late hours, when temperatures are cooler. Despite the additional vehicles and visitors in the off peak season, it is unlikely shuttle ridership would increase. The driving factor behind this alternative is a desire to provide transportation for backcountry hikers when temperatures exceed 100° Fahrenheit and SCRA usage is typically avoided (Feasibility Study 2010). Based on these visitor patterns of the SCRA, the addition of an early and late shuttle trip would serve a small user group and would introduce additional user conflict among all user groups on the roadway. The additional user conflict would reflect the effects discussions above.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00



3.3 Transportation 3.3.1 Affected Environment Noise Noise from shuttle vehicles has been identified as an issue. Internal and external scoping does not indicate any negative consequences from noise to the non-human physical environment. Scoping only indicates that the noise issue is a matter of human perceived aesthetics, because there is no evidence that shuttle noise has resulted in damage to humans, human hearing or caused accidents. However, there is a long history of the Coronado receiving negative comments concerning shuttle narration and shuttle vehicle noise. Both vehicle (mechanical) and narration (amplified human speech) noise is emitted by the existing shuttle fleet. One or both of those noises are objectionable to some people in Sabino Canyon, both to shuttle riders and to non-shuttle riders. Narration noise is purposely generated and serves a function whereas vehicle noise is merely a byproduct of the mode of transportation. Humans perceive noise differently depending on a multitude of factors which include but are not limited to: proximity to the noise source, environmental factors affecting sound absorption/reflection, the person’s ability to hear volume and different frequencies, and the person’s expectation of mechanical and/or amplified narration noises in Sabino Canyon. People expecting a completely natural landscape may be offended by this noise. Regardless, noise can be addressed through elimination of the noise source, elimination of the receptors (i.e. people), through design and mitigation measures which change the volume, frequency and occurrence of the noise generated, and possibly by other means. Noise/sound is commonly measured in decibels (‘dB’). Because humans perceive sound of different frequencies at different apparent loudness it is also common to use the A-weighted decibel scale to account for the non-linear nature of human frequency response. In other words, the A-weighted scale provides a reasonable and commonly used machine approximation of what a typical human hears with respect to loudness of sound across the frequency spectrum. The abbreviation for the A-weighted decibel scale is dBA. The decibel scale is logarithmic with respect to sound energy. Therefore the numbers expressed are not commonly understood by laymen, nor can they be manipulated in a simple mathematically additive manner. Suffice it to say that a 3 dBA change in loudness is barely perceptible to humans but represents a doubling of the actual sound energy. 5 dBA is clearly perceptible by humans. At distances greater than 50 feet from a sound source, a doubling of the distance from the sound source will result in a reduction of approximately 6 dBA. Sound measurements were not collected for the level of narration. Some commonly heard sounds are listed in Table 3 below for reference (Branch 1970).



Table 3 - Noise Sources and Their Effects

Noise Source Decibel Level Noise Effect

Jet take-off (at 25 meters) 150 Eardrum rupture

Aircraft carrier deck 140 Earphones at high level

Jet take-off (at 100 meters) 130 Thunderclap, live rock music, chain saw 120

Steel mill, riveting, auto horn at 1 meter 110 Human pain threshold

Jet take-off (at 305 meters), outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck

100 Serious hearing damage (8 hrs)

Busy urban street, diesel truck, food blender 90 Hearing Damage (8 hrs)

Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters) 80 Possible hearing

damage Freeway traffic (at 15 meters), vacuum cleaner 70 Annoying Conversation in restaurant, office, background music 60 Quiet Quiet suburb, conversation at home 50 " Library 40 " Quiet rural area 30 Very Quiet Whisper, rustling leaves 20 " Breathing 10 "

0 Threshold of hearing

To illustrate the human perception of different decibel levels, if 70dBA was chosen as a baseline of comparison for every 10 decibels increase or decrease, the apparent loudness to humans changes by a factor of two. For example, a decibel level of 80 is apparently two times as loud to humans as 70. Conversely, a decibel level of 60 is half as loud and considered to be quiet. A decibel level of 50 is ¼ as loud as 70 and a decibel level of 90 is four times as loud as seventy. Air Quality Engine exhaust from existing shuttle vehicles has been identified as an issue. Internal and external scoping does not indicate any negative consequences from existing engine exhaust to the non-human physical environment. Scoping only indicates that the engine exhaust issue is a matter of human perceived aesthetics because there is no evidence that engine exhaust has resulted in damage to humans, but there is a long history of the Coronado receiving negative comments concerning shuttle engine exhaust smell. The existing shuttle vehicle fleet is of a sufficiently old design that even if properly operating according to manufacturer’s recommendations the exhaust emissions for hydrocarbons and associated emissions which have aesthetic qualities will be much higher than for similar sized motor vehicles (carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide have no aesthetic qualities). Germane to the aesthetic issue, the vehicle exhaust emissions from older vehicles contains a plethora of components that are sensed as aesthetic issues. This is as contrasted with more modern catalyst equipped engine exhaust after-treatment systems, which have exhaust emissions which are not sensed in the olfactory aesthetic category (however they may be perceived as ‘hot’ if close enough).



Safety Vehicle safety was identified as an area of potential improvement over the existing condition. A potential safety improvement is always possible. However to understand an improvement one must understand the baseline for that improvement, which in this case is indeterminate with respect to the existing shuttle fleet. The existing shuttle fleet is both of an older design, and also is no longer in new condition. However age and age-of-design are not necessarily indicators of an unsafe situation. Assuming that the existing shuttle fleet is maintained to as-new standards will nonetheless result in a fleet of equipment which meets vehicle safety standards from several decades ago. Vehicle safety improves through an iterative process as expressed in federal regulations promulgated by National Highway Transportation Safety Act (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). It is beyond the technical capabilities of the Forest Service to analyze, categorize and set standards for shuttle vehicle safety. The existing laws, regulations and policies of NHTSA and FMVSS address this issue adequately. 3.3.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, no shuttle operations would exist therefore no effects associated with motorized transportation would occur. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 4 – The Proposed Action with Early and Late Shuttle Trips Direct and Indirect Effects - Noise This alternative incorporates design features or mitigations in order to reduce, eliminate, or otherwise change the volume of the noise. Noise associated with narration is not discussed due to a design feature or mitigations which will allow for no narration noise to escape the shuttle. Vehicle noise created by low travel speed from internal combustion engine-powered vehicles is primarily generated by the engine, engine exhaust, engine intake, gear train, accessories driven by the engine, and cooling fans for engine coolant, various oils, or refrigeration (i.e. air conditioning) systems. Our assumptions are that the noise limits imposed as a design feature or mitigation will be satisfactory to the vast majority of visitors from the aesthetic standpoint. The reasoning is that for fuel-burning vehicles some noise is customary and expected as a part of vehicle operation. Requiring the use of shuttle vehicles which are silent or nearly silent would require the use of electric motor(s) as a motive power source, which greatly constrains the available potential fleet of vehicles which can otherwise negotiate the physical limitations of the Sabino and Bear Canyon routes. Further, silent or nearly silent shuttle vehicles would likely result in unintended safety issues between non-shuttle riders and a shuttle vehicle silently moving up on them from behind. Mitigations for silent vehicle and pedestrian safety issues usually consider some noise-making apparatus for the otherwise silent vehicle—partially offsetting the benefits of the supposedly silent vehicle. Engine noise from compression ignition engines (e.g. diesel engines) is almost universally considered more aesthetically objectionable than engine noise from a similar-sized spark ignition



engine (e.g. gasoline, propane, and natural gas engines) operated in the same environment and at the same overall power level. The noise from diesel engines which comes from the engine block and directly connected components (e.g. exhaust manifold, various covers, etc.) presents the majority of the noise traditionally associated with diesel engine operation when a factory installed and properly operating engine exhaust system is present. Various methods are used to reduce but not eliminate such noise. These methods vary by engine and vehicle body manufacturer, year of manufacture, power level produced, exhaust emission targets, and possibly other parameters. Without specifying specific makes, models, years, engine series and other factors the only design feature available to reduce the generation of engine noise is to limit the emitted decibel level to a particular level and have the shuttle operator chose the appropriate machine to comply with the limitations on noise output. Our assumption is that if one or more diesel engine options are available which meet the decibel level limit that the aesthetics of the resulting engine noise will be acceptable. It is not realistic nor do we assume that the noise of a diesel engine, if used, will escape notice but that the noise will be customary for fuel-burning vehicles, expected, and unobjectionable to the majority of listeners. Noise from one or more refrigeration system cooling fans would be a potential issue for those vehicles with enclosed spaces (even if just for the driver) during times when refrigerated air conditioning was required. Our assumption is that for such an enclosed vehicle fan systems are, or can feasibly be, modified to bring the noise levels to within the decibel limit included in the design features under normally expected refrigeration system operational conditions. It should be noted that limiting shuttle vehicle noise constrains the available potential fleet of vehicles which can otherwise negotiate the physical limitations of the Sabino and Bear Canyon routes. For this Alternative to be feasible there still needs to be at least one commercially produced shuttle vehicle type/manufacturer which can comply with the design features, mitigations and physical constraints of the routes in SCRA. It is preferable to have multiple shuttle vehicle types/manufacturers which have vehicles capable of meeting these criteria for competitive, economic and option-tradeoff and seasonal variation possibilities for a commercial shuttle operator. Direct and Indirect Effects – Air Quality It is beyond the technical capabilities of the Forest Service to analyze, categorize and set standards for potential or actual human health and/or environmental impacts from engine exhaust. The existing laws, regulations and policies of ADEQ, EPA and CARB address this adequately for our purposes, with the possible exception of the aesthetics of the engine exhaust smell. As such, under this alternative, we include adopting the ADEQ regulatory scheme which applies to the Emissions Control Area of Pima County and which will require all fuel-burning shuttle equipment to comply with those requirements as part of the design features and mitigation. Proof of vehicles’ inspections and emissions compliance with ADEQ standards would be provided to the USFS annually. This would effectively eliminate any non-aesthetic human concerns from the issue of shuttle engine exhaust. Aesthetic issues relating to engine exhaust emissions which otherwise are in compliance with ADEQ emissions standards would be further eliminated or effectively reduced to insignificance through the design feature or mitigation requiring use of catalyst-equipped engine exhaust after-treatment systems specifically certified to work together by either the EPA or CARB, or both. The requirement for the use of catalyst-equipped engine exhaust after-treatment systems applies to both spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines. Engines and engine exhaust after-



treatment systems must be kept in functioning and original-equipment condition with respect to engine exhaust. Under this alternative, there is no specification for type of fuel used. With the incorporation of design features the key issues associated with air quality are reduced to an acceptable level commensurate with the current state of engine exhaust emission technology. The remainder of this section provides discussion on the realities and limitations of shuttle motive power technologies. Natural Gas Fuel: This fuel is used commonly but in a minority of highway legal vehicles, and is recognized as a mature technology. The advantages of using this fuel include low engine exhaust emissions of pollutants (not including carbon dioxide), requirement for spark ignition (resulting in no diesel ‘clatter’ noise), generally low fuel cost, and less concern about fuel spills. Disadvantages of using this fuel include scarce refueling location availability and the requirement that the motor vehicle either have a comparatively significantly larger fuel storage tank than for liquid fuel, or that the motor vehicle refuel more often. For SCRA shuttle vehicles natural gas is not available without driving into the urban area of Tucson, or constructing a fueling station closer to SCRA. Currently there is no natural gas within SCRA, but existing natural gas infrastructure exists immediately adjacent to SCRA. Use of natural gas power would require piping gas into Sabino Canyon and associated environmental reviews. Electric Drive: This motive power method for motor vehicles is a mature technology that is commonly in use for certain specialty type vehicles such as transit buses, commercial trains, and some commercially made private passenger vehicles. Additionally and commonly, electric drive is sometimes paired with fuel burning engines to provide hybrid power. The advantages of electric drive (not including hybrid) include generally quiet operation, essentially zero air emissions at the vehicle (not including electric power generation impacts), and good low speed power availability—which translates generally into good ability to climb grades at low speed. Additionally, many such systems incorporate a regenerative charge method whereby the use of brakes has the ability to provide some level of charge to the batteries, thus reducing frictional brake use and extending the electric drive range. In SCRA such an advantage may be significant, depending on the specifics of the technology used. Disadvantages of electric drive (not including hybrid) include the mass, charge capacity, recharge time, storage space, and cost of this ‘fuel storage’ in the form of batteries (ultra-capacitors are beyond the scope of this discussion), as well as the quietness of operation potentially leading to accidents between the vehicle and pedestrians/cyclists. Commercial electric power is currently available at the existing shuttle service area. Gasoline Fuel: This fuel is used commonly in highway legal vehicles, and is recognized as a mature technology. The advantages of using this fuel with modern catalyst-equipped exhaust aftertreatment and modern engine designs include low engine exhaust emissions of pollutants (not including carbon dioxide), requirement for spark ignition (resulting in no diesel ‘clatter’ noise), and common availability of fuel and the vehicle types/manufacturer which make equipment using this fuel. Disadvantages of using this fuel include the potential for accidental fuel spillage with resulting fire and/or environmental costs. Diesel Fuel: This fuel is used commonly in highway legal vehicles, and is recognized as a mature technology. The advantages of using this fuel with modern catalyst-equipped exhaust aftertreatment and modern engine designs include low engine exhaust emissions of pollutants (not



including carbon dioxide), generally long engine life, good low speed power production, generally superior fuel economy, and common availability of fuel and the vehicle types/manufacturer which make equipment using this fuel. Disadvantages of using this fuel include the requirement for compression ignition (resulting in diesel ‘clatter’ noise), and the potential for accidental fuel spillage with resulting fire and/or environmental costs. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (aka Propane) Fuel: This fuel is used commonly but in a minority of highway legal vehicles, and is recognized as a mature technology. The advantages of using this fuel include low engine exhaust emissions of pollutants (not including carbon dioxide), requirement for spark ignition (resulting in no diesel ‘clatter’ noise), and less concern about fuel spills. Disadvantages of using this fuel include the requirement of a large on-site storage tank or finding an off-site refueling location that has propane available, and the ability of liquid propane to cause frostbite when released as during refueling or fuel leakage. For SCRA shuttle vehicles propane is not available without driving toward the urban area of Tucson, or constructing a propane storage tank at the shuttle maintenance facility at SCRA. Direct and Indirect Effects - Safety This alternative would ensure a practical level of safety equivalent to the same level of safety visitors experience when driving to Sabino Canyon in a commercially manufactured motor vehicle. This would be ensured through the requirement that the design of the shuttle vehicles must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and continued maintenance of the vehicles must maintain them in that condition. This does not imply, nor do we assume that the safety standards inherent in current private motor vehicles will apply to the shuttle vehicles, but rather that FMVSS will provide an acceptable level of passenger safety in whatever motor vehicles are legally being produced for use on public roads under federal laws and regulations. Alternative 3 - Current Operations Direct and Indirect Effects - Noise The existing fleet of shuttle vehicles consist of gasoline and diesel powered equipment and various unpowered towed trailers. All existing equipment appears to be operating within normal parameters per its design. The existing fleet of vehicles are what has generated the noise issue. Measured Noise Levels of Existing Shuttle Fleet and Comparison Vehicle: All of the following data were collected on July 5, 2016 between 2 and 4 PM at Sabino Canyon. Ambient temperature was approximately 100 F. A foam wind shield was attached to the sound level meter and measurements were purposely collected during periods of relatively calm air at the measurement site. The shuttle vehicles were mostly or completely empty of riders with the exception of the driver. Data was collected with a new Reed-brand R8050 sound level meter using ‘fast’ response with A-weighting and on the ‘Lo’ scale (30-100 dB range), hand-held at chest height. All sound measurements were made with a distance to sound source of 50 feet. No narration was occurring during the measurements. Near the Shuttle Fee Station, Idling:

Diesel Engine: 60 dBA Gasoline Engine: Not collected Ambient Sound Near the Shuttle Fee Station: 44 dBA



Near the Shuttle Fee Station, Driving the Turnaround Loop: Diesel Engine: 66 dBA Gasoline Engine: 56 dBA Ambient Sound Near the Shuttle Fee Station: 44 dBA

At Junction of Road 100/100A, Shuttle Drive-by on Road 100:

Diesel Engine Running Downhill: 66 dBA Gasoline Engine: Not collected. Ambient Sound: 38 dBA

At Junction of Road 100A/100B, Shuttle Drive-by on Road 100A:

Gasoline Engine Running Uphill: 70 dBA Diesel Engine: Not collected. Ambient Sound: 37 dBA.

At Middle of Deadman Hill, on Road 100:

Diesel Engine Running Uphill: 69 dBA Gasoline Engine: Not collected. Ambient Sound: 37 dBA. Ford Escape Idling w/Cooling Fan & A/C @ Max: 55 dBA.

Diesel shuttle noise levels ranged from 60-69 dBA depending on the canyon terrain. The ambient sound within the canyon ranged from 36 dBA to 44 dBA depending on the location taken and the proximity to more crowded places such as near the shuttle fee station. Individual dBA levels for different noise sources cannot be directly summed to provide the combined sound level. For example, two noise sources each producing equal dBA ratings at a single location will produce a combined noise level 3 dBA greater than either sound alone. When two noise sources differ by 10 dBA, the combined noise level will be 0.4 dBA greater than the louder source alone. (from: Grand Canyon N.P. South Rim Visitor Transportation Plan E.A./Assessment of Effect, cited therein as “USFS 2007”) Our assumption is that unless there are other loud nearby sounds (immature humans crying, military aircraft overhead, etc.) common Sabino Canyon ambient and generalized crowd noise will increase measured shuttle noise by approximately 0.4 dBA. An increase of 0.4 dBA is not perceptible to humans. Therefore existing shuttle noise is, and will continue to be, the overwhelming source of noise within the listening area of the operating shuttles and under the control of the USFS. Additionally, the measured noise levels are peak noise levels, not average noise levels, for measurement locations. Visitor expectations of a natural-quiet condition in SCRA will still be maintained on an average basis, regardless of peak noise from shuttle vehicles, as long as that peak noise occurs infrequently. If we assume that the average shuttle speed is half the shuttle speed limit—which is 15 mph—then any single location above the junction of Sabino and the Bear Canyon roads will be within 500 feet of a shuttle 1/20th of the time during the period of shuttle operations each day. That means any single person would be within reasonable hearing distance of a shuttle about three minutes out of every hour during the portion of the day during which shuttle operations occur. We assume that qualifies as infrequently. Direct and Indirect Effects – Air Quality Shuttle engine exhaust is emitted by the existing shuttle fleet whenever the shuttles are idling or driving. We assume that the smell of the shuttle engine exhaust is both objectionable for directly



aesthetic reasons (objectionable smell), as well as the assumed perception that such an exhaust smell is, likely is, or possibly is an indicator that a violation of engine exhaust emissions regulations exists or is otherwise a cause for human health concern or environmental concern. Since the existing shuttle fleet is operated outside the Emissions Control Area of Pima County, there are no regulatory sideboards and therefore no technical, legal or regulatory engine exhaust exceedances occurring. This does not mean that the current shuttle exhaust is therefore ‘healthy’ for humans or the natural environment because all engine exhaust contains pollutants to some degree. It merely means that there are no existing legal, regulatory or permitted avenues available to force a reduction in whatever is in the existing shuttle engine exhaust. The existing fleet of shuttle vehicles consist of gasoline and diesel powered motor vehicles and various unpowered towed trailers. The diesels appear to be 1980s models whereas the gasoline fueled vehicles appear to be 1970s carbureted models. It is unlikely that the existing equipment was sold new with, or are currently equipped with, functioning catalyst-equipped engine exhaust after-treatment systems. All existing equipment appears to be operating within normal parameters per its design. The current shuttle fleet diesel exhaust is typical of 1980s era diesels, and was and still is considered to be an objectionable smell by most individuals. Engine exhaust emissions laws, regulations and technology have advanced significantly since the 1980s, especially for highway-legal diesel engines. Specifically, the aesthetic quality of diesel engine exhaust, with the installation of diesel oxidation catalyst after-treatment systems has become a non-issue if the diesel engine is operated as designed. Similarly, since the introduction of three-way catalysts for gasoline engine exhaust after-treatment systems and the common use of low-sulfur gasoline the aesthetics of gasoline fueled engines has become a non-issue. Direct and Indirect Effects - Safety The common metric for public road vehicle safety is that the vehicles be designed to meet federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of their manufacture, and that they be maintained to remain in that functional condition. It is not known if the trailers used in the current shuttle operations were considered public road vehicles—and manufactured to—federal motor vehicle safety standards. Cumulative Effects The aforementioned discussion pertains to motorized transportation relative to the facts and limitations of mechanical technology. Mechanical transportation results in effects to other resource areas which are described by resource area within this analysis. However, since there are no effects to the technology itself there are no cumulative effects.



3.4 Air, Soil, and Water 3.4.1 Affected Environment Sabino Canyon Watershed drains much of the south-facing slopes of the Santa Catalina Mountains. Mount Lemmon, at 9,157 feet elevation, is the highest point in the Santa Catalina Mountains and the Sabino Canyon Watershed. The lowest point is 2,490 feet at the confluence of Sabino Creek and Tanque Verde Wash (Watershed Restoration Action Plan Sabino Canyon Watershed, 2011). The Santa Catalina Mountains are within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1931), characterized by long and relatively narrow northerly trending mountain ranges separated by wide and generally flat arid valleys. The transition is usually abrupt and mountain relief is quite high. The Basin and Range topography is the result of extensional crustal thinning that began 20-25 million years ago and may still be taking place. This extension caused crustal faulting, with down-dropping of the valleys and tilting of the mountain ranges. In some ranges, including the Santa Catalinas, metamorphic core complexes have been exposed. The Rincon-Catalina metamorphic core complex is the largest in the entire Basin and Range Region. This core complex has been uplifted during basin and range extension due to isostatic processes (Spencer, 2006), which thus give these mountain ranges much greater elevations than could be explained with only extensional faulting concepts (Watershed Restoration Action Plan Sabino Canyon Watershed, 2011). On the south flank of this metamorphic core uplift is the forerange arch, consisting of granitic and metamorphic rocks dipping both to the north into Sabino Basin (Drewes, 1996), and to the south toward the Tucson valley. Shearing, faulting, and subsequent erosion along the shear zone between the rocks of the Catalina dome and the forerange arch has created Sabino Basin and consequent stream drainage patterns of the Sabino Canyon Watershed (Watershed Restoration Action Plan Sabino Canyon Watershed, 2011). A General Ecosystem Survey (GES) was completed by the Forest Service in 1991 and covers the entire project area (USDA, 1991). The GES units within the project area are 303 and 235. See Table 3 below regarding the properties of these GES units. Table 4 - General Ecosystem Survey Units Descriptions

GES UNIT

Average Slope %

Surface Texture/ Modifier

Soil Depth Erosion Hazard

Percent of Area

235 0% to 15%

Very gravelly

sandy loam Deep Slight 55.9%

303 40% to 120%

Extremely cobbly sandy

loam

Shallow to Moderately

Deep Moderate 44.1%

GES unit 303 is predominantly in the upper reaches of the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. GES unit 235 is primarily in the lower reaches of the canyon. See map below showing aerial extent of the units.



Figure 2 – General Ecosystem Survey (GES) Units in Sabino Canyon

The eleven vented low water crossings in the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area commonly collect sediment behind them. During flood events, flood water often goes over the top of these structures, and collects on the crossings themselves. Shuttle personnel remove this sediment accumulation. The sediment is deposited either up or downstream of the crossing, and is deposited in or adjacent to the ordinary high water mark of the creek. Water Quantity The Sabino Canyon Recreation Area is located within the 5th code watershed of Tanque Verde Creek – Rillito River, and within the 6th code watersheds of Lower Tanque Verde Creek, Sabino Creek, and Bear Creek. See map below of the 6th code watershed locations.



Figure 3 – 6th Code Watershed Boundaries and Sabino Canyon

According to the Western Regional Climate Center at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmaz.html, the average precipitation for the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area is about 13 inches (1941-2002). However, rainfall in the Sabino Canyon area can vary substantially from year to year. Summer rainfall is characterized by localized thundershowers that generally occur from July through September. These rainfall events can be more intense than winter storms but are generally of shorter duration and smaller aerial extent. Winter rainfall is characterized by more widespread, gentle showers that generally occur from December through March. Sabino Creek is one of only two perennial streams flowing into the Tucson Basin (the other being Cienega Creek). It collects snow or rain from canyons (including Marshall Gulch, Lemmon Canyon, West Fork Sabino Canyon, Spencer Canyon, Rose Canyon, Pine Canyon, Palisade Canyon, and Box Camp Canyon) and water from natural springs (including Huntsman, Box, Apache, and Mud). Water drops nearly 6,000 feet along its 15 mile course from Summerhaven, near the peak of Mount Lemmon, to Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. Beyond Sabino Canyon, Sabino Creek flows into Tanque Verde Creek and several other rivers until it reaches the

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmaz.html



Colorado River and flows into the Gulf of California, roughly 400 miles away (Feasibility Study 2010). Upper Sabino Creek has perennial water flow, while Lower Sabino Creek has intermittent flow. According to US Army Corp of Engineers (2013), ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams are defined as follows:

Ephemeral stream: An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow. Intermittent stream: An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow.

Perennial stream: A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow.

Flood events in Sabino Creek can bring large flows through the canyon, particularly during the summer monsoon months. Also, rainfall events elsewhere in the Santa Catalina Mountains can cause significant flood events in Sabino Canyon, even if it’s not raining in Sabino Canyon itself. Rainfall in late July and early August 2006 caused the largest floodwater flow in Sabino Creek in the recorded history of Sabino Canyon. The recorded peak flow was 15,700 cubic feet per second (cfs). The flood event caused over 240 debris flows. Prior to the 2006 flood event, only five debris flows were known to have occurred in the Santa Catalina Mountains. Debris flows can carry anything from sediment to boulders to trees, and can cause extensive damage where they occur (Feasibility Study 2010). Water Quality Water quality in the state is assessed by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Categories used by ADEQ for describing the status of water quality in the states’ rivers, streams and lakes are identified in Table 4 below.



Table 5 – Water Quality Categories Category Definition 1 Attaining all designated uses 2 Attaining some designated uses, and no use is threatened or impaired 3 Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated use is

attained 4 Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but a Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) analysis is not necessary because: 4A A TMDL has already been completed 4B Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in

attainment of the water quality standard 4C The impairment is caused by pollution but not a pollutant, or 4N The impairment is solely by natural conditions (an Arizona list only) 5 Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant, and a

TMDL needs to be developed or revised Sabino Creek is monitored by ADEQ. See map below, which can be found at http://legacy.azdeq.gov/function/programs/gis.html. Sabino Creek is in Category 3 – Inconclusive. So, no impairment has been attributed to the creek, but the data is inconclusive or insufficient at this time. Possible sources of water contaminants within Sabino Creek from the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area include oil and other fluid leaks from vehicles. Also, visitors to the riparian areas leave trash and waste behind in the riparian areas and in Sabino Creek, and although maintenance of the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area includes picking up trash, it is not possible to collect everything left behind. Visitors to the riparian areas also trample riparian vegetation and cause soil compaction from frequent social trail/riparian area use. This can cause an increased potential for soil erosion and streambank erosion during rainfall events (Baker, 2004). Lastly, sediment removed from the low water crossings and placed within reach of the creek and any soil removed from the land through erosion that ends up in the creek adds to sediment that can be carried by the creek. Any contaminants contained within that sediment are also now added to the creek.

http://legacy.azdeq.gov/function/programs/gis.html



Figure 4 - ADEQ Water Quality Map

Watershed Condition In 2010, a national effort was launched to assess the condition of all 6th code watersheds on National Forest System (NFS) lands. 6th code watersheds are typically 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size. Twelve indicators were assessed including condition of: water quality, water quantity, aquatic habitat, aquatic biota, riparian/wetland vegetation, road and trail network, soil, fire regime or wildfire effects, rangeland vegetation, terrestrial invasive species, forest cover, and forest health. See Tables 5, 6, and 7 below, which show the results of these assessments for the Lower Tanque Verde Creek Watershed, the Sabino Creek Watershed, and the Bear Creek Watershed, respectively. Activities within these watersheds, including those within the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, can affect these indicators.



Table 6 - Tanque Verde Creek Watershed Condition Assessment Indicator Assessment Aquatic Biota Fair Riparian/Wetland Vegetation Fair Water Quality Good Water Quantity Good Aquatic Habitat Good Roads and Trails Good Soil Condition Fair Forest Cover Good Forest Health Good Terrestrial Invasive Species Poor Rangeland Vegetation Good Fire Effects/Fire Regime Fair

Table 7 - Sabino Creek Watershed Condition Assessment

Indicator Assessment Aquatic Biota Fair Riparian/Wetland Vegetation Fair Water Quality Good Water Quantity Fair Aquatic Habitat Fair Roads and Trails Fair Soil Condition Fair Forest Cover Poor Forest Health Good Terrestrial Invasive Species Poor Rangeland Vegetation Fair Fire Effects/Fire Regime Poor

Table 8 - Bear Creek Watershed Condition Assessment

Indicator Assessment Aquatic Biota Good Riparian/Wetland Vegetation Fair Water Quality Fair Water Quantity Poor Aquatic Habitat Fair Roads and Trails Fair Soil Condition Poor Forest Cover Poor Forest Health Good Terrestrial Invasive Species Poor Rangeland Vegetation Fair Fire Effects/Fire Regime Poor

Each 6th code watershed was given an overall rating of Functioning Properly, Functioning at Risk, or Functionally Impaired based on the indicator scores. The watershed conditions are Functioning Properly for the Lower Tanque Verde Creek Watershed, and Functioning at Risk for the Sabino Creek and Bear Creek Watersheds. See map below, which can be found at



http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nfs/nrm/wcatt/WCFMapviewer/. For a reference of where these watersheds can be found within the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, please see map above entitled “Sabino Canyon 6th Code Watershed Map”. Figure 5 – Watershed Conditions

Riparian Areas Riparian areas occupy approximately one percent of the area managed by the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service (roughly 22.5 million acres in 11 National Forests and Grasslands in Arizona, New Mexico, and western Oklahoma and Texas) (Lafayette et al. 1996). They have importance disproportionate to their limited extent, especially in the arid Southwest. This importance is a function of their diverse and productive vegetative composition and structure, their linkage between upland and aquatic ecosystems, and their linkage between upper and lower watershed areas. Some of their most important functions include: 1) providing fish and wildlife habitat, 2) improving water quality by filtering and retaining sediment and nutrients transported by runoff from terrestrial uplands, 3) stabilizing stream banks and floodplain surfaces, 4) increasing the volume and duration of base flows by replenishing local alluvial aquifers, and 5) reducing flood flow velocities and filtering sediments and nutrients transported by flood flows during over bank flow events. Brinson et al. (1981) estimates that the percentage of riparian areas that have been altered in the United States ranges from 70 to 90 percent. The riparian areas within the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area are popular with visitors due to cooler temperatures and the availability of water. However, due to the presence of humans, trampling of riparian vegetation, compaction, and trash left behind occurs in some locations within the riparian areas. Native vegetation along Sabino Creek includes cottonwoods, willows, ashes, and elderberries, among other native trees. Shrubs consist of water-loving plants such as buttonbushes, native cotton, white-ball acacia, desert honeysuckle, and many others (Feasibility Study 2010). However, non-native vegetation has also been identified within the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, and control measures have been implemented to manage these plants. Non-native vegetation that has been targeted for control includes Giant Reed and Buffelgrass.

http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nfs/nrm/wcatt/WCFMapviewer/



Air Quality Class 1 airsheds are granted special protections under the Clean Air Act. The Sabino Canyon Recreation Area is not located within a Class 1 airshed, although nearby Saguaro Wilderness is. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency given primary responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the Clean Air Act are met. A non-attainment area is any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. A maintenance area is an area that was designated non-attainment for one of these standards, but later met the standard. To ensure that air quality in the area continues to meet standards, states are required to develop and implement Maintenance State Implementation Plans. The Sabino Canyon Recreation Area is also not located within any non-attainment or maintenance areas for air quality, according to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). However, there is a carbon monoxide maintenance area within the Tucson area and a sulphur dioxide maintenance area encompassing Summerhaven that are located nearby. See map below which can be found at http://gisweb.azdeq.gov/arcgis/emaps/?topic=nonattain. Figure 6 - Air Quality Map

According to the EPA, carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted from combustion processes. The majority of carbon monoxide air quality issues arise from mobile sources (i.e. vehicles). Sulfur dioxide is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as “oxides of sulfur”. The largest sources of sulfur dioxide emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants and other industrial facilities.

http://gisweb.azdeq.gov/arcgis/emaps/?topic=nonattain



3.4.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative Effects Common to All Alternatives Air Quality The presence or absence of a shuttle, and how much it is used, will not cause changes in air quality for the area such that non-attainment areas, maintenance areas, or Class 1 airsheds would be altered. The 0 – 42 trips made by the shuttle per day will make a negligible overall impact on the air quality in the area when compared with the city of Tucson, which contains approximately 530,000 people according to the US Census Bureau, and associated resident drivers and tourist drivers. There are no additional effects to air quality that will be discussed in this analysis. System Trails System trails were installed to Forest Service standards, and include design features to prevent erosion. The design features include water bars, swales, retaining walls, and switchbacks on steeper slopes. These features are monitored and maintained to ensure that they perform as intended. Any evolving erosion issues are corrected by conducting needed maintenance. Therefore, it would be expected that changes in erosion on these trails from increases or decreases in trail use would be minimal. Any effects to water quality in Sabino Creek as a result of this erosion would also be negligible or non-existent. This is since 1) the trails were designed to handle heavy use and 2) the trails are monitored and maintained to prevent and correct erosion issues as they develop. As a result of trail design and maintenance, there are no expected differences between the alternatives in regards to system trail erosion and water quality impacts to Sabino Creek from that erosion. Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects In the absence of a tram, there would not be vehicular access to bring visitors to all portions of the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. As a result, access would be limited to pedestrian travel8. This would congregate more people into the lower reaches of the canyon due to shorter travel distance. As a result, the riparian areas in the lower part of the canyon would receive more visitation than current levels and the riparian areas in the upper canyon would receive less visitation than current levels. With more visitation in the lower part of the canyon, there would be an increased likelihood for the development and use of social trails to access and enjoy riparian areas. Social trails in the sandy riparian areas cause compaction, and also result in the trampling of some riparian vegetation. The result is that riparian vegetation is sparser along these trails and access points to the water. The increased compaction and reduced vegetation results in an increased potential for streambank erosion, an increased potential for rainfall to erode exposed soil, and therefore an increased potential for sediment introduction into streams (Baker et al. 2004). The effects to the riparian area would be limited to the area of damage, though any sediment introduced to the stream as a result would be carried downstream. Increased visitation would also result in a greater potential for more trash and other waste to be left behind or introduced directly into Sabino Creek. Although trash is collected through maintenance of Sabino Canyon Recreation

8 Bicycle traffic is limited to before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m., and bicycles are prohibited on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Typical bike use is for exercise on pavement only. Bicyclists rarely visit the creek, so they will not be discussed further in this report.



Area, it is not possible to collect everything. In consideration of these potential impacts to Sabino Creek, there would be an increased potential for water quality to not meet standards in the lower part of the canyon due to the increased visitation. This potential to not meet water quality standards would be expected to be greater during the peak use season from mid-December through June, and less during the off-peak season from July through mid-December. In the upper part of the canyon, the visitation effects to soil and water resources would be expected to be less than they are currently, since fewer people would be expected to travel the distance to visit the upper part of the canyon. There would therefore be a decrease in potential for water quality to not meet standards in the upper part of the canyon. No more shuttles would mean that there would be no more potential for water contamination of oil and other fluid from them during the crossing of the vented low water crossings where water is flowing on top of the vented low water crossing or during flood events where the flooded creek or rainfall running to the creek washes leaked fluid from the road. Although there may be some water quality improvements from this and increased probability for more water quality standards to be met, it would be expected that these improvements would be minimal in consideration that the volume of leaked oil and other fluids introduced directly to the creek from water crossings or left on the road and that can be washed into the creek are very small. With no more shuttles, and since oil and other fluids from them would no longer be on the road or vented low water crossings where they can be accessed by flood waters, the sediment build-up on the vented low water crossings would also not have the possibility to contain these contaminants from the shuttles. So, when sediment is cleared from the vented low water crossings, and even if it is placed where flood water can access it, those contaminants would not be introduced to Sabino Creek. However, as stated in the above paragraph, the amount of oil and other fluids that are leaked from the shuttle and can be washed into the creek are very small, so overall improvements to water quality would likewise be expected to be minimal. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 4 – Proposed Action with Early and Late Shuttle Trips From the perspective of soil and water resources, the effects discussed for alternatives 2 and 4 would be identical since two additional shuttle trips per day are not going to change effects to soil and water resources. Visitor use of riparian areas is expected to remain the same between the two alternatives. The early and late shuttle trips would primarily serve those accessing trails at the upper canyon at the start of the day or coming off at the end of the day. The majority would not be accessing the riparian areas. As for the shuttle trips, the two additional trips of the shuttle per day are not expected to contribute significant additional amounts of oil or other fluids that could contaminate Sabino Creek. The shuttles, as proposed with these two alternatives, would be newer and design features would be in place to reduce the potential for water contamination. (See design features in Chapter 2). Direct and Indirect Effects With a shuttle as proposed through Alternatives 2 and 4, people would be distributed as they currently are with the existing shuttle system. The shuttle would have the same number of stops, bringing the same maximum numbers of people into the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. However, the number of shuttles in use to carry the number of visitors may vary based on the capacity of the selected shuttle. Regardless, there would be the same availability of the shuttle, taking visitors to the same locations that it always has. Therefore, visitors can and would continue



to go to the same popular destinations and cause the same resource issues as compared to the existing condition. Since use of riparian areas is expected to remain the same as with the existing shuttle system, the damage to riparian areas from public visitation would also be expected to remain the same as with the current shuttle system. Compaction and loss of riparian vegetation would result in an increased potential for soil erosion and degradation of water quality, just the same as it has been. Also, trash and other waste introduction into Sabino Creek would remain the same. Therefore, the potential to meet or not meet water quality standards in regards to effects from human visitation of riparian areas would be the same with alternatives 2 and 4 as it is with the existing situation (alternative 3). As compared to the existing situation, there may be an increased number of shuttle trips made as a result of alternatives 2 and 4. All else being equal, this would indicate an increased potential for oil and other vehicle fluids to get into the creek. However, design features specified for alternatives 2 and 4 would greatly reduce this potential. (See design features in Chapter 2). These design features would reduce the potential for the introduction of contaminants from the shuttles into the creek. Also, alternatives 2 and 4 specify the use of newer vehicles. In general, newer vehicles have less mechanical problems, so the potential for contaminant introduction into streams would be reduced. However, this greatly depends on which vehicles are selected. In consideration of the design features and the use of newer vehicles, and even considering that there may be more trips by the shuttle through alternatives 2 and 4, the potential for oil and other fluid introduction into the creek would be expected to remain the same or decrease as compared to the existing situation. Therefore, water quality and the potential for meeting water quality standards would remain the same or be minimally improved. However, since the amount of vehicular fluids discussed here is very small, and therefore the differences between alternatives is very small, it would be expected that any improvement in water quality in regards to vehicular contaminants over the existing condition as a result of alternatives 2 and 4 would be minimal. As for sediment removed from the vented low water crossings, it would no longer be placed in the stream channel if alternatives 2 or 4 are selected. It will be removed from the site and placed in a location specified by the Forest Service. So, the sediment and any contaminants that it contains would no longer contaminate the creek either by sediment load or through the contaminants contained within the sediment. This would result in some improvements to water quality and potential to meet water quality standards. Alternative 3 – Current Operations Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects would be fairly limited with this alternative, since there would be no change in shuttle use over what is already occurring. However, the aging fleet of shuttles would continue to deteriorate, with a resulting increased potential over time for oil and other vehicle fluids to be introduced into Sabino Creek. There may be some detrimental effects to water quality from this and a decreased probability for water quality standards relating to these contaminants to be met. However, it would be expected that these impacts would be minimal in consideration that the volume of leaked oil and other fluids introduced directly to the creek from water crossings or left on the road and that can be washed into the creek, although greater than it is currently, would still be expected to be small in quantity.



Effects to riparian areas would be the same for Alternative 3 as it is for Alternatives 2 and 4. This is since there are no differences between the alternatives in regards to the number of shuttle stops or the maximum number of passengers that would be allowed. Therefore, visitor use of riparian areas is expected to be the same among these alternatives. Like Alternatives 2 and 4, compaction and loss of riparian vegetation would result in an increased potential for soil erosion and degradation of water quality, just the same as it has been. Also, trash and other waste introduction into Sabino Creek would remain the same due to the same numbers of people. Therefore, the potential to meet or not meet water quality standards in regards to effects from human visitation of riparian areas would be the same with Alternatives 2 and 4 as it is with keeping the existing shuttle (Alternative 3). Sediment would continue to be removed from the low water crossings through this alternative, and unlike Alternatives 2 and 4, there is no provision within Alternative 3 to place the sediment off site. If the current practices continue to be followed by the shuttle operator, then sediment from the crossings would continue to be placed within the stream channel, the same as is currently done. As the shuttles age, there will be a greater potential for oil and other fluid deposition on the road and low water crossings. Therefore, there will be a greater potential for the sediment on the low water crossings to contain these contaminants. So, as the sediment is placed within reach of Sabino Creek, these contaminants would be introduced to the creek, resulting in a minimal decrease in water quality and a minimal decrease in the potential for water quality standards relating to these contaminants to be met. Once again, these decreases would be expected to be minimal or even non-existent due to the volume of oil and other fluid involved. Sediment load introduced to the creek through removal of sediment on the low water crossings would remain the same as it currently is since the removal practices through this alternative will remain the same as is currently done. Cumulative Effects for all Alternatives Cumulative effects for this project will be considered for the 6th code watersheds of Sabino Creek, Bear Creek, and Lower Tanque Verde Creek. The Sabino Creek, Bear Creek, and Lower Tanque Verde Creek watersheds all contain areas in the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, and it can be reasonably be expected that activities within these watersheds, depending on the magnitude, could impact the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. These impacts could be from the introduction of contaminants into these watersheds such that the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area is impacted downstream of where these contaminants are introduced, increased erosion from projects in these watersheds that impact the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, projects that change water flow patterns or water use such that water flows into the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area are changed, or any other such project that can have impacts to the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. As for the scale of time, projects that can reasonably be expected to occur within the next twenty years will be considered, since this is the length of the proposed authorization for the shuttle system. Summerhaven activities including installation or maintenance of structures, facilities, or land rehabilitation measures, depending on the nature of the installation or maintenance, can have impacts to soil, water, and air resources within the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area. However, it is not foreseen that the proposed shuttle reauthorization and any additional shuttle trips proposed would result in significantly greater impacts to soil, water, or air resources in regards to these Summerhaven activities. Buffelgrass removal and eradication efforts can have impacts to soil erosion from exposed and disturbed soil in the short term, until the disturbed areas stabilize and vegetation is re-established. It can have short-term impacts to water quality from increased sediments and possible short or longer-term impacts from introduction of herbicides, depending on the herbicide selected and the



manner of its use. The reauthorization of the shuttle, and any additional planned shuttle trips, is not expected to significantly increase these impacts. Road and pavement maintenance may have the potential to increase short-term soil erosion if ground disturbance will be part of the maintenance activity, particularly on steeper slopes. However, maintenance on dirt roads to address erosion concerns would most likely decrease erosion in those cases. In areas where the road maintenance is close to a stream, there is an increased possibility of sediment reaching the stream, and impacting water quality in the short term. Any road maintenance where there is ground disturbance can cause a temporary increase in dust generation during this maintenance which can have effects to overall air quality in the area depending on project scale and measures used to control dust generation. Although there may be increases in shuttle trips as a result of alternatives 2 and 4, and a cessation of shuttle trips altogether with alternative 1, it is not expected that these changes, and the changes to road maintenance as a result, would have significant additional impacts to soil erosion or overall air quality. Neither would these changes significantly add to or detract from soil erosion or air quality effects of road projects occurring elsewhere in the affected watersheds. Small flood events have some effects to soil erosion and sedimentation in washes and streams that are short-lived in nature. There is also a short term increase in water quantity. Larger flood events can have more impacts to soil erosion and sedimentation, and larger short term increases in water quantity. Is not expected that the reauthorization of the shuttle would cause any significant increase in these factors over what already occurs. Firescape implementation can increase erosion in the short term if it results in significant decreases in ground cover or if the heat of the fire becomes such that hydrophobic soil conditions result. Ultimately, however, Firescape implementation seeks to minimize or eliminate both of these effects. In the long term, the vegetation re-establishment after a fire should reduce impacts to soil erosion. Soil erosion from hydrophobic soil conditions or decreases in ground cover can significantly increase sediment load in streams in the short term, until vegetation becomes established. Also, implementation work can cause a significant air quality impact in the short term from smoke. It is not expected that the reauthorization of the shuttle will cause significant changes to these impacts. It is not expected that the reauthorization of the shuttle will affect the parking lot and intersection in regards to soil, water, or air resources. USGS Gauging Station maintenance would likely cause only minimal impacts to water quality, and this would be in the short term while maintenance is occurring. The reauthorization of the shuttle, and any additional planned shuttle trips, is not expected to significantly increase these water quality impacts. The ramadas at the Cactus Picnic Area are used by visitors and groups, and are subject to the soil compaction that would normally be expected from heavy use of an area. Some of the ramadas at the Cactus Picnic Area will be maintained or replaced, which will be analyzed through a separate NEPA analysis prior to the work being completed. There will likely be some soil disturbance as a result of maintaining or replacing these ramadas, but overall effects to soil, water, and air resources from this maintenance is expected to be minimal. It is expected that visitor use of the Cactus Picnic Area would not change as a result of the shuttle reauthorization and additional trips of the shuttle. However, if the shuttle were to cease operations, as it would through Alternative 1, there would likely be an increase in the use of the Cactus Picnic Area since it is close to the parking area and wouldn’t require a lengthy hike to reach it. It is expected that impacts to soil, water, and air resources as a result of this additional visitation would be minimal over what



already occurs. Overall, there would be no significant additional effects to soil, water, or air resources as a result of the shuttle reauthorization (or not reauthorizing the shuttle) in regards to the Cactus Picnic Area. Recreation event permits and Sabino Canyon Volunteer Naturalist (SCVN) school events may cause minimal impacts to water and soil resources, depending on the nature of the event. These events are not expected to change in frequency or type as a result of the shuttle reauthorization. Therefore, there should be no additional impacts to water, soil, or air resources over what already exists from the reauthorization of the shuttle. However, if the shuttle ceases to operate in Sabino Canyon, as would happen with Alternative 1, the nature and location of some of these events may change in order to accommodate the lack of transport to an area of interest. These events would be less likely to occur in upper Sabino Canyon due to the hiking distance, and would therefore be more clustered in lower Sabino Canyon. Increased use of lower Sabino Canyon may cause an increased potential for water quality issues through effects discussed earlier in this report. The North Parking Lot is currently reserved for search and rescue operations. However, since it is not often used, there has been some consideration of making it an extra parking lot for Sabino Canyon Recreation Area (SCRA) visitors. There are some erosion concerns from water flow off of the North Parking Lot and also from the trail that leads from the parking lot to the main visitor center. If this lot and the trail see increased use from making the lot into a public parking lot, it is possible that the erosion problem could worsen if it is not addressed. The shuttle reauthorization and any planned additional trips would likely result in at least a sustained use of the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, which would mean that there would be continued consideration of making the North Parking Lot into a public lot. If the shuttle is not reauthorized, and if there is a resultant decrease in the number of visitors to the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, then the parking lot would be less likely to be converted to a public parking lot. As a result, the existing erosion would continue but would not worsen, at least not as a result of increased visitor use. Facility decommissioning may result in some ground disturbance, which can impact soil erosion and possibly water quality, depending on the location of the facility, in the short term until the affected ground stabilizes and vegetation is re-established. Such effects are expected to be minimal. The reauthorization of the shuttle (or not reauthorizing the shuttle) is not expected to cause significant increases in soil erosion and water quality issues over what may already occur. The Marshall Gulch renovation may cause some increased sedimentation in Sabino Creek in the short term due to construction activities and resulting bare soil until the construction site is rehabilitated post-construction and stabilizes. In the long term, the proposed renovation would reduce the sediment introduced into Sabino Creek through some of the proposed modifications, which include the replacement of some undersized culverts that are currently causing some scour erosion during higher flow events. In regards to the Sabino Shuttle, alternatives 2 and 4 would reduce sediment introduction into Sabino Creek since sediment deposited on the low water crossings would no longer be introduced into the Sabino Creek flow channel, but would instead be deposited off site. This would not be expected to cause significant additional impacts over the sediment introduced into Sabino Creek as a result of the Marshall Gulch renovation project.



3.5 Wildlife 3.5.1 Affected Environment - Threatened and Endangered Species There are three species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the project area, one with critical habitat that could potentially be affected by this project. Detailed descriptions of these species, their habitat, and their relationship to the project area can be found in the Biological Assessment for On-Going Operations of the Sabino Canyon Shuttle.

8 in this document lists the species analyzed, their listing status, whether they have critical habitat, and the effects determination. 3.5.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative - Threatened and Endangered Species Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 1, there would be no effects to species or their habitat from the elimination of shuttle operations within Sabino Canyon. The standard for beneficial effect under ESA is very high and requires that every aspect of an action contribute beneficially to a species. In the absence of a shuttle, recreational impacts would still occur and therefore a beneficial effect determination cannot be made to threatened and endangered species resulting in no effects under this alternative. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2-4) Direct and Indirect Effects In the biological assessment, effects to threatened and endangered species were only analyzed for on-going operations of the shuttle system, which is essentially the same actions that are proposed in Alternative 3. Because Alternative 3 would have the most potential effects out of the three action alternatives, the biological assessment focused on the on-going operations for this environmental analysis. The following table (Table 8) lists the species analyzed in the biological assessment and what the effects determination is for each species and its habitat. The information following the table summarizes the effects analysis and provides a rationale for the effects determinations for each listed species analyzed. The complete analysis and rationale is available in the biological assessment. The effects determinations are defined in the table as follows:

• MALAA (May affect, is likely to adversely affect) – if any adverse effect to listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of “is not likely to adversely affect”). In the event the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the listed species, but is also likely to cause some adverse effects, then the proposed action “is likely to adversely affect” the listed species. If incidental take is anticipated to occur because of the proposed action, a determination of “is likely to adversely affect” should be made. A determination of “is likely to adversely affect” requires the initiation of formal Section 7 consultation.



• MANLAA (May affect, is not likely to adversely affect) – the effects on listed species are expected to be discountable, or insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species. Insignificant effects are related to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgement, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur.

Table 9 – Summary of Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Species

Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status

Critical Habitat

Effects Determination

Gila Chub and Critical Habitat Gila intermedia Endangered Yes MALAA

Gila Topminnow Poeciliopsis o. occidentalis Endangered No MALAA

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Western U.S. distinct population segment)

Coccyzus americanus Threatened No MANLAA

Gila Chub and Gila Topminnow Determination of Effects Due to direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the shuttle operation along Sabino Creek, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 may affect, and will likely adversely affect the Gila Chub and Gila Topminnow. Rationale

Potential impacts to individuals, fry, or eggs from the wheels of vehicles at crossings that are inundated during higher flow events.

Potential impacts from spills of vehicle fuel, lubricants, coolant, or hydraulic fluid that enters the creek directly from the vehicles themselves or as polluted storm water runoff from spills that saturate portions of the paved road.

Potential effects to eggs and fry when sand is dumped into the creek downstream of low water crossing from clearing sediment off of the bridges after high flow events.

Cumulative effects from catastrophic wildfire events, dewatering of the lower end of the creek within the Tucson Basin, and ongoing recreational pressure in occupied habitat.

Gila Chub Critical Habitat Determination of Effects Due the direct effects to water quality in Sabino Creek, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 of this project may affect, and will likely adversely affect Primary Constituent Elements of Critical Habitat for Gila Chub. Rationale Spills of vehicle lubricants and fluids entering the creeks either directly from leaks, or

washed off of vehicle components when crossing water, or lifted off the road surface during storm events that place contaminated water into the creek.



The removal of sediment from the crossings and depositing it within the live stream and around the ordinary high water mark can impact water quality in the pools surrounding low water crossings.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo Determination of Effects Due to direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, this project may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the western yellow-billed cuckoo. Since no Critical Habitat occurs within the action area, this project will not have an effect on designated western yellow-billed cuckoo Critical Habitat. Rationale Potential disturbance during breeding season from noise and activity caused by shuttle

operations. Indirect effects from contamination of species food source (insects) by spilled lubricants

and fluids. Cumulative effects to species and habitat in the form of invasive exotic plants and

ongoing recreational pressure. Endangered Species Act Compliance A Biological Assessment for On-Going Operations of the Sabino Canyon Shuttle was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in February 2016 with the purpose of bringing on-going shuttle activities into compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Potential effects for Alternative 3 are expected to be the same as for the on-going shuttle activities, and the potential effects for Alternatives 2 and 4 will result in lesser effects, so the consultation for On-going Shuttle Activities will suffice for the NEPA decision. A Biological Opinion from the USFWS is expected to be released in September 2016. 3.5.3 Affected Environment - Regional Forester Sensitive Species Of the 76 sensitive wildlife species found on the Coronado National Forest, 15 species have habitat which can be found in the project area. Two of these species (Abert’s towhee (Melozone aberti) and hooded skunk (Mephitis macroura milleri)) are listed as Region 3 sensitive species because they are listed by the State of New Mexico as critically imperiled and imperiled, respectively. However, they are very common in the project area and within Arizona, and therefore, will not be discussed further. Out of the 72 sensitive plant species found on the Coronado National Forest, six sensitive plant species are thought to occur in the project area and were carried through a detailed analysis. Descriptions of the species analyzed for this project, their habitat, and their relationship to the project area are found in the biological evaluation. Table 9 below shows a summary of project effects to the 19 sensitive species that were carried through the analysis. 3.5.4 Summary of Effects by Alternative - Regional Forester Sensitive Species Alternative 1 – No Action In general, Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, would have a beneficial impact to the sensitive species in the project area. The elimination of shuttle operations in Sabino and Bear



Canyons would eliminate noise from the shuttle operation and the interpretive narration provided during the shuttle tour, eliminate leaks and spills of vehicle fuel and fluids into the creek, eliminate incidental mortality of individuals being hit by shuttle vehicles, and reduce the impacts associated with high recreational pressure in the canyon. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2-4) Direct and Indirect Effects The impacts to sensitive species associated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are very similar to each other. To measure and predict impacts to the sensitive species and their habitats in the project area, the following evaluation criteria were used: Noise levels in the Sabino and Bear Canyons from the shuttle operation, Potential for direct and indirect mortality from collisions with the shuttle bus, Potential for spills and leaks of fuels, lubricants, coolant, or hydraulic fluid into aquatic

habitat, and The number of visitors in the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area.

The defined effects area for any of the sensitive wildlife species analyzed for this project incorporates the six (6) miles of paved road along FSRs 100 and 100A in Sabino and Bear Canyons and extends to the canyon walls where noise from the shuttle bus is no longer audible. This analysis area is appropriate to analyze any incremental effects from the proposed actions of this project on species directly, indirectly or in conjunction with past, present, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions because any activities associated with this project are confined to the roadway where the shuttle bus would be operating. Incremental effects of proposed activities of this project to sensitive populations outside of this effects area would not be measurable. The effects of the actions in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be in effect for 20 years. Twenty years is the length of time that the shuttle system which is being analyzed would be authorized for operation. After 20 years, the effects from the proposed shuttle activity would either cease or would be reanalyzed. In general, shuttle operations would create potential for sensitive wildlife to mortality from being incidentally run over or hit by the shuttle buses. Extending the operations to include one early and one late shuttle in Alternative 4 would increase the chances of being hit for species that are more active during dusk and dawn, such as some bat and bird species. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the modernization of the shuttle service fleet to new vehicles with quieter engines and an internally-contained interpretive narration would reduce auditory impacts to non-shuttle users and nearby wildlife when compared to current operations. Sounds from the current shuttle tour operation and interpretive narrative have the potential to impact species’ ability to hunt, communicate, and avoid predators. Shuttle operations in Alternative 3 would create noise levels in the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area that are consistent with the current noise levels. The modernization of the shuttle fleet would severely reduce the current amount of leaks of fuel, hydraulic fluid, lubricants, or coolant from the shuttle into the creek or into areas that may pollute storm water runoff. Impacts to wildlife species have the potential to be greater for species that inhabit aquatic habitats (such as the Sabino Canyon damselfly) or for species which eat insects that have an aquatic life stage (such as Allen’s lappet-browed bat).



Impacts from recreational pressure associated with the shuttle operations serving up to 150,000 visitors annually range from minor impacts such as a temporary disturbance and the energy expended by giant spotted whiptails while avoiding people in the area to the potentially fatal impacts if a Sonoran desert tortoise is caused to void its bladder during the hotter months. Other impacts associated with recreational pressure include potential trampling along trails and streams (as with Pima Indian mallow), collection (as with Tumamoc globeberry), the spread of invasive plants (such as buffelgrass), and disturbance while roosting (as with the sensitive bat species). Effects to each sensitive species individually are shown in table 9 below. The effects determinations are defined in the table as follows: NI = No impact (no effect is expected), BI = Beneficial impact, MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward

federal listing or reduced viability for the population or species (effects are expected to be insignificant, or discountable).

In summary, the effects levels for each alternative will vary for each species. For ground dwellers who are subject to being run over or hit by a shuttle bus (i.e., giant spotted whiptail, Sonoran Desert tortoise, broad-billed hummingbird, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, varied bunting, sensitive bat species, Cetus skipper), the effects levels are least for Alternative 1, more for Alternative 2, still more for Alternative 3, and the most for Alternative 4. For species who are subject to effects from disturbance or vulnerable to potential spills (i.e., Sonoran Desert tortoise, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, varied bunting, sensitive bat species, Sabino Canyon damselfly), the comparative effects would be the least for Alternative 1, more for Alternative 2, still more for Alternative 4, and the greatest for Alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to sensitive species would be similar to the direct and indirect effects by ongoing and future recreation projects and events in the Sabino and Bear Canyons. Other activities which create unnatural noise in the canyons, such as Arizona Game and Fish helicopter use for bighorn sheep management and on-going pavement preservation on the administrative roads in Sabino and Bear Canyons will continue to result in the inadvertent disturbances to individuals in the project area. However these impacts, individually or cumulatively, will be localized, temporary, and of a magnitude that will not contribute to a loss of viability of wildlife species. The Catalina-Rincon FireScape will restore upland habitat in the semi-desert grassland community and improve ecosystem health and resilience, benefiting the sensitive plants and general habitat in the project area. Invasive weed treatments will also improve the surrounding habitat for both sensitive wildlife and plant species.



Table 10 – Summary of Project Effects to Sensitive Species Species Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Reptiles Giant Spotted Whiptail BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Sonoran Desert Tortoise BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Birds Broad-billed Hummingbird BI MIIH MIIH MIIH American Peregrine Falcon NI NI NI NI Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Varied Bunting BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Mammals Mexican Long-tongued Bat BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Allen’s Lappet-browed Bat BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Western Red Bat BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Western Yellow Bat BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Insects Sabino Canyon Damselfly BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Cetus Skipper BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Plants Southwestern Muhly BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Tumamoc Globeberry BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Trelease Agave NI NI NI NI Arizona Manihot NI NI NI NI Chihuahuan Sedge BI MIIH MIIH MIIH Pima Indian Mallow BI MIIH MIIH MIIH

3.5.5 Affected Environment – Management Indicator Species National Forest Management Act implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.19) and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2600 guidance require that forest plans identify certain vertebrate or invertebrate species as management indicator species, and that these species be monitored “in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent (FSM 2620.5).” In response to this direction, 33 management indicator species and one group (primary and secondary cavity nesters) in eight indicator groups are identified in Appendix G of the Coronado Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986, pages 128-129). Most of the 33 identified MIS were eliminated from consideration in this analysis because their known distributions are well outside of the project areas or the project areas do not contain suitable habitat for the species. The following table identifies those MIS that are known to or suspected to occur within the project area (Table 10). Detailed analysis for these species can be found in Appendix C of the biological evaluation.



Table 11 - Species Selected for MIS analysis for Sabino Canyon Management Indicator Group Species

Group 1 – Cavity Nesters Other Primary and Secondary Cavity Nesters Group 2 – Riparian Species Bell’s Vireo Group 3 – Species Needing Diversity White-tailed Deer Group 4 – Species Needing Herbaceous Cover White-tailed Deer

Group 5 – Species Needing Dense Canopy Bell’s Vireo

Group 6 – Game Species White-tailed Deer Desert Bighorn Sheep

Group 7 – Special Interest Species None Group 8 – Threatened and Endangered Species See Biological Assessment

3.5.6 Effects Analysis – Management Indicator Species Primary and Secondary Cavity Nesters Primary cavity nesters are those species that excavate and nest in cavities, whereas secondary cavity nesters use cavities excavated by primary cavity nesters. On the Forest, cavity nesters occur primarily within forested areas including riparian habitats, Madrean evergreen woodlands, coniferous forests, and in Sonoran desert habitats, like in the project area, that contain saguaro cactus (Carniegia gigantea). The forest plan did not quantify the amount of occupied habitat. At least 6 primary cavity nesters and approximately 30 secondary cavity nesters are found on the CNF. They are listed at the bottom of Table 1 in the 1986 Coronado Forest Plan. No monitoring of cavity nesting birds as a group occurs on the Forest. North American Breeding Bird Survey information for the Cavity Nester group in the Mexican Highlands physiographic region show slight but statistically insignificant declines for Ash-throated Flycatcher and Bewick’s Wren (USGS 2004). The trend for the Ladder-back Woodpecker indicates a slight, but statistically insignificant increase. Several cavity nesting species are detected during annual breeding bird survey routes and trends for some of these are reported by the U.S. Geological Survey. NABBS data for 1980-2003 in the Sierra Madre Occidental Region show significant downward trends for Northern Flicker and American Kestrel (USGS 2002). For all other primary or secondary cavity nesters, trends were not significant or no data were available. Since the Forest Plan was adopted in 1986, several large fires in the pine and mixed conifer plant communities have left thousands of dead standing trees in the Huachuca, Santa Catalina, Pinaleno and Chiricahua Mountains. In addition, insect infestations have resulted in the loss of thousands of acres of spruce-fir and mixed conifer trees on the Pinaleno Mountains. The result has been a substantial but unquantified increase in potential habitats (snags) for high elevation cavity-nesters. This project would not impact cavity nester habitat within Sabino and Bear Canyons as there are no habitat altering activities being proposed in any of the alternatives. Recreational pressure and noises associated with shuttle operations under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may impact individuals that occur within the project area, but would not have a substantial impact on indicator group. While other factors outside of Forest Service control (such as global climate change or habitat degradation on private land) may have negative effects on both primary and secondary cavity nesters, there would be no additive effects from Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 of this project that would affect viability or result in a trend towards federal listing for any of the populations or species.



Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii) Bell’s vireo is included in the Riparian Species and Species Needing Dense Canopy indicator groups (Groups 2 and 5). The species was selected to represent riparian understory condition at elevations below 4,400 feet. Bell’s vireos are widespread, breeding throughout central and southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico. They winter from Mexico south to Central America. This species occurs near rivers and desert washes with thick understory vegetation. On the Coronado National Forest, their distribution is limited to lower elevation mesquite thickets near the Forest boundary. Most high quality habitat for the species occurs off of the Forest at lower elevation river valleys between the mountains. No systematic surveys are conducted specifically for Bell’s vireos on the CNF; however, it is regularly detected during breeding bird surveys in southeastern Arizona. It is considered common along the San Pedro River (Taylor 1995). Morrison et al (1996) calculated a high relative abundance for the species where it was breeding in Florida Canyon in 1994. NABBS (USGS 2002) data for Bell’s vireo in Arizona indicate a very slight downward trend in the population for this species in Arizona since 1980. Using only data from the Sonoran desert, Bell’s vireo populations show an upward trend of 3.4%, based on a smaller sample. Populations in Arizona and northern Mexico are considered stable overall based on NABBS data (Deeble 2000). Habitats for the species occur primarily in lower elevation riparian areas in the Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, and Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Areas. By and large these are areas that are managed to preserve high valued biotic resources (Sycamore Canyon) or recreation values (Sabino Canyon) or both. These areas are generally excluded from grazing, wood cutting or other activities that would remove riparian vegetation. As a result, the limited potential habitat for the species is not thought to have changed significantly over the life of the plan. This project would not impact Bell’s vireo habitat within Sabino and Bear Canyons as there are no habitat altering activities being proposed in any of the alternatives. Recreational pressure and noises associated with shuttle operations under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may impact individuals that occur within the project area, but would not have a substantial impact on this species. While other factors outside of Forest Service control (such as global climate change, riparian habitat degradation on private land, or ground water extraction) may have negative effects on Bell’s vireo, there would be no additive effects from Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 of this project that would affect viability or result in a trend towards federal listing for the population or species.

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi) White-tailed deer is included in the Species Needing Diversity, Species Needing Herbaceous Cover and Game Species indicator groups (Groups 3, 4, and 6). The species was selected as a management indicator of light to moderate quality encinal oak and oak grassland habitats (USFS 1982). Coues white-tailed deer range from the mountain ranges of northern Mexico north through central and southeastern Arizona to the Mogollon Rim. They occur primarily in mixed oak woodlands and higher elevation semidesert grasslands and locally in pine forests and along riparian corridors (Ockenfels 1991). The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) conducts annual surveys of white-tailed deer to determine annual recruitment in order to set hunting permit numbers for the following season. The data are collected on the basis of a game management unit, but the majority of whitetail habitat in southeastern Arizona is found on the CNF. The Coronado Forest Plan identifies 1,430,071 acres of occupied habitat for Coues white-tailed deer. The amount of occupied habitat



has not changed significantly since 1986. Observational evidence tends to indicate that as mule deer populations decline, whitetails are moving into areas previously occupied by mule deer on the CNF (USDA Forest Service 2011). In 1999, AGFD estimated a total of 80,000 post-hunt adult deer in approximately 9,000 square miles of habitat statewide (AGFD 1999). Statewide population trended slightly downward through the mid 1990’s, but has recovered somewhat since then. This trend is thought to be related primarily to changes in the amount and timing of precipitation since the mid-1990’s and the subsequent effects on fawn survival. White-tailed deer on the CNF have followed this trend. Since 1986, fawn survival has declined somewhat throughout southeastern Arizona, but white-tailed deer populations in 1986 were at near record high levels and probably above the long-term carrying capacity of the habitat. Harvest levels (a rough surrogate for population levels) have trended upward since approximately 2001. This project would not impact white-tailed deer habitat within Sabino and Bear Canyons as there are no habitat altering activities being proposed in any of the alternatives. Recreational pressure and noises associated with shuttle operations under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may impact individuals that occur within the project area, but would not have a substantial impact on this species. While other factors outside of Forest Service control (such as global climate change, harvest levels, or precipitation patterns) may have negative effects on white-tailed deer, there would be no additive effects from Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 of this project that would affect viability or result in a trend towards federal listing for the population or species. Desert Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis deserti) Desert bighorn sheep are listed in the Game Species and Threatened and Endangered Species groups in the Forest Plan (Groups 6 and 8). Bighorns were endemic to the Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area (PRWA) of the Santa Catalina Mountains. It was selected as a management indicator because of its special habitat needs (rugged, open canopied mountains with scattered stands of grass and water) and sensitivity to dispersed recreation. The Forest Plan identified 72,458 acres of occupied habitat on the Forest. The bighorn population in the PRWA had declined over the past 15 years to the point where it was likely not viable. The reasons for the decline are the subject of a great deal of speculation and research, but it appears likely that a combination of urban encroachment, recreational disturbance, habitat fragmentation and predation are to blame. In 1996, the PRWA was closed to off-trail hiking and to dogs in an effort to minimize known disturbances to bighorn. This closure remains in effect. The Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society and Arizona Game and Fish Department are working together to reintroduce bighorn sheep into the Santa Catalina Mountains. This is a multi-year project that is currently ongoing. Two of the reintroduction release sites were in Sabino Canyon. As of May 25, 2016, 36 collared sheep are known to be alive. There could be as many as 45 uncollared sheep in this population as well, bringing the total potential population to 81 bighorn sheep. Uncollared sheep include those released without collars, those from the 2013 release whose collars have dropped off, and those born in the Santa Catalina Mountains (AGFD 2016). Recent mortalities from the reintroduction were from mountain lion predation and suspected disease (AGFD 2016). This project would not impact desert bighorn sheep habitat within Sabino and Bear Canyons as there are no habitat altering activities being proposed in any of the alternatives. However, recreational pressure and noises associated with shuttle operations under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will impact individuals that occur within the project area. However, the levels of noises and visitors to the project area will be consistent with the existing conditions where bighorns were



intentionally reintroduced. Additionally, these impacts will only occur in a small portion of the habitat available to desert bighorns. While other factors outside of Forest Service control (such as global climate change, diseases, predation, or urban development) may have negative effects on desert bighorn sheep, there would be no additive effects from Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 of this project that would further affect viability or result in a trend towards federal listing for the population or species.



3.6 Visual / Scenic Resources 3.6.1 Affected Environment Landscapes in the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area (SCRA) are characterized by Sonoran desert vegetation on terrain that varies from relatively flat near the visitor center, rugged canyons near the wilderness boundary, and rolling foothills in between. Common plants include saguaro cacti, palo verde and mesquite trees, and numerous shrubs and smaller cacti. Vegetation is generally well-spaced, forming a broken canopy, and vegetation colors are generally darker in color than soils. Along the creeks, vegetation is more abundant and includes large sycamore trees. Visitors come to the SCRA to enjoy the beautiful scenery, especially in the upper portions of the recreation area, which features dramatic canyon walls, lush vegetation, and a creek. Although nature and scenery are the primary attractions for visitors, the valued landscape also includes historic stone structures (including the vented low-water crossings), roads, trails, picnic sites, and many structures (including the visitor center and Lowell house complexes, restroom buildings, and shade ramadas). Scenery is generally in excellent condition. Modifications to the landscape that negatively impact scenery include the main visitor parking lot and administrative sites (including the USFS warehouse, the Southern Arizona Rescue Association site, and shuttle storage and maintenance area). Fortunately, these areas are relatively isolated and do not dominate recreation settings. Scenery is also impacted by vehicles throughout the recreation area, including the shuttle and support vehicles (see next paragraph), Sabino Canyon Volunteer Naturalist’s (a volunteer environmental educational support group) vehicles and buses, and Forest Service administrative vehicles. Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) refer to a measure of acceptable alteration to the naturally established landscape. VQOs are the result of the interaction between three elements: Variety Class (a measure of the distinctiveness of the landscape in the region), Sensitivity Levels (a measure of people's concerns for scenic quality as viewed from travelways and use areas), and Distance Zones (a measure of the distance a viewed area is from the observer). The SCRA is comprised mostly of Variety Class A (Distinctive), though parts of the lower bajada are Class B (Common). Roads within the SCRA are Sensitivity Level 1 (Highest Sensitivity) and most of the area is visible in the Foreground Distance Zone (within ½ mile). The result is that all of the SCRA has a VQO of Retention, which requires that management activities not be evident to the casual forest visitor. VQOs were established in the 1980s under the 1974 Visual Management System (VMS). The Coronado is in the process of transitioning to the newer Scenery Management System (SMS). The SMS includes Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) which will replace VQOs, and the SMS will be incorporated into the revised Forest Plan. Although on-the-ground maps for the two systems are different, the components of both systems are similar and the analysis for the proposed project yields the same results. To be consistent with the current Forest Plan, this report provides an analysis of the proposed project using the VMS and VQOs. According to the Forest Plan, the SCRA lies within Management Areas 3 and 3A. Scenic quality standards and guidelines for both require that "Visual quality objectives will be met" (Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1986).



3.6.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative None of the alternatives creates additional ground disturbance, removes facilities, or naturalizes sites, so there would be no effects from these activities. Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects The no action alternative would eliminate shuttle operations with the SCRA. For visitors who don’t ride the shuttle, this alternative would eliminate most of the negative impacts from the shuttle, including the sights, noise, and exhaust from vehicles and result in less intrusions on the natural setting. There would be no change in roads, ticket booth, shuttle stops, or the storage and maintenance yard. The more substantial effect of having no shuttle would be the failure to provide access into the SCRA’s scenery for up to 150,000 visitors. These people would not receive the benefits from being in a beautiful natural place and people who are unable to visit would be less likely to care about the SCRA and other public lands, which could lead to fewer constituents and ultimately reduced revenues for the forest and less ability to meet the Forest Service’s mission. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2-4) A shuttle system authorized for 20 years in the SCRA allows up to 150,000 people per year to enjoy the natural environments of Sabino and Bear Canyons and the surrounding wilderness. There are psychological and physiological benefits from viewing nature and scenery, which benefits society (USFS 1995). The shuttle provides access to visitors with limited time and/or mobility who would not otherwise be able to enjoy the scenery, and the experience helps instill an appreciation for the area, and likely other natural areas, which ultimately can help provide support for the Forest Service and other public lands. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action would best meet VQOs and provide scenery benefits. With the incorporation of design features, vehicles may have quieter and less polluting engines, there would be no narration noise to disturb visitors, and shuttle colors would blend into the environment, all of which would result in less intrusion on the scenic settings and more satisfied visitors. Additionally, if new shuttles were provided, they would be expected to better negotiate the vented low-water crossings and result in less damage to the historic stone structures. If the shuttles were less visually intrusive and if support vehicles parked in the loop road near the ticket booth were reduced or eliminated, scenic quality near the visitor center would improve. Alternative 3 – Current Operations Direct and Indirect Effects The shuttle, currently operated by Sabino Canyon Tours, Inc. (SCT), began running in 1978. Prior to this time, visitors were able to drive their private vehicles into Sabino and Bear Canyons. The shuttle system immediately improved scenic quality in the SCRA by eliminating the sights, sounds, and smells of private vehicles on Forest Service roads and parking areas throughout the recreation area. The closing of the SCRA to private vehicles also allowed for revegetation of many parking areas. However, a shuttle system is not without impacts to scenery. The primary effects from a shuttle system are: Roads Needed for Shuttle Operation. Although roads can have negative effects, those in

the SCRA are generally considered neutral to scenery because they provide visitor access



into the canyons and places from which visitors can enjoy the scenery. Roads in the SCRA are well-designed and maintained; negative impacts such as cuts and fills are minimized. The vented low-water crossings (historic bridges) along the roads are considered positive elements.

Ticket Booth Area and Shuttle Stops. The SCT ticket booth is part of the visitor information center complex and its building materials are consistent with numerous other buildings and structures in the area. Therefore, the booth has little or no negative impact. The shuttles and support vehicles parked in the road loop near the ticket booth intrude on the setting near the visitor information center. Shuttle stops throughout the SCRA include signs, benches, and trash bins. These facilities are modest, provide facilities valued by visitors, and generally blend well into the landscape.

Storage and Maintenance Yard. The storage and maintenance yard results in a larger impact to scenery (bare ground, fences, shuttle storage, etc.), but the area is far enough away from visitor viewing areas and well screened by vegetation, so the overall impact is minor.

Shuttle Vehicles Moving through the SCRA. During hours of operation, the shuttles themselves create scenic impacts as they pass through the SCRA, mainly for visitors who are not riding the shuttle. The shuttle vehicles are large and viewed up-close, and the Forest Service regularly receives complaints about the exhaust fumes and noise (both engine noise and narration). Though the impacts are unpleasant, there are no long-term or permanent impacts from shuttles to the SCRA scenery. Additionally, there are minor scenic impacts from shuttle damage to the vented low-water crossings and from lights on shuttles during after-dark operations.

Alternative 4 – Proposed Action with Early and Late Shuttle Trips Direct and Indirect Effects Effects from adding one morning and one evening shuttle would be nearly identical to the proposed action, with slightly more benefits to shuttle riders and slightly more impacts to non- shuttle riders. The early and late shuttles would allow hikers to better access additional high quality scenery beyond the SCRA. Cumulative Effects for all Alternatives The geographic and time boundaries for cumulative effects to scenery are, respectively, the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area and a duration of 20 years. Past and present actions have been described in Affected Environment. Reasonably foreseeable future actions that may contribute to scenery effects include: Projects that benefit scenery, including buffelgrass removal (which reduces the risk of

fires that can damage the landscape); road and pavement work (which maintains the condition of these facilities); Catalina Rincon Firescape (which will create a healthier forest and reduce the risk of damaging fires); and the possible new roundabout, at North Sabino Canyon Road and Sunrise Boulevard/Remount Place, and reconfiguring the entrance to the SCRA, both of which would result in slightly improved appearances in those areas.

Projects that would have only minor effects or would be neutral to scenery, including improvements to the north parking lot (there would be more cars parked here and possibly more facilities, but wouldn’t change the setting much and the area is far away and screened by vegetation from most visitors); replacement of three (3) ramadas and installation of one (1) new ramada in Cactus Picnic Area (which would not change the general setting in that area); and expanding the main parking lot (which would create



more asphalt, resulting in a negative effect, but would likely be balanced by adding trees within the parking lot, which would improve scenery).

Because past, present, and future actions, when combined with a shuttle, would not substantially alter scenic resources in the SCRA, and some would provide benefits, no cumulative effects from this project are expected.



3.7 Heritage Resources 3.7.1 Affected Environment Cultural resources in the SCRA include a variety of archaeological and historical sites created during the long course of human occupation and use of the area. These include past habitations, artifact scatters, rock art sites, buildings, and other properties that bear evidence of human activity and use, and have scientific, historic, and cultural importance. Native American sites consist of artifact scatters including materials from flaked stone tool manufacture, ground stone artifacts, and ceramics. Other site types include rock shelters, bedrock mortars, and rock art on bedrock outcrops and boulders. Site types from the Euro-American use of Sabino Canyon include structures and features associated with mining, recreation, and Forest Service administration. One historic mine has been recorded near Rattlesnake Canyon. During the 1930s a number of depression-era relief agencies, including the Emergency Relief Administration (ERA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), worked on various improvements within the canyon and the different types of facilities are as unique as each of the agencies. When Federal relief funds and labor became available during the Great Depression, it was natural that the site at the confluence of Rattlesnake Canyon and Sabino Canyon should be the first to be improved with picnic and camping facilities. Plans drawn in early 1934 proposed developing the area from Rattlesnake Canyon to what is now known as the "flood gate" by installing tables, fireplaces, registry boxes, and other improvements. Many of these still exist today, and they are among the oldest surviving Depression-era features in the canyon. Workers from ERA began work on a road up Sabino Canyon in 1934. They extended the road beyond the floodgates beginning in October of that year, and built the first low-water crossing shortly thereafter. All the low-water crossings (LWC) were designed to create a recreational pool as well as provide a stream crossing for the road. The LWC were constructed of native stone with a dip in the center for overflow during floods. The first four LWC, all completed by 1935, were built by ERA labor. The first and second LWC were made of solid masonry but the design was changed for the third crossing. The new design used masonry walls with rock fill. Workers from the WPA took over the construction of the upper section of the road in 1935. Meanwhile, the ERA laborers shifted their operations to Lower Sabino where they constructed many recreational facilities, including the dam in Lower Sabino Canyon. The dam was dedicated in 1938. In 1993, Don Ryden completed a study of the historical features in Sabino Canyon. Site AR03-05-05-209 was assigned to the series of 10 low-water crossings along Sabino Creek; they were determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of their engineering and workmanship qualities, and their association with the Depression-Era WPA work program. Makansi (2007) extended the site designation from the 10 separate low-water crossings to include the road with which they are associated both functionally and chronologically. While recognizing that the road surface has been modified since initial construction in the 1930s, the road, like the low-water crossings, retains historical significance and is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A because of its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, in particular the Depression-Era development of a still-functioning Recreation Area.



The CCC was also responsible for construction of the Lowell Administrative Site (Lowell Ranger Station, Ranger's Residence, and Garage/Tack Room) between 1933 and 1937. The Lowell Administrative Site has been little altered since construction and the buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3.7.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Assumptions: Less people in upper Sabino Canyon More pedestrian traffic within one mile of the parking lot.

Under the no action alternative, operation and maintenance of a shuttle system would not be authorized. Consequently, no shuttle services would be available along the six miles of paved roadway in the (SCRA). The vehicle storage yard (approximately one acre) and a space for providing information and selling tickets would not be permitted although these facilities would remain in place. Non-motorized transportation uses would remain unchanged and vehicle access would continue to be restricted. The existing paved roadway in Sabino and Bear Canyons would remain and routine maintenance would be completed by the Forest Service. Under this alternative, the lack of a shuttle system could reduce the potential impacts to the low-water crossings. Fewer vehicles in the canyon could result in fewer collisions with the stone piers located on either side of the low-water crossings. Under this alternative, fewer people in the canyon could lower the risk of vandalism to prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. However, the lack of a shuttle system may increase pedestrian traffic within one mile of the visitor center. Increased pedestrian traffic near Native American archaeological sites has the potential to increase vandalism. However, pedestrians will probably continue to use the established system trails and roadways in areas that have received disturbance for decades. Therefore, the likelihood for disturbance is minimal. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 4 – Proposed Action with Early and Late Shuttle Trips Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 would follow the design criteria described in the EA. The design criteria, developed to minimize adverse effects to significant cultural resources within the area of potential effect, states that “shuttle vehicles will stay within the clearing limits of the road and fit within all of the historic masonry low-water crossings.” The two extra daily trips proposed in Alternative 4 would incrementally increase the potential for resource damage, due to shuttle operation. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, shuttle service will be permitted within Sabino Canyon. The current shuttle operator uses 1970s/80s shuttle vehicles that require a wide turning radius, making it difficult to avoid collisions with historic masonry components of the ten low-water crossings. The shuttles and trailers have collided with the piers on low-water crossings #1 and #9



on three documented occasions. Additionally, there is no limit to the number of trailers per trip under this alternative, potentially increasing the chances of the current fleet colliding with the low-water crossings. Further infrastructure damage to the low-water crossings remains a possibility. However, under this alternative fewer vehicular trips would be made up the Canyon, reducing the number of potential collisions with the low-water crossings. These collisions are costly in terms of personnel time needed to assess and document the damage, submit consultation documents to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, and bill for repairs; as well as undertaking the physical repairs to the damaged low-water crossings, including contracting and coordination with repair crews and monitoring their work. The historic low-water crossings are a highly valued resource by visitors to Sabino Canyon, and their preservation has historically been a priority for the local community, especially Forest Service partner organizations. Under the National Historic Preservation Act, the Forest Service is mandated to preserve and protect the significant cultural and historic resources under its management. Continued damage to the low water crossings is likely to result in further reconstruction of the historic features, including replacement of historic materials. Alternative 3 – Current Operations Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of Alternative 3 would retain the existing commercially-operated shuttle system. Collisions with the low-water crossings have been documented in the past (discussed in Alternatives 2 and 4). These direct impacts would continue to occur. Repairs that meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for historic preservation would still be needed. Cumulative Effects for all Alternatives The geographic and time boundaries for cumulative effects to cultural resources are, respectively, the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area and 20 years (the length of proposed shuttle system operations). All previous projects (within the last 20 years) have been completed with a reasonable and good-faith effort to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and all future projects will also comply. Avoidance of adverse effects to cultural resources is expected for all present and foreseeable projects. Cumulative effects on cultural resources in the SCRA now and into the future may arise as a result natural disasters, vandalism, and/or accidents, not from project-related activities. In the past, historic properties have been damaged by natural causes (extreme flood events) and accidents due to poor driving. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the likelihood of cultural resource damage occurring to sites within the SCRA is negligible. Therefore, past, present, and future actions, when combined with a shuttle, would not substantially alter cultural resources in Sabino Canyon (and some would provide benefits), so no cumulative effects from this project are expected.



3.8 Environmental Justice Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Toward attaining environmental justice for all communities and persons in the United States, Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directed all Federal agencies to evaluate their proposed actions to determine the potential for disproportionate adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations. In the memorandum to heads of departments and agencies that accompanied Executive Order 12898, the President specifically recognized the importance of procedures under NEPA for identifying and addressing environmental justice concerns. The memorandum states that “each Federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by [NEPA].” In Pima County, minority groups present in a percentage greater than the Arizona state percentage are American Indian and Alaska Native persons and persons claiming two or more races. Table 11 shows the poverty rate for Pima County, Arizona, and the U.S. Most planning area counties have poverty rates above the State and national rates. Table 12 - Poverty Rate, 2010, Pima County

Location Poverty Rate Pima County (AZ) 16.4 Arizona 15.3 United States 13.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP03 Table 12 breaks down race and ethnicity for Pima County. Data for Arizona and the U.S. are also included to enable comparisons. With regard to race and ethnicity, Pima County has a larger percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents than the Nation; however, this trend is also present at the state level. Table 13 - Race and Ethnicity in Pima County

Location White Black

American Indian / Alaska Native Asian

Hawaiian / Pacific Islander

Some Other Race

Two or

More Races

Hispanic or

Latino Pima County (AZ)

74.3 3.5 3.3 2.6 0.2 12.3 3.7 34.6

Arizona 73.0 4.1 4.6 2.8 0.2 11.9 3.4 29.6 United States 72.4 12.6 0.9 4.8 0.2 6.2 2.9 16.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP-1 Pima County has a large share of minority residents and high poverty rates. This finding raises the likelihood of observing disproportionate adverse effects to low income and/or minority residents. However, an analysis of the decisions to be made under the alternatives did not identify environmental justice consequences. Since all alternatives continue to support similar levels of employment and income, none of the decisions are expected to exacerbate the poverty rate or



disproportionately worsen the economic well-being of low-income individuals. None of the alternatives are expected to disproportionately adversely affect racial and/or ethnic minority individuals. Implementation of any of the alternatives evaluated in this EA would not result in adverse impacts to environmental resources and socioeconomic conditions. Therefore, disproportionate direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts on low income or minority populations would not occur.


Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination At the onset of the environmental assessment (EA) process, the Santa Catalina Ranger District prepared and sent letters to relevant Federal, state, and county agencies, tribes, stakeholders and members of the public to introduce the proposed action and associated EA. The letters initiated coordination between the Forest Service and other governments and agencies that has and will continue throughout the EA process. During the EA process, formal consultation efforts occurred related to biological and cultural resources potentially affected by the proposed project. Agency consultation to support regulatory requirements will continue throughout the remainder of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The following Federal, state and local agencies, tribes and non-governmental organizations have been consulted or coordinated with during the development of this draft EA: 4.1 Local Government

Pima Association of Governments Pima County Department of Transportation Pima County Parks and Recreation Sun Tran

4.2 State and Other Federal Agencies Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Bureau of Land Management Saguaro National Park University of Arizona US Fish & Wildlife Service

4.3 Tribes Ak-Chin Indian Community Ft. Sill Apache Tribe Gila River Indian Community Hopi Tribe Mescalero Apache Tribe Pascua Yaqui Tribe Pueblo of Zuni Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community San Carlos Apache Tribe Tohono O’odham Nation White Mountain Apache Tribe Yavapai-Apache Nation

4.4 Others Center for Biological Diversity Friends of Sabino Canyon Sabino Canyon Tours, Inc. Sabino Canyon Volunteer Naturalists

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination


Santa Catalina Volunteer Patrol Sierra Club Sky Island Alliance Volpe National Transportation Systems Center


Chapter 5 – References

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1999. Wildlife 2006. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, Arizona. 91pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2016. Santa Catalina Bighorn Sheep Reintroduction Project

Update: April 28 – May 25, 2016. Retrieved from: https://portal.azgfd.stagingaz.gov/PortalImages/files/bighornSheep/Cat_BHS_Update_05272016_Final.pdf.

Arizona State Legislature. 2016. ARS Title 49-541. Retrieved from:

http://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=http://www.azleg.gov/ars/49/00541.htm

Arizona State Legislature. 2016. ARS Title 49-542. Retrieved from: http://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=http://www.azleg.gov/ars/49/00542.htm

Bellamy, Bryn. 2014. The Average MPH While Hiking. Retrieved from:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/434820-the-average-mph-while-hiking Born, K., & Bowen, R. 2016. Interview. Borrie, W., Davenport, M., Freimund, W., Manning, R. (2002). Assessing the Relationship

Between Desire Experiences and Support for Management Action at Yellowstone National Park Using Multiple Methods. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=soccon_pubs

Branch, M.C. et al. Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan Environment. Department of City

Planning, City of Los Angeles, 1970. Cissel, Richard. 2015. Sabino Canyon Vented Low Water Crossings Overtopping Frequency

(Draft). Deeble, B. 2000. Bells vireo (Vireo bellii): Species management abstract. The Nature

Conservancy. Arlington VA. 11 pp. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Final Rule. National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Federal Register Vol. No. 63, June 17, 1998, pp. 33913-33923. Retrieved from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1998/06/17/98-16003/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards

Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Regulations and

Requirements: Questions and Answer. National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). Retrieved from: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100LW9G.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000%20Thru%202005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C00THRU05%5CTXT%5C00000034%5CP100LW9G.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-

https://portal.azgfd.stagingaz.gov/PortalImages/files/bighornSheep/Cat_BHS_Update_05272016_Final.pdf

https://portal.azgfd.stagingaz.gov/PortalImages/files/bighornSheep/Cat_BHS_Update_05272016_Final.pdf



http://www.livestrong.com/article/434820-the-average-mph-while-hiking

http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=soccon_pubs

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1998/06/17/98-16003/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1998/06/17/98-16003/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100LW9G.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000%20Thru%202005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C00THRU05%5CTXT%5C00000034%5CP100LW9G.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=8








&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=8

Giordano, Robert. 2002. Exploring Visitor Experiences on Going-To-The-Sun Road in Glacier

National Park. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5569&context=etd

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 2010. Transportation Analysis and

Feasibility Study: Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Coronado National Forest. Lawson, S., Chamberlin, R., Choi, J., Swanson, B., Kiser, B., Newman, P., Monz, C., Pettebone,

D., & Gamble, L. Modeling the Effects of Shuttle Service on Transportation System Performance and Quality of Visitor Experience in Rocky Mountain National Park. Retrieved from: https://www.rsginc.com/sites/default/files/publications/101.Modeling%20the%20Effects%20of%20Shuttle%20Service%20on%20Transportation%20System%20Performance%20and%20Visitor%20Experience%20Quality%20in%20Rocky%20Mountain%20National%20Park.pdf

Lazaroff, David. 1993. Sabino Canyon: The Life of a Southwestern Oasis. University of Arizona

Press. Morrison, M.L., R.W. Mannan, L.L. Christopherson, L.S. Hall, and J.A. Martin. 1996.

Determining the status and trends of neotropical migrant bird populations in riparian vegetation in southeastern Arizona. Final Report. USFS-U of A Agreement No. CCS3-94-05-006. Tucson, Arizona.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2014. New Manufacturers Handbook:

Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. pp. 5-7.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Park Facility Management Division.

2014. National Long Rang Transportation Plan. Retrieved from: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/files/NLRTP_10-3.pdf

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. 2008. South Rim Visitor Transportation Plan Environmental Assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/trans.htm

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Zion National Park. 2010. Soundscape

Management Plan. Retrieved from: https://home.nps.gov/zion/learn/management/upload/ZNP-Soundscape-Plan_Sep_2010.pdf

Ockenfels, R.A., D.E. Brooks, and C.H. Lewis. 1991. General ecology of Coues white-tailed deer

in the Santa Rita Mountains. A final report. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, Arizona. Research Branch Technical Report No. 6. 73pp.




http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5569&context=etd

https://www.rsginc.com/sites/default/files/publications/101.Modeling%20the%20Effects%20of%20Shuttle%20Service%20on%20Transportation%20System%20Performance%20and%20Visitor%20Experience%20Quality%20in%20Rocky%20Mountain%20National%20Park.pdf




https://parkplanning.nps.gov/files/NLRTP_10-3.pdf

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/trans.htm

Chapter 6 – List of Preparers


Pima Association of Governments. 2012. 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.pagregion.com/Programs/TransportationPlanning/2040RegionalTransportationPlan

Powers, Dep. 2016. Advantages and Disadvantages of Customer Comment Cards. Retrieved

from: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7614665_advantages-disadvantages-customer-comment-cards.html

Steen, Scott. 2015. Connecting People to Forests. Retrieved from:

https://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/connecting-people-to-forests/ Taylor, R.C. 1995. Location checklist to the birds of the Huachuca Mountains and the upper San

Pedro River. Borderland Productions. Tucson, Arizona. 48pp. United States Code, 2013 Edition. Emissions Standards for New Motor Vehicles or New Motor

Vehicle Engines. Title 42, Chapter 85, Subchapter II, Part A, Sect 7521. U.S. Government Publishing Office. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapII-partA-sec7521.htm

University of Vermont. 2009. Indicators and Standards of Quality for the Visitor Experience on

the Denali Park Road. Park Studies Laboratory. Retrieved from: https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/nature/upload/Visitor%20Experience%20Draft%20Final%20Report_2009.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, the

Visual Management System, No. 462. USDA Forest Service. 1982. Wildlife and Fish. Pp 83-101 in Analysis of the management

situation for the Coronado National Forest Plan. Unpublished report. Coronado National Forest. Tucson, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 9,

59 p. USDA Forest Service. 1993. Sabino Canyon Recreation Concept Plan. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management,

USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 701. USDA Forest Service. Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources. 2010. Connecting

People with America’s Great Outdoors: A Framework for Sustainable Recreation. Retrieved from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346549.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Coronado National Forest Management Indicator Species Population

Status and Trends. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service – Southwest Region, Coronado National Forest, Tucson, Arizona.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality

Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide.

https://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/connecting-people-to-forests/

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapII-partA-sec7521.htm

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapII-partA-sec7521.htm

https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/nature/upload/Visitor%20Experience%20Draft%20Final%20Report_2009.pdf

https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/nature/upload/Visitor%20Experience%20Draft%20Final%20Report_2009.pdf

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346549.pdf



USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM). Retrieved from: http://apps.fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/nvum/results/A03005.aspx/Round3

USDA Forest Service. 2013. About Recreation Fees. Retrieved from:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346549.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2015. Sabino Canyon Sustainable Recreation Concept Plan. USDA Forest Service. 2016a. Temporary Area Closure for Coronado National Forest, Santa

Catalina Ranger District, Order Number 03-05-05-16-019. USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Summary of Sabino Canyon Recreation Area comments and

comments received on TripAdvisor. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 2002. The North American breeding bird survey

internet data set, 8 February 2002 Retrieved from: http://www.mp2- pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/retrieval.

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2010. Transportation Analysis and Feasibility Study: Sabino

Canyon Recreation Area Coronado National Forest. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

Weinzimmer, D., Newman, P., Taff, D., Benfield, J., Lynch, E., & Bell, P. 2014. Human

Responses to Simulated Noises in National Parks. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490400.2014.888022?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Valdez, Andrew. 2013. Shuttles, Trails and Transit: Alternative Transportation and Sustainable

Infrastructure in Sabino Canyon. Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highways, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Zeller, Janet. 2015. Accessibility Guidebook for Outfitter and Guides Operating on Public Lands.

USDA Forest Service. Retrieved from: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/Temp_AccessibilityGuidebookOutfitters-Guides%20_May2016.pdf

http://apps.fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/nvum/results/A03005.aspx/Round3

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346549.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490400.2014.888022?scroll=top&needAccess=true

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490400.2014.888022?scroll=top&needAccess=true

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/Temp_AccessibilityGuidebookOutfitters-Guides%20_May2016.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/Temp_AccessibilityGuidebookOutfitters-Guides%20_May2016.pdf



Following are the credentials of Forest Service resource specialists who contributed to the content of this document, in alphabetical order.

ANDREA SHORTSLEEVE Position: Wildlife Biologist, Vegetation Management Solutions Enterprise Unit Education: B.S., Wildlife Biology, McGill University M.S., Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University Experience: 13 years Contribution: Wildlife

CHRISTINA PEARSON Position: Invasive Species Coordinator, Santa Catalina RD, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Wildland Range Science, California State University (Chico) Experience: 15 years Contribution: Invasive Species

DAVID MEHALIC Position: Archaeologist, Coronado National Forest Education: PhD, Anthropology, University of Arizona Experience: 16 years Contribution: Heritage Resources

DEBBY KRIEGEL Position: Landscape Architect, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Animal Health Science, University of Arizona M.L.A., Landscape Architecture, University of Michigan Experience: 28 years Contribution: Visual/Scenic Resources

JENNIFER VARIN Position: Hydrologist, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Soil and Water Science, University of Arizona Experience: 20 years Contribution: Air, Soil, Water

JOSHUA TAIZ Position: Wildlife Biologist, Santa Catalina RD, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona Experience: 29 years Contribution: Wildlife

KATHY MAKANSI Position: Archaeologist, Coronado National Forest Education: B.A., Anthropology, University of California (Berkeley) M.A., Anthropology, California State University (Sacramento) Experience: 30 years Contribution: Heritage Resources



KENNETH BORN Position: District Ranger, Santa Catalina RD, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Public Planning (Environmental), Northern Arizona University M.A., Public Policy, Stony Brook University Experience: 17 years Contribution: Project Management

LYNETTE MILLER Position: NEPA Planner, Coronado National Forest Education: B.A., French Language and Literature, University of Pittsburgh B.A., International and Area Studies, University of Pittsburgh

M.P.A., Public Administration, University of Arizona Experience: 1 year Contribution: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review

MINDI LEHEW Position: Acting Environmental Coordinator, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Environmental Science, University of Arizona Graduate Certificate, Water Policy, University of Arizona M.S., Natural Resources, University of Arizona Experience: 6 years Contribution: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review

RACHAEL BIGGS Position: Forester, Santa Catalina RD, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Forestry, Northern Arizona University Experience: 7 years Contribution: Vegetation

RACHEL ANNE CARROLL Position: NEPA Assistant, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Public Agency Management, Northern Arizona University Experience: 12 years Contribution: Document editing

RACHAEL HOHL Position: Environmental Coordinator, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona

M.P.A., Public Administration, University of Arizona Experience: 20 years Contribution: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review

RUDOLPH BOWEN Position: Recreation Specialist, Santa Catalina RD, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Forestry, Northern Arizona University B.S., Parks and Recreation Management, Northern Arizona University M.P.A., Public Administration, Northern Arizona University M.B.A., Business Administration, Northern Arizona University Experience: 14 years Contribution: Recreation



SALEK SHAFIQULLAH Position: Hydrologist, Coronado National Forest Education: B.A., Geology, University of Arizona

R.G., Registered Professional Geologist, State of Arizona P.E., Professional Civil Engineer, State of Arizona

Experience: 24 years Contribution: Air, Soil, Water

TERRY AUSTIN Position: Data Management Specialist, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Business Management and Administration, University of Phoenix Experience: 34 years Contribution: Geographic Information System Support

WALT KEYES Position: Civil Engineer, Coronado National Forest Education: B.S., Geology, University of Arizona Experience: 30 years Contribution: Transportation


Appendix A – Overview Maps

Figure A.1 – Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, Santa Catalina Ranger District

Appendix A – Overview Maps


Figure A.2 – Sabino Canyon Recreation Area in Relation to Tucson, Arizona

EA Template ADD PROJECT NAME, FOREST NAME...

Documents

Transcript of EA Template ADD PROJECT NAME, FOREST NAME...