United States Department of Agriculture

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Kaibab Williams & Tusayan Forest Service National Forest Ranger Districts August 2016

USDA Non-Discrimination Policy Statement DR 4300.003 USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015) 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, employer and lender.

SOUTH ZONE GRASSLAND RESTORATION PROJECT Preliminary Environmental Assessment Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts Kaibab National Forest Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Officials: Danelle D. Harrison, District Ranger Williams Ranger District 742 S. Clover Rd Williams, AZ 86046

Christina Pearson, Acting District Ranger Tusayan Ranger District 176 Lincoln Log Loop Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

For Information, Contact: Roger Joos, Wildlife Biologist Williams Ranger District 742 S. Clover Rd Williams, AZ 86046 (928) 635-5600

For Electronic Documents, Visit: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44132

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Project Area ...... 1 Existing and Desired Conditions ...... 3 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 9 Management Direction ...... 9 Decision Framework ...... 10 Public Involvement ...... 10 Issues ...... 10 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 13 Introduction ...... 13 Process Used to Develop Alternatives ...... 13 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... 13 Project Design Criteria and Mitigations ...... 31 Monitoring ...... 35 Implementation ...... 38 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 39 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects ...... 41 Introduction ...... 41 Silviculture ...... 41 Fire and Fuels ...... 52 Wildlife ...... 61 Soils, Watershed, and Air...... 72 Cultural Resources ...... 101 Range ...... 109 Rare Plants ...... 116 Weeds ...... 135 Recreation and Visuals ...... 141 Chapter 4: Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 151 Cooperating Agencies ...... 151 Interdisciplinary Team ...... 151 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 151 Tribal Consultation...... 151 Other Persons Consulted ...... 153 Literature Cited ...... 155 Appendix A: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 163 Appendix B: Roads Proposed for Obliteration ...... 167

If you have special needs for size and color to view details of maps in this document, please contact the Williams Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, (928) 635-5600.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment i

Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action Introduction The Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts (South Zone) of the Kaibab National Forest (KNF) are proposing to implement thinning, prescribed burning, and other activities to restore the structure and function of grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland (also referred to as savanna) ecosystems in an effort to improve these ecosystems’ resilience to disturbance and changing climate regimes.

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to analyze the potential effects of activities proposed in this project on the natural and cultural resources of the KNF and surrounding lands and communities and determine whether these effects may significantly impact the quality of the human environment. If significant effects are found to be likely, further analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be conducted. By preparing this EA, the KNF is fulfilling Forest Service policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA is organized as follows:

Chapter 1. Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action—This chapter discusses the existing and desired conditions in the context of the project and the purpose of and need for the project resulting from a difference between the existing and desired conditions. It also summarizes the legal and regulatory context for the project, details how the KNF has involved the public and other agencies in developing the proposal, and discusses issues raised during the scoping phase of the project that helped frame the effects analysis and drove development of alternatives.

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives—This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed action and alternative methods (alternatives) for meeting the purpose of and need for the project, and a comparison of the components of the alternatives. This chapter also includes project design criteria and mitigation measures and outlines monitoring and adaptive management that would be conducted during and after implementation of the project.

Chapter 3. Environmental Effects—This chapter begins with a summary of the potential effects to different Forest resources, goods, and services of implementing the proposed action or alternatives. This is followed by a more detailed description of the affected environment and potential effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource, good, or service.

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination—This chapter lists Forest Service personnel involved in preparing this EA and agencies and other entities consulted during development of the project. It also summarizes the consultation with area tribes undertaken throughout the project development and analysis process.

Literature Cited—This section lists references consulted in the development of the EA.

Appendices—The appendices contain additional material that supports the analysis process.

Additional documentation, including specialist reports, correspondence, and public comment letters, can be found in the project record maintained by the Kaibab National Forest. These records are available for public review pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Project Area The South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area encompasses approximately 269,000 acres of the Williams Ranger District and 281,000 acres of the Tusayan Ranger District (figure 1-1). The project area consists of the

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 1 Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action portions of the South Zone located outside the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) project boundary and outside of Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. Within the Williams Ranger District, the project area is contained within portions of townships 19, 20. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 north, and ranges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 east and 1 and 2 west. Within the Tusayan Ranger District, the project area is contained within portions of townships 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 north, and ranges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 east and 1 west (Gila and Salt River Meridian). Elevation in the project area ranges from 6,200 to 7,700 feet. The area includes approximately 80,000 acres of grassland; 63,000 acres of pinyon-juniper grassland; 343,000 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland; 15,000 acres of pinyon- juniper sagebrush; 8,000 acres of shrub; and 46,000 acres of ponderosa pine vegetation communities.

The Williams Ranger District surrounds the city of Williams, approximately 35 miles west of the City of Flagstaff and approximately 60 miles south of Grand Canyon National Park. The majority of the Williams District is contained within Coconino County, with a small portion of the southwest area of the District falling within Yavapai County. The Tusayan Ranger District is located north of the Williams Ranger District and south of Grand Canyon National Park, and is contained entirely within Coconino County.

Figure 1-1. South Zone Grassland Restoration Project vicinity map

2 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action Existing and Desired Conditions

Existing Conditions The Southwestern landscape, including the South Zone of the KNF, has been greatly altered over the past century by the encroachment of woody plants, particularly juniper, pinyon, and ponderosa pine, into areas that were formerly grasslands and open pinyon-juniper grasslands. This encroachment ranges from a few to hundreds of trees per acre, with the highest level occurring along the transition zone from grassland to woodland. Across the South Zone, alligator, one-seed, and Utah juniper are the primary encroaching species. Many factors have played a role in this transition, including historical livestock grazing, fire suppression, changes in wildlife populations, and climate change. These factors have eliminated the vegetation necessary to carry low intensity surface fires across the landscape, thereby altering the natural fire regimes and allowing uncharacteristic forest succession to take place. Encroachment can alter water and nutrient cycling, impact soil integrity, and negatively impact wildlife habitat. See figures 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 for examples of tree encroachment on the South Zone of the KNF.

The encroachment of trees into grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands resulted partially from historical overgrazing. Livestock preferentially consume the more palatable species, which reduces competition and provides less palatable woody species the opportunity to become established (Humphrey 1958). Heavy grazing also reduced fine fuel loads to the point that fire frequency and intensity are reduced, thereby removing a natural source of control for woody species (Archer 1989). Range management on the KNF has changed dramatically over the past century. In the past, grazing was largely unregulated and the rangelands were typically grazed by cattle, sheep, and horses. The peak of grazing occurred during World War II when Congress demanded as much protein as possible from national rangelands. Since the 1970s, livestock numbers have steadily declined and rangeland improvements have been put in place to improve livestock distribution. The numbers of livestock grazed currently on the South Zone are a fraction of the numbers grazed during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Increases in the establishment of woody species following active fire suppression were recognized early in the 19th century (Merola-Zwartjes 2004). Although fire alone is not considered sufficient to prevent woody species encroachment, it is a critically important disturbance process. Human alteration of the natural fire regime through active suppression efforts has facilitated the spread of woody plants on the South Zone.

Prairie dog populations have been reduced on the South Zone, which may have also contributed to the encroachment of woody species. Prairie dogs and other associated herbivores such as pronghorn consume fruits of woody plants and remove the tops of woody plant seedlings, so the extirpation of these species may facilitate an increase in woody species in grasslands (Weltzin et al. 1997). Numerous authors (e.g. Knowles 1986, Krueger 1986, Wydeven and Dahlgren 1985) also discuss the preference of ungulates such as bison, pronghorn, elk, and livestock for vegetation within prairie dog colonies, presumably because of the increased value and palatability of the forage. Prairie dog translocation can be used to facilitate reestablishment of prairie dog populations in areas from which they have been extirpated (e.g. Dullum et al. 2005, Nelson and Theimer 2012).

Climate change may also play a role in woody species encroachment into grasslands. It has long been recognized that shrubs increase in grassland ecosystems in response to drought (Schlesinger et al. 1990).

Impaired soils are common in pinyon-juniper woodlands and in juniper-grassland transition areas. These soils have reduced nutrient cycling as a result of juniper encroachment, which reduces species diversity and decreases the amount of effective vegetative ground cover, leaving these areas at risk of accelerated erosion. Additionally, juniper encroachment increases canopy precipitation interception capacity, reducing the amount of precipitation reaching the ground. This reduces the moisture available for grasses and forbs and groundwater recharge. Covington and DeBano (1990) found that juniper trees extract nutrients from soil interspaces and concentrate those nutrients in soils under the tree canopies, primarily as a result of litter deposition. Breshears et al. (1995) found that junipers use inter-canopy and shallow water to a greater extent than pinyon pines.

Tree encroachment into grasslands and woodlands alters the structure and composition of other plant species, reduces sightlines for pronghorn antelope, and reduces or degrades suitable habitat for prairie dogs and other

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 3 Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action grassland and open woodland dependent wildlife species. For example, Rosenstock and Van Riper III (2001) found that in northern Arizona juniper encroachment degrades and reduces suitable nesting habitat for ground nesting birds.

With the occurrence of grassland and pinyon juniper grassland encroachment on the KNF, and in recognition of the important ecological roles grasslands provide, restoring grasslands by reducing tree encroachment and restoring natural process such as fire was identified as a “priority need for change” that drove development of the revised Land and Resource Management plan for the Kaibab National Forest (Forest Plan; USDA 2014a). The Forest Plan contains objectives to “reduce tree density to less than 10 percent on 5,000 to 10,000 acres of historic grasslands annually” and “modify fences and/or install crossings to facilitate pronghorn movement on 50 miles of fence within 10 years of plan approval” (p. 36).

Additionally, many of the pinyon-juniper communities on the Kaibab are currently denser than they were historically because of changes in wildfire occurrence (USDA 2014a). Although the Forest Plan does not set specific restoration objectives for pinyon-juniper communities, it provides guidance that “to achieve and maintain desired conditions, the Kaibab National Forest may thin or burn to reduce juniper densities to increase growth and vigor of understory species, reduce fuel loads, improve wildlife habitat, reduce vulnerability to pinyon Ips beetles, and increase herbaceous vegetation composition and cover” (p.15).

Figure 1-2. Repeat photograph of Laws Hill on the Williams Ranger District in 1868 (top) and 1988 (bottom). Note reduction of open area across much of the hillside.

4 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action

Figure 1-3. Repeat aerial photography of pinyon-juniper woodland and grassland areas showing woody species encroachment and infilling on the Williams Ranger District in 1961 (left) and 2013 (right).

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 5 Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action

Figure 1-4. Repeat aerial photography of pinyon-juniper woodland, grassland, and sagebrush shrubland areas showing woody species encroachment and infilling on the Tusayan Ranger District in 1949 (left) and 2013 (right).

6 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action Desired Conditions Desired conditions are the ecological and socioeconomic goals toward which management of the land and resources of the Kaibab National Forest is oriented. They are informed by multiple sources of information, ranging from local knowledge to direction provided by Nation-wide law, regulation, and policy. The Forest Plan synthesizes this information and sets out desired conditions for resources; uses, goods, and services; and management areas on the Forest. The Forest Plan outlines the following desired conditions related to this project. Additional resource-specific desired conditions can be found in Chapter 3 of this document and in the supporting resource specialist reports in the project record.

Desired Conditions for All Grasslands (p. 35) 1. Vegetation is dominated by herbaceous plants composed of a mix of native grasses and forbs. The structure, composition, and distribution of vegetation are within the range of natural variability and occur in natural patterns of abundance and diversity, which vary depending on soil type and microclimate. 2. Disturbance processes are similar to reference conditions and play a primary role in the function of the ecosystem. 3. In pronghorn habitat, understory vegetation provides cover for fawning. Vegetation cover is sufficient for small mammal foraging and songbird nesting. 4. Vegetation height and cover are sufficient to support the historic fire return interval. 5. Vegetation composition is within the natural range of variability and contains diverse native herbaceous plant species that provide nutrition for pronghorn and other species. 6. Tree and shrub canopy cover are each less than 10 percent.

Desired Conditions for Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grasslands (p. 38) 1. Vegetation height and canopy cover are sufficient to carry fire under low wind conditions to support a 10 to 30-year fire return interval.

Desired Conditions for Pinyon-juniper Grasslands (p. 13) 1. Pinyon-juniper grasslands are generally uneven-aged and open in appearance. Trees occur as individuals, but occasionally are in small groups and range from young to old. 2. Fires are typically low severity with a 0- to 35-year return interval (Fire Regime I).

Desired Conditions Common to All Pinyon-Juniper Communities (p. 12) 1. Pinyon-juniper communities occur as a shifting mosaic interspersed with openings across the landscape. The configuration of vegetation and openings provides foraging and browsing opportunities for wildlife, and enough sighting distance and hiding cover for pronghorn to escape predators. 2. There are opportunities for collecting forest products (firewood, pinyon nuts, posts, and poles, etc.) in a manner consistent with other desired conditions. 3. A robust crop of pinyon pine nuts is regularly produced.

Desired Conditions for Wildlife (p. 49) 1. Native wildlife species are distributed throughout their potential natural range. 2. Habitat is available at the appropriate spatial, temporal, compositional, and structural levels such that it provides adequate opportunity for breeding, feeding, nesting, and carrying out other critical life cycle needs for a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species. 3. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs provide forage, cover, fawning, and nesting sites. 4. Interconnected forest and grassland habitats allow for movement of wide ranging species and promote natural predator-prey relationships, particularly for strongly interactive species. 5. Human-wildlife conflicts are minimal. Hunting, fishing, and other wildlife based recreation opportunities exist, but do not compromise species populations or habitat.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 7 Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action Desired Conditions for Soils and Watersheds (p. 44) 1. Soils provide for diverse native plant species. Vegetative ground cover is well distributed across the soil surface to promote nutrient cycling and water infiltration. 2. Accelerated soil loss is minimal, especially on sensitive or highly erodible sites. 3. Soils can readily absorb, store, and transmit water vertically and horizontally; accept, hold, and release nutrients; and resist erosion. 4. Vegetation conditions within watersheds contribute to downstream water quality and quantity. Surface runoff, sheet, rill, and gully erosion and subsequent sedimentation into connecting waters downstream is minimal.

Desired Conditions for Nonnative Invasive Species (p. 53) 1. Invasive species are contained and/or controlled so that they do not disrupt the structure or function of ecosystems or impact native wildlife.

Desired Conditions for Cultural Resources (p. 59) 1. Cultural resources, including known traditional cultural properties, are preserved, protected, or restored. 2. Historic artifacts are preserved in situ or, when necessary, curated following current standards.

Desired Conditions for Forestry and Forest Products (p. 71) 1. Wood products (e.g., wood pellets for home and industrial heating, oriented strand board, animal bedding, wood moulding, pallets, structural lumber, firewood, posts, poles, biomass for electricity) and other products (e.g., Christmas trees, boughs, wildflowers, mushrooms, grasses, seeds, nuts, cones, etc.) are available to businesses and individuals in a manner that is consistent with other desired conditions on a sustainable basis within the capacity of the land.

Desired Conditions for Wildland Fire Management (p. 73) 1. Wildland fire maintains and enhances resources and, as nearly as possible, is allowed to function in its natural ecological role. 2. Regular fire entry protects social, economic, and ecological values at risk from high-severity disturbance effects.

Desired Conditions for Traditional and Cultural Uses (p. 67) 1. Traditionally used resources are not depleted and are available for future generations. 2. Traditional uses such as the collection of medicinal plants and wild plant foods are valued as important uses.

Desired Conditions for Red Butte Management Area (p. 102) 1. The environment is essentially unmodified. Naturally occurring scenery dominates the landscape.

The Forest Plan provides other guidance to facilitate progress toward desired conditions in the form of standards and guidelines. The following guidelines are of particular relevance to this project:

Guidelines for Restoring Grasslands (p. 36) 1. Pronghorn fence crossings should be installed along known movement corridors. 2. Prior to implementation of grassland restoration treatments, consideration should be given to making the residual firewood available for personal collection. 3. In areas where native herbaceous cover is sparse and seed sources are depleted, seeding should be considered.

Guidelines for Management Activities in Pinyon-juniper Communities (p. 15) 1. The pinyon-juniper vegetation communities (pinyon-juniper grassland, shrubland, or woodland) should be determined before developing project proposals to ensure the applicable desired conditions are applied.

8 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action 2. Restoration efforts should emphasize the retention of groups of mature trees where they occurred historically. 3. Where pinyon-juniper obligate species occur (e.g. gray vireo), project design should retain key habitat features including snags, and partially dead or dying trees, and downed logs. 4. Pinyon-juniper communities should maintain tree densities that maximize herbaceous plant growth and wildlife species diversity typical for their respective community subtype. 5. Project design for vegetation management activities should prioritize treatment areas along known wildlife corridors, in the wildland-urban interface, and in historic openings. 6. Restoration treatments in pinyon-juniper should be rotated over time and various successional stages to maximize wildlife habitat and diversity.

Guidelines for Traditional and Cultural Uses (p. 68) 1. Activities and uses should be administered in a manner that is sensitive to traditional American Indian beliefs and cultural practices. 2. Important traditional use resources should be monitored to ensure healthy sustainable plant populations are available for traditional uses.

Guidelines for Red Butte Management Area (p. 102) 1. Activities should be coordinated with tribes to minimize impacts to ceremonial activities. Purpose and Need for Action As outlined in the Forest Plan, there is a clear need to reduce tree densities in grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands across the South Zone. As a result of historical livestock grazing, fire suppression, changes in wildlife populations, and climate change, these areas have experienced substantial encroachment and infilling by woody species over the last century. This has reduced habitat quality and connectivity and impacted nutrient cycling and water availability. The purpose of this project is to restore the structure and function of the South Zone’s grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands by reducing tree densities, reestablishing natural fire regimes (and thus disturbance processes), and promoting grassland-associated wildlife species. This would facilitate progress toward the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, and improve these ecosystems’ resilience to disturbance and changing climate regimes. Management Direction Multiple sources of management direction guide development and implementation of projects on National Forest System lands. Of general relevance to this project are the KNF’s Forest Plan, National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. This section will briefly describe the proposed action in the context of these sources of management direction. Additional resource-specific management direction can be found in Chapter 3 and the resource specialist reports in the project record.

Forest Plan The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest (USDA 2014a) outlines desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and objectives for resources, uses, goods, services, and management areas on the KNF. The South Zone Grassland Restoration Project is designed to make progress toward desired conditions and meet objectives set forth in the Forest Plan, as described above. Where necessary, project design criteria and mitigation measures are included to facilitate progress toward desired conditions or ensure consistency with the standards and guidelines set forth in the plan.

National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, as amended, requires development of land and resource management plans and governs administration on National Forests. As described above, this project complies with the Kaibab National Forest Plan and thus NFMA.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 9 Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental consequences of proposed actions and solicit input from State and local governments, Indian tribes, the public, and other Federal agencies during their decision making processes. This EA satisfies the environmental effects analysis requirement, and also describes the agencies and persons consulted in development and analysis of the project.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 states that it is the policy of Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish purposes, and authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for the multiple use and sustained yield of products and services. This project is designed to satisfy the requirements of this act. Decision Framework Because this project applies to both the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, the Responsible Officials for this project are the Williams and Tusayan District Rangers. Based on review of the purpose and need for action, the findings of this analysis, and consideration of the best available science, the District Rangers will decide:

 Whether to select the proposed action or one of the alternatives (which includes the no action alternative) as described in this document or as modified based on the findings of the analysis and public feedback;  What mitigation and/or monitoring measures will be required during implementation of the proposed action or any alternative selected; and  Whether further analysis is needed through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

If the Responsible Officials determine no further analysis is needed through the preparation of an EIS, their decision made using the framework described above will be documented in a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. If the Responsible Officials determine an EIS is needed, the Environmental Assessment analysis process will be halted and a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS will be published. Public Involvement Planning for the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project began in 2014, and the project was first published on the Forest Service’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on October 1, 2014. The proposed action was released for a 30-day public and internal scoping period with a letter dated March 23, 2015. The KNF received 12 comment letters during the scoping period. These comment letters were considered in refining the proposed action and developing issues (described in table 1-1 below) and alternatives (described in Chapter 2 of this EA) for analysis. In addition to public scoping, the KNF has initiated government-to-government consultation with federally-recognized tribes with an interest in the project, and has met with representatives from Arizona Game and Fish Department, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Center for Biological Diversity to discuss planning for the project.

This preliminary Environmental Assessment is available for formal public review for a period described in a cover letter and legal notice providing interested parties with information on the review process. Issues Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision maker and public to understand. Issues are framed as cause-effect relationships brought about by implementing elements of the project. Issues may arise at any time during the planning phase of the project, but issues raised during scoping were critical in developing alternatives to the proposed action and informing the

10 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action effects analysis contained in this EA. These issues are listed in table 1-1. Measures are developed to serve as indicators of effects, and can be useful in judging differences among actions in the analysis and determining longer-term impacts of project implementation through ongoing monitoring. An initial set of measures is presented for each issue in table 1-1, but additional measures may be used in the analysis. Table 1-1 also includes a brief discussion about the issues, and describes where they informed development of alternatives, if applicable.

Table 1-1. South Zone Grassland Restoration Project issue tracking from scoping comments Issue Measures Discussion 1. Mechanized treatments may result in a) Changes to wildlife species viability; Alternatives were considered but resource impacts. b) amounts of soil disturbance and eliminated from detailed study that displacement; c) amounts of soil would implement burn only or hand erosion; d) amounts of soil compaction; thinning only and not allow cross e) changes in soil nutrient cycling; f) country travel to achieve project goals. changes to herbaceous ground cover; Various project design criteria and g) changes to soil coarse woody debris; mitigation measures have been h) changes in soil organism established to minimize resource populations; i) changes to water quality; impacts from mechanized treatments. j) changes to water yield; k) fugitive dust Effects of mechanized treatments are production; l) physical effects to cultural analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA. resources; m) changes in forage availability for livestock; n) changes to rare plant species viability; o) spread of weed species; p) changes to recreation opportunity spectrum settings; q) changes to scenic integrity 2. Continued livestock grazing in the a) spread of weed species; b) impacts An alternative was considered but project area may introduce invasive of treatment activities on range eliminated from detailed study that weed species and cause erosion, and readiness; c) grazing management would exclude grazing from treatment may counteract grassland restoration adjustments in response to range areas for five years after treatment. efforts by allowing woody species readiness determinations Where appropriate, implementation of encroachment to continue. project alternatives is analyzed in the context of continued livestock grazing in Chapter 3 of the EA. 3. Removal of pinyon could negatively a) Number of pinyon trees removed Treatments proposed under the project impact biodiversity and reduce through treatment; b) changes in wildlife alternatives are designed to generally availability of pinyon nuts. use and species composition following retain pinyon trees, except where treatment; c) changes in pinyon nut removal would improve the health and production following treatment vigor of other pinyon trees or the continuity of wildlife corridors. 4. Chaining could reduce biodiversity, N/A Chaining is not a treatment method facilitate cheatgrass invasion, and not considered under this project. effectively reduce encroaching woody species. 5. Attempting to reduce pinyon and a) Changes to canopy cover in Fire would be allowed to play its natural juniper expansion in areas where it is a grasslands and savannas; b) role on the landscape following natural process will result in a need for effectiveness of fire (managed wildfire treatment when and where appropriate; repeated re-treatment and is thus not and prescribed) at maintaining desired prescribed fire would be used where “restoration.” vegetation composition and structure necessary to mimic natural disturbance. following initial mechanical treatment The monitoring described in Chapter 2 of the EA will be used to evaluate treatment effectiveness and reveal any need for management changes. 6. Herbicide use results in undesirable a) Effectiveness of herbicide use in In response to comments on the effects and may be unsuccessful in treating re-sprouting woody species; b) proposed action, glyphosate will not be meeting project goals. Chemicals such effects of herbicide on desirable used in this project. Additionally, as Tebuthiuron may be unsuccessful at vegetation adjacent to treated areas Alternative 3 was developed to exclude killing juniper and may kill or injure the use of herbicide as a tool for native grasses and forbs. Glyphosate treating re-sprouting woody species. may be harmful to wildlife and humans. Any other herbicide use would follow the proper procedures for minimizing adverse effects to natural resources. Effects of herbicide application are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 11 Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action Issue Measures Discussion 7. Ground-disturbing activities may a) Utilization of best management All action alternatives contain project spread invasive weed species. practices to reduce the spread of design criteria and mitigation measures invasive weed species; b) amounts of to prevent the spread of invasive weed soil disturbance and displacement; c) species. An alternative was considered amounts of soil erosion; f) changes to but eliminated from detailed study that herbaceous ground cover; g) would not allow cross-country vehicle comparison of acres of invasive weed travel to complete project activities. species establishment in treated versus Effects of project activities on the non-treated areas spread of weed species are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA. 8. Newly-constructed wildlife waters a) Changes in wildlife behavior after the In response to comments on the may change wildlife movement patterns construction of new waters; b) impacts proposed action, Alternative 3 was on the landscape, concentrate wildlife in to soil and vegetation from animal developed to exclude the development new areas, and increase grazing activity in the vicinity of new waters of new wildlife waters. The locations of pressure. new wildlife waters in Alternative 2 were established to improve wildlife distribution. Effects of construction of wildlife waters are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA. 9. Project activities may require new a) Miles of new road construction; b) The proposed action was updated to road construction or result in the miles of establishment of new clarify the circumstances under which creation of unauthorized roads. unauthorized roads in the project area new road construction could occur. In response to comments on the proposed action, Alternative 3 was developed to exclude the construction of temporary roads. All action alternatives were updated to include road obliteration in order to reduce the overall impact of roads on the landscape. Effects of any necessary road construction are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA. 10. Increasing landscape openness a) Changes in tree density and canopy The possibility of these effects are through grassland restoration may invite cover resulting from treatment; b) new analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA. camping use, and thus reduce camping-related impacts to vegetation Camping corridors or spur roads in understory cover through camping and soil resources in areas that have treatment areas could be adjusted impacts. received treatment through adaptive management or additional environmental analysis. Temporary closures can be implemented if necessary. 11. Prescribed fire near the Grand a) Acres of prescribed fire in the vicinity Coordination with Grand Canyon Canyon Railway may cause tie fires, of Grand Canyon Railway; b) number of Railway would occur prior to prescribed which may impact safety and Railway tie fires caused by prescribed fire fire activities in the vicinity of its assets. operations. activities The necessary steps would be taken to minimize the probability of a tie fire in the planning and implementation of prescribed fire operations. 12. Smoke produced by prescribed fires a) Smoke production and dispersal The Forest Service has processes in can negatively affect human health. associated with prescribed fire; b) place, including coordination with smoke impacts on communities in the Arizona Department of Environmental vicinity of National Forest lands Quality, to minimize smoke impacts from prescribed fire and managed wildfire. These measures would apply to this project. Smoke is an inevitable occurrence in fire-adapted ecosystems. Effects of project activities on smoke production are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA.

12 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Introduction This chapter describes the proposed action and alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need for action and address the issues identified in Chapter 1. Two action alternatives were developed for this analysis, which are compared to a “no action” alternative. Four alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study. This chapter also lists mitigation measures and monitoring associated with the project. Process Used to Develop Alternatives An interdisciplinary team (members listed in Chapter 4) considered the following in developing alternatives for this analysis:

 The purpose and need for this project identified in Chapter 1;  The desired conditions, standards, and guidelines described in the Forest Plan;  The laws, regulations, and policies that govern land management on National Forests;  Issues identified in scoping comments (listed in Chapter 1);  Comments and suggestions made internally and by the public and other agencies; and  Site-specific resource information.

When evaluation of a potential alternative revealed that the alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project; was inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy; or that the issues forming the basis for the alternative were addressed through project design criteria, mitigation measures, or standard Forest Service practices, the alternative was eliminated from detailed study. A short description of these alternatives can be found at the end of this chapter.

Mechanical treatments in the two action alternatives described below are proposed in areas that represent historical occurrences of grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands. These areas were determined based on reviews of Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) soils and vegetation community information, historic aerial photos, historic rangeland/vegetation maps and grazing type maps dating to 1914, and Arizona Game and Fish Department vegetation maps dating from 1919. These resources provided information on current and historic (i.e., shortly after European settlement in the region) conditions of grasslands, pinyon-juniper grasslands, and persistent woodlands. Soils in the Vertic, Cumulic, and Pachic subgroup typically support grassland vegetation communities. Calcic and petrocalcic soils generally support persistent pinyon-juniper woodlands. Map units identified as eroded phase soils in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type were classified as persistent woodlands. Where changes in stand densities due to ingrowth are readily observable on aerial photos, revegetation potential is low, and soil subgroups are classified as lithic or skeletal, these areas were classified as pinyon-juniper grasslands. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

Alternative 1 – No Action The no action alternative is considered as a benchmark against which the IDT can evaluate the proposed action and alternatives. Under the no action alternative, current management would continue in the project area. This alternative would not implement any new treatment or actions described in alternatives 2 and 3. The No Action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for action. Grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands would continue to be invaded by conifers, fire would not be returned to the landscape as a disturbance agent, fuel wood harvesting would not be used as a tool to facilitate restoration objectives, and poorly-located roads that fragment habitat and impair watershed function would not be decommissioned or obliterated.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 13 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Mechanical Treatments The Proposed Action would allow for a combination of commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments. Mechanical treatments could occur on approximately 80,000 acres of grassland and 63,000 acres of pinyon- juniper grasslands that have been identified as areas for treatment within the approximately 550,000 acre project boundary (see figures 2-1 and 2-2). These areas represent historical occurrences of grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands on the South Zone; however, treatments may be conducted outside of these areas if ground-truthing reveals a need and to ensure treatment continuity. Conifers (primarily juniper) would be selectively removed using mechanical means and/or hand thinning to restore grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland habitats in the project area. Additionally, thinning would be used to restore connectivity between grassland habitats for wildlife species such as pronghorn antelope. Treatments would mimic historical structure within the natural range of variability across the landscape. In historical grassland areas, tree canopy cover could be reduced to less than 10 percent. In pinyon-juniper grassland areas, tree canopy cover could be reduced to as low as 10 percent when averaged across the treatment areas. Treatments would generally focus on small diameter trees, but some larger trees may be removed within wildlife corridors. Pinyon trees would generally be retained, but could be removed where doing so would improve the health and vigor of other pinyon trees or increase the continuity of wildlife corridors. Trees would generally be cut and left in place, but limbing, hand piling, and/or pile burning may occur following initial treatment where slash exceeds desired fuel loadings or where slash would impede pronghorn sight distance.

Treatments would be implemented using a phased approach. Six treatment blocks (Washtub and Clark on the Williams Ranger District and New Dent, Donaldson, Upper Basin, and Heather on the Tusayan Ranger District) have been established and prioritized for treatment based on need for treatment (e.g. areas with grassland- associated soils and a high level of encroachment). Table 2-1 displays the acreage by priority treatment block and Ranger District of grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland treatment areas. For example, within the Wash Tub priority treatment block on the Williams Ranger District, 16,269 acres have been determined to be historical grassland and 10,959 acres pinyon-juniper grassland, for a total of 27,228 acres in the Wash Tub block that could receive mechanical treatment. All grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland areas outside of the six priority treatment blocks are designated “other priority” and would be treated as capacity and completion of necessary surveys allow. Numerical designations in the block names represent treatment priority. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 display the locations of the priority treatment blocks as well as type of treatment. The blocks will be used to prioritize archeological surveys, wildlife surveys, establishment of fuelwood areas, and other project related tasks. Fire treatment could occur anywhere within the project boundary when conditions are appropriate.

Table 2-1. Acres1 of treatment type (grassland or pinyon-juniper grassland) by priority treatment block Priority Treatment Ranger Pinyon-Juniper Blocks District Grassland (acres) Grassland (acres) Total (acres) 1. Wash Tub Williams 16,269 10,959 27,228 2. New Dent Tusayan 4,931 469 5,400 3. Clark Williams 10,086 0 10,086 4. Donaldson Tusayan 1,836 16,202 18,038 5. Upper Basin Tusayan 2,842 139 2,981 6. Heather Tusayan 3,129 0 3,129 Other priority Tusayan 1,423 3,518 4,941 Other priority Williams 39,169 31,349 70,518 Total 79,685 62,636 142,321 1Acreages are calculated in GIS and are thus approximate and subject to change slightly.

Commercial treatments may occur if a regional biomass facility becomes operational. There may be a need for a minimal amount of short-run temporary spur roads to be constructed to facilitate biomass removal. In most cases, this need would be met by temporarily designating a route on the ground using visual means (e.g. flagging). If temporary spur road construction or route designation is needed, roads and routes would be located to avoid slopes greater than 20%, sensitive soils, sensitive wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. Any temporary spur

14 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives roads or evidence of off-road travel for biomass removal would be obliterated when project work in the vicinity is completed.

The Proposed Action would also allow for the personal and commercial fuelwood harvesting of green wood and project-generated slash to facilitate meeting project restoration objectives. Fuelwood harvesting would primarily occur within the areas identified for priority treatment. Fuelwood harvesting areas would be established in areas that help meet the purpose and need of the project. The limited use of motor vehicles would be allowed to access designated fuelwood areas via cross country travel.

Mechanical treatment methods could include the use of agra-axe, masticating, chipping, and grinding machines; chainsaws; and hand tools such as loppers and hand saws.

Prescribed Burning Broadcast and pile burning would be utilized where necessary to reduce fuel loading, control regeneration of conifers, and promote understory plant vigor. Prescribed burning would be used in the absence of natural ignitions managed for resource benefit to mimic natural disturbance processes on the landscape. Burning of piles would generally occur two to five years after treatment in order to allow the piles to dry to facilitate burning. Broadcast burning would occur anywhere in the project boundary under appropriate burning conditions that would move that treatment area toward the desired conditions. Maintenance burns may occur over the next 30-40 years.

Herbicide Herbicide would be used to treat alligator juniper stumps to control re-sprouting. The herbicide would be applied directly to stumps by brushing on or spraying stumps directly with back pack sprayer.

Comments received during scoping raised concerns about the use of glyphosate, so the use of glyphosate will be eliminated from use on this project. There are other safe and effective herbicides that could be used.

Seeding Seeding of certified weed free native seed would be authorized in areas where native herbaceous cover is sparse and seed sources are depleted. Where appropriate, an emphasis would be placed on pollinator species such as milkweed.

Wildlife Waters The construction of up to four wildlife water guzzlers would be authorized (figure 2-3). Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) has recommended waters be developed in these strategic locations in order to distribute wildlife movement across the landscape and to provide critical water sources throughout the year. AGFD and the Forest would construct and maintain water sources to disperse rather than concentrate pressure on specific areas.

Prairie Dog Translocation The translocation of nuisance urban prairie dogs to extirpated prairie dog colonies with open burrows, as well as sites with historical prairie dog occupation, would be authorized. The translocation of prairie dogs to historical sites where open burrows do not occur would require the auguring of starter burrows (figure 2-3). Auguring would be implemented where there is evidence of burrows having occurred.

Fence Modification Fence modification or removal in areas identified as wildlife migration corridors and in areas where fences are no longer needed would be authorized. Fencing would generally be removed by hand but mechanized equipment such as bobcat machines could be used for post removal.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 15 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives National Forest System Road Obliteration The obliteration of National Forest System roads in the project area would be authorized. Candidates for obliteration would be selected based on impacts to natural or cultural resources resulting from the presence of roads. Any changes to the open road system would be reflected on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. Obliteration could consist of ripping, mulching with activity-generated slash, seeding with native species, and blocking with large boulders and/or logs.

A list of roads to be considered for obliteration was developed using ArcGIS by overlaying the decommissioned roads layer with numerous resource layers. These are roads that are designated as decommissioned in the Forest Service road data and are thus not displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. Using this process, 49 miles of roads were identified as good candidates for obliteration. A list of these roads can be found in Appendix B of this document. If new information revealing a need to restore Forest System road status to any road(s) included in this finding comes to light prior to completing obliteration actions, the appropriate site-specific analysis will be completed before a final determination of the status of the road(s) in question is made.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is the same as the Proposed Action but would eliminate the use of herbicide to treat alligator juniper, the construction of wildlife waters, and the construction of temporary spur roads for biomass removal.

16 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives

Figure 2-1. Grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland priority treatment areas within priority treatment blocks, Williams Ranger District

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 17 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives

Figure 2-2. Grassland and pinyon-Juniper grassland priority treatment areas within priority treatment blocks, Tusayan Ranger District

18 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives

Figure 2-3. Proposed new wildlife waters (alternative 2) and historical prairie dog sites

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 19 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-2 provides a comparison of the key design features of all alternatives.

Table 2-2. Comparison of alternatives – key design features Alternative 2 Feature Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Allows for a combination of Allows for a combination of commercial and non- commercial and non- commercial mechanical commercial mechanical treatments that could occur treatments that could occur No additional mechanical on approximately 80,000 on approximately 80,000 treatments would occur. acres of historical grassland acres of historical grassland Grassland restoration and and 63,000 acres of pinyon- and 63,000 acres of pinyon- maintenance activities Mechanical treatments juniper grasslands. juniper grasslands. previously approved under Mechanical treatment Mechanical treatment other projects within the methods could include agra- methods could include agra- SZGR project boundary axe, masticating, chipping, axe, masticating, chipping, would continue. and grinding machines, and grinding machines, chainsaws, and hand tools chainsaws, and hand tools such as loppers and hand such as loppers and hand saws. saws. Temporary roads or routes may be necessary to facilitate biomass removal. Roads or routes would be located to avoid slopes greater than 20%, sensitive Temporary road No additional temporary road soils, sensitive wildlife No additional temporary road construction construction would occur. habitat, and cultural construction would occur. resources. Any temporary roads or evidence of off-road travel for biomass removal would be obliterated when project work in the vicinity is completed. 49 miles of non-system roads 49 miles of non-system roads No additional road found to be impacting forest found to be impacting forest Road obliteration obliteration would occur. resources would be resources would be obliterated. obliterated. Broadcast and pile burning Broadcast and pile burning would be utilized to reduce would be utilized to reduce fuel loading, control fuel loading, control regeneration of conifers, and regeneration of conifers, and No additional prescribed promote understory plant promote understory plant burning would occur. vigor. Broadcast burning vigor. Broadcast burning Prescribed burning activities would occur anywhere in the would occur anywhere in the Prescribed burning previously approved under project boundary under project boundary under other projects within the appropriate burning appropriate burning SZGR project boundary conditions that would move conditions that would move would continue. that treatment area toward that treatment area toward the desired conditions. the desired conditions. Maintenance burns may Maintenance burns may occur over the next 30-40 occur over the next 30-40 years. years. Herbicide would be used to No herbicide treatments to treat alligator juniper stumps No herbicide treatments to Herbicide to treat re- treat re-sprouting woody to control re-sprouting. treat re-sprouting woody sprouting woody species species would occur. Glyphosate would not be species would occur. used. The seeding of certified weed The seeding of certified weed free native seed in areas free native seed in areas No additional native seeding where native herbaceous where native herbaceous Seeding would occur. cover is sparse and seed cover is sparse and seed sources are depleted would sources are depleted would be authorized. be authorized.

20 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Alternative 2 Feature Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Up to four wildlife water guzzlers would be No new wildlife waters would No new wildlife waters would Wildlife waters constructed on the Williams be constructed. be constructed. Ranger District to help disperse wildlife. The translocation of nuisance The translocation of nuisance urban prairie dogs to urban prairie dogs to extirpated prairie dog extirpated prairie dog colonies with open burrows, colonies with open burrows, as well as sites with historical as well as sites with historical No prairie dog translocation prairie dog occupation, would prairie dog occupation, would Prairie dog translocation would occur. be authorized. The be authorized. The translocation of prairie dogs translocation of prairie dogs to historical sites where open to historical sites where open burrows do not occur would burrows do not occur would require the auguring of require the auguring of starter burrows. starter burrows. Fence modification or Fence modification or No new fence modification or removal in areas identified as removal in areas identified as removal would occur, except Fence modification wildlife migration corridors wildlife migration corridors as authorized through other and where fences are no and where fences are no projects. longer needed would occur. longer needed would occur.

Table 2-3 provides a comparison summary of each alternative’s effects on Forest resources. These effects are described in detail in Chapter 3.

Table 2-3. Comparison of alternatives – summary of effects on resources ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) —SILVICULTURE— Mechanical treatment would be conducted in grasslands Mechanical treatment would and savannas. Grasslands be conducted in grasslands would be reduced below 10%, and savannas. Grasslands which is the desired condition No mechanical treatment in would be reduced below 10%, and forest plan direction. Canopy cover in the grasslands and savannas. which is the desired condition Through time, density levels grasslands and Canopy cover in grasslands and forest plan direction. would increase and savannas and savannas would stay at Savannas would have tree maintenance of savannas and current levels. densities reduced to levels grasslands would be that will sustain a mosaic of necessary. Savannas would openings. be within the desired condition but would require maintenance sooner than in alternative 2. Mechanical treatment would Mechanical treatment would be conducted in grasslands be conducted in grasslands and savannas in the alligator and savannas in the alligator juniper cover type. Herbicide juniper cover type. Herbicide No mechanical treatment in would be used to control re- would not be used to control the grasslands and savannas. sprouting alligator juniper. re-sprouting alligator juniper. Alligator juniper re- There would be no use of Treatment effectiveness would Treatment effectiveness would sprouting herbicide. Alligator juniper be high due to the lack of re- be low due to re-sprouting. sprouting rates would not sprouting. Canopy cover in Canopy cover in grasslands change. grasslands would not rebound would rebound higher than the higher than the desired desired condition. Savannas condition. Savannas would be would be within the desired within the desired conditions. conditions. —FIRE AND FUELS—

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 21 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) Prescribed burning would directly reduce fuel loading by Effects would be similar to consuming fuel. Fuel loading those expected under could then increase following Alternative 2, except: prescribed burning as trees killed by fire fall down and No reductions in fuel continuity grass grows back. Fuel would result from translocated continuity would increase if prairie dogs or newly woody material is left on-site constructed wildlife waters. following mechanical The lack of herbicide use on Encroachment of woody Fuel loading and treatment; this would be alligator juniper would species into grasslands and continuity reduced by fuelwood increase fuel loadings and woodlands would continue. harvesting. Fine fuel continuity ladder fuels, which could lead (e.g. grasses and forbs) could to more extreme fire behavior. decrease if consumed by A higher percentage of cut translocated prairie dogs or as trees would be left on site a result of game trails because no temporary roads associated with new wildlife would be constructed to waters. In the longer term, facilitate removal, resulting in restored grassland conditions higher fuel than those under would have increased fine fuel Alternative 2. (grass) continuity. Smoke emissions from initial prescribed burning are predicted to be greater than Effects would be similar to those occurring during future those expected under maintenance cycles, as Alternative 2, except: grassland fire regimes are Smoke could be produced by restored. Where mechanical A higher percentage of cut wildland fires. Under a treatments are used to remove trees would be left on site wildland fire scenario, smoke trees, smoke production would because no temporary roads emissions could be greater be lower, particularly when would be constructed to overall and persist for a longer Smoke emissions larger diameter logs are facilitate removal, resulting in period of time due to higher removed through fuelwood greater smoke production for a concentrations of duff and harvesting. Smoke impacts to longer duration than under heavy fuels (e.g. logs). PM 2.5 Grand Canyon and other Alternative 2. The lack of smoke emissions of 335 surrounding areas could herbicide use on alligator lbs/acre could be expected. occur, but generally would not juniper would result in higher last for more than 24 hours. tree densities and potentially PM 2.5 smoke emissions of 9 greater smoke production from lbs/acre could be expected more extreme fire behavior. under restored grassland systems. Implementing Alternative 2 would increase the physiological growth of plants and improve plant vigor, thus increasing the amount of grass Effects would be similar to Departure from natural fire across the landscape that those expected under regimes would continue to would favor more frequent fire Alternative 2, except: occur as grassland and intervals and begin restoring savanna areas continue to be The lack of herbicide use on natural fire regimes across the Departure from natural encroached by woody species. alligator juniper would result in grasslands. Similar effects can disturbance regimes Large portions of the project higher tree densities and be seen in similar project area will continue to fall within potentially greater smoke areas within the cumulative Fire Regime Group 3 (mixed production from more extreme effects boundary. These to low severity fires occurring fire behavior, which is less effects include less at 35 to 200-year intervals). characteristic of grassland encroachment from pinyon ecosystems. and juniper in grasslands and more continuous grass within these areas. Since these projects have been

22 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) implemented, wildfires have occurred within some of these areas and resistance to control of wildfire has been very low and smoke production has been fairly minimal. Fire Regime Group would move toward 2 (high severity, replacement fires occurring at 0 to 35-year intervals). —WILDLIFE— California condor: the amount or distribution of carrion used by scavenging condors will not be affected. Mitigation measures will minimize the potential of poisoning of the condor either from fluid leaks or trash, or Any reliance of California other adverse disturbance condors and black-footed from humans. Implementation Effects would be similar to Threatened and ferrets on grassland or is not likely to jeopardize the those expected under endangered species savanna ecosystems would continued existence of the Alternative 2 for California (California condor and continue to be affected by California condor. condors and black-footed black-footed ferret) ongoing woody species Black-footed ferret: ferrets. encroachment within these reintroduction of prairie dogs ecosystems. to former colony sites, thinning encroached conifers in grasslands, and restoring fire would improve habitat for black-footed ferrets. Implementation is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of black-footed ferrets. Implementation may impact Forest Service individuals but would not lead sensitive species toward listing or loss of viability (northern leopard frog, Any reliance of Forest Service of Forest Service sensitive bald eagle, northern sensitive species on grassland species. Project activities may goshawk, American Effects would be similar to or savanna ecosystems would result in short-term disruptions peregrine falcon, those expected under continue to be affected by to behavior of some species. burrowing owl, spotted Alternative 2 for Forest Service ongoing woody species Grassland and savanna bat, Allen’s lappet- Sensitive Species. encroachment within these habitat improvements would browed bat, pale ecosystems. benefit Forest Service Townsend’s big-eared sensitive species where a bat, and Navajo reliance upon such habitats Mogollon vole) exists. Any reliance of management Implementation would not indicator species on grassland result in changes to forest- or savanna ecosystems would wide habitat or population Management Indicator continue to be affected by trends for Grace’s warbler or Effects would be similar to Species (Grace’s ongoing woody species Western bluebird. those expected under warbler, Western encroachment within these Implementation would result in Alternative 2 for management bluebird, and ecosystems. Of particular note an increase to forest-wide indicator species. pronghorn antelope) is the negative impact pronghorn habitat quality and continued encroachment could result in an increase in would likely have on population trends for pronghorn populations. pronghorn. Any reliance of migratory birds Implementation could result in Effects would be similar to Migratory birds on grassland or savanna limited unintentional take of those expected under

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 23 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) ecosystems would continue to migratory birds; however, long- Alternative 2 for migratory be affected by ongoing woody term effects would be birds. species encroachment within increased habitat for grassland these ecosystems. and pinyon-juniper grassland dependent species. Implementation would not result in a measurable negative effect to migratory bird populations. —SOILS, WATERSHED, AND AIR RESOURCES— Approximately 142,321 acres are expected to exhibit some level of soil disturbance in the The types and areal extent of form of topsoil displacement soil disturbances would be and minor profile similar to Alternative 2, redistributions from However, ground disturbance mechanical treatments. These would be slightly reduced disturbances will generally be since there would be no use of of short duration as sites will herbicides, thereby limiting stabilize and revegetate within ground distance associated 1 to 5 years. Adverse with herbicide usage. disturbance will be minimized Temporary roads would not be by implementation of BMPs constructed for the purpose of Soil disturbance / No new soil disturbance or and SWCPs as outlined in biomass removal, limiting displacement displacement would occur. Table 2-4. ground disturbance from This Alternative would achieve roads. Finally, ground desired condition for soils and disturbance from installation of watershed over the long term wildlife waters would not by removing sufficient tree occur. This alternative would canopy to facilitate increased not fully achieve the desired growth of grasses, forbs and condition for soils and shrubs. Fine roots and watershed in the project area vegetative ground cover since invasive trees would not provided by grasses and forbs be controlled, and biomass can more effectively protect would not be removed. soils from erosion by wind and water than forest litter alone. Erosion potential is expected Erosion potential is expected to increase on 10 to 15 to increase approximately the percent of areas treated same amount as Alternative 2 mechanically due to removal on areas treated mechanically or displacement of ground and with prescribed fire. cover. This erosion would be However, since temporary short term (1 to 5 years), roads would not be No soil erosion above current localized, and mitigated with constructed for biomass levels would occur. Roads implementation of BMPs and removal, erosion from roads proposed for decommissioning SWCPs. would be slightly lower under would remain on the this alternative. However, in Erosion potential on TES map Soil erosion landscape. These roads would the absence of temporary units currently in continue to erode and deliver roads to facilitate mechanical unsatisfactory condition would sediment to drainages, treatments, tree density would be reduced due to introduction adversely affecting watershed remain high, and the of additional CWD which condition. corresponding vegetative increases surface roughness ground cover would be lower. and reduces runoff velocities Erosion would therefore on soil surfaces in these map persist in the untreated areas units. due to lack of ground cover. Decommissioning of 49 miles Activity related erosion would of roads would return soils to be short term (1 to 5 years), productive status, improving localized, and mitigated with

24 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) vegetative cover and reducing implementation of appropriate erosion rates from roads. BMPs and SWCPs. Erosion potential on TES map units in unsatisfactory condition would be reduced due to introduction of additional CWD on soil surfaces in these map units. Approximately 14,300 - 21,450 acres would have varying degrees of soil compaction, depending on locations, timing of activities, and types of No additional areas of soil machinery and manual Approximately the same compaction would occur. Soil treatments employed. Some number of acres is expected to compaction levels would dispersed soil compaction exhibit soil compaction under remain high on roads would likely occur in areas Alternative 3 as Alternative 2 proposed for decommissioning where trees are mechanically since the same general areas Soil compaction under the Action Alternative. felled and converted into would be treated. However, Compacted soils have higher fuelwood or loaded for hauling. since no temporary roads erosion potential since These effects can be mitigated would be constructed, soil infiltration and percolation are through implementation of compaction would be slightly reduced, increasing overland BMPs and SWCPs described lower than alternative 2. flow volumes and velocities. in Table 2-4. Decommissioning of 49 miles of roads will reduce soil compaction on approximately 71 acres based on an average road width of 12 feet. Soil nutrient cycling would Soil nutrient cycling would progress toward desired progress toward the desired conditions as litter layers are condition in treatment areas, No changes to nutrient cycling replaced with vegetative but not to the extent provided are anticipated under the No cover, increased fine root by Alternative 2 throughout the Action Alternative. However, biomass, and CWD. Fine roots project area. Untreated areas since many of the areas of grasses, forbs, and shrubs would continue to have less invaded by junipers have sunlight penetration to the Soil nutrient cycling would improve soil aggregate reduced understory stability, water infiltration, and forest floor, resulting in a vegetation, nutrient cycling is decrease soil bulk densities. sparse understory vegetative currently impaired on many community. The litter layer, or TES map units within the Soil nutrient cycling would be duff would continue to provide project area. improved on approximately 71 soil nutrients and contribute to acres of road surfaces that soil profile development, but would be returned to not to the extent provided by productive status. grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Herbaceous ground cover would be greater than the No Action Alternative within one to Fewer trees would be five years following thinning removed during thinning, Herbaceous ground cover treatments. The more open resulting in less open stand would continue to decline as stand structures would structure and less light trees continue to invade contribute to understory penetration to the forest floor Herbaceous ground grasslands and pinyon-juniper development through than Alternative 2. cover grasslands, the soil litter layer increased soil moisture and Herbaceous ground cover increases, and fuel loads improved organic matter would therefore be less than continue to increase. content through introduction of Alternative 2, but greater than coarse and fine woody debris. Alternative 1 throughout the These conditions would project area. improve herbaceous groundcover productivity.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 25 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) Vegetation treatments will increase CWD in TES map units that do not unsatisfactory TES units, currently have adequate CWD improving nutrient stores and would exhibit a gradual protecting soil surfaces from increase in CWD over a long erosion by wind and water period of time through tree under this Alternative. Vegetation treatments will mortality and decadence. increase CWD in However, these TES units On TES map units that unsatisfactory TES units, would not benefit from the currently have excess CWD, improving nutrient stores and introduction of CWD that prescribed burning or piling protecting soil surfaces under would occur rapidly through followed by pile burning or use this Alternative. Soil CWD component vegetation treatments of prescribed fire would bring proposed under Alternatives 2 CWD levels to desired On TES map units that have through 4. conditions of 5 to 7 tons per excess CWD, treatments acre. would achieve the same TES map units that currently desired conditions with regard have excessive CWD (i.e., Soil CWD would improve over to CWD as Alternative 2. greater than 7 tons per acre) the short term. Although would continue to be at decomposition rates are elevated risk of wildfire in the relatively slow, soil CWD absence of treatments to would decrease over the long control fuel loads. term due to reduced stand densities leading to reduced woody detritus inputs. Areas where pile burning is conducted, and some areas where prescribed fire is implemented would exhibit There would be no project- hydrophobic soil conditions The effects of this Alternative related soil heating or and damage to soil structure are similar to those of additional soil water repellency caused by rapid oxidation of Alternative 2. (hydrophobicity) under the No soil minerals and organic Action Alternative. However, matter leading to loss of soil While this alternative would Soil heating and water conditions would be conducive structure in these areas. The reduce the risk of high severity repellency to increased wildfire hazard occurrence of these conditions wildfire and associated (hydrophobicity) that would result in large areas would depend primarily on the adverse impacts to soils and of hydrophobic soils which timing, duration, type, and watersheds, it would not be to would then be prone to intensity of fire use. the extent provided by erosion and sediment delivery Vegetation treatments would Alternative 2 since biomass to ephemeral and intermittent produce more open stand removal would likely be lower drainages. conditions, including canopy under this alternative. gaps that would reduce future high burn severity and minimize areas of hydrophobic soils. Soil organism populations are expected to decline for short Soil organism populations are periods (1 to 3 years) in areas expected to decline for short of soil disturbance, No changes to soil organism periods (1 to 3 years) in areas compaction and where fire is populations would be of soil disturbance, introduced. Soil organism Soil organisms introduced as a result of this compaction and where fire is populations are expected to project under the No Action introduced. Soil organism recover rapidly under this Alternative. populations are expected to alternative as greater sunlight recover over the same would reach the forest floor, timeframe as Alternative 2. increasing soil biological activity. There would be no changes to Water quality may be Effects to water quality will be surface water quality as a adversely affected for short approximately the same as Water quality result of this project under the periods of time following Alternative 2. However, since No Action Alternative. mechanical vegetation no temporary road

26 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) treatments and construction would occur, implementation of prescribed adverse effects to surface fire. These conditions will be water quality would be slightly localized and of short duration. lower than Alternative 2. Over the long term, since Proposed road vegetative ground cover will decommissioning would be improved, surface water contribute to improved water quality should also be quality over the long term. improved due to reduced sediment delivery to drainages. Since temporary roads would be required for biomass removal under Alternative 2, adverse effects to water quality would be slightly higher than Alternative 3. Proposed road decommissioning would contribute to improved water quality over the long term. Since only a small percentage Since only a small percentage of each 6th-level watershed is of each 6th-level watershed is being treated, only minor being treated, no detectable increases in water yield are change in water yield is expected. Within the project expected. Within the project area, increased soil moisture area, increased soil moisture There would be no changes to and groundwater recharge can and groundwater recharge can water yield as a result of this Water yield be expected as tree basal be expected as tree canopy project under the No Action area is reduced. These and numbers are reduced. Alternative conditions will not likely persist This effect will be slightly less unless maintained through use than alternative 2 as fewer of prescribed fire or future trees are removed. These thinning treatments where conditions will not persist encroachment is not controlled unless maintained through use by fire. of prescribed fire. There would be short term, generally localized adverse No additional effects to air effects to air quality as a result quality are anticipated as a of mechanical vegetation result of the No Action treatments (fugitive dust from alternative. Ongoing Air quality effects would be tree clipping/cutting and Air Quality implementation of prescribed approximately the same as hauling). Smoke from fire, mechanical vegetation Alternative 2. prescribed fire would have treatments, and wildfire adverse effects to air quality. management would continue These effects would depend to occur. on treatment area size, and smoke dispersal. —CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES— There would be no additional likelihood of artifacts being Mechanical thinning and low- Effects would be similar to moved or crushed by intensity prescribed fires would those expected under mechanical treatments. reduce fuel loadings around Alternative 2, except: However, continued woody cultural resource sites, which could prevent extensive heat Disturbance effects associated species encroachment would with construction of wildlife likely increase soil erosion, damage and reduce the need Cultural resource sites waters and temporary roads which could displace cultural for high-impact (e.g. dozer line construction) suppression for biomass removal would be resources or expose eliminated. The elimination of previously protected deposits. activities in the event of a wildland fire. Prescribed herbicide use would allow Additionally, fuels would alligator juniper to re-sprout continue to accumulate on and burning could impact fire- sensitive sites. and potentially outcompete around cultural resource sites, grasses, thereby potentially increasing the likelihood of a

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 27 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) stand replacing wildland fire Mechanical treatments and increasing soil erosion and damaging cultural resources. vehicle use could impact exposing cultural resources. cultural resources through rutting, erosion, dislocation, and breakage. Initial reduction of trees may increase site visibility, public visitation, and possible vandalism; however, road obliteration could help limit access to sites. Adherence to the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement and monitoring would help mitigate effects. Implementation may impact ceremonial activities and gathering of forest products by Effects would be similar to Traditional use of No additional impacts to temporarily restricting access those expected under Forest lands traditional uses would occur. to certain areas. Ongoing Alternative 2. consultations would be used to address any concerns. —RANGE MANAGEMENT— Livestock would be unable to graze in pastures during prescribed burning activities, and following burns until sufficient forage regeneration has occurred. Range No additional short-term infrastructure may be Effects would be similar to impacts to grazing operations impacted by prescribed those expected under would occur. In the long term, burning activities, but project Alternative 2, except that the risk of uncharacteristic design criteria should minimize allotment management Impact to ranching wildfire would increase as effects. Access to activities may be impacted by operations fuels continue to increase due transportation routes within a need for more frequent re- to woody species pastures may be limited during treatment resulting from not encroachment, thereby thinning and burning activities using herbicide to treat re- increasing the chances of for short periods of time. sprouting alligator juniper. damage to rangelands. Proposed vegetation treatments would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic, high intensity wildfire that could result in damage to rangeland and impact ranching operations. Range conditions would Prescribed burning would Effects would be similar to continue on their current trend, result in a short-term those expected under as influenced by ongoing regression in range condition; Alternative 2, except that woody species encroachment. however, in the long term it without the use of herbicide on It is predicted that the would enhance range alligator juniper stumps, re- physiological growth condition by removing sprouting would occur with requirements of the forage encroaching woody vegetation potential impacts on Forage availability for plants would not be favored and allowing for the understory vegetation. livestock within the project area. establishment of more Additionally, without additional Therefore, areas within the herbaceous cover. wildlife waters, wildlife would project area could potentially continue to congregate around decrease in desirable forage Physiological growth existing dirt tanks and be less plant densities and plant requirements for forage plants likely to disperse, with residues. Additionally, there would be favored. As a result, potential impacts on would be a decrease in plant forage plant densities, understory vegetation. species composition and vigor residues, vigor, and diversity

28 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) of forage plants. Livestock are anticipated to increase. distribution within allotments This would facilitate and pastures would not improvement of livestock improve, thus potentially distribution within allotments resulting in a more moderate and pastures, thus allowing for to heavy utilization level. a more conservative utilization level. Relocated prairie dogs would likely defoliate areas surrounding their colonies, thereby eliminating grasses and shrubs and increasing forb densities through their foraging activities. This would reduce forage availability for livestock. —FEDERALLY LISTED, SENSITIVE, AND RARE/NARROW ENDEMIC PLANTS— N/A – no known populations or Federally listed species suitable habitats have been (Fickeisen plains N/A N/A identified within the project cactus) area> Implementation may affect Effects would be slightly less individual plants and their than those expected under habitat, but will have no Alternative 2 due to reduced Forest Service measurable negative impact No impacts resulting from disturbance that could result sensitive plant species on their populations because additional treatment activities from the use of herbicide, the and rare and narrow of the plants’ limited would occur. construction of wildlife waters, endemic plant species occurrences within the project and the construction of area. Mitigation measures will temporary roads for biomass help protect known and newly removal. discovered populations. —NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE EXOTIC WEEDS— Ground disturbance and soil impacts associated with mechanical treatments, vehicle travel, newly created roads, prescribed fire, prairie dog reintroduction, and wildlife water construction may allow for the spread weed seed into newly created seed beds. The potential for establishment Overspray, drift, and improper of new weed populations or Woody species encroachment application techniques of spread of existing populations into grasslands and savannas herbicide could cause die-off would be slightly less under would continue, potentially or loss of vigor of native plants Spread of weed Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 allowing for future spread of in treatment areas. This could species because of the elimination of weeds into areas of degraded increase the risk of treatment use of herbicide on alligator grassland habitats or high areas being invaded by weed juniper, construction of intensity wildland fires. species. temporary roads, and Seeding of any treatment construction of wildlife waters. project areas could introduce new noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weeds into the newly disturbed areas. Use of certified weed free native seeds where native herbaceous cover is sparse and seed sources are depleted would decrease the

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 29 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Resource area Alternative 2 (proposed Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 3 action) risk of weed introduction into newly disturbed areas. Overall, implementing grassland restoration treatments would improve the health and diversity of grasslands and savannas, thereby potentially lowering the risk of spread and establishment of new weed populations. —RECREATION— A short-term change in ROS setting quality is expected, and Effects would be similar to would persist until activity those expected under slash is treated and the Alternative 2, except any No changes to Recreation Recreation Opportunity treated area recovers to an impacts to recreation settings Opportunity Spectrum settings Spectrum (ROS) “undisturbed” appearance. resulting from herbicide use, would result from settings Fire is not expected to construction of wildlife waters, implementing project activities. negatively impact ROS and construction of temporary settings. Mitigation measures roads for biomass removal will ensure recreation settings would be eliminated. are protected long-term. Overall scenic integrity within Effects would be similar to the project area would be those expected under No changes to visual settings temporarily lowered during Alternative 2, except any would result from project implementation. There impacts to visual settings implementing project activities. would be evidence of new Visual settings resulting from herbicide use, There would be no linear corridors as temporary construction of wildlife waters, opportunities to enhance and roads are constructed, as well and construction of temporary improve visual resources. as during mechanical roads for biomass removal treatments and prescribed would be eliminated. burning. Recreationists may be displaced during project implementation activities. Effects would be similar to Increased landscape those expected under openness resulting from Alternative 2, except any No changes to recreation use treatments may invite impacts to recreational use Recreation use and and forest access would result additional camping use; and forest access resulting forest access from implementing project however, this effect is from herbicide use, activities. anticipated to be minimal construction of wildlife waters, because camping use tends to and construction of temporary occur in vegetation types (e.g. roads for biomass removal ponderosa pine) that will be would be eliminated. minimally affected by this project. If camping opportunities are reduced during project Effects would be similar to implementation, a temporary those expected under increase in conflict may result. Alternative 2, except any No changes to visitor Overall, implementation would impacts to visitor experience Visitor experience experience would result from provide for long-term resulting from herbicide use, implementing project activities. protection of recreation construction of wildlife waters, settings and facilities by and construction of temporary improving landscape roads for biomass removal conditions and reducing fuel would be eliminated. loading.

30 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Project Design Criteria and Mitigations The following project design criteria apply to alternatives 2 and 3 and are intended to minimize the environmental impacts of implementing the actions outlined in these alternatives. Monitoring will ensure that resource impacts are within acceptable limits during and following project implementation. The monitoring strategy is described later is this chapter. Additional or modified project design criteria and mitigation and monitoring measures may be developed as a result of public input and further environmental analysis.

Fire and Fuels Management This project is similar to portions of past vegetation management projects on the Tusayan Ranger District (Russell 2012 and Airport 2010) and Williams Ranger District (City 2006 and McCracken 2012) that included treatments in pinyon-juniper areas. A set of protocols have been in place for those projects that have led to successful implementation of prescribed burning to reduce natural and created activity fuels across the landscape. Project design includes the following measures:

1. Pull slash back from fire sensitive sites, including administrative and improved infrastructure sites. 2. Fire managers should be consulted before slash is created in any unit to facilitate safe and effective burning. 3. Prescribed fire – Use appropriate techniques to minimize mortality from prescribed burning of large diameter pinyon and juniper. Also, minimize mortality to cliffrose and sagebrush where applicable. 4. Smoke management – The project area is close to the communities of Ash Fork, Williams, and Tusayan and is bordered on the north by Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). Smoke from prescribed burning could impact these communities and GCNP. Prescribed burning associated with the project will follow BMPs outlined in the Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire (NWCG 2001) for optimal smoke dispersal and will include coordination with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and notifications to GCNP and the public.

Wildlife Resource Protection Measures

Pronghorn antelope 1. Project activities would be restricted in the vicinity of known pronghorn fawning areas (May-June).

Prairie dog colonies 1. The following activities would not occur within prairie dog colonies: Fuelwood harvesting, herbicide use, and construction of wildlife waters.

Northern goshawk 1. Mechanical treatment in northern goshawk Post Fledgling Areas (PFA) would be limited to fire preparation treatments. Fire preparation treatments typically consist of limbing low hanging branches (ladder fuels). 2. If an active goshawk nest is found within the project area at any time during project planning or implementation, district staff will coordinate to establish a PFA.

California condor The project area is located within the range of the experimental population of California condors. In order to avoid potential impacts to condors, the following measures will be taken:

1. Project work sites will be cleaned up at the end of each day to avoid trash accumulation that may attract condors.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 31 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives 2. If a condor shows up near project related activities, a Forest Service wildlife biologist and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be contacted immediately and any project activities likely to cause harm to the condor will be temporarily halted until the condor leaves or is driven from the area by wildlife personnel. 3. Project workers will be instructed to avoid any interaction with condors. 4. A Forest Service wildlife biologist will be notified if any project-related vehicle fluid leaks or spills occur that could result in wildlife poisoning.

Soils and Watershed Project activities may pose risks of soil compaction, rutting, and/or erosion. The following design criteria are included in the project design to minimize the risk of soil disturbance:

1. Implementation of appropriate harvesting and fireline Best Management Practices (BMPs), as outlined in the National Core BMP Technical Guide, Vol. 1 (FS-990a; USDA 2012) and the Soil and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA 1990) to prevent or minimize potential soil erosion. Specific BMPs relevant to this project are listed in table 2-4, below. 2. Implementation of timing restrictions on project activities, particularly any cross-country motorized travel (such as for fuelwood gathering), as necessary to prevent or minimize potential adverse impacts to soils and watersheds during wet conditions.

Table 2-4. Resource protection measures required for action alternatives. BMP No. Mitigation Purpose

To minimize impacts to soil and water resources from project implementation, to minimize non- Implement Best Management Practices where needed prior to point source pollution, to adhere to the Clean BMP #1 project implementation. Water Act, and to adhere to the intergovernmental agreement between Region 3 of the Forest Service and the ADEQ. On areas where prescribed fire is to be used, fire prescriptions should be designed to minimize soil temperatures over the entire treatment area. Fire prescriptions should be designed BMP #2 To maintain long-term soil productivity. so that soil and fuel moisture temperatures are such that fire intensity is minimized and soil health and productivity are maintained. On areas where prescribed fire is to be implemented, retain approximately 3-7 tons/acre of course woody debris in pinyon BMP #3 To maintain long-term soil productivity. stands to be left on-site after the prescribed burns and fuelwood gathering. On areas to be prescribed burned, if containment lines are put in place, rehabilitate lines after use by installing fireline BMPs. To minimize soil detachment and delivery to BMP #4 If line is only to be waterbarred, disguise the first 300 feet of stream courses as sediment. line from roadways or otherwise restrict motorized access to discourage use. Clean all equipment prior to entry on site with a high pressure To minimize the spread of invasive or noxious BMP #5 washer to remove mud, debris, and vegetative material from weeds into the project area the equipment. Clean all equipment prior to leaving the project area with a To minimize the spread of invasive or noxious BMP #6 high pressure washer to remove mud, debris, and vegetative weeds to off-site areas and to prevent track-out of material from the equipment. mud and debris onto public roadways.

32 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives

BMP No. Mitigation Purpose

Temporary access routes for fuelwood gathering should not have long, straight runs down slopes that would re-direct or To minimize the number of acres disturbed and to BMP #7 concentrate water flow. These access routes should also be minimize potential adverse impacts to surface located out of filter strips (exceptions are at approved water quality. crossings).

Forest Service approved native seed should be broadcast over disturbed areas such as decommissioned roads, log landings, skid trails, and pile burning areas as necessary to stabilize soils. Seeding rates should be 8-10 lbs. per acre pure live seed. Recommended native species include: Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica) mutton grass (Poa fendleriana) sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana) To minimize soil loss and potential sedimentation of stream courses from harvesting operations and BMP #8 winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) to minimize noxious weed spread and re-establish Seeding should only be conducted where there is insufficient native vegetation woody debris to protect soil surfaces from erosion in order to minimize possible introduction of invasive plant species. The seed mix can contain a mixture of all or some of these suggested species, depending on site considerations. Other acceptable erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, distributing slash, waterbarring (waterbars should not be more than two feet deep and require at least a ten foot lead out). Permanent water diversion structures are only to be installed using equipment with an articulating blade. Do not operate equipment when ground conditions are such BMP #9 To maintain long-term site productivity. that soil rutting, compaction or puddling can occur. Treatment areas should be designed in a manner that BMP minimizes soil disturbance and facilitates BMP To maintain long-term soil productivity. #10 implementation. TES maps should be reviewed for equipment limitations and to facilitate BMP implementation. Activity generated slash from forest thinning are to be BMP removed from stream courses and/or drainages. Trees are to To protect surface water quality #11 be felled outside the stream courses and/or drainages and not across drainages. To prevent organic matter loading of stream BMP Do not hand pile slash in designated stream courses or course and to prevent erosion and sedimentation #12 drainages, or other designated protected areas. of stream courses and water bodies.

BMP Ensure that existing drainage structures on roads (rolling dips, To prevent erosion and sedimentation of stream #13 culverts, rock crossings, etc.) are functioning correctly. courses and water bodies.

Lead out ditches (turnouts) should be maintained in a manner BMP To prevent erosion and sedimentation of stream that does not allow sediment-laden runoff to enter stream #14 courses and water bodies. courses and/or drainages. Machine piling of activity-related slash should be conducted BMP with an excavator or track hoe with a bucket thumb rather than To prevent excess rutting and compaction of soil #15 dozers to prevent soil being pushed into burn piles and surfaces. minimize soil disturbance. Where fuelwood sales are used to remove material, utilize To minimize impacts from temporary roads by BMP created slash to cover and disguise temporary roads, covering mineral soil, improving ground cover, #16 minimize sediment movement from roads, and prevent providing a mulch for plant re-establishment and unauthorized future use of temporary roads.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 33 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives

BMP No. Mitigation Purpose minimizing potential sediment movement by increasing surface roughness. After use, all temporary roads will be ripped to a shallow depth BMP (<6”), seeded using the seed mix specified in BMP #8, drained To return productive potential to decommissioned #17 through installation of necessary water diversion structures temporary roads and covered with slash/woody debris.

Cultural Resource Protection The following mitigation measures are in accordance with Appendix J of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement (USDA 2010) between Region 3 of the USDA Forest Service, the, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. They include:

1. Hand-thinning: These activities “have predictable effects and a very low likelihood of affecting historic properties.” (USDA 2010). If known historic properties are within these types of project areas, the sites would be flagged. Hand treatment will be allowed within site boundaries but the fuels would be hand carried and piled outside of site boundaries. Mechanical timber harvesting may use, Prior to any proposed mechanical treatments project managers must consult with heritage specialists prior to project implementation to ensure the boundaries of sites within the treatment areas are flagged or painted for avoidance. An archaeologist will also show the project managers and equipment operators how to distinguish the areas to be avoided, and give them a contact name if a previously unrecorded site is uncovered due to the project activities. 2. Fuelwood Sales: Commercial and Fuelwood Sales when concentrated in areas of high site density must undergo 100% cultural resource surveys and sale administrators must consult with archaeologists about which sites need added protection measures. 3. Cross-country fuelwood travel: While limited cross-country travel for fuelwood retrieval may be permitted in most situations, it is not appropriate in areas where above ground cultural resources occur in high site densities. Layout administrators will consult with archaeologists prior to identifying areas for cross-country fuel wood retrieval. 4. Prescribed Fire: All fire sensitive sites will be flagged for avoidance, and in some cases black lined. Project and fire managers must consult with archaeologists, prior to implementing burn activities, to ensure that on-site fuels are such that they will not burn with prolonged or extreme heat. If necessary, excess fuels will be removed by hand from sites. 5. Mechanical and Hand Piling of Biomass: All known eligible or unevaluated heritage resource sites would be flagged for avoidance, thus all wood piling and heavy machinery activities will be conducted outside of site boundaries, except for sites that are bisected by Forest Service System Roads. In those cases, all activities will be confined to the road prisms. 6. Fire-line Construction: All planned fire-lines must avoid known heritage resource sites. Planned fire lines constructed with bulldozers can occur within previously surveyed areas where known sites have been flagged for avoidance by archaeologists. If lines are proposed to be constructed in areas that have not been evaluated by archaeologists, these areas will require additional survey prior to fire-line construction. In the event that emergency dozer fire-lines are warranted, fire managers must contact the district archaeologist immediately so that site avoidance and mitigation measures can be devised and employed as needed. 7. Road Maintenance/Temporary Road Construction: Engineers use road graders to conduct routine road maintenance activities within existing road prisms and features. No protective or mitigation measures are required in areas that have undergone previous surveys and where no heritage resource sites are known to exist. New road construction may occur only in previously surveyed areas that contain no eligible or unevaluated sites. If new roads are proposed in unsurveyed areas, the project area must first be surveyed for heritage resources and an amendment to the project clearance drafted

34 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives 8. There is the possibility that cultural resources would be discovered during project implementation. Discovery guidance is found in Appendix J of the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement (PA). 9. Prior to the various project implementation phases, project managers must consult with archaeologists who will then flag or paint site boundaries for avoidance. If any unrecorded heritage resources are discovered during project implementation, all project related activities will cease immediately and the consultation process as outlined in Section 800.13 of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 36 CFR Part 800 will be initiated.

Range Management 1. Livestock grazing permittees and ranch managers will be contacted prior to, during, and after treatment to coordinate range grazing allotment rotational schedules. As appropriate, rotation schedules following treatment will be planned to allow sufficient forage regeneration. 2. Effects to range developments will be minimized by pretreating developments before initiating management ignited fire.

Fence Construction or Modification 1. Fence modification or construction in wildlife corridors will follow the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s recommendations for wildlife-friendly fencing. For example, a typical fence designed to facilitate pronghorn movement will possess a non-barbed bottom wire raised to a height for at least 18 inches off the ground; the top two wires will be at least 12 inches apart; the fence will be no more than 42 inches high; and goat bars or elk jumps will be installed to facilitate wildlife crossing.

Sensitive Plants and Noxious Weeds 1. The project area will be assessed for rare plants where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted by project implementation. Affected areas where rare plants have been documented will be identified and protected during project implementation. 2. Surveys for noxious weeds will occur in the project area, and mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent the spread of noxious weeds using the BMPs described in Appendix B of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA 2004a).

Recreation and Scenery 1. The Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Management Handbook (USDA 2004b) will be used to minimize the impacts of project activities to scenic integrity and recreation opportunity settings. Monitoring Monitoring entails gathering information and observing management activities to ensure that Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as Forest desired conditions and project objectives, are being met. Monitoring also serves to highlight any needs for adjusting management activities. Monitoring is done by the Forest Service in association with implementation of specific projects or activities and at the forest level. This section highlights monitoring that will be completed at these different scales that will serve to track the impacts of implementing the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project and reveal any needs that may emerge for adjusting management activities and strategies.

Project-Specific Monitoring  Archaeologists will monitor cultural resources in the project area as required by the cultural resource clearance report.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 35 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives  Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be conducted to ensure longterm soil and water quality desired conditions are maintained.  The impact of project implementation on known rare plant populations will be monitored periodically. If rare plant populations are discovered, the Forest Service may close specific roads, road segments, or project implementation areas. Adaptive management actions may be needed in areas where rare plants are found to occur after initiation of project implementation. All closure proposals will follow the appropriate documentation process.  Staff will continue to conduct annual invasive exotic weed inventory and monitoring in conjunction with other project or management activities. Areas targeted for weed surveys will include all roads and project implementation sites. If weed populations are discovered, the Forest Service may temporarily close specific roads, mechanical treatment areas, or affected areas to motorized vehicle use, until the weeds are controlled.  Yearly range implementation monitoring occurs on an ongoing basis and may include inspection reports, seasonal and annual forage utilization measurements, livestock counts, and facility inspections. Forage availability and utilization, range readiness, and resource conditions are measured annually and are used to determine whether management is being properly implemented and whether the actions are effective at achieving or making progress toward desired conditions. This range monitoring can serve to highlight changes in understory cover and composition and highlight any need for management changes in conjunction with implementation of South Zone Grassland Restoration Project activities.  Tree regeneration will be monitored in grassland areas. Areas may need to be re treated to capture trees regenerated after the initial cut.  In the woodland communities, the regular program vegetation inventory practices will continue. Vegetation inventory is conducted with the Forest Service Common Stand Exam (CSE) protocol. CSE will measure post-treatment woodland tree densities along with other forest attributes.  The Common Stand Exam (CSE) program will continue to monitor overall vegetation inventory and condition. Data analysis will be conducted as the project is implemented to inform adaptive management. Data will be used for forest wide monitoring of the vegetation potential natural vegetation.  Travel management implementation monitoring will continue. This monitoring will identify resource impacts associated with roads (including any camping corridors) within the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area and any necessary mitigation measures. Any mitigation that involves changes to the road system would follow the appropriate administrative procedures.

Forest Plan Monitoring The Forest Plan outlines various monitoring items aimed at evaluating plan implementation and progress toward desired conditions. These monitoring items are intended to be reported at regular intervals. Monitoring associated with the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project can help meet Forest Plan monitoring objectives, and Forest Plan-scale monitoring can help reveal the need to make adjustments to implementation of specific projects or to modify guiding management approaches. Table 2-5 outlines Forest Plan monitoring items most relevant to this project. The full Forest Plan monitoring strategy can be found in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan. More information on the data acquisition methods outlined in the footnotes to Table 2-5 can be found on pages 125-126 of the Forest Plan.

36 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Table 2-5. Forest Plan monitoring Forest Measure- Evaluation/ Plan Resource Monitoring Driver (desired conditions, ment Reporting moni- Metric Area Question objectives, policy, etc.) Interval Interval toring (years) (years) No. Are the effects of forest management Soil DC: Soils can readily absorb, resulting in store, and transmit water vertically; changes to the accept, hold, and release nutrients; Soils and productivity of Presence/ 04a and resist erosion. 1-5 2-5 Watersheds soils (e.g. absence evidence of platy National Forest Management structures, Act, 1976 (16 U.S.C. pedestaling of 1604(g)(3)(C)) vegetation or rock, rills)? Nonnative Invasive DC: Invasive species are contained and/or controlled so that they do not What is the Nonnative disrupt the structure or function of percent cover of Percent 06a Invasive ecosystems. 1-5 2-5 noxious weeds cover Species by species? Nonnative Invasive Guideline: New populations should be detected early, monitored, and treated as soon as possible. …Pinyon-juniper Communities Ponderosa DC: The composition, structure, Pine, Mixed How many acres and function of vegetative Conifer, are at high risk conditions are resilient to the 10b Spruce fir, Acres, SDI 1-2 2-5 for insect frequency, extent, and severity of and Pinyon- outbreaks? disturbances (e.g. insects, juniper diseases, and fire) and climate communities variability. What percent of the grassland Potential Natural Grassland DC: Tree and shrub Percent 13b Grasslands Vegetation Type canopy cover are each less than 10 3-5 3-5 cover (PNVT) has <10 percent. percent canopy cover? Wildlife DCs: Interconnected forest and grassland habitats allow for movement of wide ranging species. Does habitat Suitability Habitat configuration and configuration Index availability allows wildlife provide 14b Wildlife (based on populations to adjust their 3-5 3-5 functional Hurteau movements (e.g. seasonal connectivity for 2010) migration, foraging, etc.) in pronghorn? response to climate change and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations. How many acres …Grasslands Obj.: Reduce tree were treated with Fire adapted density to less than 10 percent on 16c mechanical Acres 1-2 2-5 ecosystems 5,000 to 10,000 acres of historic thinning by grasslands annually. PNVT? Grassland DCs: Vegetation is What is the dominated by herbaceous plants 20c Grasslands relative Frequency 1-5 2-5 composed of a mix of native composition and grasses and forbs. The structure,

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 37 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives

Forest Measure- Evaluation/ Plan Resource Monitoring Driver (desired conditions, ment Reporting moni- Metric Area Question objectives, policy, etc.) Interval Interval toring (years) (years) No. cover of composition, and distribution of grasslands? vegetation are within the range of natural variability and occur in natural patterns of abundance and diversity, which may vary depending on soil type and microclimate. Organic litter varies between 30 and 50 percent of the ground cover. Vegetation composition will average 40 to 60 percent grass, and 10 to 30 percent forbs. Understory vegetation reflects the site potential. Grasslands Obj.: Modify fences How many miles and/or install crossings to facilitate of fence were 21c Grasslands Miles pronghorn movement on 50 miles 1-2 2-5 modified for of fence within 10 years of plan pronghorn? approval. FSM Policy: Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships What is the to habitat changes determined. estimated 23c Wildlife (MIS) Trend This monitoring will be done in 1-2 2-5 population trend cooperation with state fish and of pronghorn? wildlife agencies to the extent practicable. 1982 Planning Rule: 219.19 What is the areal extent of priority Invasive Species Guideline: New Nonnative nonnative populations should be detected 24c Invasive Acres 1-2 2-5 invasive plants early, monitored, and treated as Species on the Kaibab soon as possible. NF? How many days did forest activities Air Quality DC: Air quality meets contribute to 29c Air Quality Count or surpasses all state and federal 1-2 2-5 exceeding State ambient air quality standards. standards for visibility and public health? Was a robust Pinyon- crop of pinyon Presence/ Pinyon-Juniper DC: A robust crop 41d juniper nuts produced on absence, of pinyon pine nuts is regularly 1-2 5 woodlands any of the location produced districts? aData acquired through rapid plots. bData acquired through remote sensing. cData acquired from existing sources. dData acquired through interviews. More information on these data acquisition methods can be found on pages 125-126 of the Forest Plan. Implementation Implementation would occur as outlined in the description of Alternative 2, above. Implementation is anticipated to begin in late 2016.

38 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Burn Only One comment letter suggested that non-mechanized treatment methods should be preferred in performing project work. As a result, a burn-only alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study because the current lack of continuous fuel loading in the project area would make it difficult to meet tree mortality and grassland restoration objectives with a burn-only approach. Generally, grass is the main fire carrier in this vegetation type. The grass continuity and availability could be significantly different year to year depending on changing environmental conditions such as annual precipitation and other land use activities. Although non-mechanized treatment methods typically have less impact on the land, by utilizing other treatments in addition to fire such as hand thinning, mastication, agra-axe and chemical treatments, the Kaibab National Forest will be able to create and improve fuel continuity that will help meet grassland restoration objectives by removing trees that have encroached on grasslands. There may be certain areas where a burn only treatment approach will achieve objectives. However, to meet restoration objectives for the entire project area the Forest feels it is necessary to have the ability to use some mechanical equipment where it is necessary.

Hand Thinning Only One commenter was concerned about the potential impact of mechanized treatment and suggested non mechanized treatment should be the preferred method of treatment.

This comment was considered but eliminated from detailed study for several reasons. First, the Forest Plan contains objectives to “reduce tree density to less than 10 percent on 5,000 to 10,000 acres of historic grasslands annually” (p. 36), and in order to meet these objectives some mechanical harvesting of trees will be required. Mechanized equipment is necessary to meet these objectives and the purpose and need of this project in a timely and economically feasible manner. Also, eliminating mechanical treatment would reduce the ability to remove biomass from the treatment area, if biomass processing capabilities are present in the region. Furthermore, using mitigation and monitoring measures in the project design and the appropriate harvesting and fireline Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the “Soil and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook” (USDA 1990) and the “National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA 2012) will minimize the risk of soil disturbance.

No Grazing for Five Years after Treatment One comment letter identified livestock grazing as a potential impediment to meeting project objectives, and suggested that livestock grazing be removed from treated areas for several years to allow a native seed bank to develop and for grass and forb seedlings to establish. An alternative that would exclude areas from livestock grazing for five years post-treatment was considered but eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons.

Each grazing allotment on the South Zone has been analyzed under a separate NEPA process, and reanalysis is completed on a regular basis. The decisions resulting from these analyses outline the overall management strategy for each allotment and are based on resource conditions and trends at the time of the analyses. As a result, long-term decisions about allotment management are not made through separate project specific NEPA decisions (such as the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project).

The allotment management strategy developed through allotment-specific NEPA is implemented through Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs). Modifications to the AOIs may be made any time throughout the grazing year, and could be made in response to recent mechanical or fire treatments, forage conditions, water availability, drought, or changing management objectives. If resource conditions are not satisfactory during all or portions of the grazing season, total or partial livestock removal from the allotment may be necessary and is provided for under allotment AOIs.

The timing, intensity, and duration of livestock grazing authorized through AOIs on each allotment are established to be consistent with annual forage production and conservative forage utilization (31-40%), which includes South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 39 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives wildlife use. Monitoring, adaptive management, and best management practices (BMPs) are utilized so that sufficient herbaceous vegetation is retained to protect soils and provide herbaceous wildlife cover.

Grazing allotment planning and AOIs are developed with the understanding that fire (prescribed and wildfire managed for resource benefits) and mechanical thinning may occur in conjunction with livestock management in the Kaibab’s ongoing efforts to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. Fire on rangelands often causes a temporary regression in range condition. This is due to nutrient flush that causes an increase in soil movement and forb growth as a short term effect. In the long term, however, fire generally enhances range conditions by removing encroaching woody vegetation and allowing for the establishment of more herbaceous cover.

No Cross-Country Travel One comment letter raised concerns about the use of motorized vehicles to complete project activities. An alternative that would not allow for cross-country vehicle travel was considered but eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons.

As described in the “Hand Thinning Only” alternative considered but eliminated from detailed study, mechanized equipment is necessary to meet project objectives and the purpose and need of this project in a timely and economically feasible manner. Equipment such as the agra-axe has proven successful at completing similar work in other projects, even when driven cross-country, with minimal adverse effect, and these effects will be disclosed in the action alternative analysis. Completing treatments in the project area with mechanized equipment would be impossible if cross-country travel was not allowed.

Allowing limited cross-country travel for fuelwood gathering or biomass removal is necessary to provide access for the efficient collection of material. Cross-country travel for fuelwood gathering or biomass removal would be limited to areas established for fuelwood units during project implementation, and would be subject to the rules and restrictions applied to fuelwood gathering and similar activities in other portions of the Forest.

40 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Introduction This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area, which includes portions of the Williams and Tusayan Districts (South Zone) of the Kaibab National Forest (KNF). It discloses the potential effects of implementing the alternatives presented in Chapter 2 and provides the scientific and analytical basis used to compare the alternatives (summarized in Chapter 2, table 2-3). The best information available was used to discuss the affected environment and environmental consequences of the alternatives and the best available science was considered throughout the discussions presented within this chapter. For various resources, the information presented in this chapter is a summary of the specialists’ report located in the project record. Silviculture Silviculture is the art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands to meet diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis (SAF 1998). Forest vegetation composition, density, structure, and diseases such as dwarf mistletoe are the primary forest conditions which can be affected by silvicultural treatments. Stand composition can be altered with silvicultural treatments by manipulating a stand to create early seral stage conditions.

Desired conditions are often described in terms of composition (species mix), structure (size, density, and vertical or horizontal arrangement), and function (interaction with other physical, chemical, and biological elements of the forest environment). Composition, structure, and function bear directly on forest values, timber production, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunity, aesthetics, livestock grazing, soil and watershed condition, or fire regime.

The desired conditions for the management area of the project are focused around restoring grasslands to function within the desired condition.

Regulatory Framework The regulatory framework related to silviculture includes the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA), and the Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) for the Kaibab National Forest. NFMA, NEPA, and MUSYA are described in Chapter 1 of this EA. The components of the forest plan relevant to the silviculture analysis are described below.

Land and Resource Management Plan The Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan; USDA 2014) provides standards and guidelines for forest management treatments in grasslands, pinyon-juniper grasslands and pinyon juniper (persistent) woodlands.

Guidelines for Restoring Grasslands (forest plan p. 34)  Prior to implementation of grassland restoration treatments, consideration should be given to making the residual firewood available for personal collection.  In areas where native herbaceous cover is sparse and seed sources are depleted, seeding should be considered.

Guidelines for Management Activities in Pinyon-juniper Communities (p. 15)  The pinyon-juniper vegetation communities (pinyon-juniper grassland, shrubland, or woodland) should be determined before developing project proposals to ensure the applicable desired conditions are applied.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 41 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects  Restoration efforts should emphasize the retention of groups of mature trees where they occurred historically.  Where pinyon-juniper obligate species occur (e.g. gray vireo), project design should retain key habitat features including snags, and partially dead or dying trees, and downed logs.  Pinyon-juniper communities should maintain tree densities that maximize herbaceous plant growth and wildlife species diversity typical for their respective community subtype.  Project design for vegetation management activities should prioritize treatment areas along known wildlife corridors, in the wildland-urban interface, and in historic openings.  Restoration treatments in pinyon-juniper should be rotated over time and various successional stages to maximize wildlife habitat and diversity.

Guidelines for Management Activities in Sagebrush Communities (p. 34)  Prior to developing project proposals for restoring sagebrush communities, a determination should be made of the sagebrush subspecies because the differing subspecies indicate different desired reference conditions.  Management activities should be designed to mimic the historic disturbance.

The forest plan outlines desired conditions for grasslands and pinyon juniper woodlands in the project area. Desired conditions describe the ecological and silviculture goals toward which management of the land and resources. The project is designed to maintain and make progress toward these desired conditions. The desired conditions for this project that pertain to silviculture are listed below and referenced from the forest plan.

Desired Conditions for All Grasslands (p. 35)  Vegetation is dominated by herbaceous plants composed of a mix of native grasses and forbs. The structure, composition, and distribution of vegetation are within the range of natural variability and occur in natural patterns of abundance and diversity, which vary depending on soil type and microclimate.  Tree and shrub canopy cover are each less than 10 percent.

Desired Conditions for Pinyon-juniper Grasslands (p. 13)  Pinyon-juniper grasslands are generally uneven-aged and open in appearance. Trees occur as individuals, but occasionally are in small groups and range from young to old.  The composition, structure, and function of vegetative conditions are resilient to the frequency, extent, and severity of disturbances (including insects, diseases, and fire) and climate variability.

Desired Conditions for Pinyon-Juniper (Persistent) Woodlands (p. 14)  Pinyon-juniper woodland (persistent) is characterized by even-aged patches of pinyons and junipers that at the landscape level form uneven-aged woodlands. Tree density and canopy cover are high, shrubs are sparse to moderate, and herbaceous cover is low and discontinuous due to soil and other site conditions.  Some very old trees (>300-years old) are present.  Disturbances rarely affect the composition, structure, and function. Insects, disease, and mistletoe occur at endemic levels. Fire disturbance is infrequent and variable due to lack of continuous ground cover.

Desired Conditions Common to All Pinyon-Juniper Communities (p. 12)  Pinyon-juniper communities occur as a shifting mosaic interspersed with openings across the landscape. The configuration of vegetation and openings provides foraging and browsing opportunities for wildlife, and enough sighting distance and hiding cover for pronghorn to escape predators.  At the mid-scale and above, canopy cover is at least 10 percent with a mix of young and mature groups and clumps of trees.

42 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects  There are opportunities for collecting forest products (firewood, pinyon nuts, posts, and poles, etc.) in a manner consistent with other desired conditions.  A robust crop of pinyon pine nuts is regularly produced.

Landscape sustainability and old tree desired conditions pertaining to composition, structure and function may be met immediately after project treatment. These conditions may be met at a time beyond the life of the project. Insect and disease desired conditions are intended to be met immediately after project treatment.

Special Area Designations There are no management areas with specific management direction that differs from the general forest. Designated areas and other management areas are identified in Chapter 3 of the forest plan.

Resource Indicators and Measures Resource indicators and measures (FSH 1909.15, 12.5) are used in this analysis to measure and disclose effects. The silviculture resource indicators such as forest sustainability, forest health, old growth and large trees will remain constant within the south-zone grassland restoration project area. There will no analysis of these indicators because no silviculture treatments are proposed in persistent woodland communities. Silvicultural treatment would only occur in grassland communities (as first priority treatment areas) and pinyon-juniper grasslands (second priority treatment areas). The use of prescribed fire will be used in persistent woodlands to achieve the objective of burning priority areas. There will be no silviculture treatment intended by burning within woodland communities. The following indicators will be analyzed in this report: canopy cover and herbicide use on alligator juniper (table 3-1).

Canopy Cover Canopy cover is measured by the vertical projection of tree cover. This analysis will measure canopy cover at the mid-scale and above. Canopy cover at the fine scale will be qualitatively discussed due to high variability and variation of the project area.

The desired conditions for grassland communities in the forest plan is less than 10 percent tree and shrub canopy cover; in all pinyon juniper communities, canopy cover is at least 10 percent with a mix of young and mature groups and clumps of trees; and some tree groups have 30 to 40 percent canopy cover that provides habitat for nesting, bedding, and foraging.

Alligator Juniper Sprouting Treatment effectiveness of using herbicide on alligator juniper will be measured by the average percent of trees per acre re-sprouted after cut. Thresholds for appropriate amount of re-sprouting are based on meeting and maintaining objectives within ten years.

Table 3-1. Resource indicators and measures for assessing silvicultural effects Used to address: P/N, Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure or key issue? Source Vertical projection of Percent of tree Canopy cover P/N Forest plan tree cover cover Percent of trees Alligator juniper Treatment per acre of re- Key Issue Comment sprouting effectiveness sprout

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 43 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Affected Environment

Management Area The general management area for the project is located on the south-zone of the Kaibab NF. The project boundary encompasses approximately 550,000 acres within the grasslands and pinyon-juniper forest communities. Of these acres approximately 281,000 acres are located on the Tusayan RD and 269,000 acres are located on the Williams RD.

 The Tusayan Ranger District consists of approximately 14,000 acres of grasslands, 20,000 acres of pinyon-juniper grasslands (savanna) and 247,000 acres of pinyon juniper (persistent) woodlands.

 The Williams RD consists of approximately 65,000 acres of grasslands, 43,000 acres of pinyon-juniper grasslands (savanna) and 163,000 acres of pinyon juniper (persistent) woodlands.

Within the project area, ponderosa pine communities are minor inclusions that represent less than 1% of the area.

Existing Condition Grasslands and savannas in the project area have tree densities at higher levels than the historical reference condition. These densities are outside of the natural range of variation of tree density due to higher than normal regeneration rates from lack of understory herbaceous vegetation competition. Historical suppression of fires, grazing and climate change contributes to the lack of herbaceous vegetation completion across the project area. Higher tree densities contribute to higher tree canopy cover, contributing to the suppression of grasses and forbs.

Through time, grasslands and savannas, which would normally be maintained by natural frequent fires, would continue to be in-filled by young and small trees. Some historical grasslands would turn into savannas as trees become older and possibly become persistent woodlands through time. Currently, canopy cover is departed at higher rates to meet grassland objectives. Increased canopy cover and trees in the grasslands contribute to the reduction of corridor sizes and provides a future seed source for trees. Table 3-2 displays the existing condition of canopy cover in grasslands and savannas across the project area.

Table 3-2. Silvicultural resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Canopy Cover Vertical Projection of Percent of Tree Cover 16% Grasslands tree cover Canopy Cover Vertical Projection of Percent of Tree Cover 74% Savannas tree cover Alligator juniper Treatment Trees per acre of Re-sprout N/A sprouting effectiveness

Canopy Cover in Grasslands Average tree canopy cover in the grasslands across the project area is approximately 16% (table 3-2). Grassy interspaces between trees and tree groups remain high to moderate levels. The desired canopy cover remains close to the desired condition due to past mechanical maintenance of these areas. Invasion and density of young trees is high and does not contribute to canopy cover as much. As these trees grow, crowns will begin filling out and canopy cover will increase. At these density levels, trees continue to invade due to the proximity of a seed source. The existing canopy cover condition in the grasslands does not meet the desired condition due to the structure, composition, and distribution of vegetation is outside of the range of natural variability. Average canopy cover in grasslands should be less than 10%; this desired condition is reflected in the Forest Plan (USDA 2014, p. 36).

44 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Canopy Cover in Savannas Average tree canopy cover in the savannas across the project area is approximately 74% (table 3-2). Grassy interspaces and inclusions remain at low levels. In general, savannas typically surround or are adjacent to the grasslands. These areas provide a tree seed source to grasslands and would improve grasslands connectivity.

The existing canopy cover condition in the savannas does not meet the desired condition due to lack of shifting of mosaic interspersed with openings across the landscape. Without disturbances, openings have been infilling with young pinyon and juniper species increasing canopy cover across the savannas. Through time, with lack of disturbances, current canopy openings will continue to be occupied by trees with no recruitment of openings else ware in the savannas. The existing canopy cover in does not meet the desired condition due to current structure and function of vegetative conditions not resilient to the frequency, extent, and severity of disturbances (including insects, diseases, and fire) and climate variability. As canopy cover (tree densities) increases, stress to pinyon trees will increase, making the overall population not resilient to bark beetles and climate change. An indirect effect to increased canopy cover would be larger future epidemics to bark beetles. Average canopy cover in savannas are above 10% which is within the desired condition but would need to be lowered to meet the resiliency needed for the desired condition.

Alligator Juniper Sprouting Treatment of alligator juniper sprouting is an issue from public comments. The affected environment for this analysis will be limited to the zone in which alligator juniper resides. This area is limited to the Williams Ranger District in close proximity to the ponderosa pine communities and the Mogollon rim area.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology Ariel photo analysis and on-the-ground walkthroughs were used to calibrate data collected through the Forest Service Common Stand Exam (CSE) protocol. Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) data were used to evaluate treatments, which show quantitative effects for a specific time period. This methodology was used to measure percent trees per acre of re-sprouting.

Ariel photo analysis and on-the-ground walkthroughs were used for canopy cover analysis. Quantitative analysis was only conducted at the mid-scale and above. The fine-scale analysis is discussed qualitatively due to the high variability and variation in conditions at the fine scale. The foundation for this analysis based on the following assumptions: 1) trees viewed from an aerial photo equal 100% canopy cover within the drip-line of a tree, 2) average tree crown diameter equals one fiftieth of an acre, and 3) trees less than 12 inches diameter at root collar (DRC) were not used in analysis because the majority of these trees have smaller representation of canopy. Trees in the 12-inch DRC and above size class represent old trees that would be retained.

Information Sources Satellite imagery, aerial photography, and CSE were used as the basis for the analysis.

Direct/Indirect Effects Boundaries The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects to canopy cover on grassland and pinyon- juniper grassland are the acres that will be treated. This is because canopy cover is affected only in areas receiving thinning treatment.

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects or project activities on re-sprouting of alligator juniper are grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland acres in the alligator juniper cover type. This is because alligator juniper is the only re-sprouting species that herbicide would be used for.

The temporal boundary for analyzing the direct and indirect effects on canopy cover and herbicide is ten years in to the future. This is because the fluctuation of canopy cover in grasslands and pinyon juniper grasslands take

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 45 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects beyond 50 years to show a natural effect, and looking at effects for ten years into the future provides opportunity to discern effects resulting from implementing the project from those occurring naturally. Alligator juniper re- sprouting happens immediately after cutting and rapid growth of sprouted alligator juniper tree can be demonstrated in ten years.

Cumulative Effects Boundaries The spatial boundary for analyzing the cumulative effects to canopy cover and re-sprouting includes the project area and state and private lands between the ranger districts. This is because the bulk of land similar to that in the project area and treatments similar to those in the project occur within these areas. Projects within two miles of the grassland restoration project into the pine type will be added due to proximity to the project. The extent does not go beyond this boundary due to the predominance of ponderosa pine in these areas.

The temporal boundary for analyzing the cumulative effects related to canopy cover and herbicide is ten years in to the future and ten years into the past. The extent of the boundary into the future is based on reasonably foreseeable treatments associated with this planning effort and past treatments. Alligator juniper re-sprouting occurs immediately after cutting and rapid growth of sprouted alligator juniper tree can be demonstrated for ten years into the future. There has also been some alligator juniper treatment in the past.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information Due to the size of the project area, site-specific data for the woodlands community inventory is incomplete. The analysis does not cover persistent woodlands because no silvicultural treatments are being prescribed in persistent woodlands. Treatments prescribed will be in the grasslands and pinyon juniper grasslands.

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management would continue in the project area. This alternative would not implement any new treatment or actions described in alternatives 2 and 3. The No Action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for action. Grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands would continue to be invaded by conifers, fire would not be returned to the landscape as a disturbance agent, fuel wood harvesting would not be used as a tool to facilitate restoration objectives, and poorly-located roads that fragment habitat and impair watershed function would not be decommissioned or obliterated. Canopy cover in grasslands and savannas would remain above 10%, and continue to increase, as shown in table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Silvicultural resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Resource Before Treatment Element Indicator Measure Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 16% 17% 20% Grasslands Cover tree cover Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 74% 75% 78% Savannas Cover tree cover Treatment Alligator Percent of effectiveness juniper Juniper Re- N/A N/A N/A Percent of sprouting sprout Trees per Acre

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The components of the proposed action are described in Chapter 2.

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures All old trees would be retained. Old trees are defined in the forest plan as trees greater than 300 years old.

46 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Large tree would also be retained except in limited circumstances where their removal would facilitate wildlife corridor connectivity.

Required Monitoring The Common Stand Exam (CSE) program would continue to be used to monitor vegetation inventory and condition. Analyzing of data could be conducted as the project persist to inform adaptive management. Data would be used for forest wide monitoring of the vegetation potential natural vegetation.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 2 Direct effects occur at the time and place the action is implemented. Indirect effects occur off-site or later in time. Effects to the resource elements described above would relate directly to tree density as a result of implementing the proposed action. The use of prescribed fire would maintain lower canopy cover values.

Canopy Cover in Grasslands The proposed action would reduce tree densities in grasslands to approximately 1% of canopy cover. Residual trees that are retained would exhibit old age and old tree characteristics. At the fine scale level, higher canopy cover up to 75% may exist due to concentrations of retained old trees. Most of these areas with old trees would be in drainages and depressions. Through time, canopy cover would increase slightly and almost unnoticeably over the ten year period (table 3-4). This is mainly due to the slow recovery period it takes for invasion of trees to move back into a restored area. Trees would be able to move back into an area more easily if there is low herbaceous understory due to drought, overgrazing, etc. This would occur because there would be a lack grass and forb competition with trees at the seedling stage. This analysis assumes that removal of trees will encourage understory herbaceous growth and stimulate a vigorous grass and forb population. Herbicide use on alligator juniper would contribute to the slight downward trend of canopy cover.

Canopy Cover in Savannas The proposed action would reduce tree densities in savannas to approximately 17% of canopy cover. Residual trees that are retained would exhibit old age and old tree characteristics. At the fine scale level, higher canopy cover up to 95% may exist due to concentrations of retained old trees. Most of these areas with old trees would be in drainages, depressions and on north facing slopes. Through time canopy cover would increase fairly quickly over the ten year period (table 3-4). This is mainly due to the retention of seed sources in a close proximity, as well as advanced regeneration. This analysis assumes that removal of trees would encourage understory herbaceous growth and stimulate a vigorous grass and forb population. Herbicide use on alligator juniper contributed to the slight downward trend of canopy cover.

Alligator Juniper Sprouting Spraying herbicide on cut alligator juniper stumps is successful on 90% of use. Use may not be successful if a tree is vigorous enough to withstand treatment. Most error with herbicide use is from the applicator due to lack of proper coverage. After year 1, 1% of alligator juniper would sprout back from cut stumps. Over a ten year period, 2% of the cut junipers would re-sprout. This would have an indirect effect on keeping canopy cover levels lower in grasslands and savannas.

Table 3-4. Silvicultural resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct/indirect effects Resource Resource Before Treatment After Treatment Element Indicator Measure Year 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 16% 1% 2% 2% Grasslands Cover tree cover Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 74% 17% 17% 19% Savannas Cover tree cover

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 47 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Resource Resource Before Treatment After Treatment Element Indicator Measure Year 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Treatment Alligator Percent of effectiveness juniper Juniper Re- N/A 1% 2% 2% Percent of sprouting sprout Trees per Acre

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The following is a general list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on and around the project area in the cumulative effects analysis for this project: State and private grassland restoration projects, Chino Valley grassland restoration, Bill Williams Mountain project, Boggy Tank project, Winter Range project, Irishman Dam project, Twin project, City project, McCracken project, Ida Grassland project, Community Tank project, Airport project, Russell project and Watts project. These projects include vegetation management with mechanical cutting and prescribed burning.

Canopy Cover in Grasslands and Savannas Table 3-5 displays the percent canopy cover for grasslands and savannas for cumulative effects. Grassland and savanna treatments on private property and Forest Service lands would continue to be completed as funding and technical capability allows. Combining state and private effects with the Forest Service projects, canopy cover would increase slightly. This is due to treatments on state and private and the Chino Valley District not having complete coverage of projects on their grasslands. However, private property and the Chino District contribute to more land under grassland restoration than the project area. For this reason, initial canopy cover percentages would be slightly higher (26% for grasslands and 78% for savannas). Combined with the past treatments and the future treatments, canopy cover would increase slightly for the ten year period. After ten years into the future, canopy cover in the grasslands would remain below 10%, meeting the desired condition. Canopy cover in the savannas would remain well above the required forest plan 10% but falls to 42%-47%, meeting levels that facilitates the desired condition of sustaining a mosaic of openings.

Alligator Juniper Sprouting The use of herbicide on junipers is limited in the cumulative effects area. Herbicide use on junipers is currently ongoing for the McCracken project only. Other Forest Service projects and state and private projects do not currently use herbicide to treat juniper sprouting. Projects on state and private do not have adequate populations of alligator juniper to contribute to the effects of this project. Small portions of the Chino Ranger District have alligator juniper which are treated, but not using herbicide. Other projects that contribute to alligator juniper cutting and sprouting include the City, Bill Williams, and Twin projects.

Table 3-5 displays the percent of trees per acre sprouting after herbicide use for cumulative effects. McCracken project represents approximately 5% of the cumulative effects analysis area for herbicide use on alligator junipers. The grassland project and McCracken would contribute to approximately 67% of the cumulative effects analysis area with herbicide use on alligator junipers.

The percentage of trees per acre measures herbicide effectiveness on alligator juniper which is an average from the proposed project, past projects with herbicide use and past projects without herbicide use. In the past 5 years only the McCracken project used herbicide for alligator juniper. Combined with the remaining cumulative effects area, the percent of trees per acre that sprouted was 5% (this includes City, Chino Valley Ranger District projects and Twin project). Even though the grassland project would use herbicide, there would be an increase of percent of re-sprout after herbicide use due to the probability of re-sprouting after herbicide use and other projects contributing to alligator juniper cutting without the use of herbicide.

48 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Table 3-5. Silvicultural resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 cumulative effects Resource Resource Before Treatment After Treatment Element Indicator Measure Year 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 26% 5% 7% 8% Grasslands Cover tree cover Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 78% 42% 46% 47% Savannas Cover tree cover Treatment Alligator Percent of effectiveness juniper Juniper Re- 5% 7% 10% 14% Percent of sprouting sprout Trees per Acre

Alternative 3 This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Action but would eliminate the use of herbicide, the construction of 4 wildlife waters, and the construction of temporary roads for biomass removal. Project design features and mitigation measures and required monitoring would be the same as alternative 2.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 3 Direct effects occur at the time and place the action is implemented. Indirect effects occur off-site or later in time. Effects to resource elements would relate directly to tree density in result of the action alternative 3. The use of prescribed fire would maintain lower canopy cover values.

Canopy Cover in Grasslands Action alternative 3 would reduce tree densities in grasslands to approximately 1% of canopy cover. The trend of canopy cover would increase over the ten year period (table 3-6). Over a five year period, canopy cover would increase to 11% due to rapid growth rates of sprouting alligator juniper. After ten years canopy cover in alligator juniper areas recover 85% of the levels pre-treatment. This is due to the rapid growth rates of sprout trees in the first ten years. At the end of ten years canopy cover in savannas would average 19% across the project area. Residual trees that would be retained exhibit old age and old tree characteristics. At the fine scale level, higher canopy cover up to 75% would exist due to concentrations of retained old trees. Most of these areas with old trees would be in drainages and depressions.

Canopy Cover in Savannas Action alternative 3 would reduce tree densities in savannas to approximately 17% of canopy cover. Canopy cover would increase over the ten year period (table 3-6). Over a five year period, canopy cover would increase to 29% due to rapid growth rates of sprouting alligator juniper. After ten years, canopy cover in alligator juniper areas would recover to 85% of the levels pre-treatment. This is due to the rapid growth rates of sprout trees in the first ten years. At the end of ten years canopy cover in savannas would average 33% across the project area. Residual trees that would be retained would exhibit old age and old tree characteristics. At the fine scale level, higher canopy cover up to 95% would exist due to concentrations of retained old trees. Most of these areas with old trees would be in drainages, depressions, and on north facing slopes.

Alligator Juniper Sprouting Not spraying herbicide on cut alligator juniper stumps would result in over a 90% re-sprouting rate. Most re- sprouting would be noticeable after the first year. After year 1, 91% of alligator juniper would sprout back from cut stumps (table 3-6). Over the five year period, 91% of the cut alligator junipers would re-sprout. Over the ten year period, 92% of the cut junipers would re-sprout. This would have an indirect effect on keeping canopy cover levels higher in grasslands and savannas. The effect is directly related to the issue of using or not using herbicide when thinning alligator juniper.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 49 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Table 3-6. Silvicultural resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 direct/indirect effects Resource Resource Before Treatment After Treatment Element Indicator Measure Year 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 16% 1% 11% 19% Grasslands Cover tree cover Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 74% 17% 29% 33% Savannas Cover tree cover Treatment Alligator Percent of effectiveness juniper Juniper Re- N/A 91% 91% 92% Percent of sprouting sprout Trees per Acre

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 3

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Same as Alternative 2.

Canopy Cover in Grasslands and Savannas Table 3-7 displays the percent canopy cover for grasslands and savannas for cumulative effects.

The timing, duration and extent of the treatments would be the same as alternative 2. Combined with the past treatments and the future treatments, canopy cover would increase after year one and increase slightly for the ten year period. After five years into the future, canopy cover in the grasslands would above 10%, not meeting the desired condition. Canopy cover in the savannas would remain well above the required forest plan 10%, but would falls to 52%-54%, meeting levels that facilitate the desired condition of sustaining a mosaic of openings.

Alligator Juniper Sprouting The timing, duration and extent of the treatments would be the same as for alternative 2. Table 3-7 displays the percent of trees per acre sprouting after herbicide use for cumulative effects. Combined with the remaining cumulative effects area the percent of trees per acre that sprout would be 5% (this includes City, Chino Ranger District projects and Twin project). The McCracken project would be the only project analyzed as using herbicide for purposes of alternative 3 cumulative effects. The trees per acre percentage of re-sprouted alligator juniper would be 80% after year one. Year five there would be a slight increase due to latent sprouting and year ten the sprouting would plateau at 83% of the trees per acre cut will have re-sprouted.

Table 3-7. Silvicultural resource indicators and measures for alternative 3 cumulative effects Resource Resource Before Treatment After Treatment Element Indicator Measure Year 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 26% 5% 11% 13% Grasslands Cover tree cover Vertical Canopy Cover Percent of Tree Projection of 78% 42% 52% 54% Savannas Cover tree cover Treatment Alligator Percent of effectiveness juniper Juniper Re- 5% 80% 82% 83% Percent of sprouting sprout Trees per Acre

50 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Summary of Environmental Effects This analysis has established that the no action alternative would result in the area for the South Zone Grassland Restoration project moving further away from desired conditions. The area would continue to sustain high canopy cover. Desired vegetative conditions would not be maintained over time. Grass, forb, and shrub production will continue to decline over time.

The primary difference between the two action alternatives is that: Alterative 2 would use herbicide treatments to restore grasslands and savannas. Alternative 3 is similar in treatments without the use of herbicide to control alligator juniper re-sprouting.

Other differences between the action alternatives include:

 Alternative 2 would maintain canopy cover in grasslands at the desired condition;  Alternative 2 would more effectively create ecologically sustainable savannas;  Alternative 2 would have a higher treatment effectiveness based on the reduction of maintenance and re treatment;  Alternative 3 would not use herbicide which, would be a cost reduction on the project.

Table 3-8. Summary comparison of environmental effects: silviculture Resource Element Indicator/Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Canopy cover Percent of Canopy No mechanical Mechanical treatment Mechanical treatment for grasslands Cover measured by treatment in the would be conducted in would be conducted in and savannas vertical projection grasslands and grasslands and grasslands and savannas. of crowns. savannas. Canopy savannas. Grasslands Grasslands would be cover in grasslands would be reduced reduced below 10%, which and savannas would below 10%, which is is the desired condition and stay at current levels. the desired condition forest plan direction. and forest plan Through time, density direction. Savannas levels would increase and would have tree maintenance of savannas densities reduced to and grasslands would be levels that will sustain a necessary. Savannas mosaic of openings. would be within the desired condition but would require maintenance sooner than in alternative 2. Percent trees Trees per acre of No mechanical Mechanical treatment Mechanical treatment per acre of re- sprouting alligator treatment in the would be conducted in would be conducted in sprouting juniper after cut. grasslands and grasslands and grasslands and savannas alligator juniper savannas. There savannas in the in the alligator juniper cover would be no use of alligator juniper cover type. Herbicide would not herbicide type. Herbicide would be used to control re- be used to control re- sprouting alligator juniper. sprouting alligator Treatment effectiveness juniper. Treatment would be low due to re- effectiveness would be sprouting. Canopy cover in high due to the lack of grasslands would rebound re-sprouting. Canopy higher than the desired cover in grasslands condition. Savannas would would not rebound be within the desired higher than the desired conditions. condition. Savannas would be within the desired conditions.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 51 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Fire and Fuels

Introduction This section analyzes the activity of prescribed burning and the implications that it may have on restoring fire adapted ecosystems and restoring grasslands across the South Zone of the Kaibab National Forest. Additional actions outlined in the proposed action that will be analyzed in this report are the actions of thinning, seeding, fuelwood harvesting, herbicide, wildlife waters, prairie dog translocation and fence removal/modification. These actions will be analyzed because they will have an impact on fire behavior and intensities, as well as how prescribed fire would be managed across this project area.

Federal Law Clean Air Act - If prescribed fire is used in the project area, a burn plan would have to be written and approved each year. Smoke management would have to be coordinated with all of the Kaibab’s partners, including the Grand Canyon National Park and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

State and Local Law State Clean Air Act - If prescribed fire is used in this area, a burn plan would have to be written and approved each year. Smoke management would have to be coordinated with all of the Kaibab’s partners, including the Grand Canyon National Park and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Methodology The main method of analyses for fuel loading and continuity was photo points. The Kaibab has had past projects within the south zone grassland project area that have predetermined photo plot points set up pre and post treatment. With this type of methodology the analyses is more visual then it is quantitative, showing the visual picture of before and after treatments have been implemented in this cover type. Smoke emissions will be analyzed using FOFEM modeling software showing emissions (PM 2.5) under current conditions as a fire burns the area versus the emissions produced burning after treatments have been implemented. Fire Regime Groups shows the current frequency and intensity of fires in an area utilizing Landfire data. It is assumed in this report that the majority of the priority treatment areas will be considered a Montane and Subalpine Grasslands. A Montane and Subalpine Grasslands vegetation type infers that the fire regime group would be rated as a 2 under natural conditions. This means that fire would have generally burned in these areas every 0-35 years with replacement severity. It is recommended that the user of this report compares the landfire data maps which show current fire regime groups and compare them to what the desert grassland should actually be in terms of fire regime groups.

Information: Photo points that are pre-existing for use in the late 1990s and early 2000s for such projects as the XB project located on the Tusayan Ranger District, South Zone Kaibab National Forest. The smoke emissions modeling comes from FOFEM software that demonstrates the emissions output for burning pre and post treatments of this project. Fire Regime Groups come from landfire data and Arcmap GIS Sources. Also, it is important to note that Fire Regime Group 2 was shown to be appropriate for the Desert Grasslands from a Rapid Assessment created through a series of expert workshops and a peer-review process in 2004 and 2005. (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/pdfs/PNVGs/Southwest/R3MGRA.pdf)

Fire Regime groups include the following: I: 0-35 year frequency, low and mixed severity II: 0-35 year frequency, replacement severity III: 35-200 year frequency, low and mixed severity IV: 35-200 year frequency, replacement severity

52 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects V: 200+ year frequency, replacement severity

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects Boundaries The Proposed Action would allow for mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, herbicide, seeding, wildlife waters, prairie dog translocation, fence modification, road decommissioning and obliteration on approximately 80,000 acres of grasslands (shown in red in figures 2-1 and 2-2), and approximately 63,000 acres of pinyon-juniper grasslands (shown in blue on figure 2-1 and 2-2). These approximately 143,000 acres would be treated within 6 main priority treatment blocks as well as several smaller scattered areas that fit the description of grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands. The Wash Tub and Clark blocks are located on the Williams Ranger District and include approximately 37,314 acres shown on figure 2-1. The New Dent, Donaldson, Upper Basin and Heather blocks are located on the Tusayan Ranger District and include approximately 29,548 acres shown in figure 2-2. An additional 75,459 acres are dispersed across the project area outside of these priority blocks. These areas are considered to be priority areas for prescribed fire and mechanical treatments due to the encroachment by pinyon- juniper and the altered fire regime condition class of these areas.

While the mechanical treatments and the direct effects of prescribed burning will only affect the areas within the designated priority treatment blocks indirect effects of prescribed burning may affect well beyond those designated areas. The indirect effects as referred to are the potential smoke impacts to surrounding areas. Smoke impacts are generally those where smoke is visible (altering or decreasing visibility) and or where the smell of smoke is present. These areas could include the Grand Canyon National Park, the town of Tusayan and City of Williams, and other regional communities. These effects would be influenced by the size of block that is burned, amount of fuel that is consumed, fire intensity, and wind speed and wind direction.

The temporal boundaries for analyzing the direct impacts of prescribed fire would start immediately post burn and would continue over many years depending on maintenance cycles and how often the area would be burned to restore the area back to desired conditions. The indirect effects of smoke impacts are during the burn as the fire is producing smoke and post burn as long as there is still some smoke production from the burn which is typically the smoldering phase. Typically post burn smoke impacts only last a day or two if the burn is in a grassland. However, an area similar to the south zone grasslands projects could be several days or weeks depending on how much encroachment there is in the burn block and the associated duff depth for those trees. The temporal boundaries for analyzing cumulative effects would be very similar to the direct and indirect effects for all effects excluding smoke production from prescribed fire. Smoke impacts may present an issue during implementation when combined with other projects being implemented within the same airshed and continue for a few days post burn but would not expect to last more than that. It is important to understand that while the Kaibab has a “good burn window” that other forests may also have “good burn windows”. This is especially important when evaluating smoke impacts and considering those cumulative factors in such as our smoke combining with neighboring forests and parks.

The spatial cumulative effects for reducing fire risk and restoring more natural fire regimes would essentially cover the entirety of both the Tusayan and Williams Districts. As prescribed fire and thinning are utilized to meet objectives, fire risk will be diminished and fire regimes will start the progression back to the natural fire regime. The spatial cumulative effects from smoke impacts from associated prescribed burning, however, have the potential to include a much larger area. Cumulative effects of smoke production from prescribed burning on either the Tusayan ranger district or the Williams ranger district has potential to affect the following airsheds designated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: (1) Colorado River, (3) Little Colorado River and (5) Verde River Airshed (figure 3-1).

Table 3-9. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects, fire, fuels, and smoke Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Amount of fine fuels present, Fuel loading and continuity stand composition and Visual determination Photo points arrangement

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 53 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Smoke emissions PM 2.5 PM 2.5 FOFEM modeling software Departure from natural Fire Regime Groups Quantified by FRG 1,2,3,4,5 Landfire data 2012 disturbance regimes

Figure 3-1. Arizona smoke management map showing state airsheds

Incomplete and Unavailable Information In some of the South Zone’s large meadows that are mostly comprised of sage, it is difficult to understand if they were once true grasslands or have always been mostly sage dominated. Fire undoubtedly played a central role in controlling the historical structure and function of pinyon-juniper ecosystems; however, there is still great uncertainty regarding characteristics of natural fire regimes in many locations (Baker and Shinneman 2004). Ecological restoration treatments at Tusayan would likely include targeted reduction in overstory tree density and periodic application of fire (Huffman et al. 2006).

Affected Environment

Existing Condition The grasslands in the project area have been encroached primarily by juniper, but also pinyon and ponderosa pine. The encroachment of these species have broken up the continuity of the fine fuels (grass). By having less continuous grass the fire regimes have been drastically altered due to the lack of fire’s ability to carry through

54 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects areas where grass no longer exists because of conifer encroachment. Stand-replacing fire with a rotation of 400 years or longer characterized this pinyon-Juniper landscape before 1995 (Floyd et al. 2004). Landscape-scale fires probably occurred every three to ten years in the southern mixed-grass prairie and less frequently in the short-grass prairie (Umbanhowar 1996). Over the last 13 years both the Tusayan and Williams ranger districts have had numerous opportunities to manage wildfires on the landscape for resource benefits. During this time the Kaibab has had the opportunity to see how fire behaves in the grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland vegetation types. Typically, fire behavior in areas with encroachment in the grasslands is very minimal and fire is carried poorly due to lack of continuous fuels such as grass. The encroachment with the pinyon-juniper component has broken up the continuity of the fine fuels (grass) just enough to disrupt the fire regime in the grasslands. While the Kaibab has seen good behavior on fires in this vegetation type, such as the Griffin fire in 2004 on the Tusayan Ranger District, these are typically very rare events and it takes many environmental and climatic factors aligning together to allow these areas to burn. Currently there are minimal restoration activities in these areas. This lack of restoration work in these areas are allowing fuels to accumulate and grow denser, which is setting the stage for stand replacing wildfire to occur.

Figure 3-2. Shows the fire regime groups on the Tusayan Ranger District. Take note of how much of the South Zone grasslands project area currently falls into the fire regime group 3.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 55 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Figure 3-3. Shows the fire regime groups on the Williams Ranger District. Similar to Figure 3-2, there is a considerable amount of land that falls into FRG 3 and 4.

56 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects, Alternative 1 (No Action) If the No Action alternative is selected, no additional management action would be taken and the current conditions will continue to persist. Continual encroachment of the woodlands into the grasslands would occur and fire regime condition classes would continue to depart from the natural fire regime condition class. The natural fire regime will not be restored to where it was historically when these areas were grasslands. Thus, we would continue to see an altered fire regime and more encroachment on the grasslands from pinyon juniper and sage. This could also result in less available grass for cattle grazing and less available forage for wildlife. Any infrastructure or cultural resources would not be prepped and burned around and thus, be more susceptible to damage from any naturally occurring wildfire. There would be no smoke emissions produced from the project therefore there would not be any smoke impacts to the area or surrounding areas resulting from prescribed fire treatments. Refer to figure 3-4 for smoke emissions production under Alternative 1 if a wildfire were to burn in this vegetation type.

Figure 3-4. Shows PM 2.5 emissions at current conditions using FOFEM software, Alternative 1

Cumulative Effects, Alternative 1 (No Action) The cumulative effects of the no action alternative would result in further departure from natural fire regime condition classes within and surrounding the project area. This would change the frequency of fire disturbance in the area and ultimately result in less grass production within these historic grassland areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects, Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Prescribed burning – Broadcast and pile burning would be utilized where necessary to reduce fuel loading, control regeneration of conifers, and promote understory plant vigor. Burning of piles would generally occur two to five years after treatment in order to allow the piles to dry to facilitate burning. Broadcast burning would occur in the project area under appropriate burning conditions that would make progress toward the desired conditions. Maintenance burns may occur over the next 30-40 years. The direct effects that would result from the use of prescribed fire would be as follows: mortality of some trees as fire moves through the area, reducing fuel loading as a portion of the vegetation or “fuel” is consumed, smoke would created from prescribed fire activities and South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 57 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects certain grazing pastures would need to be rested before prescribed fire to allow enough grass to grow back to ensure that fire can burn through the area. Also, any infrastructure that may include Grand Canyon railway, fences, buildings, corrals, etc. must be prepped and protected as prescribed fire is used in an area. As prescribed fire is used adjacent to these fire sensitive features they will become resilient to future wildfires that may pose a threat to these types of features. Mechanical treatments could help carry fire across the landscape if fuels are cut and left on site to help increase the fuel continuity where the PJ has encroached and taken over the grass type.

Seeding would potentially create additional fuel which would help facilitate domestic and wildlife grazing as well as increase fuel continuity and help fire carry across an area and help increase fire intensity that would result in a higher rate of mortality in the trees that have encroached in the grasslands.

Fuelwood harvesting would decrease the amount of larger diameter logs that would be consumed with prescribed fire. This is important for smoke emissions because it is typically only duff and large diameter logs that produce smoke during the smoldering phase of a prescribed burn. This smoldering phase continues to produce smoke for days and even sometimes weeks after the initial burn. Refer to figures 3-4 and 3-5 to compare the “post burn” smoke production in values measuring PM 2.5. As you can see under current conditions there is a much larger amount of PM 2.5 being produced long after the initial fire moves through an area. This is because of the smoldering phase where the duff and logs continue to burn after the fire front moves through. Figure 3-5 shows the emissions output assuming we were burning in true grasslands assuming that there is virtually no duff and very few logs. In a grass type fire moves through very quickly and intensely then goes out very quick with very limited amounts of smoldering.

Prairie dog translocation could potentially break up some of the fuel/grass continuity and decrease fires ability to spread across the landscape.

Fence removal and modification will only affect prescribed fire by the means of having to prep fence lines before the burn if wooden stays or posts are used. If all steel wire, posts and stays are used then limited to no prep will be needed, thus, not affecting prescribed fire operations.

Under this alternative there would be four additional wildlife waters within the project area. These wildlife waters would need to have defensible space and prepped for use of prescribed fire to ensure the infrastructure was not damaged by fire. These new wildlife water sources would also break up the fuel continuity which is usually the result from wildlife traveling to and from water sources making game trails which usually slow or halt fire spread. Conversely, these game trails could be a benefit by giving prescribed fire managers additional options for breaking up burn blocks into smaller blocks or trails could be used as holding features.

The indirect effects that would result from prescribed fire would be increased fuel loading as the grass grows back and as some of the trees that are killed with fire fall down, also, there may be potential smoke impacts into the Grand Canyon which would occur off-site but generally would not last more than 24 hours after the burn happened. Where mechanical treatments are used to remove trees, smoke production would be lower due to less fuel being consumed by fire. Where prescribed fire is used on the project, future fuel continuity would be improved due to increasing plant vigor, which would lead to increased fire intensity and rates of spread due to higher fuel loading /ac as well as fuel continuity. This would represent conditions in grassland areas that more closely reflect those found historically. Prescribed fire would affect the fire regime condition class and begin restoring the grassland communities towards a natural fire regime. Also, with continued “maintenance” cycles of prescribed fire the natural encroachment of pinyon and juniper would be minimized and kept in check by the return of frequent fire intervals. Refer to figure 3-5 for the smoke emissions output under alternative 2 proposed activities. This figure demonstrates the approximate smoke output under a natural fire regime condition class.

58 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Figure 3-5: shows PM 2.5 smoke emissions post treatment using FOFEM software, Alternative 2

Cumulative Effects, Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Implementing the proposed action would increase the physiological growth of plants and improve plant vigor, thus increasing the amount of grass across the landscape that would favor more frequent fire intervals and begin restoring natural fire regimes across the grasslands. Additionally, as natural fire regimes are restored across the grasslands, there would be an increase in diversity and composition of forage plants. This would improve livestock distribution in the two pastures within the project area, thus allowing for a more conservative utilization level for range management. Also as a result of burning and prepping around any infrastructure that may be in or near the burn area that infrastructure will become more defensible from any future wildfires. In areas where prescribed fire will be utilized there may be areas or roads that will need to be improved to facilitate getting fire equipment and apparatus to and from the project area. Grazing activities and prescribed fire activities will be closely coordinated and monitored. By enhancing plant vigor and plant diversity, grazing opportunities may improve over time as well as frequent fire disturbances. Emissions from smoke production on prescribed fire is closely monitored by ADEQ and there are daily requests that must be submitted and approved in order to burn. There are large portions of land that would be available for prescribed fire under this alternative. Prescribed fire on large burn blocks over multiple districts may have an effect on the airshed so there will need to be good coordination on any burn activities between districts as well as adjacent forests that may be burning as well. Initially smoke emissions from prescribed fire are predicted to be much more than future maintenance cycles as fire regime condition classes are returned to natural regimes (refer to figures 3-4 and 3-5). Additionally, the four wildlife waters that are proposed under this alternative will need to be maintained for prep for future prescribed fire and may incur extra traffic on those roadways that are driving to the water.

Similar effects can be seen on similar projects within the cumulative effects boundary. These effects include less encroachment from the pinyon-juniper in the grasslands as well as more continuous grass within these areas. Also, since these projects have been implemented, wildfires have occurred within some of these areas and resistance to control of wildfire has been very low and smoke production has also been fairly minimal. The Kaibab has seen fire regimes started to return to natural levels as well.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 59 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Direct and Indirect Effects, Alternative 3 This alternative would be the same as the proposed action but would eliminate the use of herbicide on alligator juniper, the construction of 4 wildlife waters, and the construction of temporary roads for biomass removal. Many similar effects would occur from implementing alternatives 2 and 3, however, under alternative 3, a higher percentage of cut trees would be left on site because no temporary roads would be constructed to allow removal. Increased biomass from trees leads to longer smoke production after a burn because the nature of larger trees is to slowly consume from fire in the smoldering phase which can sometimes take several weeks before a burn unit comprised of a lot of pinyon-juniper completely goes out and discontinues to smoke. By altering the arrangement of the pinyon-juniper component, fuel continuity may be improved, thus improving fire spread and intensity.

The lack of use of herbicides on juniper may increase prescribed fire frequency and intensity if non-native grasses are introduced. Also, with the lack of herbicides on alligator juniper the regeneration of the juniper will increase fuel loading and “ladder fuels,” which generally lead to more extreme fire behavior than you would see in a grass fuel type.

Cumulative Effects, Alternative 3 The lack of road construction under this alternative will prevent excess travel from public using these road systems potentially damaging resources and creating the issue of closing them off after they are no longer needed to implement the project. The lack of herbicide treatment would, in general, increase trees per acre after the alligator juniper resprout causing more extreme fire behavior and more smoke production if it was to burn throughout the cumulative effects analysis area.

Summary Table 3-10 shows the summary of the outcomes for each alternative for smoke emissions, fire regime group, and visual photo points. The photos were taken on the XB project on the Tusayan Ranger District in 1999 (pre- treatment), then 1 year later post treatment. The XB project was implemented in vegetation similar to that in which the SZGR project has been proposed. In fact, the SZGR project boundary encompasses the XB project on the Tusayan Ranger District.

Table 3-10. Pre- and post-treatment comparison of XB project, Tusayan Ranger District. Similar effects are anticipated with implementing the action alternatives. Smoke emissions Fire Regime PM 2.5 Group Photo points

Alternative 1 353 lbs./Acre 3 No Action

60 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Smoke emissions Fire Regime PM 2.5 Group Photo points

It is inferred that by restoring Alternative 2 grassland Proposed 9 lbs./Acre communities the Action fire regime group will be back to a 2.

Same as Alternative 3 9 lbs./Acre Same as Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Wildlife

Introduction In this section, effects of the proposed restoration treatments on wildlife resources are analyzed. Analysis focuses on wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act, Forest Service Sensitive Species, Kaibab National Forest Management Indicator Species, and migratory birds.

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Federal Law

Endangered Species Act  All federal agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the Endangered Species Act.  Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats.

Bald and Golden Eagle Act  Prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, of barter, transport, export, or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C 668(a);50CFR 22).

Migratory Birds, EO 13186 of January 10, 2001  Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors.  Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 61 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Methodology Analysis was based upon the best available science.

Information Sources Sources of information include peer reviewed journals, General Technical Reports, Arizona Game and Fish Department Survey data, Bird Observatory of the Rockies survey data, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Act, and the Kaibab NF Land and Resource Management Plan.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Direct/Indirect Effects Boundaries The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects to wildlife are the project area.

The temporal boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects are immediately for direct effects and 10 years for indirect effects because direct effects happen immediately and indirect effects can take years to occur.

Cumulative Effects Boundaries The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to wildlife are the project area and a 2 mile buffer around it.

The temporal boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects are ten years before and after implementation.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management would continue in the project area. This alternative would not implement any new treatment or actions described in alternatives 2 and 3. The No Action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for action. Grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands would continue to be invaded by conifers, thus reducing habitat for grassland dependent species such as pronghorn antelope, prairie dog, burrowing owl, golden eagle, and numerous migratory bird species.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternatives 2 and 3

Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Of the species listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act and identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, we determined that the following species occur in or near the project area or have habitat in the project area: California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) and black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes).

We have concluded that other species listed under the Endangered Species Act would not be affected by alternatives 2 or 3 because the Williams and Tusayan Districts are outside of their range and/or the districts lack suitable habitat.

California condor The Williams and Tusayan Districts are within the experimental nonessential population area designated for the reintroduced California condor. Condors have been known to fly widely, but now generally travel between two main areas, the Grand Canyon Ecoregion/Colorado River corridor in Arizona and the Kolob Terrace/Zion National Park (Zion NP) area in Utah (USFWS 2012). Condors have not been commonly detected on the Tusayan District and are rarely seen on the Williams District. There are no known condor nest sites in the project area, nor are there sites where condors are known to roost. Condors are opportunistic scavengers that feed primarily on large dead mammals such as deer, elk, and domestic livestock. The amount or distribution of carrion

62 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects would not be affected by alternatives 2 and 3. Suitable foraging habitat in the project area includes grassland, sagebrush, pinyon-juniper woodland, and ponderosa pine forest.

The mitigation measures incorporated into alternatives 2 and 3 will minimize the potential for poisoning of the condor either from fluid leaks or trash, or other adverse disturbance from humans.

Effects determination: Implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the California condor.

Black-footed ferret The black-footed ferret formerly ranged from the Great Plains of Canada and into the western and southwestern United States. Historic documentation in northern Arizona includes a 1952 record form an area 7 miles northeast of Williams, AZ and one from Government Prairie north of Parks, AZ. Reintroduced populations in northern Arizona occur in Aubrey Valley and on the Espee Ranch. Black-footed ferrets occupy prairie dog burrows and utilize prairie dogs as a main food source. Currently there are approximately 70 prairie dog towns in the project area, ranging in size from two to almost 900 acres. Prairie dog populations are cyclic and can go from huge numbers to almost no animals within a short time due to disease, weather patterns, predation, and other factors. Population numbers can fluctuate yearly, with high numbers in some years and undetectable numbers in others. Sylvatic plague has been a significant factor in prairie dog colonies in northern Arizona in recent years, and many recently active colonies have been severely impacted. Other impacts to prairie dogs include predation by coyotes, raptors, badgers, bobcats, and legal shooting.

Black-footed ferrets were extirpated from the project area prior to the 1960s during the era when prairie dog control was a common practice. Black-footed ferrets are not currently known to occur on the Kaibab National Forest.

Reintroduction of prairie dogs to former colony sites, thinning encroached conifers in grasslands, and restoring fire would improve habitat for black-footed ferrets.

Effects determination: Implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of black-footed ferret.

Forest Service Sensitive Species The Forest Service Sensitive species program is designed to assist the Forest Service to maintain biodiversity on national forests and grasslands and help maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native species. Of the animal species identified by the Southwestern Region (R3) of the Forest Service for the Kaibab National Forest, the project area overlaps the range of the following species: northern leopard frog (lithobates pipiens), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), Allen’s lappet-browed bat (Idionycteris phyllotis), Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), and Navajo Mogollon vole (Mictotus mogollonensis).

Northern leopard frog The Kaibab National Forest has not documented the presence of northern leopard frogs in the project area and the distribution map in AGFD's Heritage Data Management System does not show any occurrences in the project area (http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/images/ranapipi_000.gif). Suitable habitat for this species is defined as perennial water bodies with rooted aquatic vegetation and adjacent wet meadows.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would not impact northern leopard frog because it would not affect individuals or suitable habitat.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 63 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Bald eagle Bald eagles occur in the project area primarily during the winter months. Bald eagles feed on fish, waterfowl, small mammals such as rabbits and ground squirrels, and carrion when available. They are often observed feeding on carrion from road-kill animals (primarily elk and mule deer) along highways and on gut piles of hunter-killed elk and deer scattered across the district. Wintering bald eagles prefer clumps of large ponderosa pines for nighttime roosting (Joshi 2009). The only known bald eagle nest on the Kaibab National Forest is approximately 15 miles away of the project area.

Project related activities such as mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, smoke from prescribed burning, fuelwood harvesting, herbicide application, seeding, temporary road construction, and fence removal could disrupt eagles while work is occurring, but such disruption would be short term. Various raptor species are known to use wildlife water developments in arid habitats (Rosenstock et al. 1999, Rosenstock and et al. 2004). It is unknown whether additional water developments would provide much benefit for bald eagles because bald eagles are present on the district during the winter when animal water demands are much less than during the summer. Re-establishment of prairie dog colonies would not likely affect bald eagles as they are present in the project area in winter months when prairie dogs are hibernating. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not affect key habitat elements for bald eagle: nest/roost site availability (large trees and snags) or food availability.

Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability of the species.

Northern goshawk Most northern goshawk territories in Northern Arizona occur in ponderosa pine forest (Beier and Maschinski 2003). Goshawks typically nest and roost in large ponderosa pine trees and prey on a wide variety of small mammals and bird species including; American robin, band-tailed pigeon, Stellar’s jay, northern flicker, chipmunks, ground squirrels, and tree squirrels, with mammals providing most of the prey biomass (Beier and Maschinski 2003). There are seven goshawk territories within, four partially within and five adjacent to the project area. Goshawk territories occur in the project area due to the suitable nesting habitat that is found in the ponderosa pine stringers in the project area. All of these territories have been surveyed in one or more years since 2007. Detections vary from year to year, but detections occurred in most territories in at least one year. The lack of more frequent detections is consistent with goshawk breeding behavior in that reproduction is inconsistent and the animals difficult to detect (Boyce et al. 2006).

Low severity broadcast burning treatments are consistent with direction in the Kaibab Forest Plan. Under alternatives 2 and 3 low intensity fire could occur in goshawk PFAs. Typically no more than one half of a PFA is burned in one year. Broadcast burning could cause short-term decreases in goshawk foraging habitat quality due to fire impacts on grasses, forbs, and shrubs which function as forage and cover for various goshawk prey species.

Project related activities such as mechanical thinning, fuelwood harvesting, herbicide application, seeding, temporary road construction, and fence removal would not likely affect goshawk as these activities would occur in grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands where goshawks typically do not occur. Goshawks primarily hunt in forests and woodlands and not grasslands. Thinning small diameter conifers from grassland and pinyon-juniper grasslands would not cause habitat loss for goshawks. The alternatives 2 and 3 would not affect key habitat elements for northern goshawk: nest/roost site availability (large trees) or food availability.

Construction of wildlife waters would be unlikely to affect goshawks because these waters would be constructed in open grasslands where goshawks typically do not occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability of the species.

64 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects American peregrine falcon Peregrine falcons typically nest on cliffs and rock outcrops and prey on a wide variety of bird species. Known nest sites on the Williams Ranger District are on Kendrick Mountain, Sitgreaves Mountain, and Bill Williams Mountain. Because of the proximity of the project area to these nest sites and because there have been numerous sightings within the project area and because peregrine falcons are adapted to foraging in open areas it is assumed that peregrine falcons do forage within the project area.

The main threats to peregrine falcons continue to be chemical contamination from organochlorine compounds and disturbance from rock climbing near nest sites. There would be no impacts to nest areas or nesting falcons under Alternative 2 and 3. Project related activities such as mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, smoke from prescribed burning, fuelwood harvesting, herbicide application, seeding, temporary road construction, road obliteration, and fence removal could affect peregrine falcon foraging. Because these activities would be limited in space and spread across the time continuum the disruption would be negligible.

Because numerous raptor species use wildlife water developments it is assumed that peregrine falcon would also benefit from construction of wildlife waters in the project area. Re-establishment of prairie dog colonies would not affect peregrine falcon because they are adapted to capturing bird species in flight and rarely take mammal species especially those as large as prairie dogs.

Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability of the species.

Burrowing owl In the western United States, burrowing owls occur in a wide variety of open habitats including agricultural fields. Nesting typically occurs in abandoned burrows of small mammals, such as ground squirrels and prairie dogs. The Kaibab National Forest has at least two known records of burrowing owls on the Williams Ranger District. One record of occurrence is from the extreme western portion of the district, within the project area, the other is in the southeastern portion of the district, outside of the project area.

Project related activities such as mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, seeding, and fence removal within and near prairie dog colonies could cause short term disturbance to burrowing owl during the project activity. Because project related activities such as removal of small diameter conifers, and prescribed burning benefit prairie dogs, the long term effects of alternatives 2 and 3 would benefit burrowing owl.

The re-establishment of prairie dog colonies would benefit burrowing owl because they are known to live in prairie dog burrows and prey on prairie dogs.

Burrowing owls have been documented using wildlife water developments elsewhere in the southwest (Rosenstock and et al. 2004), therefore it is assumed that they would also benefit from water developments in northern Arizona.

Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals but would not lead towards federal listing or loss of viability of the species.

Spotted Bat, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat Spotted bats roost in crevices and cracks in cliff faces and rock outcrops and forage in a wide variety habitat types including ponderosa pine forests. Spotted bats forage primarily for moths in open meadows but they occasionally forage around individual trees or isolated clumps of trees (Luce and Keinath 2007). There are no records of occurrence on the Williams Ranger District, but this species has been detected on the Tusayan District and in Grand Canyon.

Allen’s lappet-browed bats typically roost in cracks and crevices in cliff faces and rocky outcrops, caves, abandoned mineshafts, and occasionally in sloughing bark of large, old ponderosa pine trees and snags (Hoffmeister 1986, Rabe et al. 1998). Small moths are the primary food source of these bats. They are known to South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 65 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects forage in a variety of forest and woodland types. There are records of occurrence on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts.

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats typically roosts in caves and old mines. Small moths are the primary food of these bats. They forage along forested edges taking prey from leaves and in flight (AZGFD 2003). Distribution on the Williams District is unknown although it has been detected on the Tusayan District.

Project related activities would not affect roosting habitat for spotted bat or pale Townsend’s big-eared bat. Although there are potential roosting sites in the project area, project activities would not disturb these features. Because the project area does contain large, old ponderosa pine trees and snags potential roosting habitat for Allen’s lappet browed bat could be affected. Although mechanical thinning would not affect these habitat features prescribed fire could occur where these habitat features exist. Although large snags are typically protected during prescribed burning this activity could result in the loss of individual snags which could affect roosting bats.

Prescribed fire would also result in some level of removal of ground cover and potentially reduce the insect prey base for these three bat species. However, it is anticipated meadows and open areas would regenerate with more vigorous herbaceous vegetation. The reduction of tree encroachment and increased growth in the herbaceous vegetation would result in indirect beneficial impacts to bats.

It has been well documented that southwestern bat species need free water (Jackrel and Matlock 2010, Kuenzi and Morrison 1997 in Rosenstock et al 1999, Tuttle et al. 2006). Even the most desert adapted of bat species periodically needs free water (Taylor and Tuttle 2007). Bat surveys on the Williams and Tusayan districts have documented the occurrence of sixteen bat species. The addition of clean water for wildlife in the project area would likely benefit all bat species that occur within the vicinity of the waters.

It is possible that the use of herbicides can influence prey availability for bats. Herbicides often have an indirect influence on insect populations by changing the abundance and composition of plant communities on which insect communities rely (Guynn et al. 2004). The implementation of proposed herbicide treatments would only be applied directly to freshly cut juniper stumps. Herbicide would either be directly applied by brushing the herbicide on the stump or spraying, with low pressure applicator, directly on the stump thereby eliminating or reducing non-target application.

Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals but would not lead towards listing or loss of viability of spotted bat, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, and pale Townsend’s big-eared bat.

Navajo Mogollon vole Hoffmeister (1986) delineated the range for this vole from Navajo Mountain southward to the western part of the Mogollon Plateau, extending from near Mormon Lake westward towards the town of Williams and up to the Tusayan Ranger District in a variety of habitats associated with grassy vegetation. They typically nest underground with runways leading from the burrow entrance out to their foraging areas. They preferentially forage on cool season or C-3 photosynthesis grasses (Chambers and Doucett 2008, Ganey and Chambers 2011). Other grasses can also provide food and voles rely on other herbaceous species for cover.

Nearly all project related activities could affect individual Mogollon voles, resulting in direct adverse effects. Mechanical thinning, fuelwood harvesting, herbicide application, seeding, construction of wildlife waters, and removal of biomass would cause ground disturbance and could possibly result in loss of individuals or temporary disruption of runways. Pilloid et al. (2006) state that mortality of wildlife from crushing from heavy equipment, incineration, and/or asphyxiation during fuel reduction treatments is considered to be a minimal risk.

Prescribed fire would result in the short-term decrease in vole habitat quality as a result of fire impacts to the grass and herbaceous layer. Grass and herbaceous cover would likely increase to above pre-treatment levels in the years following tree removal and prescribed fire.

66 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Project activities would occur across the project area at different times; thereby reducing impacts to the species. Forest treatments can indirectly affect potential vole habitat by restoring meadows and reducing uncharacteristic tree densities and patterns in historic grassland and pinyon-juniper grasslands. Restoring meadows and pinyon- juniper grasslands would increase potential understory development, including bunch grasses and other C-3 plants providing preferred food sources.

Under alternatives 2 and 3 up to 49 miles of closed roads would be obliterated restoring additional Mogollon vole habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals but would not lead toward listing of loss of viability of the Mogollon vole.

Management Indicator Species The Kaibab National Forest has four designated Management Indicator Species (MIS); Grace’s warbler (Dendroica graciae) for ponderosa pine mature clumps within stands, western bluebird (Sialia Mexicana) for understory development within openings in mature ponderosa pine, pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra Americana) for grassland, and ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) for mature overstory in frequent fire mixed-conifer.

Habitat types present in the project area were quantified by conducting a GIS analysis of the Kaibab National Forest’s existing vegetation layer. The project area contains habitat for Grace’s warbler, western bluebird, and pronghorn antelope. MIS habitat for the project area is displayed in table 3-11.

Table 3-11. Acres of MIS habitat across the project area. Cover Type Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Kaibab National Forest Ponderosa pine forest 46,962 515,148 Grassland 79,685 112,250

Grace’s warbler Grace’s warblers prefer park-like stands of mature trees and favor open conifer forest that are generally dominated by ponderosa or similar pines (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Grace’s warblers spend much of their time in the upper canopy of tall pines where they forage by picking insects from smaller branches. Nests are placed in needle clusters at branch ends or towards the top of ponderosa or other long-needled pines.

The Forest has conducted bird surveys on the forest since 2005 with surveys being contracted out to Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Now called Bird Conservancy of the Rockies) since 2007. Bird Conservancy of the Rockies incorporated data collected by the forest in 2005 and 2006 with the data from their surveys done since 2007. Population trends based on forest monitoring appear to be stable within ponderosa pine habitats.

Project activities such as mechanical thinning, fuelwood harvesting, herbicide application, seeding, construction of wildlife waters, and prairie dog translocation would not affect Grace’s warbler because these project activities would not occur within the limited amount of ponderosa pine habitat in the project area.

Prescribed fire could cause mortality to Grace’s warbler, but is unlikely, as prescribed fire would occur as low to moderate intensity surface fire. Smoke could cause birds to flush while prescribed fire occurs. However, impacts from smoke impacts are reduced to the extent possible by coordination of timing with conducive weather conditions.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there are 46,962 acres of ponderosa pine habitat in the project area, which is approximately 11% of the total ponderosa pine habitat mapped across the forest. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not alter the habitat quantity of ponderosa pine forest but there could be a slight increase in habitat quality because prescribed fire could thin some small diameter overly dense stands.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 67 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would not result in changes to forest-wide habitat or population trends for Grace’s warbler.

Western bluebird Western bluebirds have a preference for an open under story and are common in open, park-like forests, edge habitats, and burned areas, especially where snags are common (Corman and Wise Gervais 2005). Western bluebirds typically perch-forage and fly-catch for insects during the warmer months and pick berries from branches and off the ground during the cooler months (Guinan et al. 2008).

The Forest has conducted bird surveys on the forest since 2005 with surveys being contracted out to Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Now called Bird Conservancy of the Rockies) since 2007. Bird Conservancy of the Rockies incorporated data collected by the forest in 2005 and 2006 with the data from their surveys done since 2007. Population trends based on forest monitoring appear to be stable within ponderosa pine habitats.

Project activities such as mechanical thinning, fuelwood harvesting, herbicide application, seeding, construction of wildlife waters, and prairie dog translocation would not affect western bluebird because these project activities would not occur within the limited amount of ponderosa pine habitat in the project area.

Prescribed fire could cause mortality to western bluebird, but is unlikely, as prescribed fire would occur as low to moderate intensity surface fire. Prescribed fire could also result in loss of snags, but is unlikely because snags are typically protected during prescribed fire. Smoke could cause birds to flush while prescribed fire occurs. However, impacts from smoke impacts are reduced to the extent possible by coordination of timing with conducive weather conditions.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there are 46,962 acres of ponderosa pine habitat in the project area, which is approximately 11% of the total ponderosa pine habitat mapped across the forest. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not alter the habitat quantity of ponderosa pine forest but there could be a slight increase in habitat quality because prescribed fire could thin some small diameter overly dense stands.

Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would not result in changes to forest-wide habitat or population trends for western bluebird.

Pronghorn antelope Pronghorn antelope prefer wide open grasslands with little tree cover and typically 10% or less slope but occasionally they will use areas with up to a 20% slope. Vegetative structure including grasses, forbs, and small shrubs is generally less than 18 inches in height. Arizona pronghorn will sometimes use savannah habitats when the canopy cover averages less than 20%. Pronghorn are a grassland animal but normally grass makes up a small portion of the diet. Forbs and small shrubs are of primary importance in the pronghorn diet (Brown and Ockenfels 2007). Pronghorn require free water during biologically stressful periods to supplement moisture obtained by diet alone (Clemente et al. 1995; Tluczek 2012).

Declining pronghorn populations in portions of Arizona continues to be a concern. Causes of decline in pronghorn herds across Arizona are numerous, but generally consistent. Paramount to the persistence of any wildlife species is presence of quality habitat. Continued urban sprawl and associated highway construction has fragmented and damaged quality pronghorn habitat. Grasslands, historically dependent upon predictable fire regimes, have been reduced in size by invasion of juniper and shrub species resulting from decades of fire suppression. Past livestock grazing and historic fencing practices have reduced habitat quality and created barriers that pronghorn cannot cross. Finally, persistent drought and predation has affected pronghorn populations to varying degrees statewide. The combination of these factors has led to a reduction in habitat availability and quality, a substantial decline in fawn recruitment, and a correlated increase in efficiency of pronghorn predators (AZGFD 2013). Barriers such as highways and fences can also limit wildlife movement to access key habitat features including nutritious forage, fawning cover, and water.

68 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects One of the primary objectives of the project is to improve habitat quality for pronghorn. Mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, herbicide use to inhibit the regrowth of alligator juniper, construction of wildlife waters, and fence modification and removal are all designed to maintain grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland habitat within historic habitat and to improve the ability of pronghorn to move across the landscape and acquire the necessary resources.

Arizona Game and Fish Department conducts annual pronghorn surveys. Population trends based on survey data show that populations are stable to increasing in Game Management Units (GMUs) 7, 8, 9, and 10, which contain the Grassland Restoration Project area. See figures 3-6 through 3-9 for annual population estimates.

955

716

478

239

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pronghorn PopulationPronghorn

Double Count Pop Estimate Population Model

Figure 3-6. GMU 7, 10 year pronghorn population trend

716.43128

477.62085

238.81043

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pronghorn PopulationPronghorn

Double Count Pop Estimate Population Model

Figure 3-7. GMU 8, 10 year pronghorn population trend

955.2417

716.43128

477.62085

238.81043

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pronghorn PopulationPronghorn

Double Count Pop Estimate Population Model

Figure 3-8. GMU 9, 10 year pronghorn population trend

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 69 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pronghorn PopulationPronghorn

Double Count Pop Estimate Population Model

Figure 3-9. GMU 10, 10 year pronghorn population trend

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there are approximately 79,685 acres of grassland habitat in the project area, which is approximately 70% of the total grassland habitat mapped across the forest. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not alter the habitat quantity of grasslands but there would be an increase in habitat quality.

Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in an increase to forest-wide pronghorn habitat quality and could result in an increase in population trends for pronghorn.

Migratory Birds Migratory birds were evaluated for the following habitats: grassland, pinyon-juniper grasslands, pinyon-juniper sagebrush, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine forests. Numerous migratory bird species occur within the project area. Several species are evaluated in the Forest Service Sensitive Species section (northern goshawk, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl) and Management Indicator Species section (Grace’s warbler). Effects were also evaluated for bird species of conservation concern. Species of conservation concern were identified as Arizona Partners in Flight Priority Species (Latta et al. 1999) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) that potentially occur in the project area. There are no designated Important Bird Areas on the Williams or Tusayan Districts.

Arizona Partners in Flight Priority Species and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Concern that are known to occur or potentially occur in the project area are olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), Cordilleran flycatcher (Empidonax occidentalis), purple martin (Progne subis), black- throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo Swainsoni), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), flammulated owl (otus flammeolus), Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), gray vireo (Vireo vicinior), pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), red-faced warbler (Cardellina rubrifrons), juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes mantanus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) and Cassin’s finch (Carpodacus cassinii).

Species most likely affected by the proposed activities are species that nest or forage on the ground and in low shrub vegetation. The Proposed Action could result in limited unintentional take of migratory birds during project implementation. However, long term effects would be increased habitat quality for grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland dependent species.

Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 could result in unintentional take for some migratory bird species but would not result in a measurable negative effect to migratory bird populations.

70 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Cumulative Effects – Alternatives 2 and 3

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis This section summarizes the combined effects of the South Zone Grassland Restoration project with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts. The cumulative effects analysis area is the project area with a 2 mile buffer around it. Past present and reasonably foreseeable projects are summarized below.

Forest thinning and prescribed fire can affect wildlife habitat. Although these types of projects are mitigated to reduce negative effects, resulting habitat modification can affect foraging, nesting, hiding and thermal cover, and potentially daily movements on a short term basis. Although these treatments can cause short term disturbances to some wildlife, most species will benefit over the long term. Much of the forest and woodland in the project area has become more dense than under historic (presettlement conditions) because of decreased wildfire frequency (Swetnam et al. 1999, Covington and Moore 1994). Thinning and burning treatments such as the proposed action are likely to move habitat structure and composition back to conditions more consistent with conditions that occurred during the recent evolutionary past for native species in the project area.

Several similar restoration projects have been conducted in the project area during the past 10 years totaling approximately 20,000 acres. Ongoing projects include an additional 2-3,000 acres per year and future projects could additional acres.

Prescribed fires and thinning will continue on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts and adjacent lands in the coming years to reduce accumulated fuels that can cause catastrophic wild fire. These actions are expected to improve habitat for numerous wildlife species. Foraging habitat for condor, peregrine falcon, bald and golden eagle, burrowing owl, pronghorn and Mogollon Vole would be improved. Understory response and regeneration as result of such work should also increase invertebrate diversity and prey abundance which should improve foraging opportunities for bats while maintaining abundant roosting areas.

The effects of the proposed action and similar past fuels reduction projects, however, only partially offset effects resulting from reduction in wildfire frequency during the past century as a result of livestock grazing (reduced fine fuel loads) and fire suppression. That is, the spatial and temporal scale of the effects of thinning and broadcast burning within the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area is disproportionately small when compared to the landscape- and regional-level effects caused by reduced wildfire frequency during the past century (e.g., denser forests and woodlands and decreased herbaceous and shrub growth).

Cattle grazing has occurred in all or most of the project area and cumulative effects analysis area at some time or another since the 1870s. Cattle numbers in the late 1800s and early 1900s were many time higher than they have been in the late 1900s and early 2000s. Livestock grazing currently occurs in most of the project area and the cumulative effects analysis area.

Livestock grazing and associated management activities could negatively affect the Mogollon vole and other small mammals by trampling and removal of grass needed for food and cover making them more susceptible to predation. The effects of livestock grazing on vegetation have been documented to affect insects, upon which numerous migratory birds feed. Above ground macroarthropods (insects and arachnids) experienced large decreases with moderate or heavy grazing, but conversely with light grazing showed slight increases (Lavigne et al. 1972 in Milchunas et al. 1998). Light grazing (30% utilization ) has been found to leave a greater amount of standing vegetative crop than moderately grazed sites and forage production was 24% higher under light than moderate grazing regimes (Holechek et al. 2003). Livestock grazing can directly impact small mammals by trampling and collapsing burrows and compacting soils which hinder burrow construction (Heske and Campbell 1991, Hayward et al. 1997).

Human recreational activities can affect nesting, roosting, foraging, and general movements of wildlife. The Kaibab National Forest has recently released the Travel Management Rule that closed 489 miles of roads that would reduce recreational disturbance to wildlife on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts. Additionally the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 71 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Proposed Action would obliterate up to 49 miles of road which would restore habitat for numerous grassland species.

In summary, the proposed action would not result in habitat loss for wildlife species evaluated, only changes in habitat quality. For most species, habitat quality would likely increase as a result of the proposed action and for some such as the Mogollon vole habitat quality would likely decrease in the short term but would increase over the long term as the understory regenerates. Because direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on wildlife species would be of relatively low intensity (i.e., result primarily in changes to habitat quality, not habitat loss) and of limited spatial scale, the effects of the proposed action in addition to effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would likely be insufficient to cause a population decline or threaten population viability for any of the species evaluated. Soils, Watershed, and Air

Comparison of Alternatives A summary of the effects of implementing each alternative can be found in Chapter 2 in table 2-3. This information is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Methodology and Analysis Process This section describes the methodology and analysis processes used to determine the environmental consequences to soils and watershed resources from implementing the alternatives. Environmental consequences are site- specific at the project planning level and will be described with qualitative and quantitative descriptions supported by past studies and observations.

Analyses for environmental consequences to soils and watershed resources that may result from implementation of each alternative were conducted using information contained in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest (TES)(USDA 1991), the Watershed Condition Framework, Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest (2014), information obtained from other KNF resource specialists, other agency reports, available literature, and input from KNF collaborators and cooperators. Geospatial analysis was used to quantitatively and qualitatively assess soils and watershed conditions using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data obtained from a variety of sources.

Soils of the KNF were mapped as part of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Kaibab National Forest (USDA 1991). This information is available at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office or via the internet at:

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest.pdf.

The TES is the result of the systematic analysis, mapping, classification and interpretation of terrestrial ecosystems, also known as terrestrial ecological units that are delineated and numbered. A TES represents the combined influences of climate, soil and vegetation, and correlates these factors with soil temperature and moisture along an environmental gradient. It is an integrated survey and hierarchical with respect to classification levels and mapping intensities. It is the only seamless mapping of vegetation and soils available across the KNF that includes field visited, validated and correlated sites with a stringent Regional and National protocol stemming from decades of work. Field surveys for the Kaibab TES was completed from 1979 through 1986. Map units are identified by numbers ranging from 3 to 683. One hundred and thirty-two major soil types have been mapped and described and management interpretations developed on the KNF.

It is important to understand that differences in ecosystem properties including soil and vegetation can occur within short distances. The TES was mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 across the landscape. Generally, small

72 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects vegetation types (i.e., smaller than about 40 acres) were not mapped and are therefore included in larger TES map units.

The TES follows National Cooperative Soil Survey Standards similar to Soil Surveys conducted by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. There has therefore been strict quality assurance including Project Leader field reviews, Regional Office reviews, and annual progressive and final field reviews to approve map unit design and mapping.

The TES is used to evaluate and adjust land uses to the limitations and potentials of natural resources and the environment. It presents important properties pertaining to the natural, physical, and behavioral characteristics of the terrestrial ecosystems and provides the background for making interpretations. Interpretations based upon TES incorporate 1) soil physical and chemical properties, 2) climatic considerations, 3) topographic position and slope, 4) vegetation and anthropogenic influences as well as animal impacts, 5) productive and successional potentials, and 6) geologic influences. As such the TES can form the ecological basis for describing existing conditions for resource areas including watershed, wildlife, fire, and timber.

Soil condition is based on the primary soil functions of soil hydrology, soil stability, and nutrient cycling.

Soil erosion rates for thinning and prescribed fire treatments were modeled for selected terrestrial ecosystem units (TEU) within the project area using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model (Version 2010.1) and Rangeland Hydrology and Erosion Model (RHEM). The WEPP model is a process-based, distributed parameter, continuous simulation erosion prediction model (USDA 2010). RHEM is a single storm runoff and erosion computer model. Parameter estimation equations were developed based on measured rangeland erosion plot data for the sheet erosion (Kss) and infiltration (Ke) parameters. The parameter estimation procedures for Kss and Ke are grouped according to dominant plant forms of sod-grass, bunch-grass, and shrubs, with a different set of estimation equations for each grouping. Model input parameters were specific to each TEU and slope. Soil profile descriptions, including horizon depths, textures, presence of restrictive layers, and percentage of rock, were used as input soil properties in WEPP. Interrill and rill erodibility, critical shear, hydraulic conductivity, and predicted saturation level were calculated during each model run for each TEU. Maximum slope percentages and lengths for each TEU were used for slope profiles in each model run in order to provide the most conservative estimate of potential accelerated soil erosion and sediment yield from proposed treatments. Low, moderate, and high severity fire conditions were modeled for each TEU in order to cover the range of possible burn conditions.

Effects to water quality will be assessed qualitatively by alternative by comparing predicted direct, indirect, and cumulative effects by major land disturbing activities (e.g. forest thinning, road construction and decommissioning, trailhead and trail construction, activity debris piling, pile burning, prescribed burning, and fuelwood gathering) within the project area.

The general classification used for surface water quality by ADEQ is attaining, attaining some uses, inconclusive/not assessed, not-attaining, and impaired for the identified uses. The classification designates each waterbody in one of five categories:

Category 1 Surface waters assessed as “attaining all uses.” All designated uses are assessed as “attaining.”

Category 2 - Surface waters assessed as “attaining some uses.” Each designated use is assessed as either “attaining,” “inconclusive,” or “threatened.”

Category 3 - Surface waters assessed as “inconclusive.” All designated uses are assessed as “inconclusive” due to insufficient data to assess any designated use (e.g., insufficient samples or core parameters). By default, this category would include waters that were “not assessed” for similar reasons

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 73 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Category 4 - Surface waters assessed as “not attaining.” At least one designated use was assessed as “not attaining” and no uses were assessed as “impaired.” A Total Maximum Daily Load1 (TMDL) analysis will not be required at this time for one of the following reasons:

4 A. - A TMDL has already been completed and approved by EPA but the water quality standards are not yet attained;

4 B. - Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards by the next regularly scheduled listing cycle; or

4 C. - The impairment is not related to a “pollutant” loading but rather due to “pollution” (e.g., hydrologic modification).

Category 5 - Surface waters assessed as “impaired.” At least one designated use was assessed as “impaired” by a pollutant. These waters must be prioritized for TMDL development.

Water quality is assessed by comparing existing conditions (category 1 to 5) with desired conditions that are set by Arizona under authority of the Clean Water Act. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the regulating authority for water quality in Arizona as promulgated by EPA. Waters that are not impaired (those not on 303d2 list or in category 4 or 5) are providing for beneficial uses identified for that stream or water body and can be considered in a desired condition until further sampling indicates impairment. Those in category 2 or higher require special attention during site specific project analysis. The ADEQ also interprets its surface water quality standards to apply to “intermittent, non-navigable tributaries.” The ADEQ interprets the definition of “surface water” to include tributaries (“the tributary rule”) and assigns water quality standards to intermittent surface waters that are not specifically listed by name in Arizona’s surface water quality standards rules. ADEQ has determined it is necessary to regulate and protect these types of waters as “waters of the United States” because it is estimated that approximately 95 percent of the surface waters in Arizona are either intermittent or ephemeral.

Effects to water yield will be discussed qualitatively, based on comparison of current activities to projected effects of implementing alternatives. Generally, reducing canopy cover in vegetation types within higher precipitation zones will generate more runoff.

Effects to groundwater availability will be discussed qualitatively using regional studies and FS policies to generally predict effects to the forests.

A watershed condition reassessment was completed in 2016 for all sixth-level subwatersheds in the proposed project area as part of a Forest-level assessment of watershed condition (Potyondy and Geier, 2011). Watershed condition was classified using a core set of national watershed condition indicators that were updated with local data and interpreted by a Forest interdisciplinary (ID) team. These indicators are grouped according to four major ecosystem process categories: (1) aquatic physical; (2) aquatic biological; (3) terrestrial physical; and (4) terrestrial biological. These categories represent terrestrial, riparian, and riverine ecosystem processes or mechanisms by which management actions can affect the condition of watersheds and associated resources. Each indicator was evaluated using a defined set of attributes whereby each attribute was scored by the Forest

1A TMDL is a written analysis that determines the maximum amount of a pollutant that a surface water can assimilate (the “load”), and still attain water quality standards during all conditions. The TMDL allocates the loading capacity of the surface water to point sources and nonpoint sources identified in the watershed, accounting for natural background levels and seasonal variation, with an allocation set aside as a margin of safety. 2 Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These impaired waters do not meet water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. (http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/TMDLs/CWA+303d+List ) 74 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects interdisciplinary team as GOOD (1), FAIR (2), or POOR (3) using written criteria, rule sets, the best available data, and professional judgment.

Twelve core watershed condition indicators were evaluated for all sixth-level HUCs. Aquatic physical indicators included: 1) water quality condition, 2) water quantity (flow regime) condition, and 3) stream and habitat condition. Aquatic biological indicators included: 4) aquatic biota condition and 5) riparian vegetation condition. Terrestrial physical indicators included: 6) road and trail condition, and 7) soil condition. Terrestrial biological indicators included: 8) fire effect and regime condition, 9) forest cover condition, 10) rangeland, grassland and open area condition, 11) terrestrial non-native invasive species condition, and 12) forest health condition.

The attribute scores for each indicator are summed and averaged to produce an indicator score. The indicator scores within each ecosystem process category are then averaged to arrive at a process category score. The overall watershed condition score is computed as a weighted average of the four process category scores. The watershed condition scores are tracked to one decimal point and reported as Watershed Condition Classes 1, 2, or 3. Class 1 = scores of 1.0 to 1.6, Class 2 = scores from 1.7 to 2.2, and Class 3 = scores from 2.3 to 3.0.

Within this context, the three watershed condition classes are directly related to the degree or level of watershed functionality or integrity: Class 1 = Functioning Properly, Class 2 = Functioning at Risk, and Class 3 = Impaired Function. Class 1 watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Class 2 watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Class 3 watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Table 1 in Appendix A of the Soils, Watershed, and Air Specialist Report provides watershed condition indicator scores and watershed condition summaries.

Figure 3-10 below displays the watershed condition indicators and how each attribute contributes to indicator ratings and overall evaluation of watershed condition classification.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 75 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Figure 3-10. Core national watershed condition indicators.

To determine historic and existing conditions, the initial analysis included a review of historic aerial photographs dating to 1940 and aerial photos used for Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) mapping, which were taken from the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s. A review of Google Earth historic photos (dating back to 1991) and at: Historic Aerial Photos. These photos dated back to 1958. Finally a review of aerial photographs available from the USGS Earth Explorer was performed. These photos dated back to 1967. Historic aerial photographs were compared to recent aerial photographs to determine areas of tree encroachment into meadows and grasslands as well as forest ingrowth in pinyon-juniper grasslands.

In addition to reviews of available historic and current aerial photographs, a review of scanned historic rangeland/vegetation maps, and grazing type maps dating to the 1914, and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) vegetation map from 1919 was performed.

These resources provided information on the historic condition of forests and grasslands shortly after European settlement in the region.

Following reviews of aerial imagery and historic maps, a review of TES data was performed. These data included documentation of vegetation communities and characteristics at the time the TES mapping was being performed. The primary information as referenced in the TES manuscript that informed this analysis includes:

2.0 Map Unit Components. Characteristics and Composition

76 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects 6.0 Composition of Plant Community

4.1 Percent of Vegetative Ground Cover; Vegetation basal area; Herbaceous and woody vegetation potential productivity

Revegetation potential of TES map units was reviewed to further refine areas that were historic grasslands. Revegetation potential of grasslands on the KNF are typically high due to deeper soils, high soil moisture retention, organic matter content, and associated nutrient status. Pinyon-juniper woodland soils typically have lower revegetation potential due to shallow soils, soils with high percentages of gravel, rock and cobbles, and eroded soil phases.

Soils in the Vertic, Cumulic, and Pachic subgroup were generally categorized as grasslands for the purpose of this analysis. Calcic and petrocalcic soils tend to be persistent pinyon-juniper woodlands. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units identified as potential eroded phases in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type were classified as persistent woodlands.

Where tree encroachment into grassland vegetation communities was readily observable on aerial photos, climate classes are LSC 4 +1 and 4 -1, revegetation potential is high, and soil subgroups are classified as Vertic, Cumulic, and Pachic, these areas were classified as grasslands.

Where changes in stand densities due to ingrowth are readily observable on aerial photos, revegetation potential is low and soil subgroups are classified as lithic or skeletal, these areas were classified as pinyon-juniper grasslands. Where no readily observable changes in stand densities had occurred, climate classes are 4 0, soil subgroups are classified as calcic and petrocalcic and stand densities are generally high and soils were indicative of eroded phases (i.e., reduced depth of A horizons), these areas were classified as persistent woodlands.

Issues Soils, water quality and air resource issues associated with this proposed project include:

 Percent of soil exposure as a result of activities described in the proposed action.  Percent of soil disturbance as a result of the proposed action and other action alternatives.  Construction of firelines and use of prescribed fire could disturb, destabilize, and compact soils and expose them to erosion.  Decommissioning roads could increase surface runoff, erosion, and sediment delivery to ephemeral drainages and other waterbodies.  There is potential for soil rutting, compaction, and puddling as a result of mechanical fuels treatments and personal and commercial fuelwood sales.  The amount of sediment that reaches ephemeral streams or drainages (displayed as embeddedness) could increase.  There could be significant cumulative effects to soils, watershed, and air resources, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.  Proposed activities have potential to adversely affect air quality.

Desired Conditions for Soils, Watersheds, Natural Waters, and Air Quality The following desired conditions for soils, water quality, watersheds and air as outlined in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest would apply to this proposed project:

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 77 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Soils  Soils provide for diverse native plant species. Vegetative ground cover is well distributed across the soil surface to promote nutrient cycling and water infiltration.  Accelerated soil loss is minimal, especially on sensitive or highly erodible sites.  Soils can readily absorb, store, and transmit water vertically and horizontally; accept, hold, and release nutrients; and resist erosion.  Infiltration rates are good in TES soil units that are described as well drained and moderately well drained.  Logs and other woody materials are distributed across the surface to maintain soil productivity.  Biological soil crusts (mosses, lichens, algae, liverworts) are stable or increasing in semi-desert grasslands, desert, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush communities.  Soils are free from anthropogenic contaminants that could alter ecosystem integrity or affect public health.

Watersheds  Vegetation conditions within watersheds contribute to downstream water quality and quantity. Surface runoff, sheet, rill, and gully erosion, and subsequent sedimentation into connecting waters downstream is minimal.  Flooding maintains normal stream characteristics (e.g., water transport, sediment, woody material) and dimensions (e.g., bankfull width, depth, slope, and sinuosity). Vertical down cutting and embeddedness are absent in drainages.  Flood plains are functioning and lessen the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare.  The fuels composition within watersheds does not put the watersheds at risk for uncharacteristic disturbance.  Water quality meets or surpasses State of Arizona or Environmental Protection Agency water quality standards for designated uses. Water quality meets critical needs of aquatic species.  For water quality measures, no physical measurements will be taken to determine water quality. A narrative description will explain the effects to water quality by Alternative.

Natural Waters  Stream channel stability and aquatic habitats retain their inherent resilience to disturbances and climate fluctuations. Stream channel morphology reflects changes in the hydrological balance, runoff, and sediment supply appropriate to the landscape setting.  Springs and ponds have the necessary soil, water, and vegetation attributes to be healthy and functioning. Water levels, flow patterns, groundwater recharge rates, and geochemistry are similar to reference conditions. Springs, streams, and ponds have appropriate plant cover to protect banks and shorelines from excessive erosion.  Hydrophytes and emergent vegetation exist in patterns of natural abundance in wetlands and springs in levels that reflect climatic conditions. Overhanging vegetation and floating plants such as water lilies exist where they naturally occur.  The necessary physical and biological components, including cover, forage, water, microclimate, and nesting/breeding habitat, provide habitat for a diverse community of plant and wildlife species.  Riparian dependent plant and animal species are self-sustaining and occur in natural patterns of abundance and distribution. Within its capability, stream flow and water quality are adequate to maintain

78 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects aquatic habitat and water sources for native and desired nonnative species. Native macroinvertebrates are appropriately abundant and diverse.  Native amphibians are free from or minimally impacted by nonnative predation and diseases. Unwanted nonnative species do not exert a detectable impact on aquatic and wetland ecosystems.  Where springs or other natural waters have been modified for livestock and/or human consumption, developments are operational.  The location and status of springs and water resources are known, organized, and available.

Air Quality  Air quality meets or surpasses State and Federal ambient air quality standards.  Management activities on the Kaibab NF do not adversely impact Class I airshed visibility as established in the Clean Air Act.

Guidelines for Management of Soils, Watersheds, Natural Waters, and Air Quality

Soils and Watershed Management  Projects should incorporate the national best management practices for water quality management and include design features to protect and improve watershed condition.  In disturbed areas, erosion control measures should be implemented to improve soil conditions.  Seeds and plants used for revegetation should originate from the same PNVT and general ecoregion (i.e. southern Colorado Plateau) as the project area.

Natural Waters Access to natural waters should be restricted to designated trails and points of entry to mediate erosion and prevent trampling and inadvertent introduction of nonnative and undesirable biota and disease.

 Activities in and around waters should use decontamination procedures to prevent the spread of chytrid fungus.  Fences constructed around natural waters should allow bats and other desirable wildlife to pass through unharmed.  Diversions of water sources that recharge wetlands should be assessed and appropriate actions should be identified to mitigate or minimize effects.  Spring source areas should be preferentially protected.  Forest springs information should be maintained in a database that facilitates long-term archiving, easy data entry, and comparison with monitoring results.  Water rights for springs should be secured where there are no existing water rights or claims.  The impacts of management activities on springs, streams, and wetlands should be evaluated and minimized.

Air Quality  Project design for prescribed fires and strategies for managing wildfires should incorporate as many emission reduction techniques as feasible, subject to economic, technical, safety criteria, and land management objectives.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 79 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects  Decision documents, which define the objectives and document line officer approval of the strategies chosen for wildfires, should identify smoke sensitive receptors, and identify appropriate objectives and courses of action to minimize and mitigate impacts to those receptors.

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Apply The following list includes applicable laws, regulations, and policies affecting soils and watershed management on the KNF, the requirements of which are incorporated by reference herein.

The U.S. Forest Service Directives System (FSM/FSH): Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks codify the agency’s policy, practice, and procedure. The system serves as the primary basis for the internal management and control of all programs and the primary source of administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) are the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out the direction issued in the FSM. Specialists and technicians are the primary audience of Handbook direction. Handbooks may also incorporate external directives with related USDA and Forest Service directive supplements.

 Forest Service Manual – Service Wide Issuance  Forest Service Manual 2500 – WATERSHED AND AIR MANAGEMENT  Region 3 (Southwestern Region): Regional Issuances o Forest Service Manual 2504.3 Exhibit 01 o Forest Service Manual 2510 - WATERSHED PLANNING o Forest Service Manual 2520 - WATERSHED PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT o Forest Service Manual 2530 - WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT o Forest Service Manual 2540 - WATER USES AND DEVELOPMENT o Forest Service Manual 2580 - AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT  Forest Service Handbook – Service Wide Issuance  Forest Service Handbook 2500 – Watershed and Air Management  Region 3 (Southwestern Region): Regional Issuances  2509.16 - Water Resource Inventory Handbook  2509.21 - National Forest System Water Rights Handbook  2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation Handbook  2509.23 - Riparian Area Handbook  2509.24 - National Forest System Watershed Codes Handbook  2509.25 - Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook

The Organic Administration Act: (at 16 U.S.C. 475, 551). States the purpose of the national forests, and directs their control and administration to be in accord with such purpose, that is, “[n]o national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.” Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “make such rules and regulations…to preserve the forests [of such reservations] from destruction.”

80 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Weeks Law of 1911: as amended (at 16 U.S.C. 515, 552). Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with States for the purpose of conserving forests and water supply, and, to acquire forested, cutover, or denuded lands within the watersheds of navigable streams to protect the flow of these streams or for the production of timber, with the consent of the State in which the land lies.

Anderson-Mansfield Reforestation and Revegetation Joint Resolution Act of 1949 (at 16 U.S.C. 581j and 581j (note). States the policy of the Congress to accelerate and provide a continuing basis for the needed reforestation and revegetation of national forest lands and other lands under Forest Service administration or control, for the purpose of obtaining stated benefits (timber, forage, watershed protection, and benefits to local communities) from the national forests.

Granger-Thye Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. at 580g-h). Authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of grazing fees for range improvement projects on NFS lands. Specific types of projects mentioned are artificial revegetation, including the collection or purchase of necessary seed and eradication of poisonous plants and noxious weeds, in order to protect or improve the future productivity of the range. Section 11 of the act authorizes the use of funds for rangeland improvement projects outside of NFS lands under certain circumstances.

Sikes Act (Fish and Wildlife Conservation) of September 15, 1960 (16 U.S.C. at 670g). Section 201 directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with State agencies, to plan, develop, maintain, coordinate, and implement programs for the conservation and rehabilitation of wildlife, fish and game species, including specific habitat improvement projects, and shall implement such projects on public land under their jurisdiction.

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of November 18, 1977 - Provides for a continuing appraisal of the United States’ soil, water and related resources, including fish and wildlife habitats, and a soil and water conservation program to assist landowners and land users in furthering soil and water conservation.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531). States that the National Forests are to be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes, and that establishment and maintenance of wilderness areas are consistent with this Act. This Act directs the Secretary to manage these resources in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; providing for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; and harmonious and coordinated management of the resources without impairment of the productivity of the land. Sustained yield means achieving and maintaining in perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of renewable resources without impairment of the productivity of the land.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954 - Establishes policy that the Federal government should cooperate with states and their political subdivisions, soil or water conservation districts, flood prevention or control districts, and other local public agencies for the purposes of preventing erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds of the rivers and streams of the United States; furthering the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, and the conservation and utilization of land; and thereby preserving, protecting, and improving the Nation's land and water resources and the quality of the environment.

Water Quality Improvement Act of April 3, 1970 - Amends the prohibitions of oil discharges, authorizes the President to determine quantities of oil which would be harmful to the public health or welfare of the United States; to publish a National Contingency Plan to provide for coordinated action to minimize damage from oil discharges. Requires performance standards for marine sanitation device and authorizes demonstration projects to control acid or other mine pollution, and to control water pollution within the watersheds of the Great Lakes. Requires that applicants for Federal permits for activities involving discharges into navigable waters provide state certification that they will not violate applicable water quality standards

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969: (16 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Declares it is the policy of the Federal Government to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 81 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects The Act requires agencies proposing major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, to prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of the proposed action, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, alternatives to the action proposed, the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved if the proposed action is implemented. The Act also provides that for any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, an agency must study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974, as amended by National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614, 472a). States that the development and administration of the renewable resources of the National Forest System are to be in full accord with the concepts for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services as set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. It sets forth the requirements for land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System, including requiring guidelines to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972: Public Law 92-500, as amended in 1977 (Public Law 95- 217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4) (also known as the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)): This Act provides the structure for regulating pollutant discharges to waters of the United States. The Act’s objective is “…to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and is aimed at controlling both point and non-point sources of pollution. The U.S. EPA administers the Act, but many permitting, administrative, and enforcement functions are delegated to state governments. In Arizona, the designated agency for enforcement of the Clean Water Act is the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Relevant sections of the Clean Water Act:

 CWA Sections 208 and 319: recognizes the need for control strategies for non-point source pollution.  CWA Section 303(d): requires waterbodies with water quality determined to be either impaired (not fully meeting water quality standards for designated uses) or threatened (likely to violate standards in the near future) to be compiled by ADEQ in a separate list, which must be submitted to EPA every 2 years. These waters are targeted and scheduled for development of water quality improvement strategies on a priority basis.  Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs): As of 2014, there are no applicable TMDL requirements in effect for the KNF.  CWA Section 305(b): requires that states assess the condition of their waters and produce a biennial report summarizing the findings.

CWA Section 401: allows states and tribes to review and approve, set conditions on, or deny Federal permits (such as 404 permits) that may result in a discharge to state or tribal waters, including wetlands. Applications for Section 404 permits are often joint 404/401permits to ensure compliance at both the Federal and state levels.

CWA Section 404: outlines the permitting process for dredging or discharging fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers the 404 Program.

Clean Air Act, as amended 1977 and 1990: (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7418, 7470. 7472, 7474, 7475, 7491, 7506, and 7602). Establishes a national goal to prevent any future, and remedy existing, visibility impairment in certain wilderness areas the Forest Service manages. It also directs the Forest Service as a Federal land manager to protect air quality related values from man-made air pollution in these same areas. Lastly, it obligates the Forest Service to comply with the Act’s many provisions regarding abatement of air pollution to the same extent as any private person.

82 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects North American Wetland Conservation Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401 (note), 4401-4413, 16 U.S.C. 669b (note)). Section 9 (U.S.C. 4408) directs Federal land managing agencies to cooperate with the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore, protect, and enhance the wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds, fish and wildlife within the lands and waters of each agency to the extent consistent with the mission of such agency and existing statutory authorities.

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) (42 CFR 26951, May 25, 1977): The purpose of this Order is “…to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.” Section 1 states: “Each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands, and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.”

Executive Orders relevant to ecological restoration include:

Executive Order 11514: issued March 5, 1970, as amended by E.O. 11991 issued May 24, 1977. Protection and enhancement of environmental quality (35 FR 4247, March 7, 1970). This order states that the Federal Government shall provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's environment to sustain and enrich human life. This order provides for monitoring, evaluation, and control on a continuing basis of the activities of each Federal agency so as to protect and enhance the quality of the environment.

Executive Order 11644: issued February 8, 1972. Use of off-road vehicles on the public lands. (37 FR 2877, February 9, 1972). Amended by E.O. 11989 issued May 24, 1977 and E.O. 12608 issued September 9, 1987. This order requires federal agencies to develop and implement procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.

Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands): …“in order to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands… Section 1. (a) Each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities for…(3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. Sec. 5: In carrying out the activities described in Section I of this Order, each agency shall consider factors relevant to a proposal’s effect on the survival and quality of the wetlands. Among these factors are: (b) maintenance of natural systems, including conservation and long-term productivity of existing flora and fauna, species and habitat diversity and stability, hydrologic utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food and fiber resources; and (c) other uses of wetlands in the public interest, including recreational, scientific, and cultural uses.”

Executive Order 13112 issued February 3, 1999. Invasive Species. (64 CFR 6183, February 8, 1999). This order requires federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of invasive species to, among other things, respond to and control populations of invasive species and provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded by non-native invasive species.

Travel Management Rule: On December 9, 2005, the Forest Service published the TMR. The agency rewrote direction for motor vehicle use on National Forest Service (NFS) lands under 36 CFR, Parts 212, 251, and 261, and eliminated 36 CFR 295. The rule was written to address at least in part the issue of unmanaged recreation. The rule provides guidance to the Forest Service on how to designate and manage motorized recreation on the

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 83 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Forests. The rule requires each National Forest and Grassland to designate those roads, motorized trails, and Areas that are open to motor vehicle use.

Section 212.50 – “(a) Purpose. This subpart provides for a system of National Forest system roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest system lands that are designated for motor vehicle use. After these roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use, including the class of vehicle and time of year, not in accordance with these designations is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13.

Section 212.51 – “(a)…the following vehicles and uses are exempted from these designations:

(1) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service

(8) Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations.

(b) Motor vehicle use for dispersed camping or big game retrieval. In designating routes, the responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal.”

Section 212.52 – “(b) …Nothing in this section shall alter or limit the authority to implement temporary, emergency closures pursuant to 36 CFR part 261, subpart B, without advance public notice to provide short-term resource protection or to protect public health and safety.

(2) Temporary, emergency closures based on a determination of considerable adverse effects. If the responsible official determines that motor vehicle use on a National Forest System road or National Forest System trail or in an area on National Forest System lands is directly causing or will directly cause considerable adverse effects on public safety or soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural resources associated with that road, trail, or area, the responsible official shall immediately close that road, trail, or area to motor vehicle use until the official determines that such adverse effects have been mitigated or eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence. The responsible official shall provide public notice of the closure…”

Section 212.54 – “Designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands pursuant to Section 212.51 may be revised as needed to meet changing conditions.”

Section 212.55 – “(a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands… the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources...”

“(b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: (1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;…”

Section 212.57 – “For each administrative unit of the National Forest System, the responsible official shall monitor the effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails and in designated areas…”

Road System: 36 CFR 212.5 (b):…the responsible official must identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands. ... The minimum system is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance.

84 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Regional Forester’s direction: Roads analysis process (RAP) for all other existing roads should be completed in conjunction with implementation of the off-highway vehicle (OHV) Record of Decision, watershed analyses, other project level activities or Forest Plan revisions.

Identification of unneeded roads. Responsible officials must review the road system on each National Forest and Grassland and identify the roads on lands under Forest Service jurisdiction that are no longer needed to meet forest resource management objectives and that, therefore, should be decommissioned or considered for other uses, such as for trails.

Regional Forester’s direction: Roads analysis process (RAP) for all other existing roads should be completed in conjunction with implementation of the off-highway vehicle (OHV) Record of Decision, watershed analyses, other project level activities or Forest Plan revisions.

Memorandum of Agreement on Fostering Collaboration and Efficiencies to Address Water Quality Impairments on National Forest System Lands: Agreement between U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed in 2007. Purpose: to coordinate between agencies and address issues of water quality impairment regarding 303d list, as well as TMDLs. The leading cause of water quality impairments on National Forest lands includes temperature, excess sediment, and habitat modification. These issues are to be addressed via BMPs to the greatest extent possible. In terms of this project analysis area, BMPs can be applied to soil and watershed condition and are applicable everywhere on the KNF.

36 CFR 219 Planning - Sets forth a process for developing, adopting, and revising land and resource management plans for the National Forest System.

40 CFR 121-135 Water Programs - Sets forth the provisions for the administration of water programs including: state certification of activities requiring a Federal license or permit; EPA administered permit programs; state program requirements; procedures for decision making; criteria and standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; toxic pollutant effluent standards; water quality planning and management; water quality standards; water quality guidance for the Great Lakes System; secondary treatment regulation; and, prior notice of citizen suits. See Title 40 (Protection of Environment), Chapter 1 (Environmental Protection Agency), subchapter D (Water Programs).

40 CFR 1500 Council on Environmental Quality - Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) has identified an initial list of project design criteria to minimize the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed action. Additionally, the ID Team has identified monitoring requirements to ensure that resource impacts are within acceptable limits during and following implementation. Additional or modified project design criteria, mitigation and/or monitoring measures may be developed as a result of public input and further environmental analysis. At this time, the project design criteria related to soils, water quality and air quality include the following:

 implementation of appropriate harvesting and fireline Best Management Practices (BMPs), as outlined in the National Core BMP Technical Guide, Vol. 1 (FS-990a)(2012) and “Soil and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (1990)”, to prevent or minimize potential soil erosion;  monitoring of BMP implementation and effectiveness to ensure long-term soil and water quality desired conditions are maintained;  implementation of timing restrictions on fuelwood gathering as necessary to prevent or minimize potential adverse impacts to soils and watersheds during wet ground conditions.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 85 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects  Follow BMPs, as outlined in the “Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire (2001)”, for optimal smoke dispersal (including coordination with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and notifications to GCNP and the public).

Specific soil and watershed protection measures are listed in table 2-4 in chapter 2. These include references to standard Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) and BMP’s found in the Soil and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA, 1990). Resource protection measures are implemented to minimize nonpoint source pollution as outlined in the intergovernmental agreement between the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service (ADEQ, 2008). Note that no resource protection measures are required for the No Action Alternative.

Affected Environment The affected environment includes those portions of the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts that lie outside of the boundary of the Four Forest Restoration Initiative and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area (approximately 281,145 acres on the Williams Ranger District and 271,075 acres on the Tusayan Ranger District). The elevation ranges from 5,000 to 7,751 ft. The dominant vegetative communities include grasslands, pinyon-juniper grasslands, pinyon-juniper sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper woodlands. The resources within this analysis that will be affected by the proposed action and Alternative 3 (i.e., action alternative) are soils, watershed conditions, water quality, and air quality.

Climate The Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts occur within the north central climatological division of Arizona. The climate is highly variable as a result of uneven topography and the wide range in elevation. There is a strong orographic influence on precipitation patterns across the region. Precipitation on the average varies from 14 to 30 inches annually and is bimodal. The majority of the precipitation falls from July through October as high intensity, short duration, monsoonal thunderstorms. Winter precipitation generally falls as snow from November through April as Pacific frontal storms move through the region.

Average annual temperatures range from 55° Fahrenheit at lower elevations to 34° Fahrenheit at higher elevations. For the month of January, mean minimum temperatures range from 12° to 22° Fahrenheit; mean maximum temperatures range from 34° to 52° Fahrenheit. For the month of July, mean minimum temperatures range from 45° to 52° Fahrenheit; mean maximum temperatures range from 70° to 105° Fahrenheit.

Soils Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit (TEU) mapping was done at the 1:24,000 scale. Map unit delineation was based on observed differences in topography, geology, vegetation, and soils. Four kinds of map units are depicted on maps and in map unit descriptions: consociations, complexes, associations, and undifferentiated groups. A consociation is a map unit consisting of a single terrestrial ecosystem unit. A complex is a map unit consisting of two or more terrestrial ecosystems that are so intermingled or so small that they cannot be differentiated separately at the 1:24,000 scale. An association is a map unit that consists of two or more terrestrial ecosystems that occur as areas large enough to be shown individually on maps but are shown as one unit because use and management does not justify separation. Soils having single taxonomic classifications rarely, if ever, are mapped without including some areas of soils having other taxonomic classifications. There can be, and often are inclusions of different soil types within each TES map unit. As a result, most soils map units are comprised of the primary soil for which the unit is categorized and some soils that belong to other taxa. These latter soils are called inclusions or included soils.

Typically inclusions have properties and behavioral characteristics that are similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and therefore do not affect use and management. These are referred to as noncontrasting inclusions. They may or may not be noted in the map unit descriptions. Other inclusions may have properties and behavioral characteristics that deviate enough to influence use or management. These are referred to as contrasting inclusions. They generally occupy small areas and are inseparable on soils maps due to the scale at which soils are mapped. The inclusions of contrasting soils are typically discussed in map unit descriptions.

86 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Sometimes inclusions are not mapped as they were not observed in the field. This typically occurs where soil patterns are so complex as to preclude a sufficient number of observations to identify all of the soils that occur within a given landscape.

Unsatisfactory and Unsuited Soils There are 474,611 acres (86%) of TES map units across the project analysis area that are in satisfactory condition. These soils are functioning properly with regard to soil stability, hydrologic regimes and nutrient cycles. These TES map units are in unsatisfactory condition due to erosion rates that are exceeding tolerance thresholds. This is primarily due to inadequate vegetative ground cover in areas where pinyon-juniper stand densities have precluded retention of vigorous understory vegetation. Other factors that contribute to erosion above tolerance thresholds include areas where recent high severity wildfires have occurred and forest roads that are infrequently maintained or poorly located.

There are approximately 5,993 acres (1.1%) of unsuited soils across the project area. These soils have severe limitations that restrict their use for rangeland, forestland and wildlife habitat. Reasons for severe limitations include steepness, rock and boulder content, instability, and poorly developed or shallow soils.

Topography and Geology Elevations across the project area range from 5,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near Hells Canyon Tank to 7,751 feet amsl at the Red Hill Lookout. Slopes range from 2 to 120 percent with steeper slopes generally occurring along escarpments, canyons, knolls, and hills.

Surficial geology varies considerably across the project area. Soil on cones, knolls, and hills formed in residuum of cinder and ash parent materials. Soils on nearly level to gently sloping valley plains are dominantly of sandstone origin. Soils on steep to extremely steep escarpments formed in residuum of basaltic parent materials, while soils on less steep escarpments formed in residuum of limestone and sandstone.

Soil Erosion Hazard The TES defines erosion hazard based on bare ground (complete removal of vegetation and litter). Estimates of sheet and rill erosion hazard were developed using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) predicts the long term average annual rate of soil loss from a given area based on rainfall pattern, soil type, topography, crop system and management practices. The USLE only predicts the amount of soil loss resulting from sheet and rill erosion on a single slope and does not account for additional soil loss resulting from gully, wind, or tillage erosion. While created for use in selected cropping systems, the USLE is also applicable to non-agricultural conditions such as forests and construction sites. The USLE can be used to compare soil losses from a particular area under a specific management system to "tolerable soil loss" rates. Alternative management systems and practices may also be evaluated to determine the adequacy of conservation measures in land management planning. In the Kaibab National Forest TES, a slight rating indicates that all vegetative ground cover could be removed from the site and the resulting soil loss will not exceed "tolerance" soil loss rates. A moderate rate indicates that predicted rates of soil loss will result in a reduction of site productivity if left unchecked. Conditions in moderate erosion hazard sites are such that reasonable and economically feasible mitigation measures can be applied to reduce or eliminate soil loss. A severe rating indicates that predicted rates of soil loss have a high probability of reducing site productivity before mitigation measures can be applied.

Across the project area, there are approximately 327,130 acres (59%) of soils having slight erosion hazard, about 181,059 acres (33%) of soils having moderate erosion hazard, and about 43,712 acres (8%) of soils having severe erosion hazard.

Hydrologic Soil Groups Soils are classified into hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) to indicate the minimum rate of infiltration and runoff potential obtained for bare soil after prolonged wetting. This information is important to project and watershed planning since runoff determines, to a large extent, the flood hazard, the character and amount of stream flow, and

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 87 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects the hazard of erosion from rainwater and snowmelt. The HSG designations are A, B, C and D, and are defined by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as follows: Group A soils have low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. They consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission (greater than 0.30 in./hr.). Group B soils have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission (0.15-0.30 in/hr.). Group C soils have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils have a low rate of water transmission (0.05-0.15 in./hr.). Group D soils have high runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very low rate of water transmission (0-0.05 in./hr.).

In the project area there are approximately 558 acres (0.1%) of soils in hydrologic soils group A; 40,766 acres (7.4%) in hydrologic soils group B; 147,397 acres (26.7%) in hydrologic soils group C; and 363,204 acres (65.8%) in hydrologic soils group D.

Vegetative Communities and Vegetative Ground Cover The project area is dominated by ingrown pinyon-juniper grasslands of pinyon-juniper and pinyon-juniper woodlands. Dominant vegetation types include: pinyon-juniper grassland (62%), ponderosa pine-Colorado pinyon-Gambel oak woodland (15%), rabbitbrush-grassland (10%), grassland (11%), grassland-pinyon pine (3%)

The dominant grasses or grass-like plants throughout the project area include: Arizona fescue, mountain muhly, bottlebrush squirreltail, muttongrass, blue grama, sideoats grama, needle and thread, and western wheatgrass. Dominant forbs include: fleabane, lupine, and yarrow. Dominant shrubs include: rubber rabbitbrush, Apache plume, Stansbury cliffrose, and New Mexico locust. Dominant trees include: ponderosa pine, oneseed juniper, alligator juniper, Utah juniper, Colorado pinyon, and Gambel oak.

Vegetative ground cover is important for protecting soil surfaces from erosion and invasion by noxious weeds. It also increases soil organic matter content through litter accumulation on soil surfaces and root biomass turnover within the soil profile. The TES includes values for vegetative ground cover for each TES mapping unit. These values include both vegetation basal area and litter.

Soil Organisms Knowledge of specific fungal, bacterial, and arthropod populations is not available for analysis in this project. Biological soil crusts, commonly found in arid or semi-arid environments (USDA NRCS 1997) are known to exist on the Tusayan Ranger District near Grand Canyon National Park.

Organic Matter Organic matter in its various forms contributes to soil productivity. Humus is decomposed organic matter while duff, or litter, consists of relatively undecomposed or partially decomposed leaves, needles, and twigs that are still recognizable on the surface of soils. Coarse woody debris (CWD) consists of woody stems greater than 3 inches in diameter. Decomposing coarse woody debris can supply moisture to plants and animals after soils have dried. All organic matter provides water and nutrients for soil organisms and plants. Because CWD is an important component of a functioning ecosystem, a portion of this material must be maintained (Graham et al. 1994).

Populations of other soil organisms include mycorrhizal fungi, soil-dwelling arthropods, gastropods, nematodes and bacteria. All of these types of organisms occur throughout the South Zone. Most soil-dwelling organisms are beneficial to soils, so activities that adversely affect their populations should be minimized or mitigated.

88 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Revegetation Potential Revegetation potential refers to the probable success and ease in the establishment of native grasses. This potential rating is influenced by climate, soil characteristics, and slope. The rating system is based on use of a rangeland drill, broadcast seeder (hand held), and aerial seeding with no consideration for site preparation (removal of trees, etc.).

A low or moderate rating alerts the land manager to potential limitations for successful artificial revegetation of an area. Soils associated with a "high" rating offer the best opportunity for success. The udic/frigid combination offers the optimum soil climate for establishment of vegetation. Conversely, the aridic/thermic combination offers the most limiting soil climate for the establishment of vegetation.

For the project area, there are 39,054 acres of soils having high revegetation potential, 196,560 acres having moderate revegetation potential, 307,883 acres with low revegetation potential and 8,404 acres with poor revegetation potential.

Water Resources

Watersheds There are 48 sixth-level (HUC12) hydrologic units or subwatersheds that encompass the South Zone Grassland Restoration project area. A summary of watershed conditions for all subwatersheds is included in Appendix A.

Water Quality Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to assess and report on the water quality status of waters within the states. Section 303(d) requires states to list waters that are not attaining water quality standards. This is also known as the list of impaired waters. This information is reported to Congress on a nationwide basis. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for conducting monitoring, assessment and reporting under CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b), and TMDL development for the State of Arizona.

Arizona's most recent Draft Integrated Report (305(b) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) list) is available from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The Arizona Impaired Waters List can be found at: ADEQ Water Quality Division Monitoring and Assessment

There are no perennial running waters within the project area. There is therefore no water quality data associated with stream channels within the analysis area. There are no impaired water bodies listed on the Arizona 303(d) for the Kaibab National Forest (ADEQ 2014).

Streams The drainage pattern throughout the project area is generally dendritic. Approximately 1,569 miles of stream channels occur within the analysis area, with 694 miles occurring on the Williams Ranger District and 875 miles occurring on the Tusayan Ranger District. The majority of these streams are best characterized as ephemeral, or dry washes. However, Cataract Creek is an intermittent stream. It flows for approximately 1.5 miles through the project area. Cataract Creek flow primarily during spring snowmelt and, to a lesser extent, during summer monsoons.

Wetlands, Springs and Riparian Areas There are 34 acres of riparian habitat in the project area. These include Hell Canyon Tank, Smoot Lake, Laws Spring, West Ike Tank, and Rod’s Winter Camp Tank These are the only areas that support persistent riparian vegetation. Vegetative communities include cottonwood, spikerush, williow, and carex species. There are 269 acres of earthen impoundments (stock tanks) within the project area. Stock tanks are constructed features, generally installed in ephemeral drainages or on lower slope positions of uplands. They do not typically support

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 89 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects riparian vegetation. Many of these stock tanks are dry by mid-summer before monsoon precipitation increases water storage in these impoundments.

There are four known springs located in the project area. These include Verde Spring, Indian Spring, Ben Spring, and Burro Spring. There is no existing spring survey data for these springs Many springs on the South Zone have been substantially manipulated (i.e., excavated and spring boxes, pipelines, troughs and other infrastructure installed) for the purpose of providing reliable water to support domestic livestock grazing. Additionally, many of springs on the South Zone only discharge during years of heavy snowpack or above normal monsoonal precipitation that contribute to rapid groundwater recharge. Some springs are fenced to exclude domestic livestock and wildlife ungulates from spring sources.

Flood Zones Flood zones are geographic areas defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) according to varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Each flood zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area. Moderate to low risk areas in the project vicinity are identified as flood zones X and C and X. Flood zones B and X are defined as areas of moderate flood hazard, usually these areas are between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods. These designations include base floodplains of lesser hazards, such as areas protected by levees from 100- year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than one foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Flood zones C and X are areas of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500-year flood level. High risk areas are designated as zones A, AE, AH, and AO. Flood zone A includes areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding and a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas; no depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. Flood zone AE are areas of the base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. Flood zone AH includes areas with a 1 percent annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. Flood zones AO are river or stream flood hazard areas, and areas with a 1 percent or greater chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are shown within these zones. The Zone D designation is used for areas where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards, as no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. The designation of Zone D is also used when a community incorporates portions of another community’s area where no map has been prepared.

Across the project area, there are approximately 4,332 acres of flood zone A (1 percent, or high flood risk, depth and base flood elevation unknown). Most of the flood zones are associated with dominant drainages on the two Ranger Districts including Partridge Creek (835 ac.), Meath Wash (418 ac.), Devil Dog Canyon (244 ac.), and Johnson Canyon (101 ac.) on the Williams Ranger District and Red Horse Wash (1,970 ac.), Coconino Wash (410 ac.) and Lee Canyon (259 ac.) on the Tusayan Ranger District. These floodplains are generally in remote areas with no substantial development within the designated floodplains.

Air Quality The Clean Air Act establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutants that pose health hazards: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM 10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM 2.5), ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The major pollutant of concern in smoke from wildland fire for both planned and unplanned ignitions is fine particulate matter (Ottmar 2001). Particles larger than 10 microns in size tend to settle out of the air; smaller particles remain airborne, and can cause respiratory problems. Studies indicate that 90 percent of smoke particles emitted during wildland fires are PM 10, and about 90 percent of PM 10 is PM 2.5 (Ward and Hardy 1991). Human health studies on the effects of particulate matter indicate that it is PM 2.5 that is largely responsible for health effects (Dockery and others 1993). Because of its small size, PM 2.5 has an especially long residence time in the atmosphere and penetrates deeply into the lungs (Ottmar 2001). The Clean Air Act defines the NAAQS for

90 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects PM 2.5 as an annual mean of 15μg/m3, and a 24 hour average of 35μg/m3. At this concentration or above, PM 2.5 has an adverse effects on human health. It is important to understand that it is not simply the total emissions from fire affect human health, but rather how concentrated pollutants in ambient air are over a period of time. Atmospheric conditions during a fire can strongly influence how particulate matter is distributed through ambient air, and its potential to affect public health. Wind speed, wind direction, mixing layer height, atmospheric temperature profile upward in the atmosphere, and atmospheric stability all effect where and how well smoke will disperse.

Regional haze is air pollution that is transported long distances and affects large geographic areas. It can cause reduced visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. The same particulate matter that causes risks to public health is also largely responsible for impairments to visibility. “The combination of light absorption by elemental carbon and light scattering caused by the very small particles that make up wildland fire smoke explains why emissions from wildland fire play such an important role in visibility impairment” (Core 2001).

The project area is not located adjacent to large population centers, power plants, or industrial facilities. The two closest power plants to the South Zone are the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona and the Cholla Power Plant near Holbrook, Arizona. The Tusayan Ranger District is located approximately 65 miles south- southwest of the nearest coal-fired power plant located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of Page, Arizona and owned by the Salt River Project. The prevailing southwest winds on most days of the year carry pollution from this plant away from the Tusayan Ranger District. The Williams Ranger District is located approximately 83 miles west-northwest of the Cholla Power Plant, which is located approximately 7 miles northwest of Holbrook, Arizona. Prevailing winds are west-southwest and southeast in the vicinity of the Cholla Power Plant. It is unlikely that either of these power plants are resulting in adverse air quality impacts to the South Zone of the Kaibab National Forest. The Williams Ranger District is located approximately 102 aerial miles from Phoenix, Arizona, 181 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada, and 356 miles from Los Angeles, California. The Tusayan Ranger District is located approximately 151 aerial miles from Phoenix, Arizona, 158 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada, and 370 miles from Los Angeles, California. Pollution and haze from these and other urban/industrial centers does affect the South Zone. Visibility is sometimes affected by haze from these cities, but effects are minor. Wildfires, prescribed fires, and wood stoves also contribute smoke, particulates, and haze to the South Zone periodically. Windblown, or fugitive dust during periods of high wind can cause localized effects to air quality. The South Zone is not located within an air quality Non-Attainment Area designated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The closest Non-Attainment Areas are the Bullhead City Area for PM10 (particulate matter) and the Phoenix Area for PM 10 and ozone.

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7)) requires states to assess and reduce pollutants that cause haze in order to improve visibility at Class I Areas, including Grand Canyon National Park and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. The Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the State of Arizona dated February 28, 2011 states “The Commission’s technical assessment indicated that road dust is a large contributor to visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau. As such, it requires urgent attention. However, due to considerable skepticism regarding the modeled contribution of road dust to visibility impairment, the Commission recommended further study in order to resolve the uncertainties regarding both near-field and distant effects of road dust, prior to taking remedial action. Since this emissions source is potentially such a significant contributor, the Commission felt that it deserved high priority attention and, if warranted, additional emissions management actions. Road dust is not a measurable contributor on a regional level to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. Due to this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are needed…” The Plan also states that the State of Arizona will “perform further assessments of road dust impacts on visibility. Based on these assessments, if road dust emissions are determined to be a significant contributor to visibility impairment, the State of Arizona commits to implement emissions management strategies…”.

The Kaibab National Forest must submit prescribed burn plans to ADEQ for approval in order to minimize smoke, but it is not required to reduce fugitive dust or vehicle emissions at this time.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 91 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects The majority of roads on in the project area are unpaved. These gravel and native surface roads are sources of fugitive dust in dry weather, especially when there is frequent vehicle traffic. Vehicles driving cross country may also create fugitive dust. Fugitive dust impacts to air quality are generally localized and short term.

Environmental Consequences

Short-term Effects and Long-term Productivity: Soils Direct effects of proposed activities are caused by the action and occur on site and affect only the area where they occur. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Potential adverse effects of the proposed activities on soil productivity would include soil compaction, puddling, displacement, erosion, areas of high soil burn severity, loss of soil organic matter, short-term changes in soil moisture content, changes in nutrient cycling, and changes in soil fauna as a result of forest thinning, commercial timber sales, piling of activity-related debris, use of prescribed fire, fireline installation, fuelwood gathering, and road decommissioning activities.

Soil compaction, puddling and displacement would primarily be limited to transportation systems and high traffic areas such as existing National Forest system roads, non-system roads, and areas where dispersed fuelwood gathering, and fireline construction occur. Road closures during wet weather conditions, implementation of timing restrictions for fuelwood gathering, and designation of authorized access routes within the project area would minimize adverse impacts to soil productivity caused by these activities.

Where commercial timber sales are employed to implement grassland resatoration treatments, activities such as mechanical tree felling, skidding of felled trees to processing areas (i.e., landings), piling of residual woody debris (i.e., slash) and log hauling would occur. Typical commercial timber harvesting operations in this region require an average of one log landing of 0.25 acres in size per 12 acres of land treated. Skidding and forwarding trails are typically 12 feet wide with a spacing distance of approximately 80 feet between primary trails. These activities would result in varying levels of ground disturbance, depending on the type of machinery used, the number of trees harvested per acre, soil types, and weather conditions.

Mechanized felling of trees can disturb and compact soils, and the use of such machines is a potential source of erosion. However, since felling machines do not skid logs on the ground, they typically produce less soil disturbance (and therefore less erosion potential) than tractor or rubber-tired log skidders. The effects of felling on soil erosion rates are not usually studied independent of skidding and forwarding. Soil disturbance caused by trees striking the ground during felling is generally considered negligible.

Piling of activity-related debris (slash) would disturb soil surfaces, exposing them to direct raindrop impact. On sloping terrain this would increase localized, short-term erosion in areas where pile burning is conducted. These areas will constitute a very small percentage of the overall treatment area (i.e., less than 3 percent), so impacts are expected to be minor. Use of appropriate BMPs as outlined in table 2-4 would mitigate most adverse impacts from piling of slash from thinning operations.

Soil erosion rates resulting from forest thinning treatments tend to be positively correlated with the percentage of bare soil and the amount of surface soil disturbance, and these two factors are typically proportional to the number of trees being harvested (Haupt and Kidd 1965). In general, soil erosion rates are acceptably low when the proportion of bare soil is less than 30 percent (Robichaud et al. 2010, Benavides-Solorio and MacDonald 2005; Swank et al. 1989). In northern New Mexico, a series of rainfall simulations (6 in per hr. for one hour on successive days) was performed on control plots, lightly thinned plots with the slash piled, and lightly thinned plots with the slash scattered (Madrid 2006). The results indicate that thinning had no effect on runoff or the amount of bare soil, but the mean sediment yields from the second (wet) simulation on the thinned plots was up to three times higher than the mean sediment yield of 1.8 tons per acre from the control plots.

92 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Burning of slash piles has been shown to negatively affect soil biotic and chemical properties due to intense soil heating (Korb et al., 2004 and Seymour and Tecle, 2004). It can result in soil sterilization, and an increased risk of invasion of these areas by invasive and noxious weeds. Pile burning sites would constitute a very small portion of the project area (i.e., less than 3 percent). Monitoring of these sites for the presence of invasive or noxious weeds following pile burning, and treatment of any infestations found would mitigate most adverse effects to soils caused by pile burning of slash.

Installation of firelines where existing firebreaks do not currently exist would expose soil surfaces, increasing the risk of erosion by wind and rain. Areas of high fire intensity may consume forest floor organic matter, leaving soil surfaces susceptible to erosion. Initially, the greatest risk of soil erosion would be expected to occur in areas where prescribed fire is used prior to thinning operations. This is due to greater amounts of woody debris on the ground and higher stand densities at these locations, resulting in increased risk of high fire intensity. Rehabilitation of firelines installed during prescribed burning would minimize adverse impacts to soil productivity from fireline installation. With implementation of applicable BMPs as outlined in table 2-4, most adverse effects to soils would be mitigated. Often, roads are used as fire control boundaries since they typically lack vegetative cover that would otherwise fail to contain fires. For this reason, any adverse effects to soils and watershed condition from fireline construction are minimized and mitigated during the planning process when roads are used for control lines during prescribed fire implementation.

Prescribed fire has the potential to alter short and long-term soil moisture by changing the amount and type of vegetation, the amount of forest floor organic matter, and soil texture and wettability. Fire in southwestern ponderosa pine forests has been shown to generally increase soil moisture content (Ryan and Covington 1986, Ower 1985, Haase 1986). In a review of literature, Hungerford and others (1991) reported that burning can kill many kinds of bacteria, fungi and arthropods but the extent of this effect is dependent on the amount of heat generated by the fire and soil moisture content. To what extent these changes result in an impairment or degradation of soil productivity is not clear. Hungerford suggests that low to moderate intensity prescribed fires may have minimal long-term negative effect on soil microorganisms. Kaye and Hart (1998) found that microbial nitrogen transformation rates increased under restored forest conditions, relative to the controls, suggesting higher microbial activity in the restored areas. Korb et al. (2003) found higher arbuscular mycorrhizae propagule densities but similar ectomycorrhizal inoculum potentials following restoration thinning in a ponderosa pine forest in northern Arizona, 1 and 2 years following treatment. Neary and others (1999) caution against the adverse effects to soil microorganisms caused by fires that become intense or are too frequent. Researchers have recommended maintaining soil carbon pools to maintain biologic activity (Stark and Hart, 1997), and recommend maintaining heterogeneity in burned areas to provide suitable sites from which the microflora and microfauna can reestablish in burned areas (Moldenke,1999). Prescribed fires proposed under the action alternatives would generally be low intensity with small areas of moderate intensity, retaining unburned islands. This type of prescribed fire would not have a long-term adverse impact on soil biota.

Initially, there would be an expected short-term increase in soil organic matter as a result of forest thinning. Decomposition of thinning slash and prescribed burning would result in the eventual loss of some of this additional organic matter. Forest thinning would also allow greater light penetration to soil surfaces resulting in warmer soil temperatures. Reduced vegetative cover from forest thinning would decrease evapotranspiration rates and therefore increase soil moisture. Warmer soil temperatures and increased soil moisture content would result in greater soil organism activity. Increased soil organism activity results in a proportional decrease in soil organic matter as organisms consume soil detritus. Broadcast prescribed burning would result in rapid oxidation of surface organic matter and living understory biomass. While it is currently not possible to discern significant climate change effects of the proposed action, given the lack of effects that can be meaningfully evaluated under current science and modeling, one would expect an initial, short-term increase in atmospheric CO2 from the proposed treatments. However, long-term effects would be positive as the ground cover of grasses and forbs increases. Nutrients released in ash during prescribed burning and through decomposition of residual woody debris from forest thinning would improve soil quality over the long term. An increase in ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which have higher fine root turnover rates than large woody plants would result in greater soil organic matter content over time. Soils within the project area would therefore sequester greater

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 93 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects amounts of CO2 in the long-term. Soil organic matter serves as the long-term nutrient supply for all vegetation occupying a site. It also provides micro habitat for most soil organisms and improves soil chemical and physical properties including soil aggregate stability, increased porosity and water holding capacity, and improved nutrient cycling. The resulting increase in ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs would also provide greater protection of soil surfaces from wind and water erosion.

Soil erosion would be expected to increase in areas where forest thinning, fuelwood gathering, and use of prescribed fire results in significant soil disturbance or complete removal of vegetative cover. These areas are expected to include temporary access roads used during fuelwood gathering, fuelwood staging/loading areas, high traffic areas where forest thinning and biomass removal and processing is conducted in dense stands, installed firelines to support prescribed burning efforts, and National Forest System roads. Since most of the forest thinning activity and all fuelwood gathering would be conducted using low impact mechanization, adverse impacts to soils are expected to be minimized in comparison to the use of typical heavy logging machinery. Some forest thinning of pinyon-juniper stands may be conducted using an Agra-Axe tree shear. This is a light machine that has shown promise for restoring pinyon and juniper-invaded grasslands. The Agra-Axe is a hydraulic shear that is attached to a small skid-steer, similar to a Bobcat. It uses a hydraulic shear to clip trees near ground level with little to no disturbance to soils. Minimal soil compaction and displacement would occur in areas where the Agra-Axe is employed for tree removal. With appropriate and effective implementation of BMPs, as outlined in table 2-4, most adverse effects to soil productivity caused by forest thinning and fuelwood gathering would be mitigated.

The use of prescribed fire has the potential to increase short-term erosion rates on steeper slopes within treatment areas. Rates of accelerated erosion would depend on soil type, slope, and burn severity. In general, low and medium intensity fires burn only a portion of the duff and litter – leaving adequate protective soil cover over the majority of the site. Additionally low intensity fire in grasslands typically burns the tops of bunchgrasses, leaving the root crowns intact. Bunchgrasses generally respond rapidly (i.e., days to weeks) to low intensity fires due to increased root to shoot ratios. Low intensity prescribed fires often leave unburned islands, resulting in a mosaic of burned and unburned areas. The prescribed fires proposed under the action alternatives are expected to burn the duff and litter in small, discontinuous patterns throughout the prescribed burn areas. In general, low intensity prescribed fire does not cause excessive erosion or sediment delivery to stream channels, because soil cover is retained in a discontinuous pattern across the landscape. Finally, pinyon-juniper woodlands and pinyon-juniper grasslands, and grasslands throughout the South Zone of the Kaibab National Forest are fire-adapted ecosystems, meaning fires have a key role in maintaining ecosystem function and integrity. It is the absence of frequent, low intensity fire due to historic livestock grazing practices and effective wildfire suppression tactics that has caused degradation of ecosystem function in pinyon-juniper grasslands and grasslands on the South Zone of the Kaibab National Forest.

Thinning of forest cover on soils currently characterized as unsatisfactory would improve soil conditions over the long-term by allowing greater sunlight penetration to the forest floor resulting in an increase in grasses, forbs and shrubs in the forest understory. The increased herbaceous vegetation would reduce erosion by providing ground cover that would intercept rain before it can reach soil surfaces and detach soil particles (i.e., rainsplash). Residual forest thinning debris (i.e., slash) would be lopped and scattered on soils currently characterized as unsatisfactory, further mitigating potential adverse effects these soils. Thinning slash would also be lopped and scattered as necessary across other harvested areas to improve soil conditions to the greatest extent possible, except where conditions warrant piling due to the potential for excessive fuel loading.

Predicted erosion rates indicate that forest thinning would result in a slight increase in erosion for all modeled TEUs. These erosion rates were modeled using the maximum slopes for the selected TEUs in the project area, so they represent a conservative estimate of accelerated erosion potential. As grasses and forbs begin to occupy openings, a proportional decrease in accelerated erosion is expected. Many of the areas proposed for thinning treatments currently have dense overstory conditions with ground cover consisting primarily of forest litter rather than herbaceous vegetation. These conditions do not afford the level of soil protection that are provided by the fine root biomass of herbaceous vegetative cover. Forest thinning treatments are therefore expected to result in a

94 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects short-term increase in soil erosion in areas proposed for pinyon-juniper grassland restoration treatments followed by a long-term reduction in soil erosion rates in these areas.

Moderate severity prescribed fire would be expected to occur in areas where large amounts of forest floor fuel currently exists, where forest thinning does not adequately reduce tree density, and where forest thinning results in large amounts of woody debris within a given treatment area. There would be an increased risk of accelerated soil erosion in TEUs that exhibit moderate severity prescribed fire. It cannot be predicted with accuracy where such conditions might occur within the proposed treatment area. With appropriate fuels management techniques and application of BMPs such as lopping and scattering of activity-related woody debris and hand piling where necessary, adverse impacts to soils caused by moderate severity fire would be minimized.

High severity prescribed fire would result in considerable risk of accelerated soil erosion throughout treatment areas. While very unlikely in large areal extent, this would represent a worst case scenario with regard to the use of prescribed fire in proposed treatment areas. It is possible that small, isolated occurrences of high severity burn conditions would occur where excessive fuel loads exist or where conditions result in atypical fire behavior for brief periods. Such areas would likely exhibit accelerated soil erosion for longer periods and at greater rates than low or moderate severity burn areas due to complete consumption of forest floor fuels and vegetative cover and rapid decomposition of soil aggregates, leaving larger areas unprotected by vegetative cover, loose soils lacking aggregation, and potentially hydrophobic soil conditions.

Short-term Effects and Long-term Productivity: Watersheds The effects of the proposed treatments on erosion and sediment yields depend on techniques and equipment used, site-specific characteristics, storm event timing and intensity, and skills of the operators conducting the operations. Forest thinning, fuelwood gathering, and biomass removal have the potential to adversely affect water quality through introduction of sediments and additional nutrients from decomposing woody debris, particularly in thinned areas adjacent to stream courses. Implementation of appropriate BMPs as specified in table 2-4 would minimize adverse impacts to water quality from thinning.

The removal of forest cover can decrease raindrop interception and evapotranspiration, which can increase water yields from treated areas (Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Stednick 1996). In areas where the annual precipitation is less than 20 in (500 mm), removal of the forest canopy does not typically increase annual water yields (Bosch and Hewlett 1982). In drier areas, such as the proposed project site, the decrease in interception and transpiration caused by forest thinning is usually offset by the increase in soil evaporative losses, resulting in no net change in runoff as long as factors affecting runoff processes are not changed (for example, soil compaction which causes a shift from subsurface flow to overland flow) (MacDonald and Stednick 2003). Evapotranspiration rapidly recovers with vegetative regrowth in partially thinned forests. Increase in runoff due to thinning operations rarely persist for more than 5 to 10 years.

Prescribed fire has the potential to impact water quality by increasing sediments, dissolved solids, and nutrients in streams. Dissolved nutrients in stream flow primarily originate from weathering of parent materials and soils, decomposition of plant material and other organic matter, and anthropogenic sources. Vegetative communities accumulate and cycle nutrients (Tiedemann et al., 1987). Fire can disrupt nutrient cycling and cause nutrient volatilization, leaching, and transformations. When vegetation is consumed by fire, some of the soil and organic matter nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc are volatilized and lost from the system, while other nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium are converted into oxides and accumulated in ash (DeBano et al. 1998).

The mobility and concentration of nutrients determines whether or not nearby water sources are at risk of contamination when prescribed fire is used. Nitrate is highly mobile and is therefore subject to risk of being leached from burned areas and transported to either surface or ground water. Phosphorus adsorbs readily to sediment and organic materials. Thus, phosphorus is usually transported to streams and water bodies through soil erosion. Rates of soil erosion and phosphorus contamination are generally dependent on soil characteristics and topographic relief of the site. Within the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project, the majority of soils have

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 95 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects loam or clay loam textures, leaching of nitrates or phosphorus in sufficient quantities to adversely affect groundwater or surface water is very unlikely.

Prescribed fires typically leave greater amounts of organic matter (duff, forest litter, and large and small woody debris) on soil surfaces than uncontrolled fires. These materials serve as a nutrient sink, prevent soil particle detachment caused by raindrop impact, and capture sediments that would otherwise be transported to stream courses and waterbodies. Following low-intensity prescribed fires, an increase in grasses and other herbaceous vegetation typically occurs. This rapid growth of ground cover further immobilizes nutrients in plant material.

Prescribed burning that removes large amounts vegetation from a site has potential to alter watershed hydrology. As vegetation is removed, evapotranspiration in the watershed decreases, thus providing greater stream flow and overall water yield within the watershed. Water uptake from trees is species-specific. Conifers, which are the dominant vegetation type within the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area, generally transpire greater quantities of water than hardwoods such as oaks and aspen. Dense foliage and longer growing seasons promote the higher overall water uptake in conifers. Additionally, conifers have relatively dense crowns that intercept rainfall and allow for greater evaporative losses.

Once a site has undergone loss of vegetation and removal of the litter layer, surface water can cause erosion problems and result in higher stream discharges. Fires not only consume the litter layer, but at high temperatures fires can also cause hydrophobic soil conditions, thus making soils more susceptible to erosion. DeBano and Krammes (1966) and Robichaud (2000) observed that water repellency was dependent on the heating temperatures of the soils. At typical wildfire soil profile temperatures (less than 500°F) when the soil was dry, soil hydrophobicity occurs at shallow depths (less than 1 inch). When soils are moist (i.e. conditions that commonly occur during prescribed fire in the spring and fall), soil hydrophobicity was less pronounced and only occurred after long heating times which would typically only occur during smoldering fires. Therefore, soil hydrophobicity under a prescribed fire scenario would likely be minimal throughout the majority of the treatment area.

Runoff from road surfaces can detach and transport the fine material from unpaved road surfaces. In the absence of vehicle traffic, sediment concentrations in road runoff decreases over time. However, vehicle traffic, particularly trucks, can crush road surface aggregates, resulting in more fine particles that are easily transported in runoff. Additionally, the pressure of vehicular tires on saturated road surfaces can force fine particles from below the surface to move upward to the surface (Truebe and Evans 1994). Road proximity and connectivity to drainages can strongly influence sediment delivery to watercourses and peak flows in streams. Roads throughout the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area intersect numerous ephemeral drainages. These points of intersection occur as both culverted crossings and low-water crossings. Road-stream intersections are the primary location where sediments are delivered to water courses.

Sediment delivery directly from road surfaces to water courses is difficult to estimate since it occurs as non-point runoff. Sediments delivered to streams from roadside ditches may have originated from sheet or rill erosion prior to entering road surfaces or drainage ditches. The values for predicted sediment yield from roads are the same as predicted erosion rates from roads, indicating that all soil erosion from road surfaces would have the potential to be delivered to water courses. With implementation of BMPs as found in table 2-4 and in the National Core BMP Technical Guide (FS-990a, 2012) during road maintenance activities before and after road use, sediment delivery to water courses from unsurfaced roads can be minimized, but not eliminated entirely.

An additional indirect effect may result from the use of herbicides in uplands to control vegetation within the project area. Spraying of invasive trees and noxious weeds could affect water quality, however the lack of perennial flowing water in the analysis area limits direct effects of spraying. The effects of herbicide use are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds (2005).

While there would likely be some short-term, localized adverse effects to the watershed watershed conditions in the form of increased runoff from treated areas, increased sediment delivery to ephemeral drainages, and

96 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects increased turbidity in surface waters; long-term direct and indirect effects to watersheds would be positive due to restored watershed function and resilience; greater ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs which would improve soil water holding capacity, increase sediment capture in surface runoff, and minimize runon to travelways and roadside ditches.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the impacts on the environment which result 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 other action (40 CFR § 1508.7).

The cumulative effects analysis discussion for soils, watersheds and water quality concentrates on the geographic boundary of the sixth-level subwatersheds that intersect the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project. Many of these watersheds extend beyond the Forest boundaries. Impacts that may cascade downstream of the six-level HUCs are expected to be of minor consequence and very difficult to quantify. Impacts will be discussed in a general, qualitative manner. Past activities on the Forest that have resulted in varying levels of soil compaction, erosion and sedimentation within the watersheds include timber management, vegetation and fuels management, livestock grazing, wildfires, wildland fire management, road maintenance, recreation, mining and quarrying, and fuels management.

Anticipated future activities on state and private lands that are likely to occur are increased community development, water-related development (groundwater wells and diversion of surface water) as well as many of the same activities that have occurred in the past (recreation, road maintenance, livestock grazing, fuels management, timber management, mining, etc.).

Cumulative effects of implementation of the action alternatives in conjunction with all other effects to watersheds could slightly increase erosion and sediment yield. The levels of such effect would be similar for both action alternatives. The actual amount of increase in sediment yield may be indistinguishable from natural background levels of erosion at the watershed scale.

In addition to the cumulative effects described above for the Action Alternatives, the following conditions could potentially contribute to a cumulative effect if they occur at a scale large enough to have an impact. These items can have a strong influence on how project-generated effects are absorbed by the land.

1) Impacts from unpredictable climatic events: extreme precipitation events, rain-on-snow events, higher than average flood flows, and droughts. These are unpredictable events. Impacts can relate to plant growth conditions, soil erosion, damage to stream channels during floods, damage to road infrastructure, or lack of stream discharge during droughts. Ecological conditions can either exacerbate or mitigate climatic events. 2) Effects of wildfires with resulting ashflows, erosion, and establishment of early seral vegetation. These are also unpredictable events. Impacts can occur in such forms as total removal of vegetation, effects to water quality from sediment-laden runoff, establishment of native and non-native plant species, and changes in overall vegetation composition. Effects from fires normally peak immediately after the fire and recede after establishment of vegetative ground cover. Currently, the effects of the Eagle Rock Fire (2010) and the Pumpkin Fire (2000) are still perceptible on a large scale. Contrarily, most managed wildland fires, including prescribed fires, do not have lasting effects on vegetation and watershed resources. 3) Insect infestations (e.g., bark beetles) and pathogens (mistletoe) will continue to affect forest health. 4) Erosion and sediment transport today will affect areas downstream in the future. For example, if tree thinning, prescribed fire, or road use causes soil erosion sediment transport to ephemeral or intermittent drainages today, that sediment will eventually be transported downstream to perennial stream reaches or water bodies. This will, in time, affect downstream wetlands, riparian areas, and impoundments. This

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 97 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects could result in 303(d) water-quality listings and/or requirements for total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies and allocations.

Ongoing Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives The following effects have occurred in past, are occurring now, and are foreseeable to occur in the future. They occur at the same time and place as the triggering action (implementation of the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project), adding to total effects.

a. Wildlife effects: Although wildlife effects are generally beyond Forest control, some types of wildlife affect some areas more than others. Wildlife effects on meadows and riparian vegetation are notable; however, they can be considered an existing or background condition.

b. Natural erosion rates are constant and cannot be reduced by management actions. Natural erosion is also referred to as the geologic erosion rate, and is unaffected by anthropogenic influence. It is a constant varied by specific local conditions: geology, soil types, topography, and climatic influence. Natural erosion rates can also be viewed as a cumulative effect in that natural erosion adds to anthropogenic erosion rates to produce totals which affect downstream sediment loads.

The timeframe for past actions is 10 years, based on soil productivity, vegetative response, and coarse woody debris recovery within treated areas. Surface disturbing activities that are older than 20 years are assumed to be contributing negligible or no measurable cumulative effect within the analysis area

Following is a partial listing of actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis for this project:

 Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, recreational activities, and other management activities (e.g. noxious weeds treatments) have occurred in the past, are occurring, and are reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area. These activities could occur on private lands as well.  Firewood cutting has occurred in the past and would likely continue in the foreseeable future within the project area and on private lands within watersheds that extend beyond Kaibab National Forest boundaries.  Private landowners may harvest timber on their lands for lumber, fuelwood, or to reduce fire hazards.  Urban development and growth would likely continue on private lands.  Road construction, maintenance and right-of-way clearing can be expected to continue on non-National Forest System (NFS) land.  Road maintenance, reconstruction, or decommissioning will occur with future vegetation management projects on NFS land.  Recreation activities are expected to continue to increase on the Forest. Future recreation projects may be developed.

No Action The No Action Alternative would result in no changes to encroached grasslands or ingrown pinyon-juniper grasslands ecosystems within the project area at the scale proposed under this project. Therefore, there would be no new cumulative effects to soils, water quality, ephemeral or intermittent stream channels, watershed condition, changes to water yield, or effects on air quality as a result of the no-action alternative. Roads proposed for decommissioning under the Proposed Action and Action Alternative would continue to be a source of adverse effects to soils, watershed condition, and water quality.

98 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Proposed Action Vegetation management projects such as commercial fuelwood sales, precommercial thinning, removal of encroached trees in grasslands, and personal fuelwood gathering reduce overstory cover in the short-term but typically cause an increase in understory vegetation within three to five years following treatment. These treatments would also cause an initial increase in soil organic matter in the form of residual woody debris (i.e., slash) from tree harvesting activities. As grasses, forbs, and shrubs increase in numbers, fine root material would contribute to soil organic matter accumulation and atmospheric carbon sequestration. The long-term increase in herbaceous vegetative cover would protect soil surfaces from particle detachment caused by raindrop impact and would lead to a reduction in sheet, rill, and gully erosion, and associated sediment deposition. Reduction in tree canopy and heavy fuels would reduce the threat of high severity wildfires that could remove most of the plant and litter cover, consume the soil seed bank, sterilize soils, and cause erosion and flooding.

Within the past 10 years, pre-commercial thinning, commercial timber harvesting, commercial fuelwood harvesting, and personal fuelwood gathering have occurred in many areas within the project boundary. These vegetation treatment projects have improved forest health by increasing tree vigor, improving tree spatial distribution, reducing the risk of high severity wildfire, and increasing vegetative ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs that protect soil surfaces from raindrop impact and resulting soil particle detachment and transport in runoff.

Recreational activities within the proposed project area include: hiking, viewing wildlife, hunting, dispersed camping, backpack camping, orienteering, horseback riding, photography, picnicking, taking scenic drives, ORV/ATV use, bicycling, shooting, and gathering in family or social groups. The project area is part of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s hunting units 8 and 9. These units are popular for turkey, elk, black bear, mule deer, javelina, mountain lion, and pronghorn hunting. Other common uses within the project area include Christmas tree cutting, collecting boughs and cones, gathering antlers, and collecting food and medicinal resources such as berries, nuts, and mushrooms. Of these activities, taking scenic drives, ORV/ATV use, and dispersed camping have the greatest potential to result in adverse cumulative effects to soils through compaction, puddling, and displacement. These conditions would be limited to areas where such activities take place.

Using current versus natural erosion rates as found in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest, the forest thinning and prescribed fire treatments are expected to result in a short-term (i.e., 3 to 5 years) increase in erosion resulting from tree removal and prescribed fire activities approximately 6% above current levels. These erosion rates would decrease over time as disturbed areas naturally revegetate with grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Cumulative effects from livestock grazing include minor, generally localized soil compaction, puddling, displacement and erosion from livestock trailing and in areas where animals congregate. Wildlife and livestock trails occur throughout the project area, but these trails comprise a very small percentage of the project area. Livestock grazing is not expected to increase the area of soils characterized as unsatisfactory within the project area.

The cumulative effect of the increased risk of spread on noxious weeds on soil productivity can only be described in general terms because of the large number of unknown variables. Areas where soil disturbance includes compaction, displacement, erosion, and excessive heating are at the greatest risk of invasion by noxious weeds. These include temporary roads used for commercial or personal fuelwood sales and areas where prescribed fire is implemented. Monitoring of these areas for the presence of invasive and noxious weeds and treating observed populations in a timely manner would mitigate these adverse effects.

The long-term net cumulative effect of the proposed action and alternative 3 to soils, including implementation of applicable BMPs as previously outlined in this report and other appropriate mitigation measures is cumulatively positive and would achieve desired conditions for soils.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 99 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources for soils, watershed, water quality or air resources as a result of the proposed action or action alternative.

Climate Change While it is currently not possible to discern climate change effects of the Proposed Action or Action Alternative, given the lack of effects that can be meaningfully evaluated under current science and modeling, one would expect an initial, short-term increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the proposed treatments through burning of hydrocarbons to conduct mechanical vegetation treatments, rapid oxidation of vegetation and woody debris during prescribed burning, and increased decomposition of woody debris. However, long-term effects would be beneficial as the ground cover of grasses and forbs increases. Woody debris would provide long term nutrient sources and contribute to surface roughness, decreasing potential erosion. Nutrients released in ash during prescribed burning and through decomposition of residual woody debris from forest thinning would also improve soil quality. As previously noted the increase in ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which have higher fine root turnover rates than large woody plants would result in greater soil organic matter content over time. Soils within the project area would therefore sequester more atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over the long term.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asserted that scientists know with virtual certainty that human activities are changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is also documented that “greenhouse” gases, including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and hydrofluorocarbons have been increasing (EPA, 2010). The atmospheric increase of these gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy that would otherwise be reflected from the earth. As this infrared energy is absorbed, the air surrounding the earth is heated (CARB 2016).

The Southwestern Region of the Forest Service released “Southwestern Region Climate Change – Trends and Forest Planning: A guide for addressing climate change in forest planning on southwestern National Forests and Grasslands. The following information is summarized from excerpts of this publication:

In the Southwest, climate modelers agree there is a drying trend that will continue well into the latter part of 21st century (IPCC 2007; Seager et al. 2008). Climate modelers predict increased precipitation, but believe that the overall balance between precipitation and evaporation would still likely result in an overall decrease in available moisture. Regional drying and warming trends have occurred twice during the 20th century (1930s Dust Bowl, and the 1950s Southwest Drought). Current drought conditions “may very well become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades”. According to recent model results, the slight warming trend observed during the last 100 years in the Southwest may continue into the next century, with the greatest warming to occur during winter. Climate models predict temperatures to rise approximately 5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century (IPCC 2007). This trend would likely increase demand on the region’s already limited water supplies, as well as increase energy demand, alter fire regimes and ecosystems, create risks for human health, and affect agriculture (Sprigg et al. 2000).

Average ambient air temperatures are rising, and it is possible that continued warming will increase the temperature difference between the Southwest and the tropical Pacific Ocean, enhancing the strength of westerly winds that carry moist air from the tropics into the Southwest region during the monsoon season. This scenario may increase the monsoon’s intensity, or its duration, or both, in which case floods would occur with greater frequency (Guido 2008). While the region is generally expected to dry, it is possible that extreme weather patterns leading to more frequent destructive flooding would occur. Along with monsoons of higher intensity, hurricanes and other tropical depressions are projected to become more intense overall. Arizona typically receives 10 percent or more of the annual precipitation from storms that begin as tropical depressions in the Pacific Ocean. In fact, some of the largest floods in the Southwest have occurred when remnant tropical storms intersect frontal storms from the north or northwest (Guido 2008). Most global climate models are not yet accurate enough to

100 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects apply to land management at the ecoregional or National Forest scale. This limits regional and forest-specific analysis of the potential effects of climate change.

Due to the spatial and temporal limitations of climate models, as stated above, site-specific analysis of climate change at the Forest level with regard to implementing fuels reduction treatments remains impractical. Several unknown factors further limit discussion and analysis of climate change at the Forest level. These include: lack of data on emissions from prescribed fire and wildfires, lack of data on emissions from logging machinery and traffic increases due to transportation of logs to processing facilities, limited data on emissions from machinery used to construct, maintain, or obliterate roads, and limited knowledge of the contributions of surrounding areas to current and future climate impacts at the Forest level necessary to analyze cumulative effects. Impacts to climate change from implementation of the proposed project are therefore discussed in a qualitative manner.

Projected future climate change could affect Arizona in a variety of ways. Public health and safety could be compromised due to an increase in extreme temperatures and severe weather events. Agriculture would be vulnerable to altered temperature and rainfall patterns, increasing plant stress and susceptibility to insects and diseases. Forest ecosystems could face increased occurrences of high severity wildfires and may also be more susceptible to insects and diseases. Snowpack could decrease and snowmelt may occur earlier.

While the future of climate change and its effects across the Southwest remains uncertain, it is certain that climate variability will continue to occur throughout the region. Forest management activities should strive to promote ecosystem resilience and resistance to impacts of climate change. Forest management activities should focus on maintenance and restoration of native ecosystems, thereby reducing the vulnerability of these ecosystems to variations in climate patterns. Ecological diversity remains an integral component in native ecosystems. Projects should promote connected landscapes and endeavor to restore significantly altered biological communities, thus restoring their resilience to changes in climate.

Recommendations In order to ensure that soil, watershed, water quality and air quality desired conditions are achieved and remain consistent with the Forest Plan, monitoring of soil disturbance caused by use of tree thinning (both mechanized and non-mechanized), prescribed fire use, and commercial and personal fuelwood gathering is advised. Best Management Practices (BMP) implementation and effectiveness monitoring in accordance with the National BMP Technical Guide (FS-990a) should be conducted following treatment activities in order to ensure proper implementation of BMPs to prevent erosion and sedimentation and to ensure activities are consistent with Forest Plan desired conditions and management guidelines. Cultural Resources

Regulatory Framework

National Historic Preservation Act The primary legislation governing cultural resource management in the Forest Service is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into consideration the effects of their undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Federal Regulations 36 CFR 800 contains procedures for implementing Section 106.

Programmatic Agreement A Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service, the Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Offices and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (USDA 2010a) guides national forests in Region 3 in identifying, evaluating and protecting cultural resources on National Forest System lands. Stipulation IV.A.4 of the PA provides for the development of “standard consultation protocols” for certain classes of undertakings where effects on historic properties and resulting protection and treatment are similar and repetitive. A protocol for large-scale fuels reduction, vegetation South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 101 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects treatment and habitat improvement projects was developed in consultation with and signed by the Regional Forester, all four SHPOs, and the Advisory Council. The Forests follow the PA and Appendix J for these types of undertakings in lieu of the 36 CFR 800 regulations. The PA, Appendix J, and the Kaibab Sampling Strategy for Low Heritage Site Density Grassland Maintenance Projects (Hanson and Weintraub 2004) developed in consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Native American groups describe how the FS would meet the Section 106 requirements under NHPA for the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project.

Other Laws and Regulations Several other laws address aspects of Heritage resource management on National Forest lands. These include the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), as amended. Among other provisions, this act requires tribal notification and consultation regarding permitted removal or damage to archaeological sites on Federal lands. The second relevant legislation is the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). This legislation recognizes tribal affiliation of Native American human remains, associated funerary objects, sacred items and objects of cultural patrimony that may be discovered on public lands and requires consultation prior to their removal. Finally, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) requires Federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on Native American traditional cultural practices and to ensure access to cultural sites.

A number of Executive Orders including 11593 (Protection of Cultural Environment), 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), 13175 (Tribal Consultations) and 13287 (Preserve America) give direction related to Forest Service Heritage Program Management.

Cultural Resources Desired Future Conditions Under the previous Kaibab National Forest Plan the focus of the Heritage Program was to protect and preserve cultural resources in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended. Under the 2014 Forest Plan, the Kaibab National Forest Heritage Program desired conditions and standards were expanded to specifically include the management of Traditional Cultural Properties. For a summary of tribal consultation and relevant Forest Plan direction, see the separate tribal relations report. The following Forest Plan direction is relevant to this cultural resources analysis.

 Cultural resources, including known traditional cultural properties, are preserved, protected, or restored.  Historic artifacts are preserved in situ or, when necessary, curated following current standards.  All historic properties are evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register and properties that are appropriate are listed to the National Register of Historic Places.  Cultural resource findings will be synthesized and shared with the scientific community and public through formal presentations, publications, and educational venues.  Public understanding about the cultural resources and historic preservation issues contribute to their protection.  The Kaibab NF historic documents, including photographs, maps, journals, and Forest Service program management records, are available to the public for research and interpretation.

Phased Section 106 Compliance Because of the size of this undertaking, a phased approach will be implemented over many years. Appendix J of the PA approved by the AZ SHPO, allows for the phasing of the section 106 compliance. The initial section 106 report (in progress) will describe the methods to be used to achieve a No Adverse Effect determination for the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project as a whole, while providing for phased section 106 compliance for areas with higher site density that do not fall within the parameters of the Low Site Density Grassland Sampling Strategy (Hanson and Weintraub 2004).

102 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects The first priority treatment block, referred to as Wash Tub, has undergone significant cultural resources inventory and clearances are already in place for the 14,364 acre Irishman Dam area. Future individual project areas would then be reviewed by forest Heritage staff for inventory needs and then surveyed to the appropriate level as agreed to by the AZ SHPO. A section 106 report would be produced for each project as they are identified and consulted upon with the AZ SHPO and interested tribes completed prior to implementing these projects.

Affected Environment: Existing Condition Cultural resources encompass both the remains of the past as well as portions of the landscape important to modern-day cultures. Remains of the past are usually termed archaeological sites or historic properties and are frequently referred to as “sites” (Gifford 2012). Cultural resources are also of considerable importance to scientific researchers as well as the American public who seek to learn from the past. Many present day traditional cultures identify with these sites as part of their cultural identity (Hanson 1999).

The historic grasslands are the focus of the South Kaibab Zone Grassland Restoration project. Within the project area there are 4,166 known cultural resource sites that range temporally from prehistoric times through the historic period and into the modern day. Five sites have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 843 are considered eligible for the Register, 258 are not eligible, and 3,060 are considered unevaluated for the register, pending further informational studies. Throughout the Section 106 compliance process, unevaluated sites are treated as though they are eligible.

Prehistoric sites can include rock art, cliff dwellings, pithouses, multiple room pueblos and artifact scatters. Historic resources may consist of logging railroad grades, trails and historic roads; cabins and homesteads, Forest Service administrative sites, sheep herding and mining camps, mining camps, Civilian Conservation Corps remains, and Native American shelters such as sweat lodges and brush shelters. Cultural resources also include Native American traditional use areas and places known as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). These TCPs hold a central and important position in Native American culture.

While the majority of sites are relatively small artifact scatters and or small residential units, the greatest quantity in the analysis area reflects how both prehistoric and historic cultures adapted to this arid environment with a high level of mobility, taking advantage of all reaches of the landscape.

The South Zone Grassland Restoration project analysis area encompasses 550,351 acres outside of the Four Forest Restoration Initiative analysis area. Past management practices such as fire suppression, historic overgrazing and chaining, unlimited motorized cross-country travel, recreational camping and fuel wood gathering have created disturbances affecting cultural resources. In addition, since these activities have also led to the grasslands being invaded by juniper and pinyon trees, there has been an increase in soil erosion that also leads to exposure of cultural resources and their archaeological deposits. Despite these past effects, many sites still retain sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Since juniper trees have a propensity for growing in disturbed areas, they can often be found within prehistoric and historic sites. While they can shield cultural resources from the public view, the vegetation can alter subsurface deposits, increase soil erosion on a site, and alters an historic property’s visual integrity since it is highly unlikely that any vegetation was on the cultural resource at its time of significance (Weintraub 2012). Good examples can best be seen in a series of photographic re-shoots at the historic Moqui Stage Station on the historic Flagstaff to Grand Canyon Stage Coach Line, and at Russell Tank on the Historic Beale Wagon Road. See Figures 3-11 and 3-12 below.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 103 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Figure 3-11. 1892 photo of Moqui Stage Station cistern on the Flagstaff to Grand Canyon Stage Coach Line. On right, note dramatic increase in junipers in 2002 that obscure the visual integrity of the interpretive site.

Figure 3-12. On left, Union Pacific Railway Survey Crew at Russell’s Tank north of Ash Fork in 1868. On right, same location in 1988. Junipers have invaded the historic site.

Since the late 1990s, the South Kaibab has regularly implemented large landscape level grassland maintenance projects all of which fall within the project’s current boundaries. All projects have been evaluated for No Adverse effects in consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and interested consulting tribes. In 1998, at the request of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Kaibab archaeologists produced a short video showing how the light-weight agra-axe has no adverse effects on cultural resources under dry ground conditions (Howard 1998). Table 3-12 lists the larger cultural resource clearances approved within the proposed project area.

Table 3-12. Large-scale grassland treatment cultural resource projects. Project Name Authors Year Acres Cleared Clearance Date Winter Ranger Re- Nelson and 1999 28,000 3/2/1999 Treatment Area Weintraub Ida Grassland Woodard 2008 12,640 11/17/2008 Maintenance Project Irishman Dam Weintraub 2011 14,364 3/11/2011 Chapter 18 Review White Hills Chapter Weintraub 2012 7,937 1/30/2013 18 Review

The project’s goals are to return fire into the ecosystem and use mechanical treatments to reduce tree densities. The re-introduction of fire through prescribed burns is intended across the entire 550,351 acres. For the past 15 years, Kaibab archaeologists have implemented a strategy developed and approved in consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and interested tribes in place that allows for managing naturally caused fires across the landscape with no adverse effects to cultural resources while reducing fuels and protecting known 104 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects fire sensitive sites (Hangan and Weintraub 2010). A similar approach will be developed as part of the initial clearance report and in accordance with Appendix J of the PA.

The two vegetation types proposed for priority mechanical treatment are historic grasslands and those grasslands where juniper woodlands have invaded the historic condition. There is a dramatic difference in the site distribution within these areas. Of the 79,709 acres proposed for treatment within the grasslands, archaeologists have surveyed 39,559 acres or (49.62%). Those surveyed areas have 671 sites or a site density of 10.86 sites per square mile. Within the 62,638 acres of pinyon-juniper/grasslands proposed for mechanical treatment, 674 cultural resources are present with more than twice the site density at 23.32 cultural resources sites per square mile.

This dramatic difference was noticed when archaeologists first set forth a sampling strategy on the Juan Tank Allotment for “agra-axe” projects in the late 1990s (Weintraub 1997). As a result of the extensive surveys conducted by 2004, South Kaibab archaeologists created a sampling strategy for all grassland maintenance projects (Hanson and Weintraub 2004). This strategy recognized that many of the grassland areas had experienced historical disturbance (e.g. chaining and bulldozer treatments and woody species encroachment). This strategy allowed archaeologists to determine whether they had enough information from existing surveys to assess whether there were additional survey and site protection needs as the forest identified specific treatment areas (Hanson and Weintraub 2004). This strategy, along with the phased provisions from the more recently developed Appendix J of the R3 Amended Programmatic Agreement outlines an approach that should result in no adverse effects to cultural resources throughout the long duration of this project.

Table 3-13. Site densities within previously surveyed project areas* Vegetation Type Acres Acres Surveyed Percent Survey Sites Density (sq. mi) PJ/Grassland 62,638 18,498 29.5% 674 28.9 (mechanical) Grassland 79,709 39,559 49.6% 671 10.9 (mechanical) Sum of Mechanical 142,347 58,057 40.7% 1345 14.8 Treatment Prescribed burning 408,004 75,435 18.5% 2139 18.1 (no mechanical treatment) Total Project Area 550,351 133,492 24% 3484 16.7 (mechanical and/or burning) *While there are 4,166 known sites within the affected environment, this table only includes sites found within surveyed areas for calculating site densities

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no action alternative, project managers would not implement prescribed burns or mechanical vegetation treatments that involve felling, killing or removing trees. If activities associated with the South Zone Grassland Maintenance project were not implemented, mitigation measures to address cultural resources would not be needed.

Direct and Indirect Effects Not conducting the proposed treatments would lessen the chance of artifacts being moved or crushed by mechanical treatments. However, if the vegetation treatments with the historic grassland environments did not take place the continued increase in pinyon and junipers invading the grasslands would likely increase soil erosion. As a result, it is likely that cultural resources throughout the project area may be affected by increased erosion that could expose previously protected archaeological deposits.

Under this alternative, fuels would continue to accumulate on and around cultural resource sites increasing the likelihood stand replacing fire damaging cultural resources. The Kaibab National Forest Plan (USDA 2014) South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 105 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects makes note of this issue, “In recent years, most adverse impacts to heritage resources are caused by high-intensity, stand-replacing wildfire and increased erosion associated with such fires.”

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Unnatural fuel loading should be reduced around unevaluated, National Register eligible or listed cultural resources. As a result of the long term goals of the project, uncharacteristic fire behavior should also be reduced. Thinning and low intensity prescribed fires can reduce current fuel loads which would then assist in preventing extensive heat damage during wildfires. There would be less need for fire suppression activities, consequently reducing the threat of ground disturbing activities like bulldozer fire-line construction.

Mechanical thinning treatments including both mastication and agra-axe, limited cross-country travel for fuelwood retrieval and cutting, temporary road construction and closures, skidding, the construction of wildlife guzzlers and other ground disturbing activities associated with the South Zone Grassland Restoration project have the potential to affect cultural resources. Impacts can include rutting, erosion, dislocation or breakage of artifacts and features and destruction of sites and site stratigraphy. Prescribed burning also has the potential to affect fire sensitive sites. These potential effects are addressed through site avoidance strategies and implementing the site protection measures listed in Region 3 PA, Appendix J and in the Low Heritage Site Density Grassland Sampling Strategy (Hanson and Weintraub 2004). In many cases, cultural resource sites will not require avoidance measures, as low intensity prescribed fire and agra-axe treatments can be successfully used to have long term benefits to non-fire sensitive cultural resources with no adverse effects (Weintraub 2012).

Initial reduction of trees may lead to an increase in site visibility, public visitation, and possible vandalism. Those issues are reduced through management actions that include project specific as well as long term monitoring. Initial entry prescribed burns are periodically revisited and burned to reduce natural fuel accumulation and archaeological site monitoring is part of that process. Possible road decommissioning can also assist in limiting access to some archaeological sites thus reducing post burn visibility and visitation at those sites.

When avoided sites are left as islands of vegetation in a treated area, they attract the visitation of the public. In addition, these islands attract cattle, deer, elk, and other animals who seek cover in those areas, increasing soil compaction and artifact crushing.

The following activities are exempt from further consultation per USDA 2010. They have been shown to have predictable effects and a very low likelihood of affecting historic properties. Many non-mechanical treatments may be accomplished by crews hand-thinning small diameter pinyon and juniper trees across the landscape. The translocation of prairie dogs to abandoned colonies is very low risk to cultural resources. These areas are already heavily disturbed and no further survey is warranted for this type of activity, unless there is an unexpected discovery. The proposed action would authorize certified native seeding in depleted areas. This would be accomplished either by aerial seeding or by hand. To control alligator juniper from re-sprouting, project managers will spray herbicide by hand. This activity will not affect cultural resources and should have a long-term benefit by preventing future tree growth within sites, if present. Spraying will not occur if tribes identify any specific culturally sensitive areas. Fence modification or removal may occur and would generally be done by hand. In some cases, the light weigh agra-axe may be used to remove corner posts. These activities have little chance of affecting cultural resources.

Alternative 3 With regards to direct and indirect effects to cultural resources, Alternative 3 is essentially the same as Alternative 2, with the exception that it eliminates the use of herbicide, the construction of 4 wildlife waters, and the construction of temporary roads for biomass removal. Eliminating the wildlife waters and temporary roads eliminates the concerns for direct and indirect effects from these activities to cultural resources.

106 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects The elimination of herbicide would allow alligator junipers to re-sprout and potentially out compete grasses. As a result, an increase in soil erosion can be expected and thus the potential to expose cultural resources.

Table 3-14. Summary of effects by action alternative and cultural resource strategy. Effect Action Alternatives Cultural Resource Strategy Mechanical thinning treatments including both mastication and agra-axe, limited cross-country travel for fuelwood retrieval and cutting, Region 3 PA, Appendix J and in the temporary road construction and closures, Low Heritage Site Density Grassland 2 and 3 skidding, the construction of wildlife guzzlers and Sampling Strategy (Hanson and other ground disturbing activities associated with Weintraub 2004). the South Zone Grassland Restoration project have the potential to affect cultural resources. Prescribed fires 2 and 3 The translocation of prairie dogs to abandoned 2 and 3 colonies Herbicide spraying 2 No further survey required. Fence modification or removal 2 and 3 Hand-thinning 2 and 3 Native Grasses Seeding 2 and 3

Cumulative Effects It is the goal of the South Zone Grassland Restoration project to reduce the effects of soil erosion and reintroduce fire to the ecosystem. This in turn reduces the likelihood of adverse effects from soil erosion and stand-replacing wildfire to cultural resources.

Over the past 20 years, similar projects have taken place across the zone. Such agra-axe projects will continue into the foreseeable future.

Over the next 10 years the area surrounding the grasslands have been proposed for treatments under the Four Forest Restoration Initiative which also has the goal of reducing the risk of stand-replacing wildfire and improving general forest health.

The recently implemented Travel Management Rule (2010) has limited the areas where the public can drive off road, thus reducing road densities and the adverse effects that can occur from erosion to cultural resources. As the Travel Management Rule greatly reduced the number of roads the public could drive on, it also reduced the threat of the public accessing cultural resources. The current Travel Management Revision project proposes to open additional areas to cross-country motorized travel for the public to access popular camping sites. While there is some overlap within the proposed corridors and the grassland treatments, the most desirable camping areas are predominantly in the ponderosa pine zone, outside of the grassland treatment areas. It is likely that removal of vegetation from camping corridors will make those areas less desirable to camp within.

Cattle grazing will continue across the South Zone Grassland Restoration project. While cattle grazing activities can affect cultural resources, the goal of the project is to increase native grasses across the historic grasslands which should reduce the typical effects of grazing on cultural resources.

Under the No Action Alternative, tree densities would continue to increase and soil erosion would continue, cumulatively leaving cultural and tribal resources at risk to exposure from increased erosion.

Cumulatively cultural resources may be affected by the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project when the effects of the action alternatives are added to the effects of the past, present and future projects. However, since all projects go through the Section 106 consultation process with both the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and concerned Tribes, effects are minimized and therefore the cumulatively the effects would not be adverse.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 107 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources The following mitigation measures are in accordance with Appendix J of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement (USDA 2010) between Region 3 of the USDA Forest Service, the, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. They include:

1. Hand-thinning: These activities “have predictable effects and a very low likelihood of affecting historic properties.” (USDA 2010). If known historic properties are within these types of project areas, the sites would be flagged. Hand treatment will be allowed within site boundaries but the fuels would be hand carried and piled outside of site boundaries. Mechanical timber harvesting may use, Prior to any proposed mechanical treatments project managers must consult with heritage specialists prior to project implementation to ensure the boundaries of sites within the treatment areas are flagged or painted for avoidance. An archaeologist will also show the project managers and equipment operators how to distinguish the areas to be avoided, and give them a contact name if a previously unrecorded site is uncovered due to the project activities. 2. Fuelwood Sales: Commercial and Fuelwood Sales when concentrated in areas of high site density must undergo 100% cultural resource surveys and sale administrators must consult with archaeologists about which sites need added protection measures. 3. Cross-country fuelwood travel: While limited cross-country travel for fuelwood retrieval may be permitted in most situations, it is not appropriate in areas where above ground cultural resources occur in high site densities. Layout administrators will consult with archaeologists prior to identifying areas for cross-country fuel wood retrieval. 4. Prescribed Fire: All fire sensitive sites will be flagged for avoidance, and in some cases black lined. Project and fire managers must consult with archaeologists, prior to implementing burn activities, to ensure that on-site fuels are such that they will not burn with prolonged or extreme heat. If necessary, excess fuels will be removed by hand from sites. 5. Mechanical and Hand Piling of Biomass: All known eligible or unevaluated heritage resource sites would be flagged for avoidance, thus all wood piling and heavy machinery activities will be conducted outside of site boundaries, except for sites that are bisected by Forest Service System Roads. In those cases, all activities will be confined to the road prisms. 6. Fire-line Construction: All planned fire-lines must avoid known heritage resource sites. Planned fire lines constructed with bulldozers can occur within previously surveyed areas where known sites have been flagged for avoidance by archaeologists. If lines are proposed to be constructed in areas that have not been evaluated by archaeologists, these areas will require additional survey prior to fire-line construction. In the event that emergency dozer fire-lines are warranted, fire managers must contact the district archaeologist immediately so that site avoidance and mitigation measures can be devised and employed as needed. 7. Road Maintenance/Temporary Road Construction: Engineers use road graders to conduct routine road maintenance activities within existing road prisms and features. No protective or mitigation measures are required in areas that have undergone previous surveys and where no heritage resource sites are known to exist. New road construction may occur only in previously surveyed areas that contain no eligible or unevaluated sites. If new roads are proposed in unsurveyed areas, the project area must first be surveyed for heritage resources and an amendment to the project clearance drafted 8. There is the possibility that cultural resources would be discovered during project implementation. Discovery guidance is found in Appendix J of the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement (PA). 9. Prior to the various project implementation phases, project managers must consult with archaeologists who will then flag or paint site boundaries for avoidance. If any unrecorded heritage resources are discovered during project implementation, all project related activities will cease immediately and the consultation process as outlined in Section 800.13 of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 36 CFR Part 800 will be initiated.

108 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Range

Existing Condition Livestock grazing has occurred on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts since the late 1800s. It was open range until the National Forests were established and grazing permits were issued in the early 1900s. Prior to the National Forests being established, areas within the South Zone were grazed concurrently by both sheep and cattle. Actual livestock numbers were not recorded until grazing allotments were formally established and grazing permits were issued. At that time, livestock numbers were recorded and adjusted accordingly based on current conditions within a given allotment. The South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area includes portions of twenty-two grazing allotments, with only twenty-one grazing allotments currently active (Tables 3-15 and 3-16 and Figures 3-13 and 3-15).

Table 3-15. Tusayan R.D. grazing allotments within the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Percent of Acres within Allotment within Total Grassland Grassland Allotment Restoration Restoration Project Allotment Name Livestock Acres Project Area Area Anita Cattle 101,910 65,820 64% Cameron Cattle 103,412 94,954 92% Moqui Cattle 55,094 54,683 99% Rain Tank (Vacant) Cattle 62,831 61,986 99%

Table 3-16. Williams R.D. grazing allotments within the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Percent of Acres within Allotment within Total Grassland Grassland Allotment Restoration Restoration Allotment Name Livestock Acres Analysis Area Analysis Area Corva Cattle 12,818 11,899 93% Cowboy Tank Sheep 8,516 8,512 100% Dog Knobs Cattle 5,639 5,315 94% Double A Cattle 43,590 43,539 100% Ebert Cattle 5,410 5,407 100% Hat Sheep 103,464 56,557 55% Homestead Cattle 6,689 4,381 65% Irishman Dam Cattle 14,390 13,676 95% Juan Tank Cattle 18,535 13,217 71% Moritz Lake Cattle 25,563 7,171 28% Partridge Creek Cattle 24,668 24,645 100% Pine Creek Cattle 8,522 4,288 50% Sitgreaves Cattle 20,390 2,693 13% Smoot Lake Cattle 40,369 40,613 101% Squaw Mountain Sheep 15,461 8,518 55% Tule Cattle 60,187 8,265 14% Twin Tanks Sheep 11,940 3,658 31%

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 109 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Figure 3-13. Tusayan R.D. grazing allotments within the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project.

110 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Figure 3-14. Tusayan R.D. priority treatment areas within grazing allotments on the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 111 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Figure 3-15. Williams R.D. grazing allotments within the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project.

112 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects

Figure 3-16. Williams R.D. priority treatment areas within grazing allotments on the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project.

All of the allotments have interior fences (pastures) as well as exterior, allotment boundary fences. There are hundreds of miles of fence, numerous water sources, waterlots, and Parker 3-Step range transects within the South Zone Kaibab National Forest.

Most of the water sources on the allotments are earthen tanks. Several were built in the early 1900s in basins or drainages to catch snow melt or run-off. In recent years many tanks were built adjacent to roads, in order to catch road run-off.

Management systems within the cattle allotments are designed to incorporate growing season rest or deferment in order to provide for grazed plant recovery. Timing of pasture moves will be dictated by utilization monitoring and management objectives specified in the allotment management plan.

The sheep allotments are managed by herders who move the sheep around through grazing units within the entire allotment with the help of their dogs. As a result, sheep allotments do not have specific pasture rotations. All sheep are actively herded through the grazing units, and are not allowed to bed in the same area for more than 3 days in a row.

Herbaceous forage utilization are set at a conservative use level, approximately 31 to 40 percent utilization (Holechek et al. 2011), including wildlife use, throughout all areas in all the South Zone grazing allotments.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 113 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects With the loss of much of the understory due to tree encroachment, forage species are on the decline as a result of management activities. Because of past overgrazing, increasing tree densities, and unfavorable climatic conditions, livestock numbers have been cut significantly on the south zone of the Kaibab National Forest from mid-1900s to current. Although increasing livestock numbers is not an anticipated result of the restoration treatments associated with this project due to climatic uncertainty, improved forage conditions for both livestock and wildlife in addition to improved watershed stability can be expected.

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy Where consistent with the goals and objectives of Kaibab National Forest Plan, it is Forest Service policy to make forage from National Forest lands suitable for grazing available to qualified livestock operators and to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1, FSM 2203.1, 36 CFR 222.2(c), Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976). Federal actions such as authorization of grazing and approval of Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) must be analyzed to determine potential environmental consequences (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969).

Project Design Criteria and Monitoring The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) has identified an initial list of project design criteria to minimize the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed action. Additionally, the ID Team has identified monitoring items to ensure that resource impacts are within acceptable limits during and following implementation. Additional or modified project design criteria and mitigation and monitoring measures may be developed as a result of public input and further environmental analysis. At this time, the project design criteria and monitoring for range include the following:

Range Management Livestock grazing permittees and ranch managers would be contacted prior to, during, and after treatment to coordinate range grazing allotment rotational schedules. As appropriate, rotation schedules following treatment would be planned to allow sufficient forage regeneration. Minimize effects to range developments by pretreating developments before initiating management ignited fire.

Sensitive Plants and Noxious Weeds The project area would be assessed for rare plants where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted by project implementation. Affected areas where rare plants have been documented would be identified and protected during project implementation. Surveys for noxious weeds would occur in the project area, and mitigation measures would be implemented to prevent the spread of noxious weeds using the BMPs described in Appendix B of the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA 2004a).”

Direct / Indirect / Cumulative Effects Alternative 1- No Action: The no action alternative would have the least effect on grazing operations up front. No treatments would be implemented within South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area. Livestock would continue to graze as outlined in the allotments’ annual operating instructions (AOIs). No changes would be made to pasture rotations to accommodate prescribed burning activities. There would be no risk to allotment infrastructure such as damage to fences from prescribed fire. However, in the long term, fuels would continue to accumulate in forest areas within the project boundary. Adjacent stand conditions would remain in a state that could lead to an uncharacteristic, high intensity wildfire that may result in damage rangelands.

Alternative 2- Proposed Action: The Proposed Action for South Zone Grassland Restoration Project consists of vegetation treatments within approximately 269,000 acres on the Williams Ranger District and 281,000 acres on

114 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects the Tusayan Ranger District. Out of the 269,000 acres on the Williams Ranger District, 262,354 allotment acres are affected. Out of the 281,000 acres on the Tusayan Ranger District, 277,443 allotment acres are affected. The treatments could include mechanical, prescribed burning, fuelwood harvesting, herbicide, seeding, prairie dog translocation, and fence removal/modification.

Alternative 3: This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Action but would eliminate the use of herbicide, the construction of 4 wildlife waters, and the construction of temporary roads for biomass removal.

Livestock grazing permittees and ranch managers would be contacted prior to, during, and after treatment to coordinate range grazing allotment rotational schedules. These schedules would be outlined in the allotments’ AOIs. As appropriate, rotation schedules following treatment would be planned to allow sufficient forage regeneration. Modifications to the AOIs may be made any time throughout the grazing year. Such modifications could be made in response to recent mechanical or fire treatments, forage conditions, water availability, drought, or changing management objectives. If resource conditions are not satisfactory during all or portions of the grazing season, total or partial livestock removal from the allotment may be necessary and is provided for under allotment AOIs.

The timing, intensity, and duration of livestock grazing authorized through AOIs on each allotment are established to be consistent with annual forage production and conservative forage utilization (31-40%). Monitoring, adaptive management, and best management practices (BMPs) are utilized so that sufficient herbaceous vegetation is retained to protect soils and provide herbaceous wildlife cover.

Grazing allotment planning and AOIs are developed with the understanding that fire (prescribed and wildfire managed for resource benefits) and mechanical thinning may occur in conjunction with livestock management in the Kaibab’s ongoing efforts to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. Fire on rangelands often causes a temporary regression in range condition. This is due to nutrient flush that causes an increase in soil movement and forb growth as a short term effect. In the long term, however, fire generally enhances range conditions by removing encroaching woody vegetation and allowing for the establishment of more herbaceous cover.

The direct effects of prescribed burning include the disruption of livestock grazing in allotments/pastures during and following prescribed fire activities. Livestock would not be able to graze in the treatment units during the burn, and sufficient forage regeneration would need to occur prior to restoring grazing to the unit. Coordination of pasture rotation schedules would be required to ensure that permittees are not negatively impacted or lose grazing opportunities. Range infrastructure may be impacted by prescribed burning activities; however, design criteria are included in the alternatives to pretreat range developments, thus minimizing effects. Access to transportation routes within pastures may be limited during both thinning and burning activities; however, this effect will be short-lived once implementation is completed. Proposed vegetation treatments are intended to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic, high intensity wildfire that could result in damage to rangelands.

Under the proposed management, it is predicted that the physiological growth requirements of the forage plants would be favored within the project area. Therefore, areas on the allotments would increase in desirable forage plant densities and plant residues. Additionally, there would be an increase in the diversity of plant species composition, and the vigor of forage plants would be improved. This would then improve livestock distribution within the allotment/pastures, thus allowing for a more conservative utilization level.

The proposed activities within the Grassland Restoration Project area are designed to make progress towards and/or meet specific desired conditions and are in alignment with the Kaibab National Forest Plan. The implementation of these treatments would provide benefits to a variety of resources including forest health conditions, grassland conditions, watershed conditions, water quality, and wildlife habitats. Based on field observations and observed effects to rangeland resources from previous prescribed fires on the Kaibab National Forest, implementation of the Proposed Action alternative for the Grassland Restoration Project area would not result in long-term negative impacts to rangeland resources and/or allotment management activities except for those areas where potential prairie dog sites may occur. Prairie dogs tend to heavily defoliate areas surrounding their homes. In areas where prairie dogs are present, a high component of forbs exist, eliminating grasses and

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 115 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects shrubs by their foraging activities (Holechek et al. 2011). This in turn would affect available forage for livestock and wildlife within allotments/pastures. Under the No Action Alternative, it is predicted that the physiological growth requirements of the forage plants would not be favored within the project area. Therefore, areas on the allotment could potentially decrease in desirable forage plant densities and plant residues. Additionally, there would be a decrease in plant species composition and vigor of forage plants. Livestock distribution within the allotment/pastures would not improve, thus adhering to a more moderate to heavy utilization level. Under Alternative 3, without additional waters, wildlife would continue to congregate on existing dirt tanks and would be less likely to disperse more frequently. Without the use of herbicide on alligator juniper stumps, re-sprouting would continue once the alligator juniper is mechanically cut. Re-treatments of these areas would have to be visited more frequently costing more money in the long run.

The No Action Alternative would not make progress towards and/or meet specific desired conditions and is not in alignment with the Kaibab National Forest Plan. The lack of treatments would not provide benefits needed to a variety of resources including forest health conditions, grassland conditions, watershed conditions, water quality, and wildlife habitats. Potential long-term negative impacts to rangeland resources and/or allotment management activities may occur.

Alternative 3 would continue to make progress toward and/or meet specific desired conditions as long as these areas are re-treated more frequently as the re-sprouting of alligator juniper would continue. Impacts to rangeland resources and/or allotment management activities would be beneficial in the short term, but impacts in the long term may occur without the ability to use herbicide or would be more costly re-treating more frequently by mechanical means or prescribed burning.

Cumulative Effects: The direct and indirect effects described above are common to other past, present, and future projects occurring within and adjacent to the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area and the allotments that fall within it. These other projects are listed in Appendix A of this report. Livestock authorized annually through AOIs on each allotment would be consistent with annual forage production and conservative forage utilization (31-40%). Monitoring would reveal any changes in forage availability resulting from the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project and other projects, and adaptive management and best management practices (BMPs) would be utilized to ensure that sufficient herbaceous vegetation is retained to protect soils and provide herbaceous cover for wildlife. This would ensure continued grazing operations, conservative forage utilization, and compliance with the Forest Plan and other law, regulation and policy. If implementation of the Grassland Restoration Project and other projects on the South Zone results in substantially changed allotment conditions, any necessary changes in grazing management would be completed separately on an allotment basis through the appropriate planning and environmental analysis process. Rare Plants

Affected Environment

Common Vegetation The Williams Ranger District covers approximately 560,000 acres. Elevation ranges from around 5000 feet at Hell Canyon to over 10,000 feet on the top of Kendrick Mountain. The District is dominated by forests and savannahs of ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper. Vegetation types found on the District are: ponderosa pine – Gambel oak (33%), ponderosa pine – Colorado pinyon (10%), pinyon – juniper (36%), grasslands (17%), mixed conifer (2%), sedge/spikerush wetlands (1%), Gambel oak shrublands (<1%), aspen (<1%), and spruce-fir (<1%).

The dominant grasses or grass-like plants on the Williams District include: Arizona fescue, mountain muhly, bottlebrush squirreltail, muttongrass, blue grama, sideoats grama, needle and thread, and western wheatgrass. Dominant herbs include: fleabane, lupine, and yarrow. Dominant shrubs include: rubber rabbitbrush, Apache plume, Stansbury cliffrose, and New Mexico locust. Dominant trees include: ponderosa pine, oneseed juniper, alligator juniper, Utah juniper, Colorado pinyon, and Gambel oak.

116 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects The Tusayan Ranger District covers approximately 360,000 acres and lies completely within the watershed of the Colorado Basin. Elevation ranges from around 5,700 feet in the northeast portion of the Upper Basin to a high of 7,500 feet at Lockett Lake. The District is heavily dominated by forests of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine. Vegetation types found on the District are: pinyon-juniper (63%), ponderosa pine (21%), sagebrush (5%), juniper woodland (4%), grasslands (4%), and oak woodlands (1%).

The dominant grasses or grass-like species on the Tusayan District include: blue grama, western wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, muttongrass, needle and thread, June grass, bottlebrush squirreltail, spike muhly, Arizona fescue, mountain muhly and pine dropseed. Dominant shrubs include: big sagebrush, black sagebrush, rabbitbrush, cliffrose, fourwing saltbush, and winterfat. Dominant herbs include: broom snakeweed, sandwort, globemallow and various buckwheat species. Dominant tree species include: ponderosa pine, oneseed juniper, alligator juniper, Utah juniper, Colorado pinyon, and Gambel oak.

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, Conservation Agreement, Forest Service Sensitive, and Rare and Narrow Endemic plant species A review was conducted to determine if any Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, Conservation Agreement, or Forest Service Sensitive species and/or habitats were known to occur in Coconino County and on or near the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts within the project boundary. The following references were used: USFWS Internet list of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Conservation Agreement species occurring in Coconino County; Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data Management System; USDA Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive Species List; NatureServe Explorer Internet site; and Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide.

Sensitive species are defined as “those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density; or b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution” [FSM 2670.5(19)]”.

A search was conducted in the Heritage Data Management System maps of plant species occurrences, the Kaibab National Forest GIS rare plant occurrence layers, and in the Kaibab National Forest rare plant files.

No Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Candidate plant species have been found on or near the South Zone. No suitable habitat exists for any listed species. One Conservation Agreement species (also Forest Service Sensitive) and nine other Forest Service Sensitive plant species have been found on the South Zone of the Kaibab National Forest.

Arizona bugbane (Actaea arizonica, formerly Cimicifuga arizonica), is found on the Williams Ranger District. It is only found on the moist north slope of Bill Williams Mountain. Arizona bugbane is also a USFWS/FS Conservation Agreement species and a Forest Service Sensitive species.

Table 3-17: USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region list of sensitive plants found on or near the South Zone (Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts) Species or Habitat in Common Name Project Scientific Name Elevation, Habitat, and Range Area? 4700-8800'. Found on Bill Williams Mountain and Oak Creek Canyon. Canyon bottoms and lower slopes, drainages, seeps and springs. Moist, loamy soil, high in humus content. Deep shade, high humidity, north slopes. Between Arizona bugbane coniferous and riparian habitats with Douglas-fir, white fir, Rocky Mountain No Actaea arizonica maple, and aspen. Also a USFWS/FS Conservation Agreement species. Limiting factors/threats: scouring from heavy rainstorms, recreational climbing on canyon walls, intense fires, soil disturbance and introduction of nonnative plants.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 117 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Species or Habitat in Common Name Project Scientific Name Elevation, Habitat, and Range Area? 5500-9000’. Found N of Williams, at the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Mt. Dellenbaugh Park, and in De Motte Park on the N Kaibab RD. Basalt soil or sandy soils. sandwort Meadows and meadow edges within oak and pine forests or in pinyon-juniper No Arenaria aberrans woodlands. Limiting factors/threats: grazing, trampling, forest salvage, soil disturbance, and soil erosion. 5400-9000’. Found on the lower slopes of the San Francisco Peaks, in Oak Creek Canyon, N of Williams, Kendrick Peak, Garland Prairie, and Camp Navajo. Dry or temporarily moist basaltic soils. Openings or meadows in Rusby milkvetch ponderosa pine forest or at the edge of thickets and aspen groves. Also found Yes Astragalus rusbyi in mixed conifer and pine-oak forests in openings. Limiting factors/threats: intense fire, damage from trampling associated with grazing, and excessive shading. 5000-7000’. Found on north end of the Coconino NF and on portions of the South Zone of the Kaibab NF. Slopes and flats. Kaibab limestone or basalt. Tusayan rabbitbrush Calcareous soils. Openings in pinyon-juniper woodland and shrub-grasslands. Chrysothamnus Yes Full sun. Pinyon, juniper, blue grama, Douglas rabbitbrush, rubber rabbitbrush, molestus and algerita. Limiting factors/threats: damage from grazing, intense fire, and trampling, 6900-8500’. Found along the Rio de Flag, Lower Lake Mary, and upper Volunteer Canyon on the Coconino NF and in the Tusayan area of the Kaibab NF. Rocky hillsides with 12-40% slopes. Kaibab limestone. Rock outcrops Arizona leatherflower and shallow soils. Moist mountain meadows, prairies, and open woods and Clematis hirsutissima No thickets in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Limiting factors/threats: var. hirsutissima extremely heavy shade reduces growth and reproduction, full sun can dry seeds and plants, timber harvesting, controlled thinning and burning, cattle and elk grazing and development. 4400-8400’. Dacite or Coconino sandstone. Sheer canyon walls. Moist north- facing slopes. Riparian deciduous forest and other habitat types. Limiting rock fleabane factors/threats: Highway maintenance and construction, and addition of salt to No Erigeron saxatilis roadways in the vicinity of canyons, intense flooding, and rock climbing damage. 4500-7100’. Found near Flagstaff in Walnut Canyon drainages, on the rims of Oak Creek and Sycamore Canyons, Bill Williams Mountain, and north of Tule Canyon. Rock pavement, cliffs and breaks on 0-10% slopes. Kaibab formation Flagstaff pennyroyal dolomitic limestone or sandstone. Outcrops, boulders, rock crevices and No Hedeoma diffusum pockets, or shallow soils. Ponderosa pine forests. Limiting factors/threats: urban invasion of habitats, intense fires, harvesting disturbances, trampling/crushing, and introduction of nonnative plant species. 4500-7000’. Found south of the Grand Canyon and in Sycamore Canyon. Dry slopes in eroded or mountainous terrain. Kaibab limestone or sandstone. Rock outcrops or shallow soils, coarse loamy, neutral pH. Ponderosa pine, Flagstaff beardtongue Gambel oak, alligator juniper, blue grama. Limiting factors/threats: not fully Yes Penstemon nudiflorus understood, yet intense fires may destroy plants, harvesting disturbances could damage plants, grazing activity could damage or cause mortality as well as trampling/crushing, and introduction of nonnative plant species within habitat. 3500-7800’. Found in open sites, exposed limestone or basalt rocky slopes 3- 8%) within pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine, Gambel oak communities. Occurs from AZ Strip to Phoenix area, east to Show Low. Mostly in southern Arizona phlox Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai counties; central AZ endemic (from Yes Phlox amabilis AZ Strip to Phoenix area, east to Show Low). Limiting factors/threats: No known threats though populations may be affected by prolonged drought, grazing/trampling, and off road vehicle use.

118 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Species or Habitat in Common Name Project Scientific Name Elevation, Habitat, and Range Area? 4500-7540’. All known populations are on or near canyon rims or the tops of cliffs at the edges of mesas or plateaus, along low ledges at depressions caused by breccia pipes. Limestone-red clay soils, gravelly soils derived from Grand Canyon rose Tinoweap Kaibab limestone. Known populations at Kanab Creek on the NKRD. Rosa stellata Habitat exists on cliff edges on NKRD and TRD. Limiting factors/threats: No spp.aybssa damage by browsing wildlife, especially rabbits, uranium mining and exploration due to plants growing in breccia pipes, intense fires, soil disturbance and erosion, vegetation removal and introduction of nonnative plants.

Eight Forest Service Sensitive plant species are known to exist on the South Zone: Arizona bugbane (Actaea arizonica), Rusby milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi), Tusayan rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus molestus), Arizona leatherflower (Clematis hirsutissima var. hirsutissima), rock fleabane (Erigeron saxatilis), Flagstaff pennyroyal (Hedeoma diffusum), Flagstaff beardtongue (Penstemon nudiflorus), and Arizona phlox (Phlox amabilis).

Although plant populations have not been found on the South Zone, suitable habitat may exist for two Forest Service Sensitive plant species: Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort (Arenaria aberrans), and Grand Canyon Rose (Rosa stellata spp. abyssa). Conservation status listings from NatureServe are shown in table 3-18.

Table 3-18: NatureServe Explorer species conservation status as of February 15, 2016

Species Global Status National Status State Status Arizona bugbane Actaea arizonica G2 Imperiled N2 S2 Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort Arenaria aberrans G2 Imperiled N2 S2 Rusby milkvetch Astragalus rusbyi G3 Vulnerable N3 S3 Tusayan rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus molestus G3 Vulnerable N3 S3 Arizona leatherflower Clematis hirsutissima var. arizonica* *Not combined into hirsutissima G4T2?Q Imperiled N2? SNR variety on NatureServe web site. rock fleabane Erigeron saxatilis G3 Vulnerable N3 S3 Flagstaff pennyroyal Hedeoma diffusum G3 Vulnerable N3 S3 Flagstaff beardtongue Penstemon nudiflorus G2G3 Imperiled N2N3 S2S3

Arizona phlox Phlox amabilis G2 Imperiled N2 S2

Grand Canyon rose Rosa stellata spp. abyssa G4T2 Imperiled NNR S2

Rare and narrow endemic plants are those species which face threats simply by virtue of their relatively limited distribution. The species listed in table 3-19 below have been considered rare and narrow endemic due to an extremely limited distribution and/or habitat in northern Arizona. Known plant populations of rare and narrow

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 119 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects endemic plant species will continue to be monitored for detrimental effects throughout the cumulative effects analysis time period.

Implementation of any of the project alternatives may affect rare and narrow endemic plant individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of their limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measures that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations. Many of the proposed project areas have already experienced previous disturbances and the likelyhood of new rare and narrow endemic plant species being found to populate these sites is not very likely. Additionally, implementation of restoration activities in the specified areas may help discover new populations or locations where rare and narrow endemics species have not yet been identified.

Table 3-19: Rare and narrow endemic plant species found within the South Zone (D1 – Williams Ranger District & D4 – Tusayan Ranger District) Species or Habitat in Common Name Project Scientific Name D1 D4 Elevation, Habitat and Range Area? Endemic species. Found in ponderosa pine and spruce-fir. Most populations are reported from limestone-derived soils at elevations Groundcover between 7800-8700’. Found locally abundant, with several large Milkvetch populations south of Jacob Lake. An apparent collection of this variety Astragalus X Yes has been made south of Grand Canyon on the South Rim of Grand humistratus var. Canyon, and also southeast of Flagstaff. Limiting factors/threats: rarity, tenerrimus catastrophic fire, non-native plants, tree harvesting, grazing, and recreation. Rare species. Found in pinyon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine, Creeping Milkvetch and sagebrush shrubland, dry slopes and flats, often on basalt rocks or Astragalus X Yes in clay soil; 5100’-7400’. Found on the east side of D1 on the KNF. troglodytus Limiting factors/threats: rarity, no known threats. Endemic species. Species grows in limestones on open knolls and Rough Whitlow- under pines on the Kaibab Plateau and in N. AZ, between elevations of grass X approx. 4250-8400’. Found on the Kaibab near the north and south rims Yes Draba asprella of the Grand Canyon. Limiting factors/threats: species is so poorly var. kaibabensis understood that threats are difficult to assess. Rare species. Found in montane willow riparian forest and ponderosa Macdougal’s pine. It grows in a variety of substrates, including sandstone cobble, Bluebells clay loam, sand and duff. It occurs at elevations between 6000-9000’. D1=No X X Mertensia Known sites on Bill Williams Mountain and on the south and north rims D4=Yes macdougalii of Grand Canyon. Limiting factors/threats: rarity, catastrophic fire, non- native plants, grazing, and recreation. Rare species. Moist soils or soils that are periodically inundated or wet. Scrub oak, pinyon-juniper woodland, open ponderosa pine forests and Western Mouse-tail D1=Yes X X desert grassland, 6900-8200’. Observed south of the town of Tusayan, Myosurus nitidus D4=No AZ and northeast of the city of Williams, AZ. Limiting factors/threats: rarity, catastrophic fire, non-native plants, grazing, and recreation. Mat Penstemon Rare species. Found in pinyon-juniper woodlands, sagebrush, 5900- Penstemon X 8000’. Known on D4 and the far north end of D1. Limiting Yes caespitosus var. factors/threats: rarity, threats unknown. desertipicti

Western Flame- Endemic species. Woodland openings and bare slopes and summits in flower rocky soil on chert, basalt, and cinder; 5900-7900’. Known on D1 on the D1=Yes X X Phemeranthus very south end and near the Forest between D1 and D4. Limiting D4=Yes validulus factors/threats: rarity, threats unknown. Rare species. Found in ponderosa pine at 6000-8500’, growing in soils Oregon Buttercup derived from limestone, sand and basalt. Known locations on NKRD Ranunculus X Yes and Tusayan. Limiting factors/threats: rarity, catastrophic fire, non- oreogenes native plants, tree harvesting, grazing, and recreation.

120 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Species or Habitat in Common Name Project Scientific Name D1 D4 Elevation, Habitat and Range Area? Endemic species. Found in ponderosa pine and montane subalpine Black Dropseed grassland grows at 5000-7500’ in volcanic-derived soils. Known on Sporobolus X No Tusayan and Williams Districts. Limiting factors/threats: rarity, interruptus catastrophic fire, non-native plants, grazing, and recreation. Rare species. Found in grasslands, chaparral, and pinyon-juniper to Rothrock’s Hedge- ponderosa pine woodlands; sandy, silty or fine clays, or rocky basalt nettle D1=Yes X X flats, drainages or slopes, 4900-8200’. Few collections have been Stachys D4=Yes restricted to Bill Williams Mountain area, and west of Hwy 180 east of rothrockii Hwy 64. Limiting/threats: rarity, threats unknown. Endemic species. Found in ponderosa pine and wet soil occurs at 5000-8000’, and its substrates include sandstone, sandy loam and Oak Creek Triteleia volcanic-derived soils. It is reported from just south of Tule Canyon, and D1=No Triteleia X X on the edge of Kaibab National Forest. Limiting factors/threats: rarity, D4=Yes lemmoniae catastrophic fire, non-native plants, tree harvesting, grazing, and recreation.

Tables 3-17 and 3-19 document plant species of concern for this analysis. They were listed by status category to define management actions and guidance for habitat from the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest. Due to not all species of concern being impacted by the proposed actions and alternatives, only the following plant species (table 3-20) will be further investigated and impacts documented in the discussion of alternatives and cumulative effects.

Table3-20: Species of concern for further impact analysis and discussion of alternatives and cumulative effects (D1 – Williams Ranger District & D4 – Tusayan Ranger District) Common Name Species or Habitat in Project Scientific Name D1 D4 Area? Groundcover Milkvetch X Yes Astragalus humistratus var. tenerrimus Rusby milkvetch X X Yes Astragalus rusbyi Creeping milkvetch X Yes Astragalus troglodytus Tusayan rabbitbrush X X Yes Chrysothamnus molestus Rough Whitlow-grass X Yes Draba asprella var. kaibabensis Macdougal’s Bluebells D1 – No X X Mertensia macdougalii D4 – Yes Western mousetail D1 – No X X Myosurus nitidus D4 – Yes Mat Penstemon D1 – No X X Penstemon caespitosus var. desertipicti D4 – Yes Flagstaff beardtongue X X Yes Penstemon nudiflorus Western flameflower X X Yes Phemeranthus validulus Arizona phlox X X Yes Phlox amabilis Oregon Buttercup X Yes Ranunculus oreogenes Rothrock’s Hedge-nettle X X Yes Stachys rothrockii Oak Creek Triteleia D1 – No X X Triteleia lemmoniae D4 – Yes

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 121 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management would continue in the project area. This alternative would not implement any new treatment or actions described in alternatives 2 and 3. The No Action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for action. Grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands would continue to be invaded by conifers, fire would not be returned to the landscape as a disturbance agent, fuel wood harvesting would not be used as a tool to facilitate restoration objectives, and poorly-located roads that fragment habitat and impair watershed function would not be decommissioned or obliterated.

Alternative 2 – (Proposed Action) Alternative 2 aims to use a combination of mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, herbicides, seeding, construction of wildlife waters, prairie dog relocation, fence modification, and road decommissioning and obliteration to improve the current condition of designated historical grasslands within the project boundary. It would meet the project objective of restoring fire-adapted ecosystems and improving wildlife habitat in grassland and woodland areas across the South Zone. Alternative 2 would also satisfy the “priority need for change” that drove development of the revised Land and Resource Management plan for the Kaibab National Forest (Forest Plan).

A selection of the proposed actions are listed below due to their possible direct impact on Forest Service Sensitive, rare and narrow endemic plants found within the project boundary. Of all proposed actions these could have the most detrimental impact to both individual plants and/or plant communities. Proposed actions include: proposed mechanical treatments, proposed broadcast and pile burning, proposed use of herbicide, proposed prairie dog relocation, and the proposed road decommissioning and obliteration. Proposed actions may be altered based upon best management practices, public input, further environmental analysis, or adaptive management to ensure protection from unacceptable negative impacts to plant individuals or suitable habitat.

Other proposed actions would have little to no effect on Forest Service Sensitive, rare and narrow endemic plants found within the project boundary and will therefore not be carried through analysis. Impacts to individual plants or suitable habitat would not be likely due to the narrowly localized impacts of proposed actions and short-term disturbance to the impacted area. These actions include: proposed seeding of certified weed free native seed, construction of four wildlife water guzzlers, and proposed fence modification or removal.

For a more detailed listing of all actions proposed under Alternative 2 – (Proposed Action), please see Chapter 2 of this document.

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Plant Species Only one federally listed plant species is currently found within the Kaibab National Forest: Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae). It is located on the North Kaibab Ranger District and no known populations or suitable habitats have been identified within the South Zone. As a result, implementation of any of Alternative 2 would have no effect on USFWS listed species.

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects, Forest Service Sensitive Plants Only four Forest Service Sensitive plant species are known to exist within the boundaries of the proposed grassland restoration project area in the South Zone: Astragalus rusbyi, Chrysothamnus molestus, Penstemon nudiflorus, and Phlox amabilis. The locations of these four plant communities are well known and documented. Consideration will be taken to ensure population numbers or impacts are mitigated through appropriate efforts and means.

122 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Rusby’s milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi) Threats to Rusby’s milkvetch include intense fire, damage from trampling associated with grazing, and excessive shading. Previous responses to fire and forest thinning efforts have been mixed and could be confounded by ongoing drought in the region. Disturbance by harvesting activities including mechanical efforts and fuelwood collection could increase off-road vehicle use, causing an impact on plant populations or suitable habitat. While some disturbance is beneficial by reducing shading effects, continued driving of off-road vehicles in suitable habitat could increase the chance of nonnative invasive species being introduced. This introduction of highly competitive and invasive species, combined with ongoing drought effects, could negatively impact populations of Rusby’s milkvetch. Use of herbicide within the project implementation area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. And introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or on total plant populations. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could allow for a decrease in off-road vehicle use and a greater reduction to the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the proposed project implementation area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of individual plants and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for Rusby’s milkvetch within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect Rusby’s milkvetch individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Tusayan rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus molestus) Threats to Tusayan rabbitbrush include damage due to grazing by wild and domestic ungulates, intense fire, and fire suppression leading to competition from other plants. The species is tolerant of prescribed burns following growing season, and fire may stimulate growth in subsequent years. Some disturbance due to recreation, fuelwood gathering, and savannah/grassland restoration is not harmful to the plants. Severe disturbance of plants and soils, however, could kill the plants. Off-road vehicle travel outside of the current road system could damage individual plants and/or habitat, if vehicles drive repeatedly over the same plants, especially when soils are wet. Habitats could be damaged by the introduction of invasive exotic weeds by vehicles. Use of herbicide within the project implementation area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or on total plant populations. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could allow for a decrease in off-road vehicle use and a greater reduction to the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the proposed project implementation area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 123 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project implementation area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, mitigation measures would help protect the species from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for Tusayan rabbitbrush within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect Tusayan rabbitbrush individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of its limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Flagstaff beardtongue (Penstemon nudiflorus) Threats to Flagstaff beardtongue could include intense fires and harvesting disturbances that damage plants and their habitats, particularly in concert with drought. Livestock and wildlife grazing could damage or kill individual plants. Off-road vehicle use may damage species and associated habitats, while hiking and trail development may displace populations from suitable habitat. Habitats could be damaged by the introduction of invasive exotic weeds by vehicles driving off-road or across open landscapes. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off-road vehicle use and reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Use of herbicide within the project implementation area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced on individual plants or on total plant populations.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for Flagstaff beardtongue within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect Flagstaff beardtongue individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Arizona phlox (Phlox amabilis) Threats to populations of Arizona phlox include prolonged drought, grazing/trampling and off-road vehicle use. Intense fires could destroy plants and organic soils in understory settings and destabilize soils on steep slopes. Harvesting and grazing by livestock may also cause soil disturbance, erosion, vegetation removal and introduction of nonnative plants into known populations or suitable habitat. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or on total plant populations. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off-road vehicle use and reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

124 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off road vehicle use through the proposed project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of individual plants and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for Arizona phlox within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect Arizona phlox individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the plant’s population because of its limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects, Rare and Narrow Endemic Plant Species

Groundcover Milkvetch (Astragalus humistratus var. tenerrimus) Threats to groundcover milkvetch include off-road vehicle travel, road maintenance, and the spread of invasive exotic weeds. Intense fires, timber harvesting and livestock trampling may destroy or damage plants and their associated habitats. Soil disturbance and erosion from livestock activities may occur in the species’ drier habitats and populations near drainages may be adversely affected by restoration efforts. Habitats could be damaged by the introduction of invasive exotic weeds by vehicles. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or total plant populations. Roads do exist in suitable habitat due to the gentle slopes, and off-road vehicle travel could damage individual plants and/or habitat if vehicles drive repeatedly over the same plants, especially when soils are wet. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could allow for a decrease in off-road vehicle use and a greater reduction to the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect the species from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for groundcover milkvetch within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect groundcover milkvetch individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of their limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Creeping milkvetch (Astragalus troglodytus) Threats to creeping milkvetch include intense fires that may destroy plants and organic soils in understory settings, soil disturbance and erosion on steep slopes, vegetation removal allowing for increased erosion,

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 125 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects introduction of nonnative plants, and hiking or trail development displacing the species. Habitats could be damaged by the introduction of invasive exotic weeds by vehicles. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or total plant populations. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could allow for a decrease in off-road vehicle use and a reduction in the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project implementation area leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for creeping milkvetch within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect creeping milkvetch individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Rough Whitlow-grass (Draba asprella var. kaibabensis) Threats to rough Whitlow-grass include intense fires that may destroy plants and organic soils in understory settings, soil disturbance and erosion on steep slopes, vegetation removal allowing for increased erosion, introduction of nonnative plants, trampling by livestock damaging or causing mortality, and hiking or trail development displacing the species. Habitats could be damaged by the introduction of invasive exotic weeds by vehicles. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or by total plant populations. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could allow for a decrease in off-road vehicle use and a greater reduction to the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for rough Whitlow-grass within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect rough Whitlow-grass individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

126 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Macdougal’s Bluebells (Mertensia macdougalii) Threats to Macdougal’s bluebells include high intensity fires which destroys plants, particularly in concert with drought conditions. Broadcast or pile burning within suitable habitat areas could lead to loss of that suitable habitat or individual plants. Disturbance of soils due to vegetation treatments (such as mechanical harvesting), grazing and recreation could cause loss of individual plants or plant communities. Loss of habitat due to development is a substantial threat to this species. Habitats could be damaged by the introduction of invasive exotic weeds by vehicles. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or by total plant populations. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off-road vehicle use and reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for Macdougal’s bluebells within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect Macdougal’s bluebells individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Western mousetail (Myosurus nitidus) Threats to western mousetail include intense fires that may destroy plants and organic soils in understory settings and destabilize soil on steep slopes, soil disturbance and erosion on steep slopes from harvesting activities, vegetation removal and introduction of nonnative invasive plants from livestock grazing, damage or destruction of plants including seedlings from trampling or crushing, and soil disturbances leading to erosion and possibly loss of plants by off-road vehicle uses. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off-road vehicle use and reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced on individual plants or on total plant populations.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 127 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for western mousetail within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect western mousetail individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Mat Penstemon (Penstemon caespitosus var. desertipicti) Threats to mat penstemon include intense forest fires that could destroy plants and organic soils in understory settings, soil disturbance on steep slopes from timber harvesting, and displacement by hiking and trail development. Grazing could cause soil disturbance, erosion, vegetation removal, and introduction of nonnative species, as well as destruction of plants and seedlings by trampling/crushing. Habitats could be damaged by the introduction of invasive exotic weeds by vehicles. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced on individual plants or on total plant populations. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off-road vehicle use and reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for mat penstemon within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect mat penstemon individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Western flameflower (Phemeranthus validulus) Threats to western flameflower include severe wildfire in pinyon-juniper woodlands and ponderosa pine forests, especially when combined with secondary threats of uncharacteristic insect/drought-related die-off and invasive plants. Harvesting activities could cause soil disturbance and erosion, as could livestock grazing by trampling and vegetation removal. Off-road vehicle use could disturb soil, leading to erosion and possibly loss of plants. Habitats could be damaged by the introduction of invasive exotic weeds by vehicles. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or by total plant populations. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off-road vehicle use and a reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

128 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect the species from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for western flameflower within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect western flameflower individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of their limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Oregon Buttercup (Ranunculus oreogenes) Threats to Oregon buttercup include high intensity fires that could destroy plants, especially when drought conditions are present, and livestock could cause damage or mortality due to trampling/crushing and direct grazing of plants. Timber harvesting activities could damage plants and habitats by disturbing soil, which could lead to an increase in soil erosion within suitable habitat. Use of herbicide within the project area could decrease individual plant vigor and result in possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants or by total plant populations. Off-road vehicle use may damage both species and habitat, while hiking and trail development could displace the species altogether. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off-road vehicle use and reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for Oregon buttercup within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect Oregon buttercup individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Rothrock’s hedge-nettle (Stachys rothrockii) Threats to Rothrock’s hedge-nettle include severe wildfire in pinyon-juniper woodlands and ponderosa pine forests, especially when combined with secondary threats of uncharacteristic insect/drought-related die-off and invasive plants. Harvesting activities could cause soil disturbance and erosion, leading to an increase in nonnative invasive plant introduction. Off-road vehicle use could disturb soil, leading to erosion and possibly loss of plants. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off-road vehicle use and reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health. Use of herbicide within the project area could decrease in individual plant vigor and result in possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced by individual plants orby total plant populations.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 129 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for Rothrock’s hedge-nettle within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect Rothrock’s hedge-nettle individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Oak Creek triteleia (Triteleia lemmoniae) Threats to Oak Creek triteleia include intense fire and disturbances from grazing and recreation, and invasive species including Kentucky bluegrass and cheatgrass. Loss of water due to diversion and climate change are also potential threats to the species. Harvesting activities and off-road vehicle use could disturb plants and damage their habitat. Off-road vehicle use could disturb soil, leading to erosion and possibly loss of plants. Removal of roads through suitable habitat could decrease off road vehicle use and reduce the risk of introduction of nonnative invasive species. Ripping of roadways could increase the chance of soil erosion within suitable habitat, leading to a decline in plant vigor and plant community health. Use of herbicide within the project area could result in a decrease in individual plant vigor and possible die-off. The introduction of prairie dogs within suitable habitat may increase the amount of foraging experienced on individual plants or on total plant populations.

Mitigation measures and project design criteria could help to defray any negative impacts to known populations or suitable habitat. The project area would be assessed for rare plants or where suitable habitat for such plants may be impacted, and any affected areas would be identified and protected during project implementation.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the risk of introduction of exotic species by off-road vehicle use through the project area or in identified plant communities. Plants and their associated communities could be crushed or trampled by human activities within the project area, leading to a reduction in vigor and/or loss of the individual plant and/or total plant community. However, identified mitigation measures would help protect from these detrimental impacts.

Alternative 2 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for Oak Creek triteleia within historical grasslands on the South Zone.

Implementation of Alternative 2 may affect Oak Creek triteleia individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the population because of the plant’s limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Plant Species Only one federally listed plant species is currently found within the Kaibab National Forest: Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae). It is located on the North Kaibab Ranger District and no known populations or suitable habitats have been identified within the South Zone. As a result, implementation of Alternative 3 would have no effect on USFWS listed species.

130 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects, Forest Service Sensitive Plants Alternative 3 proposes the same mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, seeding, prairie dog translocation, fence modification, and road decommissioning and obliteration as Alternative 2. However, it would eliminate the use of herbicide, the construction of 4 wildlife waters, and the construction of temporary roads for biomass removal. The elimination of these actions would allow for less direct impacts on all known Forest Service Sensitive plant populations in the project area. Otherwise, effects would be similar to those described for Alternative 2.

Actions taken under Alternative 3 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for all Forest Service Sensitive plants within the project area.

Implementation of Alternative 3 may affect Forest Service Sensitive plant species individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the populations because of their limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects, Rare and Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative 3 proposes the same mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, seeding, prairie dog translocation, fence modification, and road decommissioning and obliteration as Alternative 2. However, it would eliminate the use of herbicide, the construction of 4 wildlife waters, and the construction of temporary roads for biomass removal. The elimination of these actions would allow for less direct impacts on all known rare and narrow endemic plant populations in the project area. Otherwise, effects would be similar to those described for Alternative 2.

Actions taken under Alternative 3 could allow for better management and improved suitable habitat for all rare and narrow endemic species within the project area.

Implementation of Alternative 3 may affect rare and narrow endemic species individuals or habitat, yet will have no measurable negative impact on the populations because of their limited occurrences within the project area and the implementation of mitigation measure that are designed to protect known and newly discovered populations.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Plant Species; Forest Service Sensitive Plants; and Rare and Narrow Endemic Species The spatial boundaries for purposes of this cumulative effects analysis are the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area with a one-mile buffer. The temporal boundaries are ten years before and ten years following implementation of the grassland restoration project. A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in this analysis are found in Appendix A.

Timber harvesting, forest thinning, and grassland restoration tree removal projects reduce overstory cover in the short-term and can stimulate an increase in understory cover in two to five years. The vigor and cover of the native understory (including rare plants) can improve. Reduction in tree canopy and heavy fuels will reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires that could remove most of the plant and litter cover (including rare plants), burn the native seed bank, sterilize the soils, and provide areas for noxious and invasive exotic weeds to invade. Weeds could dominate rare plant habitat after a catastrophic fire. Weeds could be spread by heavy equipment, vehicles, and personnel working in the project areas. However, best management practices and mitigation measures are in place on every project in order to reduce the introduction and spread of weeds. Existing weed populations should be controlled before work begins. All equipment must be cleaned before it is moved to the site. Project areas are monitored and weed populations are controlled over time after a project is completed. Known populations of rare plants are flagged and damage is avoided. Elk and livestock may be attracted to the area due to the increase in quantity and quality of forage. Rare plant populations need to be monitored to avoid damage. Implementing other vegetation management projects (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 131 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat. Overall, an improvement in plant vigor and/or habitat conditions in areas with these projects may be expected.

Broadcast prescribed burns remove a portion of overstory, understory, and litter cover. In the ponderosa pine region, these burns are conducted in order to maintain or improve forest health by thinning the trees and increasing the herbaceous understory. The burns temporarily remove cover, yet they also increase the growing space, light, moisture, and nutrients available to understory plants, including rare plants. In two to five years, the understory plants can regenerate and expand in cover compared to the pre-burn conditions. Reduction in tree cover and heavy fuels will reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires that could remove most of the plant and litter cover (including rare plants), burn the seed bank, sterilize the soil, and provide sites for noxious and invasive exotic weed invasion. Project areas are surveyed and weeds should be controlled before projects begin. Fire managers distribute the fuels, so that broadcast prescribed fires do not burn at a very hot temperature. This action protects the soil and some of the litter and residual plants. Soils are generally more fertile after a low to moderate intensity broadcast burn, so that native plants can easily regenerate. Noxious and invasive exotic weeds may still invade, yet they must compete with a healthy and vigorous native plant community. After the burn, the area is monitored and weeds are controlled over time. Known rare plant populations are flagged and avoided, unless they are well adapted to fire. Weeds found in or near rare plant populations will be controlled. Elk and livestock may be attracted to the area due to the increase in quantity and quality of forage. Rare plant populations need to be monitored to avoid damage. Implementing broadcast prescribed burns (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat. Damage to plants and/or habitat may be experienced in the short-term, with an improvement in plant vigor and/or habitat conditions in the long term.

Piling of tree thinning slash and prescribed burning of piles will remove excess fuels in the area. These projects will reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires that could remove most of the plant and litter cover (including rare plants), burn the native seed bank, sterilize the soil, and provide large areas for the invasion of noxious and invasive exotic weeds. Large piles with heavy fuels can burn at a very high temperature, leading to bare ground and sterilized soil under the piles. Native plants usually do not regenerate very quickly on these spots, so the ground can remain barren or can fill in with invasive exotic weeds. Weeds may occur in small scattered locations, yet can spread to other areas. Weeds should be monitored and controlled before and after the project is completed. No piling or burning will take place on or near rare plant populations. Piling and burning of slash (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat.

Livestock grazing occurs on the South Zone and on nearby private and state lands. Forage utilization on the Forest is maintained at a conservative level that protects the vigor of rare plants and their ability to set seed. Forage utilization levels on the nearby private and state lands are unknown. Native plant communities on the Forest would remain healthy with a minimal amount of bare ground for noxious and exotic weed invasion. However, livestock can spread the seeds of some weeds that become attached to their hair and feet. A few weed populations could become established and spread. Continuation of livestock grazing (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat, but minor additional damage to plants and/or habitat may occur.

Fence construction, water tank construction and maintenance, vehicle driving and horseback riding off road to herd cattle and maintain fences occur on the South Zone. These activities can remove understory plant cover in limited areas. These effects are tolerated in order to facilitate livestock, burro, and elk distribution. Improved livestock, burro, and elk distribution can reduce grazing intensity, improve plant vigor and ability to set seed, and improve plant cover. However, the bare areas along fences and water tanks could become sites for the invasion of noxious and exotic weeds. The vehicles and horses could spread weed seeds. These weeds could spread into

132 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects populations of rare plants. The project areas will be surveyed for rare plants before work begins. Populations will be flagged and avoided. Weeds found in or near rare plant populations will be controlled. Continuing livestock and elk management activities (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat.

Noxious and invasive exotic weed control activities began on the South Zone in the early 2000s and will continue to occur. Manual control began in 2001, chemical and biological control in 2006. Weeds will be controlled by manual, chemical, or biological methods. If rare plants are present, a control method will be chosen that has a low risk of damaging those plants. Removal of weeds can create small patches of bare ground in the short-term. Re-treatments will continue to remove the weeds while allowing native plants to cover the area in the long-term. Continuation of noxious and invasive exotic weed control activities (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in an improvement in rare plant vigor and habitat condition.

Sandstone and cinder mining activities are currently occurring on the Williams Ranger District. Mining involves the use of many types of vehicles and equipment on Forest Service System Roads and off road for short distances. The projects have the potential to damage or kill rare plants. However, all project areas are surveyed before work begins. If rare plants are found, the project is moved to avoid them or mitigation measures are enforced to protect them. Mining vehicles have the potential to introduce and/or spread noxious and invasive exotic weeds into rare plant populations by creating patches of bare ground and dispersing seeds. The miners must follow best management practices (e.g. wash equipment) and take mitigation measures in order to prevent the introduction of weeds, and must re-vegetate all disturbed areas with native plants. The continuation of mining (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat.

Recreational activities (e.g. dispersed camping, horseback riding, hiking, biking, and hunting), and pipeline/transmission line use and maintenance will continue to occur on the South Zone. These activities can remove or trample rare plants and introduce and spread noxious and invasive exotic weeds. The Forest Service will continue to monitor and control populations of weeds as they invade. Mitigation measures will be used along utility corridors to minimize damage to rare plants. The continuation of recreation and pipeline/transmission line activities (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat, but additional minor damage is possible.

Residential, commercial, and government developments and activities will still occur and may increase on private in-holdings within the cumulative effects analysis area. Residents, businesses, and government agencies may introduce noxious and invasive exotic weeds to their properties. The weeds could spread to adjoining Forest Service land. The Forest Service will continue to monitor and control weeds as they invade, especially in known rare plant populations. The continuation of residential activities in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat, but additional minor damage is possible.

Climate and weather will continue to affect the cumulative effects analysis area. Floods, heavy runoff, and high winds can spread noxious and invasive exotic weed seeds. The region has experienced a recent long-term drought. Droughts may become more frequent and average temperatures may continue to increase as a result of climate change. Drought reduces plant cover (including rare plants), kills trees, and makes the forest more susceptible to wildfires. Noxious and invasive exotic weeds have a competitive advantage during droughts and could expand their ranges at the expense of rare plants. Climate and weather effects occurring in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no effect to rare plants and their habitat, and/or an improvement in plant vigor and habitat, and/or cause minor damage to plants and/or habitat.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 133 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Wildfires will continue to occur in the cumulative effects analysis area. Noxious and invasive exotic weeds often colonize areas burned by a wildfire, especially if the fire was hot enough to burn the native seed bank and sterilize the soil. The occurrence of wildfires in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat, and/or an improvement in plant vigor and habitat, and/or cause minor damage to plants and/or habitat.

Elk will continue to affect the cumulative effects analysis area. Elk already damage plants in some areas. If the population size remains the same, especially during the drought, elk could continue to heavily graze in some areas and create patches of bare ground that could be susceptible to weed invasion. Elk could also spread the seeds of some weeds that attach to their hair and feet. Elk may browse or trample rare plants. Elk grazing in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives discussed in this project will result in no additional effect to the viability of rare plant populations or their habitat, but additional minor damage is possible.

Cumulative effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) Continuation of current management (Alternative 1 - No Action) would maintain or increase the detrimental cumulative effects to rare plant individuals or habitats. Not managing for increasing amounts of woody species encroachment into historical grasslands would prevent suitable habitat from being populated with sensitive, rare and narrow endemic plant species and could cause die-off of many of these species. Additionally, cumulative effects of all human activities and natural events will be of greater concern due to increasing risk of continuing drought and climate change impacts, and spread of nonnative invasive and noxious weeds into suitable habitat from increasing frequency of human activities.

Cumulative effects of Alternative 2 Implementation of Alternative 2 would have no additional detrimental cumulative effects to rare plant individuals or habitats compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). Managing for increasing amounts of woody species encroachment into historical grasslands would prevent suitable habitat of sensitive, rare and narrow endemic plant species from becoming inaccessible to potential new populations of these species and ensure continued ecosystem health and understory availability. Areas that were once suitable for sensitive, rare and narrow endemic plant species would continue to become more accessible due to increased management practices aimed at improving forest and ecosystem resources and maintaining ecosystem homeostasis.

Cumulative effects of Alternative 3 Implementation of Alternative 3 would have no additional detrimental cumulative effects to rare plant individuals or habitats compared to Alternative 1 (No Action), and fewer effects than Alternative 2 due to the elimination of the use of herbicide, the construction of four wildlife waters, and the construction of temporary roads for biomass removal.

The cumulative effect of all human activities and natural events will be a general improvement in forest and rangeland health on the South Zone, including rare plant habitat. However, noxious and invasive exotic weeds will continue to be introduced and spread by vehicles, animals, people, water, and wind. Use of the Forest by the public will continue to increase. Any patch of bare ground on the South Zone is vulnerable to weed invasion through vectors (e.g. recreationists, hunters, local property owners, animals, wind, and water) that the Forest Service cannot control. Invasive exotic weeds could become a threat to the survival of some rare plant populations. Overall, however, implementing any of the action alternatives in conjunction with any of the projects or activities discussed above is not expected to have an effect on the overall viability of rare or sensitive plants on the South Zone.

134 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Weeds

Affected Environment

Common Vegetation Existing vegetation types on the South Zone are described in the Affected Environment section of the Rare Plants section above.

Identified nonnative species with the highest treatment priority located within the South Zone of Kaibab N.F. Noxious and invasive exotic weeds found on the South Zone include: bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Japanese brome (Bromus japonicas), Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis).

Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) can readily be found in cultivated and disturbed or degraded sites in grasslands, woodlands, or riparian communities, generally along roadsides within elevations that range from 4,500 to 9,100 feet. Heavy grazing and/or disturbances that create bare soil patches allows for seedling establishment and survival.

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) generally occurs in disturbed or degraded sites in meadows, grassland, chaparral woodland, and riparian communities, and roadsides at elevations below 8,500 feet. In perennial grass communities, frequent fires can allow for dominance of cheatgrass and other annuals. In areas heavily populated with cheatgrass, dry plants can fuel wildfires further allowing for dominance of cheatgrass in the plant community.

Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) populations are difficult to control due to vegetative reproduction of creeping lateral roots. The species is also able to hybridize with yellow toadflax and root fragments can produce new plants. Dalmatian toadflax grows in cultivated and disturbed or degraded sites in meadow, grassland, and riparian communities, and roadside areas at elevations that generally range from 4,400 to 10,000 feet.

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) infestations are usually initiated by seed (seeds can be forcefully ejected up to 16 feet from the parent plant), yet population expansion is mostly vegetative. Plant populations occur within cultivated and disturbed or degraded sites in fields, pastures, rangeland and riparian communities, and roadsides at elevations that generally range from 4,600 to 9,500 feet.

Japanese brome (Bromus japonicas) is capable of invading both disturbed and undisturbed sites. Generally plant populations are found along roadsides, gravel pits, heavily used or burned picnic areas, moderately to heavily grazed pastures and undisturbed mixed grass prairies. It occasionally occurs in openings in ponderosa pine or other low-elevation (4,500 ~ 8,000 feet) forest types.

Knapweeds (Centaurea spp.) are highly competitive and aggressive plants with known allelopathic effects. Once populations are established, they can be persistent due to their ability to reproduce vegetatively. Most knapweeds found within the district are on cultivated and disturbed or degraded sites ranging from meadows, grasslands, forests, riparian communities and/or roadsides. Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens) establishes in many soil types and can be found in elevations from 3,000 to 8,000 feet. Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) is generally found on light, well-drained soil sites within elevations that generally range below 7,200 feet. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) is found within elevations that generally range below 7,000 feet.

Yellow Star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), like the above listed knapweeds, is highly competitive and typically develops dense, impenetrable stands that displace other vegetation. Plant population encroachment is found in cultivated and disturbed or degraded sites in grasslands, forests, woodland communities, and roadsides within elevations that generally range below 8,200 feet.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 135 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Cheatgrass occurs in mostly small patches throughout the District, especially along roads or in burned areas. It is common within the Pumpkin Fire area on Kendrick Mountain. Dalmatian toadflax is common in small patches across the District, especially along roads and in burned areas. Large patches are found within the Pumpkin Fire area. Diffuse knapweed and Russian knapweed have only been found in a few locations on the District, along roads and in developed areas. Bull thistle is another common weed found throughout the District, especially in wet areas and burned areas. Thick patches are found within the Pumpkin Fire area in places where the fire burned at a high intensity, killing all the trees and sterilizing the soil.

Many of these populations have been treated using manual, chemical, or biological control methods. Invasive exotic weed inventory, monitoring, new treatments and re-treatments occur annually on the District.

Most new invasive exotic weed infestations have been found next to or near roads. Vehicles are the most common cause of weed introduction and spread. Road density, road locations, and the location of new ground disturbances can be used to predict the location and rate of spread of many invasive exotic weeds. Many exotic invasive weed seeds and plant parts are spread by muddy vehicle tires. A dense road network increases the risk that existing weeds will be spread further and that new weeds will be introduced. Noxious and invasive weeds may also be spread by hikers, bicyclists, horses, livestock, and wildlife. Seeds and other plant parts are spread after sticking to muddy feet, tires, clothing, fur, or hair. Weeds may also be spread by wind and water.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Weeds can aggressively out-compete most native plants for growing space, sunlight, soil moisture, and soil nutrients. They can displace many species of native plants, leading to a reduction in biodiversity. Weeds may also reduce the scenic and natural beauty of the area.

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management would continue in the project area. This alternative would not implement any new treatment or actions described in alternatives 2 and 3. The No Action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for action. Grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands would continue to be invaded by conifers, fire would not be returned to the landscape as a disturbance agent, fuelwood harvesting would not be used as a tool to facilitate restoration objectives, and poorly-located roods that fragment habitat and impair watershed function would not be obliterated.

The current rate of spread of existing noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weeds and the current rate of introduction of new weeds would continue. Woody species encroachment and spread into grasslands would continue, which would further degrade grassland plant community health and allow for a further spread of weeds into areas where healthy grassland plant communities once were established. Chance and risk of high intensity fires would continue to increase due to decrease of fine fuels necessary to carry low intensity surface fires.

Increased populations of weeds may increase soil erosion, reduce forage for wildlife and livestock, reduce wildlife habitat, displace native plants, reduce biodiversity, increase the risk of fire and reduce scenic and natural beauty.

Global climate change may lead to higher temperatures, lower precipitation, more frequent and severe droughts, and more wildfires. Many noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weeds have a competitive advantage during droughts and after fires and could expand their ranges at the expense of native plants. The continuation of current management actions could lead to an even greater rate of weed introduction and spread if global climate change predictions are correct.

Continuation of current management could lead to an increase in the spread and introduction of weed species into areas disturbed by tree encroachment although not greatly increase the risk of introduction or spread.

136 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Implementation of Alternative 1 – No Action would meet the Kaibab Forest Plan desired condition for nonnative invasive species by controlling invasive species so that they do not disrupt the structure or function of the ecosystems or impact native wildlife. However, it would not prevent further tree encroachment into historical grassland areas, leading to a decrease in grassland plant community health and continued potential spread of noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species.

Alternative 2 – (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 Alternative 2 would allow for a combination of commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments. Conifers (primarily juniper and smaller diameter trees) would be selectively removed used mechanical means and/or had thinning and generally be cut and left in place. Hand piling and pile burning may occur where slash exceeds desired fuel loadings. Short-run temporary roads may need to be constructed if biomass removal is to be economically viable, with all temporary roads being obliterated when vicinity project work is completed. Additionally, personal and commercial fuelwood harvesting of green wood and project-generated slash would be allowed within identified areas. Limited use of motor vehicles would be allowed to access designated fuelwood areas via cross country travel.

Vehicle travel can crush and kill native vegetation, drive through existing populations of noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weeds, open up ruts and bare patches of soil, cause soil erosion, and spread weed seed into the newly created seedbeds. Use of mechanical treatment methods such as agra-axe, masticating, chipping, and grinding machines in project implementation areas could lead to a higher risk of spreading weeds into previously undisturbed areas and creation of new weed populations needing treatment and control. Additionally, newly created roads could lead to increased soil erosion, loss of native plants, and creation of bare patches where weeds typically start to establish. However, obliteration of all newly created roads would be carried out as soon as feasible to help prevent impact to the localized road areas and any associated soil erosion or creation of bare patches. Mitigation and monitoring measures proposed with implementation of this project would direct all project areas to be surveyed for noxious weeds and implement appropriate mitigation measures to prevent the spread of noxious weeds using the BMPs described in Appendix B of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA 2004a).

Direct and indirect effects predicted for Alternative 3 would be similar to those predicted for Alternative 2 due to similar actions proposed for both alternatives. Impacts due to off road vehicle usage for mechanical treatments, soil disturbance from vehicle usage, and limited use of motor vehicles for fuelwood collection would remain the same. Under Alternative 3, however, construction of temporary roads for biomass removal would be eliminated, thus reducing the impacts and effects of the action to noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action would allow for broadcast and pile burning where necessary to reduce fuel loading, control regeneration of conifer species, and promote understory plant vigor. Intense heat and duration of high temperatures adjacent to the soil surface could cause loss of soil nutrients and the native plant seed bed. Areas where piles of slash have been left for multiple years could cause areas of higher soil erosion or disturbance due to the amount of large woody debris and ability to trap precipitation. Improper use of broadcast and/or pile burning could cause an increased risk of noxious, nonnative and invasive exotic weeds to spread into disturbed or damaged areas. Current project design and mitigation measures included in Alternative 2 directs for fire managers to be consulted before slash is created in any unit to facilitate safe and effective burning, and to pull slash back from fire sensitive sites, including administrative and improved infrastructure sites. Monitoring of broadcast and pile burning areas before and after implementation of burns could help prevent the further spread of weeds into newly disturbed treatment areas.

Direct and indirect effects predicted for Alternative 3 would be similar to those anticipated under Alternative 2 due to pile burning actions being proposed for both alternatives.

Under Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, herbicide (primarily triclopyr, yet could include others approved under the guidelines and directions of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA 2004a)) would be used to treat alligator juniper stumps to control re-sprouting. Over-

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 137 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects spray, drift, higher concentrations of herbicide and improper application techniques could cause native plants species in the treatment area to lose vigor or die-off. Loss of native plant vigor and/or die-off could lead to a greater risk of treatment areas being invaded by noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species. Under mitigation and monitoring measures included within the design of the project, surveys for noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weeds would occur in the project area, and mitigation measures would be implemented if needed.

Under Alternative 3, use of herbicide to treat alligator juniper stumps would be eliminated, thus reducing the impacts of the action on noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, seeding of any treatment project areas could introduce new noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weeds into the newly disturbed areas. Use of certified weed free native seeds where native herbaceous cover is sparse and seed sources are depleted would decrease the risk of weed introduction into newly disturbed areas.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action would authorize the construction of up to four wildlife water guzzlers to help disperse wildlife. Use of off road vehicles for installation and disturbance of surface soils and the soil profile could lead to a greater risk of establishment of weeds into the newly disturbed areas. Proper construction techniques and limited use of off road vehicle within construction areas, and reseeding with certified weed free native seed of the construction area, could reduce the risk of noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species establishing within the newly disturbed areas.

Under action proposed for Alternative 3, construction of 4 wildlife waters would be eliminated, thus reducing the impacts and effects of the action to noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, translocation of nuisance urban prairie dogs to extirpated prairie dog colonies with open burrows may introduce new populations of noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species to areas that were once void of weeds. Under mitigation and monitoring measures included within the design of the project, surveys for noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weeds will occur in the translocation area, and mitigation measures will be implemented if needed.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would authorize fence modification or removal in areas identified as wildlife migration corridors, and in areas where fences are no longer needed. Use of off road vehicles, disturbance of surface soils and the soil profile could lead to a greater risk of establishment of weeds into the newly disturbed areas. Proper construction techniques and limited use of off road vehicle within construction areas could reduce the risk of noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species from establishing within the newly disturbed areas.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would authorize the obliteration decommissioned and user-created roads in the project area. Obliteration could consist of ripping, mulching with activity-generated slash, seeding with native species, and blocking with boulders and/or logs. Use of off road vehicles, disturbance of surface soils and the soil profile could lead to a greater risk of establishment of weeds into the newly disturbed areas. Proper obliteration techniques and limited use of off road vehicle within construction areas could reduce the risk of noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species from establishing within the newly disturbed areas.

Implementation of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action could slightly increase the risk of noxious, nonnative, and invasive exotic weed species spreading further into the forest or non-disturbed sites. By implementing grassland restoration treatments within identified historical grasslands, the overall health and diversity of grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands would improve and possibly lower the risk of spread and establishment of new weed populations.

By implementing Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, the South Zone would make progress toward the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest goals of preventing the establishment of new nonnative invasive species and of controlling their spread.

138 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Cumulative Effects – Common to All Action Alternatives The spatial boundaries for purposes of this cumulative effects analysis are the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area with a one-mile buffer. The temporal boundaries are ten years before and ten years following implementation of the grassland restoration project. A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in this analysis are found in Appendix A.

Timber and fuelwood harvesting, forest thinning, and grassland restoration tree removal projects reduce overstory cover in the short-term and can stimulate an increase in understory cover in two to five years. The improved health and cover of the native understory and soils can reduce the ability of noxious and invasive exotic weeds to invade and spread. Reduction in tree canopy and heavy fuels would reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires that could remove most of the plant and litter cover, burn the native seed bank, sterilize the soils, and provide sites for noxious and invasive exotic weeds to invade. Weeds could be spread by heavy equipment, vehicles, and personnel working in the project areas. However, best management practices and mitigation measures are in place on every project in order to reduce the introduction and spread of weeds. Existing populations should be controlled before work begins. All off road equipment must be cleaned before it is moved to the site. Project areas are monitored and weed populations are controlled over time after a project is completed. Implementing other vegetation management projects (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in no additional effect or a short-term increase but long-tern decrease in weed populations.

Broadcast prescribed burns remove a portion of overstory, understory, and litter cover. These burns are conducted in order to maintain or improve forest health by thinning the trees and increasing the herbaceous understory. The burns temporarily remove cover, yet they also increase the growing space, light, moisture, and nutrients available to understory plants. In two to five years, the understory plants can regenerate and expand in cover compared to the pre-burn conditions. Reduction in tree cover and heavy fuels would reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires that could remove most of the plant and litter cover, burn the seed bank, sterilize the soil, and provide sites for noxious and invasive exotic weed invasion. Project areas are surveyed and weeds should be controlled before projects begin. Fire managers distribute the fuels, so that broadcast prescribed fires do not burn at a very hot temperature. This action protects the soil and some of the litter and residual plants. Soils are generally more fertile after a broadcast burn, so that native plants can easily regenerate. Weeds may still invade, yet they must compete with a healthy and vigorous native plant community. After the burn, the area would monitored and weeds are controlled over time. Implementing broadcast prescribed burns (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in no additional effect or a short-term increase but long-tern decrease in weed populations.

Piling of tree thinning slash and prescribed burning of piles removes excess fuels in the area. These projects reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires that could remove most of the plant and litter cover, burn the native seed bank, sterilize the soil, and provide large areas for the invasion of noxious and invasive exotic weeds. Large piles with heavy fuels can burn at a very high temperature, leading to bare ground and sterilized soil under the piles. Native plants may not regenerate quickly on these spots, so the ground can remain barren or can fill in with invasive exotic weeds. Weeds may occur in small scattered locations, yet can spread to other areas. Weeds would be monitored. Weeds should be controlled before the project is started and would be controlled over time after a project is completed. Piling and burning slash (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives could result in an increase in weed populations in small scattered locations and a decrease in weed populations over the broad landscape.

Crushing or mulching of slash can help reduce the fuel load by breaking up the large pieces and speeding up the decomposition and incorporation of organic material into the soil. This process provides litter cover to areas of bare soil, helping to prevent the creation of habitat for invasive exotic weeds. Best management practices would be in place so heavy equipment does not drive through and spread any existing populations of invasive exotic weeds. Crushing and mulching of slash (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in a decrease in weed populations.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 139 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Livestock grazing occurs in most areas of the South Zone and on private and state land. Forage utilization on the Forest is maintained at a conservative level that protects plant vigor and ability to set seed. Forage utilization levels on the nearby state and private lands are unknown. With conservative utilization, native plant communities across most of the Forest will remain healthy with a minimal amount of bare ground for noxious and exotic weed invasion. However, bare ground is created around water tanks and gates, where livestock tend to concentrate. These small areas can provide sites for exotic weed invasion. Livestock may trample the cryptogamic crusts that exist in a few areas, particularly on sandy soils. The crusts provide cover to the soil that prevents the invasion of many weeds. Livestock can spread the seeds of some weeds that become attached to their hair and feet. Weed populations could invade and spread. Continuation of livestock grazing (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in an increase in weed populations.

Fence construction, water tank construction and maintenance and vehicle use and horseback riding to herd cattle and maintain fences all occur on the South Zone. These activities can remove tree cover and understory plant cover in limited areas. These effects are tolerated in order to facilitate livestock, burro, and elk distribution. Improved livestock, burro, and elk distribution can reduce grazing intensity, improve plant vigor and ability to set seed, and improve plant cover. However, the bare areas along fences and at water tanks could become sites for the invasion of noxious and exotic weeds. The vehicles and horses could spread the seeds of weeds. Continuing livestock and elk management activities (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in an increase in weed populations in small scattered locations and a decrease in weed populations over the broad landscape.

Noxious and invasive exotic weed control activities began on the South Zone in the early 2000s and will continue to occur. Manual control began in 2001; chemical and biological control in 2006. Removal of weeds can create small patches of bare ground in the short-term. Re-treatments will continue to remove the weeds while allowing native plants to cover the area in the long-term. Sometimes seeding of native plants is necessary. Continuation of weed control activities (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in a decrease in weed populations.

Sandstone and cinder mining activities are currently occurring on the Williams Ranger District. Mining involves the use of many types of vehicles and equipment on Forest Service System Roads and off road for short distances. These vehicles have the potential to introduce and/or spread noxious and invasive exotic weeds by creating patches of bare ground and dispersing seeds. The miners must follow best management practices (e.g. wash equipment before bringing it on site) to prevent the introduction of weeds. They must also implement mitigation measures in order to re-vegetate all disturbed areas with native plants. Continuation of mining (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in no additional effect, or an increase in weed populations.

Recreational activities (e.g. dispersed camping, horseback riding, hiking, biking, and hunting) and pipeline/transmission line use and maintenance will continue to occur on the South Zone. These activities can remove understory native plant cover, trample plants, and introduce and spread noxious and invasive exotic weeds. The Forest Service will continue to monitor and control populations of weeds as they invade. Best management practices will be required on all projects, when possible. Continuation of recreation and pipeline/transmission line activities (with the incorporation of best management practices and mitigation measures) in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in an increase in weed populations.

Residential developments, increased urban interface growth and other activities on private land, government housing and offices, city facilities, commercial facilities, and recreation/tourism facilities will be present within the cumulative effects analysis area. Residents, businesses, and government agencies may introduce noxious and invasive exotic weeds to their properties. The weeds could spread to adjoining Forest Service land. The Forest Service will continue to monitor and control weeds as they invade. Continued residential activities in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in an increase in weed populations.

140 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Climate and weather will continue to affect the cumulative effects analysis area. Floods, heavy runoff, and high winds can spread noxious and invasive exotic weed seeds. The region is experiencing a long-term drought. Droughts may become more frequent and average temperatures may continue to increase as a result of climate change. Drought reduces plant cover (including native forbs and perennial grasses), kills trees, and makes the forest more susceptible to wildfires. Many noxious and invasive exotic weeds have a competitive advantage during droughts and could expand their ranges at the expense of native plants. Climate and weather effects occurring in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in no effect to or an increase in weed populations.

Wildfires will continue to affect the cumulative effects analysis area. Noxious and invasive exotic weeds often colonize areas burned by a wildfire, especially if the fire was hot enough to burn the native seed bank and sterilize the soil. The occurrence of wildfires in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in no effect to or an increase in weed populations.

Elk will continue to affect the cumulative effects analysis area. Elk can impact plants in many areas. If the population size remains the same, especially during the drought, elk over-graze in some areas, creating patches of bare ground that could be susceptible to weed invasion. Elk can also spread the seeds of some weeds that attach to their hair and feet. Elk grazing in conjunction with implementing any of the action alternatives would result in no effect to or an increase in weed populations.

Cumulative effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) Continuation of current management (Alternative 1 - No Action) would allow the introduction and spread of weeds to remain the same. Woody plants, particularly juniper, pinyon and ponderosa pine would continue to encroach into areas that were formerly grasslands and open pinyon-juniper woodlands. Encroachment would continue to alter water and nutrient cycling, impact soil integrity and negatively impact wildlife habitat. Additionally, continued woody plant encroachment would not allow for successful completion of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest (Forest Plan) (USDA 2014a) or move the South Zone toward desired conditions.

Cumulative effects of Alternative 2 Implementation of Alternative 2 may increase the detrimental cumulative effects to weed management compared to Alternative 1 (No Action), yet not less than Alternative 3.

Cumulative effects of Alternative 3 Implementation of Alternative 3 may increase the detrimental cumulative effects to weed management more than Alternative 1 (No Action), yet not less than Alternative 2.

The cumulative effect of all human activities and natural events would be an improvement in forest and rangeland health on the South Zone, yet noxious, nonnative and invasive exotic weeds would continue to be introduced and spread by vehicles, animals, people, water, and wind. Use of the project area by the public will continue to increase and any patch of bare ground is vulnerable to weed invasion through vectors (e.g. recreationists, hunters, local property owners, animals, wind, and water) that the Forest Service cannot control. Best management practices and mitigation measures implemented on South Zone projects would reduce the rate of introduction and spread of weeds by Forest Service activities. Recreation and Visuals

Introduction This section analyzes the potential effects to recreation activities of the alternatives proposed for the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project as well as the potential effects of the proposed alternatives to the scenic resources. This project was developed in response to the need to move the South Zone toward desired conditions of restoring fire-adapted ecosystems and improve wildlife habitat in grassland and pinyon-juniper grasslands.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 141 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Land and Resource Management Plan The Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) provides standards and guidelines for recreation and visual resources relevant to this project:

LRMP Guidelines for Activities Affecting Recreation and Scenery (USDA 2014a, p. 65-66):  Resource impacts should be reduced in front and back country areas by directing camping to existing dispersed and designated campsites. New campsites are designated only when necessary to further reduce resource damage.  Pack-it-in-pack-it-out practices should be used at dispersed sites.  In areas with high scenic integrity objectives, only minimal alterations from landscape character goals should be allowed.  In areas with moderate scenic integrity objectives, only slight alterations should be allowed, and they remain visually subordinate to the landscape character.

LRMP Guidelines for Monitoring  The Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Management Handbook (USDA 2004b) will be used to minimize the impacts of project activities to scenic integrity and recreation opportunity settings.

Affected Environment Recreation and scenic resources are closely related, as high quality scenery is often important to providing high quality recreation settings. This close relationship is reflected in Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Scenery Management System (SMS) direction and mapping. Both of these cultural and social resources are extremely important to the local communities’ tourism industry and on the local residents’ quality of life.

Recreation Resources Existing Condition The following is a discussion of existing and expected trends in recreation use levels, recreation activities visitors engage in, current recreation facility developments located in and adjacent to the project area, and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings in the project area.

Information on current recreation use levels and preferences in derived from public contacts, field observations, and surveys of visitors, local tourism businesses, and residents. Although exact figures are not known, recreation use in the project area is estimated by Recreation managers to have moderate use. The National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey conducted on the forest in 2010 indicates that there are 757,000 visitors to the Kaibab National Forest yearly. The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM, 2005 and 2010) and visitor survey conducted in 2000-2002 by Northern Arizona University (Boussard 2002) indicate area visitors come from the local area, the surrounding region (Arizona, Colorado River, Las Vegas) and from across the nation and abroad. While local residents are consistent users of the project area and have immediate access to the national forest, the project area receives a significant amount of recreational visitors from the lower-elevation, densely populated Phoenix Valley urban communities and Colorado River communities. There is also a fairly substantial amount of recreation use in the project area by visitors from all over the US and abroad, as Williams and Tusayan are part of the “Grand Circle” Colorado Plateau region, and adjacent to the Grand Canyon, which brings 4-5 million visitors to the region annually. Known as “The Gateway to the Grand Canyon,” Williams and Tusayan have had a long history as a tourism destination, and tourism as an industry has received increasing emphasis in the past decades.

Within the project area there are no developed recreation sites with facilities; however, there are dispersed fisheries (Steel Dam, Little Hell Canyon dispersed fishery) and trails (Ash Fork Hill Bicycle Tour and Stone to Steel Dam Trail) within the Williams portion and a National Scenic Trail (Arizona Trail) and several trailheads

142 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects (Red Butte, Russell Tank, Grandview Tower) within the Tusayan portion of the project area. In the intermediate vicinity to the project area are some of the most heavily visited developed recreation sites on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts. Sites found adjacent to this planning area include Kaibab Lake Campground, Spring Valley Rental Cabin, and Historic Route 66 Devil Dog Mountain Bike Loop on the Williams District and include Ten-X Campground, Hull Rental Cabin, Grandview Lookout Tower and Red Butte Trailhead and trail on the Tusayan District. A number of recreation special use authorizations and private recreation-based businesses are also located adjacent to the area (numerous outfitter/guides, Grand Canyon Original Jeep Tours, Apache Stables Equestrian (trail and wagon rides), the Grand Canyon Railway, and several RV parks, motels, etc.)

As recreation use increases, the types of recreation activities visitors engage in are likewise increasing and diversifying. The types of recreation activities visitors pursue in the project area are varied and occur in mostly dispersed settings in all seasons. These activities include camping, picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, riding ATVs and motorcycles, driving, viewing wildlife and scenery, viewing historic features (such as Route 66 and Moqui Stage Station), and family/group gatherings. General relaxing and escaping the heat of lower elevations is one primary reason people mention for traveling to this area.

National Forest visitors are diverse in their preferences for recreational settings, experiences, and activities, and for the reasons mentioned above, as well as changing demographics, are becoming even more diverse. In order to provide a diversity of settings and opportunities the Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as a management tool to inventory and describe recreation setting objective for the national forest system lands. Forest Plan ROS mapping was completed for the Kaibab National Forest south zone in 2004. The South Zone Grasslands Restoration Project area encompasses five ROS classes; Rural on the far northwest end of the Williams project area, Roaded Modified along the electrical transmission right-of-ways, quarries, and the western portions of the Williams District, Roaded Natural covers a majority of the Tusayan as well as near major travelways, Semi-primitive Motorized covers the western portion of the Tusayan District, and Semi-primitive Non-motorized immediately off the Mogollon Rim on the Williams District. Forest Plan direction states that ROS classes are to be considered in the design of project activities and that ROS classes maintained or enhanced. Following are the total ROS acres for the South Zone Grasslands Restoration Project area.

Table 3-21. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification by acres for the project area. ROS Class Acres in Project Area General Setting Description (Desired Condition) Landscapes may be highly modified but managed to maintain general scenic attractiveness, and may include culturally modified and extensively developed Rural (R) 5,157 recreation sites. Rural settings are highly modified and managed; there is generally a natural appearing backdrop. Landscapes are not managed for high recreation use or values. Other resource management needs will generally take priority over recreation values; however Roaded Modified (RM) 109,887 some sensitive travel routes (roads or trails) within or adjacent to the area may require some consideration to maintain desired recreation values. Landscapes are carefully managed to maintain or enhance recreation and scenic values, sites and features, to be natural appearing, with changes Roaded Natural (RN) 206,247 designed to appear in harmony with natural setting. May contain highly developed recreation sites and travel routes. Maintain predominately undeveloped landscapes and Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) 198,995 scenic vistas and limited recreation developments. Recreation uses are non-motorized. Predominantly undeveloped landscapes and scenic vistas and limited recreation developments, Recreation Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 29,750 uses are non-motorized; however limited motorized (SPNM) access may be allowed for administrative and permitted activities.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 143 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Recreation Resources Desired Condition A spectrum of high-quality outdoor recreation settings and opportunities will be available in the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area, Roaded Natural ROS areas with high scenic and recreational values and use is high, Semi-Primitive settings where use is lower and the setting is more natural-appearing. Recreation facilities and recreation trails will continue to be provided and maintained, and options for development of future facilities in response to public demand or need are analyzed and implement if they meet Forest and ecosystem objectives.

The National Forest System lands surrounding the project area will continue to provide high quality recreation opportunities and settings that compliment and support Williams’ and Tusayan’s tourism industries, and contribute to local residents’ quality of life. Management activities on national forest system lands are consistent with recreation setting objectives. Additional complimentary recreation facilities and services are developed in the area over time.

Manage for a wide spectrum of desired settings that provide opportunities for the public to engage in a variety of developed and dispersed recreational activities, in concert with other resource management and protection needs. The following shows the compatibility of ROS and potential management activities.

Table 3-22. Kaibab NF ROS and other resource activities’ compatibility within project area Semi-Primitive Resource Non-Motorized Semi-Primitive Roaded Natural Roaded Modified Management (SPNM) Motorized (SPM) (RN) (RM) Rural (RURAL) Consistent. Consistent. Restricted. Limited Restricted. Limited Moderately Consistent. Highly Limited developments, low developments, low developed developed developments, low use levels, non- use levels, Variety recreation sites, recreation sites, to moderate use Recreation motorized of non-motorized, Moderate to high High use, variety levels, variety of Management recreation and motorized use, variety of of non-motorized non-motorized and opportunities on recreation non-motorized and and motorized motorized trails or by cross- opportunities on motorized recreation recreation country travel designated routes. recreation opportunities opportunities opportunities Restricted. Non- motorized, on Consistent. On Consistent. On Consistent. On Consistent. On trails or cross- Maint. Level 2, 3 Maint Level 3, 4, 5 Maint. Level 3, 4 Maint. Level 3, 4, Access country. roads, or roads, motorized roads, motorized 5 roads, motorized Management Exceptions for designated trails, non- trails, non- trails, non- emergency, routes/trails, non- motorized trails motorized trails motorized trails. administrative, motorized trails valid permits. Consistent. May Consistent. May Consistent. May Vegetation Restricted. Special Restricted. Special require some require mitigation require mitigation Management Analysis Required. Analysis Required. mitigation in in sensitive areas. in sensitive areas. sensitive areas. Consistent. Consistent. Consistent. Consistent. Fire/Fuels Mitigations may be Mitigations may be Mitigations may be Mitigations may be Consistent. Management required in required in required in required. sensitive areas. sensitive areas. sensitive areas. Consistent. Consistent. Consistent. Consistent. Wildlife Mitigations may be Mitigations may be Mitigations may be Mitigations may be Consistent. Management required in required in required in required. sensitive areas. sensitive areas. sensitive areas.

144 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Table 3-23. Exceptions to standard ROS direction Semi- Primitive Semi- Non- Primitive Semi- Primitive- Motorized- Non- Primitive Roaded Roaded Wilderness Wilderness Motorized Motorized Natural Modified Rural No exceptions No exceptions Up to 25% of Up to 25% of See SIO See SIO See SIO allowed. allowed. an individual an individual exceptions. exceptions. exceptions. area may be area may be mechanically mechanically treated at one treated at one time.* time.* *Areas larger than 25% may be considered if treatment activities cause minimal visual impacts and/or treated area recovers within SIO 2 standard timeline. Treated areas must achieve the assigned ROS class and corresponding SIO before further large-scale treatments in the area may be initiated. This exception is not intended to limit the size of prescribed fires.

Visual Resources Existing Condition Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are used in the Scenery Management Systems (SMS). The Scenic Integrity or "intactness" of national forest lands is the means by which proposed alterations to the land are evaluated. Scenic Integrity is produced from the combined inventory of scenic attractiveness, viewing distance from the observer, and concern level of forest visitors. Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are established for the forest and can be applied at the forest, management area or project area (USDA 2004b). SIOs in the project area range from High, meaning the landscape character is unaltered, to Low, meaning the landscape character is moderately altered. Intermediate level is Moderate (landscape character appears slightly altered).

The majority of the project is in the Moderate SIO (378,000 acres), while the remainder of the project is identified as High (106,538 acres) and Low (64,103 acres) SIOs. Much of the zone has Moderate SIO, indicating that past and present management practices are visible but do not dominate the scenery, and are visible from secondary forest roads. Areas with High SIO are those places most visible from primary road corridors, system trails, and recreation sites, and have high quality scenic values. The remaining project area has Low SIO. These are typically limited to areas where management activities have altered the natural physical, biological or cultural features. Areas in the South Zone with these characteristics are designated utility corridors, active mineral claims, and places where woodland areas were converted to grassland areas (juniper pushes). The following tables show the compatibility of SMS and potential management activities:

Table 3-24. Kaibab NF SIO levels Level 1, Very High Level 2, High Level 3, Moderate Level 4, Low Level 5, Very Low Projects usually Projects usually Projects usually Projects usually Used only for inventory completed within one completed within one completed within two completed within and existing condition year. year*. years*. three years*. mapping. Will not be used as a desired SIO. *Exceptions are delineated above in South Zone-Wide Forest Plan Standards.

Table 3-25. Kaibab NF SIO and other resource activities’ compatibility within project area Management Activity Level 2, High Level 3, Moderate Level 4, Low Recreation Consistent. Landscape Consistent. Landscape appears Consistent. Landscape appears Management character appears intact. slightly altered. moderately altered. Access Consistent. Mitigations may Consistent. Mitigations may be Consistent. Mitigations may be Management be required. required on sensitive corridors. required on sensitive corridors. Vegetation Consistent. Mitigations may Consistent. Mitigations may be Consistent. Mitigations may be Management be required. required on sensitive corridors. required on sensitive corridors. Fire/Fuels Consistent. Mitigations may Consistent. Mitigations may be Consistent. Mitigations may be Management be required. required on sensitive corridors. required on sensitive corridors. Range Consistent. Mitigations may Consistent. Mitigations may be Consistent. Mitigations may be Management be required. required on sensitive corridors. required on sensitive corridors. Wildlife Consistent. Mitigations may Consistent. Mitigations may be Consistent. Mitigations may be Management be required. required on sensitive corridors. required on sensitive corridors.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 145 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Management Activity Level 2, High Level 3, Moderate Level 4, Low Minerals Incompatible. Special Consistent. Mitigations may be Consistent. Mitigations may be Management analysis required. required. required. Special Uses Consistent. Mitigations may Consistent. Mitigations may be Consistent. Mitigations may be Management be required. required on sensitive corridors. required on sensitive corridors. *Level 1 (Very High) does not occur within the project area.

Table 3-26. Exceptions to Standard SMS Direction SIO Level 1 SIO Level 2 SIO Level 3 SIO Level 4 SIO Level 5 Projects usually Projects usually Projects usually Projects usually Used only for completed within one completed within one completed within two completed within inventory and existing year. No exceptions year. May temporarily years. May three years. Timeline condition mapping. allowed. drop one level during temporarily drop one could be extended, Will not be used as a critical project or level during critical but the SIO will not desired SIO. management project or drop to Level 5. activities. management activities

Another basic premise of the SMS is landscape character, which gives a geographic area its visual and cultural image. It consists of a combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes that make each landscape identifiable and unique. Landscape character embodies distinct landscape attributes that exist throughout an area.

The following is the existing landscape character description from the Kaibab NF ROS/SMS Guidebook (USDA 2004b). The South Zone Grassland Restoration Project is located within the Grand Canyon Character Type, an area of desert and forested plateaus bisected by a deep rugged canyon. The plateaus are generally drained by broad, dry washes that deepen into small canyons as they empty into the Grand Canyon. The Colorado River is the only perennial watercourse in the area. The higher plateaus have seasonally flooded basins or flats, fresh meadows, fresh marshes, and bogs. Sagebrush, plains grassland, and pinyon-juniper woodland dominate the plateaus although the highest plateaus have some coniferous forest. The vegetation in the bottom of the Grand Canyon is typically riparian desert scrub. Stringers of riparian deciduous forest are common along watercourses.

Woodland subtype, pinyon and juniper dominate coniferous woodlands. Historically, some of the coniferous woodlands were open, diverse communities of trees, shrubs, and perennial grasses and forbs. The typical appearance of the woodlands would be that of dispersed groups of pinyon, juniper or evergreen oak, with the forest floor mostly bare, or covered by tree litter, grasses or shrubs. The pattern of tree patches is influenced by ecosystem conditions and processes including soil depth, nutrients, microbes, seasonal drought, plant competition, fire, etc. In the past 100 years, heavy grazing and lack of periodic fires have contributed to expansion of the coniferous woodlands into grasslands. Management activities in the past have focused on clearing coniferous woodlands from associated grasslands, in order to provide more forage.

Viewing scenery is one of the most sought after recreation activities on the KNF (USDA 2010b). Scenic quality within the South Zone Grassland Restoration project area is particularly important to those who enjoy the views from Interstate 40, Highway 89, portions of Highway 64 and 180, adjacent Forest Roads, dispersed recreation sites and trails (USDA 2007). Scenery also contributes indirectly to local quality of life, tourism and economic vitality, and the KNF’s scenic heritage.

Visual Resources Desired Conditions The desired Scenic Character for the South Zone Grassland Restoration project area directs vegetation management activities should meet or exceeds goals for scenic beauty (scenic integrity objectives) by creating natural patterns, structure and composition of trees, shrubs, grasses and other plants (USDA 2014a, pg. 31). The vegetation composition is within the natural range of variability and diversity of herbaceous plant species that provide nutrition. The canopy cover of trees and shrubs are each less than 10 percent. Trees that have encroached into meadows or large oak trees are thinned or removed, opening up these areas. Lastly, re-introduction of wildfire

146 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects evidence into the scenery is desired, primarily within finely-scaled and irregularly-shaped, low- and moderate- intensity burn patterns that are consistent with historic conditions (USDA 2014a, p. 35).

These scenery attributes described above would be distributed through time and space to offer increased attractiveness in terms of vegetative forms, colors, canopy texture and immediate foreground spatial variety, while improving the overall Scenic Character. These conditions shall be strategically arranged to increase the ecological resilience and stability of vegetation scenery attributes which are central to the historic Scenic Character, image, and identity of this project.

The Desired Scenic Character for the South Zone Grassland Restoration project includes two elements: (1) the desired Scenic Character described above, and (2) variations to that character as necessary to meet project objectives for wildlife habitat, heritage resources, fuels reduction, forest health and resiliency. These essential elements as a whole form the fully integrated, holistic Desired Scenic Character of the project, and would offer greater ecological resilience and long term stability of the Desired Scenic Character.

Environmental Consequences The Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Management Handbook (USDA 2004b) will be used to minimize the impacts of project activities to scenic integrity and recreation opportunity settings.

Two key recreation/visual issues emerged during the proposed action scoping process. These issues will be considered in this effects analysis.

Key Issue 1 – Project activities may require new road construction or result in the creation of unauthorized roads.

Key Issue 2 – Increasing landscape openness through grassland restoration may invite camping use, and thus reduce understory cover through camping impacts.

Effects evaluations for each alternative will consider provision of recreation opportunities for each topic of consideration: opening roads to motorized use, and the potential for the creation of unauthorized roads. Identified conflicts between user groups will be considered for each of these as well. The effects of motorized dispersed camping and the reduction of surface vegetation will be evaluated in the alternatives.

Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management of the South Zone’s grasslands and pinyon-juniper forests would continue in the project area. This alternative would not implement any new treatment or actions described in alternatives 2 and 3. The No Action alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for action. Grasslands and pinyon-juniper grasslands would continue to be invaded by conifers, fire would not be returned to the landscape as a disturbance agent, fuel wood harvesting would not be used as a tool to facilitate restoration objectives, and poorly-located roads that fragment habitat and impair watershed function would not be decommissioned or obliterated. The Scenery Management System’s existing conditions would not meet the intent of the Forest Plan.

Under the no action alternative there would be little effect on the existing recreational settings or opportunities. Since no direct management actions would occur, the existing recreational setting would not change from the current state.

There would be no opportunities to enhance and improve visual resources or achieve the desired condition since there would be no treatments – mechanical, chemical, or fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 2 Under this alternative, it is expected that there will be some short-term direct and indirect effects to all the identified recreation and visual settings. The standard direction for the SPM and SPNM ROS areas (228,745

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 147 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects acres or 42%) on within the project area is that up to 25% of an individual area may be mechanically treated at one time. Areas larger than 25% may be considered if treatment activities cause minimal visual impacts and/or treated area recovers within SIO 2 standard timeline of 1 year. Treated areas must achieve the assigned ROS class and corresponding SIO before further large-scale treatments in the area may be initiated. This exception is not intended to limit the size of prescribed fires. However, exceptions to this standard may be made, without requiring an amendment to the Forest Plan (USDA 2014a pg. 34). Any temporary roads will be closed to continued use and restored to original conditions when the project is completed.

Direct effects to recreation settings of mechanical treatments would be short-term, temporary change in ROS setting quality, which would persist until activity slash is treated and the treated area recovers to an “undisturbed” appearance. The effects of low and even some moderate-intensity fires on outdoor recreation settings are not considered to be negative; rather fire is recognized as an integral part of the forest landscape and setting.

Direct effects of mechanical treatments and prescribed burning are the potential for short-term displacement of recreationists during implementation (forest users would need to be directed to other areas of the forest, dispersed campers would not be able to use certain camping corridors during implementation, etc.), or visitor satisfaction (seeing activities, slash piles, smoky conditions while people are visiting the area). Also, there is the potential for those recreationists seeking a specific setting, especially non-motorized experience, would not be able to achieve that within the proximity of Red Butte on the Tusayan District or off the Mogollon Rim on the southwestern portion of the Williams District, even in the SPNM ROS classified area. Mitigation measures have been designed to ensure that the direct effects of the project activities are short term and important recreation and visual values are protected long term.

This alternative better provides for the long-term protection of recreation settings and facilities by improving stand conditions and reducing fuel loading than the no action alternative. Improving forest manager’s ability to maintain healthy, green forests and reduce the risk of high-intensity stand replacing wildfires in the project area would have a positive effect on the ability to protect and maintain high quality recreation setting long into the future.

There is a potential of the treatment areas to increase the landscape openness, thereby inviting camping use outside designated camping corridors. The typical camping use on the districts in pinyon-juniper areas has been traditionally low due to the access roads being more suited to high clearance vehicles. Most of the dispersed camping on the districts has been more centralized in the ponderosa pine areas, as most campers favor shaded areas for camping instead of the open, sun-exposed areas afforded in the pinyon juniper. As a result, it is unlikely treatments under the grassland restoration will result in additional camping impacts.

There is always potential for user conflict when dealing with recreation opportunities. Reducing the number of available camping corridors during mechanical treatments and prescribed fire treatments may temporarily increase the conflict by allowing users to establish their motorized camp in fewer areas. Popularity of a camping site may also invite conflict, particularly on busy holiday weekends or hunting seasons.

At the completion of the project, the entire project area landscape must meet the mapped ROS class and corresponding SIO. Monitoring of projects will track activities and assure accomplishment and compliance with Forest Plan Standards.

Overall scenic integrity within the South Zone Grassland Restoration project area will be temporarily lowered during project implementation. There will be evidence of new linear corridors as temporary roads are constructed, and during mechanical treatments and prescribed burning implementation.

Interim measures will be used during implementation activities whereby the 106,538 acres in SIO 2 (high) will drop to SIO 3 (moderate) while 337,609 acres in SIO 3 will drop to SIO 4 (low) until project completion and for 5 to 10 years following. This will ensure adequate time for closed and decommissioned roads to naturalize, evidence of thinning activities to recover, wildlife corridors to stabilize and initial prescribed fire activities to soften.

148 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Environmental Effects Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 3 This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) but would eliminate the use of herbicide, the construction of four wildlife water structures on the Williams District and the construction of temporary roads for biomass removal. The effects to scenic quality and integrity objectives would be the same as for Alternative 2, the proposed action.

The direct effect to the recreation and scenic resource of the construction of the wildlife water structures (trick tanks) and temporary roads would be minimized during the project duration as neither would be part of the project. The elimination of herbicide use will also have a lesser short-term effect on the vegetation.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis extends 20 years from the first phases of implementation of the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project. Twenty years was chosen because large complex projects can take 10 or more years to complete treatments. Once activities are completed in a treatment unit it takes approximately one to three years for treated areas to recover until the effects of the activities are generally unnoticeable to the average forest visitor (one to two years of drying to dispose of slash after thinning projects, plus up to one more year for the visual effects of mechanical fire line preparation and prescribed burning to recover). Fuels reduction and stand improvement treatment including thinning, non-commercial and commercial tree harvesting, fuelwood sales, and prescribed burning will occur over time and in phases within the different project areas; thus, different project areas will be in varying stages of treatment or recovery over the 20-year time period across the cumulative effects analysis area. The effects of mechanical treatments are addressed in this analysis; recurring maintenance burning is typically low intensity and usually recovers within one year of implementation and thus is considered to have minimal effects on recreation resources.

The area chosen for the cumulative effects analysis of this project is bounded by the Grand Canyon National Park boundary to the north and northeast of Tusayan, east to the forest boundaries in Bellemont, Arizona and US Highway 180 (Williams District) and the Navajo Reservation (Tusayan District); west to the forest boundaries near Ash Fork, Arizona (Williams District) and Havasupai Reservation, Arizona (Tusayan District); and south to the forest boundary (the border with the north end of the Prescott National Forest). This area was chosen because the project area is a popular recreation area for locals and out-of-town visitors and recreationists.

With the increased emphasis on reducing hazardous fuels in the urban interface, it is estimated that at least 10- 15% of the area of the cumulative effects analysis area could either be in the physical state of being mechanically treated, awaiting final slash treatment and prescribed burning, or in a post treatments recovery phase over the next 20 years.

Past experience has shown that implementation of best management practices and careful project design has helped minimize the effect from past activities on scenic resources. These effects (e.g. ground disturbance and dust) have been and are anticipated to continue to be temporary and localized to the project area. For example, over time the establishment of new vegetation and the removal of coniferous trees help to improve the scenic integrity of a grassland with ground disturbance.

The effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities when combined with the direct and indirect effects of implementing the Alternatives (i.e. creation of linear routes, rutting, and changes in grassland vegetation structure) would likely increase the negative effects on scenic resources. However, the cumulative effect is negligible because activities such as vegetation management and prescribed burning do not all occur at the same time and are spatially distributed across the District. Furthermore, these effects tend to be short term and localized in project areas.

Alternative 1 - No Action Recreation user displacement, noise and dust are effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that have affected the recreation resources on the district. Past experience has shown that these effects are usually short in duration and generally localized to the project area. When combined with the direct and indirect effects South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 149 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects of implementing Alternative 1, the cumulative effects on recreation resources are minimal, as most recreationists do not recognize the unnatural state of the forest and have generally positive experiences in the pursuit of their recreational activities. Under the no action alternative recreationists would not be displaced by activities in the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project area.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The cumulative effects of the proposed action when combined with past, current, and planned actions, would be to greatly increase the total number of acres being treated or recovering from treatment, throughout the cumulative effects analysis area, as described. It is difficult to determine exactly how much mechanical treatment will be accomplished in the cumulative effects analysis area in any given year. The potential for displacement of recreationists during the project implementation is increased over the cumulative effects area, although the exact numbers cannot be determined. In this alternative the greatest potential of displacement would be of those recreationists choosing to recreate in the Roaded settings (RN and RM), where there would be the greatest amount of disturbance during implementation inside of the SPM area. As the majority of the road system in the SPM area is maintained for high clearance vehicles, the increase of displaced recreationists should be minimal. Designed camping corridors in the grassland restoration areas could increase the potential of camping in the opened areas. However, dispersed camping outside of designated camping corridors will be discouraged through the implementation of the Travel Management Revision Project Decision as the focus of the camping corridors would be located in traditionally utilized areas. Any ground disturbance from camping activities could be rehabilitated with native vegetation and locally sourced barriers as appropriate.

There are mitigation measures for the project that will minimize the impact to the recreation setting in particular areas, such as along important recreation roads, protecting the historic and recreational trails, and reducing the impact to the setting from treatment slash. However, outside of those areas the vegetation treatments in progress, or recently completed, will be evident for up to 5 years, having a short-term negative effect on recreation setting. These treatment areas will be scattered across the landscape and in varying stages of recovery from year to year. There will be some short term negative effects to recreation settings, especially with regards to the percentage of the settings for SPM and SPNM in recovery from treatment. The long-term effects of reducing fuels and improved stand conditions are considered to be very beneficial; the improvements will provide for better long- term protection of forest health from potentially large and damaging stand-replacing wildfires, or from widespread damaging insect kill. Healthy forests are critical to providing high quality and highly desirable recreation settings and opportunities, the grassland restoration project would improve the cumulative effectiveness and overall ability to protect recreational resources in the long term across the cumulative effects analysis area.

Alternative 3 Similar to Alternative 2 with the exception of construction of temporary roads, use of herbicides and the construction of the wildlife trick tanks. The footprint of the project would be smaller than Alternative 2.

Mitigations Common to All Action Alternatives There are mitigation measures for the project that will minimize the impact to the recreation setting in particular areas, such as along important transportation and recreation roads, protecting the historic and recreational trails, and reducing the impact to the setting from treatment slash. However, outside of those areas the vegetation treatments in progress, or recently completed, will be evident for up to 5 years, having a short-term negative effect on recreation setting. These treatment areas will be scattered across the landscape and in varying stages of recovery from year to year. The long-term effects of reducing fuels and improved grassland conditions are considered to be very beneficial; the improvements will provide for better long-term protection of forest health from potentially large and damaging stand-replacing wildfires, or from widespread damaging insect kill. Healthy vegetation is critical to providing high quality and highly desirable recreation settings and opportunities, the South Zone Grassland Restoration project would improve the cumulative effectiveness and overall ability to protect recreational resources in the long term across the cumulative effects analysis area. The mitigation measures are found in the Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Management System Guidebook (USDA 2004b).

150 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Chapter 4: Agencies and Persons Consulted Cooperating Agency Arizona Game and Fish Department Interdisciplinary Team Roger Joos Team Leader; Wildlife Biologist Marcos Roybal NEPA; Writer/Editor Richard Gonzalez Silviculture Josh Miller Wildland Fire and Fuels Management Kit MacDonald Soils, Watershed, and Air Neil Weintraub Cultural Resources Jesarey Barela Range Management Lena Hite Rare Plants and Weeds Lisa Jones Recreation; Visual Resources Mike Uebel Wildland Fire and Fuels Management Mike Lyndon Tribal Relations Jessica Gist Arizona Game and Fish Department Representative Shai Schendel Natural Resource Conservation Service Representative Federal, State, and Local Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Game and Fish Department Natural Resource Conservation Service Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Land Department Tribal Consultation Area tribes have cultural ties and traditional ecological knowledge about the lands now managed by the Kaibab National Forest. Many tribal members visit the Forest for a variety of uses including recreation, gathering of traditional resources, ceremonial activities, and fuelwood collection. Therefore, the issue of grassland restoration has a direct impact on native people and federally recognized tribes. Access may be temporarily restricted during implementation but entry would be ensured and any concerns can be addressed through on-going consultations.

The Kaibab Forest Plan contains the following direction related to traditional cultural uses and properties:

 Traditional practitioners have access to TCPs for ceremonial use and privacy to conduct ceremonies.  TCPs are preserved protected, or restored for their cultural importance and generally free of impacts from other uses.  The significant visual qualities of TCPs are preserved consistent with the TCP eligibility determination.  Traditional use of TCPs by the associated cultural groups is accommodated.  Confidential and/or sensitive information regarding TCPs is protected.  Pages 67-68 of the LMP provide direction for accommodating Traditional and Cultural Uses of the Forest for native people. The proposed grassland restoration treatments are expected to promote the propagation of medicinal plants and wild plant foods utilized for traditional and cultural uses.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 151 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination  Pages 102-103 of the LMP provide direction for the Red Butte TCP, located within the project area. Prior to conducting specific fuels treatments within the Red Butte TCP, project managers will contact Forest Tribal Relations staff so that project related activities can be coordinated with area tribes. Treatments should be conducted so that naturally occurring scenery dominates the landscape around Red Butte.

The following tribes were consulted during the development of this project:

Havasupai Tribe Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Navajo Nation Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Pueblo of Zuni

The following is a list of specific consultation with area tribes.

On October 22, 2014, the Tusayan District Ranger and other Kaibab staff provided an update on the project to representatives of the Hopi Tribe during a regularly scheduled consultation meeting in Kykotsmovi, AZ. Hopi representatives raised concerns regarding visual impacts and impacts to wildlife habitat. The Tusayan District Ranger stated that the Forest will conduct an analysis of soil types in advance of implementation, and that heavy thinning will only occur in areas that were historically grasslands based on that analysis. Hopi representatives stated that approach will satisfy their concerns and they have no further issues with the project. See description of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) in Chapter 2 of this document.

On October 23, 2014, the Williams and Tusayan District Rangers and other Kaibab staff provided an update on the project to representatives of the Navajo Nation during a regularly scheduled consultation meeting in Window Rock, AZ. Navajo Nation is interested in procuring fuelwood for nearby Navajo communities that may be produced through implementation of this project.

On November 3, 2014 Forest staff provided an overview of the project to the Havasupai Tribal Council during a regularly scheduled consultation meeting in Supai, AZ.

On November 14, 2014, the Tusayan District Ranger provided an overview of the project to the Zuni Tribal Council during a regularly scheduled consultation meeting in Zuni, NM. The Pueblo of Zuni is interested in procuring fuelwood for the community that may be produced through implementation of this project.

On January 25, 2015 the Kaibab National Forest sent a consultation letter about the project and an updated copy of the Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions to the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe and the Pueblo of Zuni, and the Bodaway/Gap, Cameron, Coalmine, Coppermine, Lechee, Leupp and To’Nanees’Dizi Chapters of the Western Navajo Agency.

On June 4, 2015, the Tusayan District Ranger and other Kaibab staff provided an update on the project to representatives of the Hopi Tribe during a regularly scheduled consultation meeting in Kykotsmovi, AZ.

On June 23, 2015, the Williams District Ranger and other Kaibab staff provided an update on the project to representatives of the Hualapai Tribe during a regularly scheduled consultation meeting in Peach Springs, AZ.

On June 26, 2015 the Williams District Ranger provided an update on the project to representatives of the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe during a regularly scheduled consultation meeting in Prescott, AZ. The Yavapai- Prescott is interested in procuring fuelwood for the community that may be produced through implementation of this project.

152 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination On November 1, 2015, Kaibab staff provided an update to representatives of the Hopi Tribe during a regularly scheduled consultation meeting in Flagstaff, AZ.

Ongoing consultation with tribes have indicated general support for restoration treatments that will return the Forest to historic conditions provided impacts to cultural and natural resources are mitigated.

No other questions, comments, or concerns about the project were received by the Forest. Other Persons Consulted Planning for the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project began in 2014, and the project was first published on the Forest Service’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on October 1, 2014. The proposed action was released for a 30-day public and internal scoping period with a letter dated March 23, 2015. The KNF received 12 comment letters during the scoping period. These comment letters were considered in refining the proposed action and developing issues and alternatives for analysis (see Issues section of Chapter 1). In addition to public scoping, the KNF has initiated government-to-government consultation with federally-recognized tribes with an interest in the project, and has met with representatives from Arizona Game and Fish Department, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Center for Biological Diversity to discuss planning for the project.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment 153

Literature Cited Literature Cited Archer, S. 1989. Have southern Texas savannas been converted to woodlands in recent history. The American Naturalist. Vol. 134, No. 4. 545-561. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2013. Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the USDA, Forest Service Southwestern Region. Signed May 2013. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD); Threatened, Endangered, Conservation Agreement, and Sensitive plant species; Unpublished abstracts compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System; Phoenix, Arizona; 1999-2005; http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2003. Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2013. Arizona Statewide Pronghorn Management Plan. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, AZ 96 pp. Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide; Arizona Rare Plant Committee. http://www.aznps.com/rareplants.php Arnold, J.F., D.A. Jameson, and E.H. Reid. 1964. The pinyon-juniper type of Arizona; Effects of grazing, fire and tree control. USDA Forest Serv. Prod. Res. Rep. RM-84. Baker 2005. Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/pdfs/PNVGs/Southwest/R3MGRA.pdf Baker, W.L. and D.J. Shinneman. 2004. Fire and restoration of piñon-juniper woodlands in the western United States: a review. Forest Ecology and Management 189: 1-21. Beier, P., and J. Maschinski. 2003. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Pages 306-327 in P. Friederici, editor. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Island Press, Washington D.C. Benavides-Solorio, J. and L.H. MacDonald. 2005. Measurement and prediction of post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14: 1-18. Binkley D., Sisk T., Chambers C., Springer J., Block W. 2007. The Role of Old-Growth Forest in Frequent-fire Landscapes . Ecology and Society 12(2): 18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art18 Bosch, J.M.; Hewlett, J.D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology. 55: 3-23. Boussard, L.; M.E. Lee; and A.J. Stevens. 2002. Kaibab National Forest User Study Final Report. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Boyce, D.A., R.T. Reynolds, and R.T. Graham. 2006. Goshawk status and management: what do we know, what have we done, where are we going? Pages 312-325 in M.L. Morrison, editor. The Northern Goshawk: A Technical Assessment of its Status, Ecology, and Management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31. Cooper Ornithological Society, Ephrata, Pennsylvania. Breshears, D.D., O.B. Meyers, S.R. Johnson, C.W. Meyer, and S.N. Martens. 1995. Differential use of shallow intercanopy water by two semiarid-woodlands tree species. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-94-4375 (submitted Ecology). Brown, D.E. and R.A. Ockenfels. 2007. Arizona’s Pronghorn Antelope a Conservation Legacy. Arizona Antelope Foundation. Phoenix, AZ. 190 pp. Brown, J. R., and S. Archer. 1989. Woody plant invasion of grasslands: establishment of honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa) on sites differing in herbaceous biomass and grazing history. Oecologia 80:19–26. CARB, 2007. California Air Resources Board. California EPA Air Resources Board Accessed. March 4, 2016 Chambers, C.L. and R.R. Doucett. 2008. Diet of the Mogollon vole as indicated by stable-isotope analysis (D13c and D15n). Western North American Naturalist 68: 153-160. Clemente, F., R. Valdez, J.L. Holecheck, P.J. Zwank, and M. Cardenas. 1995. Pronghorn home range relative to permanent rater in southern New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist Vol. 40, No.1 pp 38-41.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 155 Literature Cited Core, J. E. 2001. Visibility. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. Boise, ID. Corman, T. E. and C. Wise-Gervais. 2005. The Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. 636 pp. Crookston N. L., Stage A. R., 1999. Percent Canopy Cover and Stand Structure Statistics form a forest from the Forest Vegetation Simulator: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-24 Crookston, Nickolus L., Melinda Moeur, and David Renner. 2002. Users guide to the most similar neighbor imputation program version 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-96. Covington, W.W., and DeBano, L.F., 1990. Effects of fire on pinyon–juniper soils. In: Krammes, J.S. (Technical Coordinator), Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern Natural Resources. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report RM-191, pp. 78–86. Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern Ponderosa Pine: Changes since Euro-American Settlement. Journal of Forestry 92:39-47. DeBano, L. F. and Krammes, J. S. 1966. Water repellent soils and their relation to wildfire temperatures. Bulletin of the I.A.S.H., XI(2):14- 19. DeBano, L. F.; Neary, D.G.; Ffolliot, P.F. 1998. Fire's effects on ecosystems. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 333 p. Dixon, Gary E. 2008. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the forest vegetation simulator. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Washington office, Forest Management Service Center Fort Collins, CO. 240 pp. Dockery D.W., C.A. Pope 3rd, X. Xu, J.D. Spengler, J.H. Ware, M.E. Fay, B.G. Ferris Jr, F.E. Speizer. 1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. N. Engl J. Med. Dec 9:329(24):1753-9. Dullum, J.L. D., Foresman, K.R., and Matchett, M.R. 2005. Efficacy of Translocations for Restoring populations of Black- tailed Prairie Dogs. The Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 33, No. 3. 842-850. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. EPA Climate Change Website Accessed February 28, 2016. Fettig C. J. Klepzig K. D., Billings R. F., Munson A. S., Nebeker T. E., Negro´n J. F., Nowak J. T., 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forest of western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 238 (2007) 24–53 Fettig C. J., McMillin J. D., Anhold J. A., Hamud S. M., Borys R. R., Dabney C. P., Seybold S. J., 2006. The effects of mechanical fuel reduction treatments on the activity of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infesting ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 230 (2006) 55–68 Floyd, M.L., D.D. Hanna, and W.H. Romme. 2004. Historical and recent fire regimes in piñon-juniper woodlands on Mesa Verde, Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 198(1-3): 269-289. Fule P. Z., 2008. Does it make sense to restore wild land fire in changing climate?: 2008 Society for Ecological Restoration International doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00489.x Gifford, D. 2012. Four Forest Restoration Heritage Specialist Report. Ms. On File at Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Williams, AZ 86046. Galeano-Popp, Renee. 1987. Preliminary Survey for Chrysothamnus molestus (Blake) L.C. Anderson on the Tusayan and Chalender Ranger Districts; Kaibab National Forest; December 1987; unpublished. Ganey, J.L., and C.L. Chambers. 2011. A reconnaissance of small mammal communities in Garland and Government Prairies, Arizona. Western North American Naturalist 71: 151–157. Goodwin, Greg. 1983. Draft Survey Results and Interim Management Guidelines for Hedeoma diffusum Greene; Proposed Thomas and Walnut Timber Sales; USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region; Coconino National Forest; Mormon Lake Ranger District; November 1983; unpublished. Graham R. T., Jain T. B., Sandquist J., 2006. Free Selection: A Silvicultural Option: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203. 2006

156 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Literature Cited Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R; Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. Int-477. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13 p. Guido, Z. 2008. Southwest Climate Change Network. Southwest Climate Change Network Impacts of Fire Guinan, Judith A., Patricia A. Gowaty and Elsie K. Eltzroth. 2008. Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/510doi:10.2173/bna.510 Guynn Jr., D.C., S.T. Guynn, T.B. Wigley, and D.A. Miller. 2004. Herbicides and forest biodiversity, what do we know and where do we go from here? Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): 1085-1092. Haase, S.M. 1986. Effect of prescribed burning on soil moisture and germination of southwestern ponderosa pine seed on basaltic soils. Research Note RM-462. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. Hanson, J.A. 1999. Kaibab Cultural Affiliation Assessment. Ms. on file at the Kaibab National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ Hanson, J.A. and N.S. Weintraub. 2004. A Sampling Strategy for Low Heritage Site Density Grassland Maintenance Projects. Ms on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisors Office, Williams, Arizona. (R2004030700047). Haupt, H.F. and W.J. Kidd. 1965. Good logging practices reduce sedimentation in central Idaho. Journal of Forestry 63: 644- 670. Hayward, B., E.J. Heske, C.W. Painter. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on small mammals at a desert cienega. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61(1): 123-129. Heske, E.J. and M. Campbell. 1991. Effects of an 11 year livestock exclosure on rodent and ant numbers in the Chihuahuan desert. Southeastern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist, vol. 36 (1) p. 89-93. Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Holechek, J., D. Galt, J. Navarro, G. Kumalo, F. Molinar, and M. Thomas. 2003. Moderate and light cattle grazing effects on Chihuahuan desert rangelands. Journal of Range Management 52: 440-446 Holechek, L.J., P.D. Rex, and H.H. Carlton. 2011. Range Management Principles and Practices. 6th ed. Pearson Prentice- Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pg. 164, 304. Howard, Ann V. 1998. Letter regarding The Use of the Agra-Axe on Two Archaeological Sites. July 28, 1998. Huffman, D. W., P. Z. Fulé, K. M. Pearson J. E. Crouse, W. W. Covington 2006. Pinyon-Juniper Fire Regime: Natural Range of Variability 04-JV-11221615-271 Humphrey, R.R. 1958. The desert grassland: a history of vegetation change and an analysis of causes. The Botanical Review 24: 193-252. Hungerford, Roger D., M. G. Harrington, W. H. Frandsen, K. C. Ryan, and G. J. Neihoff. 1991. Influence of Fire on Factors that Affect Site Productivity. Paper presented at the Symposium on Management and Productivity of Western- Montane Forest Soils, Boise, ID, April 10-12, 1990. Hurteau, S. 2010. Wildlife and Diversity Analysis in Support of the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan Revisions. The Nature Conservancy. Phoenix, AZ. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Quin, M. Manning et al. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press: 996. Jackrel, S.L. and R.S. Matlack. 2010. Influence of surface area, water level and adjacent vegetation on bat use of artificial water sources. American Midland Naturalist. 164:74-79. Johnsen, T.N., Jr. 1962. One-seed juniper invasion of northern Arizona grasslands. Ecological Monographs. 32:187-207. Joshi, P. K. 2009. Night roosts of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) wintering in northern Arizona. Master’s Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Kaye, J.P., and S.C. Hart. 1998. Ecological restoration alters N transformations in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecol. Appl. 8:1052–1060. South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 157 Literature Cited Kearney, T. H. and R.H. Peebles. 1969. Arizona Flora: Second Edition with Supplement; University of California Press; 1969. Knowles, C. 1986. Some Relationships of Black-tailed prairie dogs to Livestock Grazing. Great Basin Naturalist. Vol. 46, No. 2. Korb, J.E., N.C. Johnson, and W.W. Covington. 2003. Arbuscular mycorrhizal propagule densities respond rapidly to ponderosa pine restoration treatments. J. App. Ecol. 40:101–110. Korb, J.E., Nancy C. Johnson, and W.W. Covington. 2004. Slash Pile Burning Effects on Soil Biotic and Chemical Properties and Plant Establishment: Recommendations for Amelioration. Restoration Ecology Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 52- 62. Krueger, K. 1986. Feeding Relationships among Bison, Pronghorn, and Prairie Dogs: An Experimental Analysis. Ecology. Vol. 67, No. 3. Latta M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and fire in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Forestry 22(6): 1-10. Luce, R.J. and D. Keinath. 2007. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/spottedbat.pdf. MacDonald, L.H. and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: A state-of-the-art review for Colorado. CWRRI Completion Report No. 196. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 65 pp. Madrid, A., A.G. Fernald, T.T. Baker, and D.M. VanLeeuwen. 2006. Evaluation of silvicultural treatment effects on infiltration, runoff, sediment yield, and soil moisture in a mixed conifer New Mexico forest. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 61(3):159-168. Merola-Zwartjes, M. 2004. Biodiversity, functional processes, and the ecological consequences of fragmentation in southwestern grasslands. 49-85. In: Finch, D. M. Editor. Assessment of Grassland Ecosystem Conditions in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-135. Vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 167 pp. Milchunas, D.G., W.K. Lauenroth, and I.C. Burke. 1998. Livestock grazing: animal and plant biodiversity of short grass steppe and the relationship to ecosystem function. Oikos 83: 65-74. Moldenke, Andrew. 1999. Soil-dwelling arthropods: their diversity and functional roles. In Proceedings: Pacific Northwest Forest and Rangeland Soil Organisms Symposium, Robert T. Meurisse, William G. Ypsilantis and Cathy Seybold, editors. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-GTR-461. Pg. 33-44. National Wildfire Coordination Group (NWCG). 2001. Smoke Management Guide For Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed from December 2015 to February 2016. Neary, Daniel G., Carole C. Klopatek, Leonard F. DeBano and Peter F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire effects on Below ground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 122, Issues 1-2, Pg. 51-71. Nelson, C. and N. Weintraub. 1999. Winter Range Re-Treatment Area. Cultural Resource Clearance Report, Ms on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ. (R1999030700024) Nelson, E.J. and Theimer, T.C. 2012. Translocation of Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs from an Urban and Suburban Colony to Abandoned Wildland Colonies. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 76, No. 1. 95-101. Ottmar, R. D. 2001. Smoke Source Characteristics. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. Boise, ID. Owens, M. K., R. K. Lyons, and C. L. Alejandro. 2006. Rainfall partitioning within semiarid juniper communities: effects of event size and canopy cover. Hydrological Processes 20:3179-3189. Ower, C.L.1985. Changes in ponderosa pine seedling growth and soil nitrogen following prescribed burning and manual removal of the forest floor. M.S.F. Thesis. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 109 p.

158 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Literature Cited Perkins, D. W., H. Sosinski, K. Cherwin, and T. F. Zettner. 2006. Southern plains network vital signs monitoring plan: phase II. National Park Service, Southern Plains Network, Johnson City, TX. Pilloid, D.S., E.L. Bull, J.L. Hayes, and B.C. Wales. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the western United States, a Synthesis: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-173. p. 34. Potyondy, J.P. and T.W. Geier. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. USDA Publication FS-978. Puettmann K. J., 2011. Silvicultural Challenges and Option in the Context of global Change: “Simple” Fixes and Opportunities for New Management approaches. Copyright © 2011 by the Society of American Foresters. Rabe, M. J., T. E. Morrell, H. Green, J. C. DeVos, Jr., and C. Richard Miller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 62, No. 2. pp. 612- 621. Robichaud, Peter R. 2000. Fire effects on infiltration rates after prescribed fire in northern Rocky Mountain forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology. 231-232(1-4): 220-229. Robichaud, Pete R.; MacDonald, Lee H.; Foltz, Randy B. 2010. Fuel management and erosion. Chapter 5 in: Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79-100. Rosenstock, S. S., W. B. Ballard, and J. C. DeVos, Jr. 1999. Viewpoint: benefits and impacts of wildlife water developments. Journal of Range Management. 52:302-311. Rosenstock, S. S., and Van Riper III, C. 2001. Breeding bird response to juniper woodland expansion. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 54 No. 3. 226-232 Rosenstock S. S., M. J. Rabe, C.S. O’brien, and R.B. Waddell. 2004. Studies of wildlife water developments in southwestern Arizona: wildlife use, water quality, wildlife diseases, wildlife mortalities, and influences on native pollinators. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Technical Guidance Bulletin No. 8. Phoenix, Arizona. 15 pp. Ryan, M.G., and W.W. Covington. 1986. The effect of a prescribed burn in ponderosa pine on inorganic nitrogen concentrations of mineral soil. Research Note RM-464. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p. Sanchez Meador A. J., P.F. Parysow, and M. M. Moore. 2010. A new Method for Delineating tree Patches and Assessing Spatial Reference Conditions of Ponderosa Pine in Northern Arizona: Society for Ecological Restoration International. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00652.x Seager, R., R. Burgman, et al. 2008. Tropical Pacific Forcing of North American Medieval Megadroughts: Testing the Concept with an Atmosphere Model Forced by Coral-Reconstructed SSTs. Journal of Climate 21: 6175-6190. Seymour, G. and A. Tecle. 2005. Impact of Slash Pile Size and Burning on Soil Chemical Characteristics in Ponderosa Pine Forests. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, Vol. 38, No. 1 (2005), pp. 6-20. Schlesinger, W.H., Reynolds, J.F., Cunningham, G.L., Huenneke, L.F., Jarrell, W.H., Virginia, R.A., Whitford, W.G., 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science 247, 1043–1048. Shinneman. 2004. Fire and restoration of pinyon-juniper woodlands in the western United States: a review. Forest Ecology and Management 189:1-21. Society of American Foresters. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Bethesda, MD: 210 pp. Sprigg, W. A., T. Hinkley, et al. (2000). Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change: Southwest. A Report of the Southwest Regional Assessment Group. U. o. A. The Institute for the Study of Planet Earth. Tucson, AZ, US Global Change Research Program: 66. Southwest Environmental Information Network, SEINet - Arizona Chapter. 2009-2016. http//:swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php. Accessed from December 2015 to February 2016. Stark, J.M. and S.C. Hartt. 1997. High rates of nitrification and nitrate turnover in undisturbed coniferous forests. Nature 385: 61-64. Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology 176: 79-95.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 159 Literature Cited Stoddard M. T., McGlone C. M., Fule P. Z., Laughlin D. C., Daniels M. L., 2011. Native Plants Dominate Understory Vegetation Following Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Treatments: Western North American Naturalist 71(2), pp. 206–214. Swank, W.T., L.F. DeBano, D. Nelson. 1989. Effects of timber management practices on soil and water. In: Burns, Russell [Tech. comp.]. The scientific basis for silvicultural and management decisions in the National Forest System. GTR- WO-55. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service: 79-106. Swetnam, T.W., C.D. Allen, and J.L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications 9:1189-1206. Taylor, D.A.R. and M.D. Tuttle. 2007. Water for wildlife, a handbook for rancher and range managers. Bat Conservation International. Tiedemann, A. R. and T.D. Anderson. 1987. Combustion losses of sulfur from Forest Foliage and Litter. Forest Science, Vol. 33, No. 1. Pp. 216-223. Tluczek, M. 2012. Diet, nutrients, and free water requirements of pronghorn antelope on Perry Mesa, Arizona. Master’s Thesis. Arizona State University. Truebe, M.; Evans, G. 1994. Lowell surfacing thickness design test road: Final report. Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-FLP-94-008. USDA Forest Service. San Dimas Technology and Development Center. San Dimas, CA. 108 p. Tuttle, S.R., C.L. Chambers, and T.C. Theimer. 2006. Potential effects of livestock water trough Modifications on bats in northern Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3) 602-608. Umbanhowar, C. E. 1996. Recent fire history of the northern Great Plains. American Midland Naturalist 135:115-121. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Agriculture Research Service, Water Erosion Prediction Project Website. URL: Water Erosion Prediction Project Accessed February 10, 2016. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA). 1988. Southwestern Region; Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan; 1988 and all amendments. ___1990. FSH 2509.22: Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Region. ___1991. Southwestern Region; Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest: Coconino County and Part of Yavapai County, Arizona; May 1991. ___1995. Landscape aesthetics: A handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture handbook 701. 264 pp. ___2001. Pacific Northwest Research Station; Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information; PNW-GTR-509; May 2001. ___2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds, Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Region. ___2004b. Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Management System Guidebook, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Kaibab National Forest, Williams, AZ. ___2005. Southwestern Region; Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds: Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. 242 p. ___2007. Appendix J: Recommended SMS Refinements. 33 pp. ___2010a. First Amended Programmatic Agreement between the Arizona National Forests, Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Manuscript on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, Arizona. ___2010b. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, Kaibab National Forest. Report. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/ ___2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. (FS-990a). 165 p. ___2013. Southwestern Region; Sensitive Plant Species List; Regional Office; Albuquerque, NM; July 1999 and September 2007 and 2013. http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/tes/complete-plant.pdf

160 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Literature Cited ___2014a. Kaibab National Forest Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 208 pages. ___2014. Southwestern Region; Rare and Narrow Endemic Species Guide Book; Kaibab National Forest Service; September 2014. ___2015. Forest Service Southwester Region; Guidance for invasive species management in the Southwestern Region; TP- R3-16-34; November 2015. ___2015. US Forest Service Southwestern Region; Guidance for Approving Pesticide Use in Region 3; September 2015. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 1997. Introduction to microbiotic crusts. 16 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Arizona Bugbane (Cimicifuga arizonica) Conservation Agreement; U.S. Forest Service, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office; December 1998. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/AZBugbane/azbugbanefnl.pdf ___2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at http://www.fws.gov.migratorybirds/]. ___2012. A Review of the third Five Years of the California Condor Reintroduction Program in the Southwest (2007-2011). ___2016. Threatened and Endangered Species List for Coconino County; http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/. Ward, D. E., C. C. Hardy. 1991. Smoke emissions from wildland fires. Environmental International, Vol 17:117-134. Weintraub, N.S. 1997. Juan Tank Allotment Re-Treatment Area, A Cultural Resource Clearance Report, Ms on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ. (R1997030700068). ___2011. Chapter 18 Review of the Irishman Dam Vegetation Project. Cultural Resource Clearance Report, Ms on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ. (R2011030700025). ___2012a. Collaboratively Protecting, Restoring and Preserving the Past: Recent Examples of Historic Site Treatments on the Kaibab National Forest. Paper Presented at the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office’s Centennial Conference, April 20,2012, Phoenix, AZ. Ms on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ. ___2012b. Chapter 18 Review of the Whitehills Vegetation Project. Cultural Resource Clearance Report, Ms on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ. (R2012030700044). Weltzin, J.F., Archer, S., Heitschmidt, R.K. 1997. Small-Mammal Regulation of Vegetation Structure in a Temperate Savanna. Ecology. Vol. 78, No. 3. 751-763. Woodard, Erin. 2008. Ida Grassland Restoration Project, Cultural Resource Clearance Report, Ms on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ. (R2008030700032). Wydeven, A.P. and Dahlgren, R.B. 1985. Ungulate Habitat Relationships in Wind Cave National Park. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 49, No. 3.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 161

Appendix A: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The following is a general list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on and around the South Zone (SZ) of the Kaibab National Forest that could be considered in the cumulative effects analysis for the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project:

 Activities such as vegetation management, prescribed burning, livestock grazing, recreational activities, and noxious weeds treatments have occurred in the past, continue to occur, and are reasonably foreseeable actions on the SZ and other adjacent land jurisdictions.  Wildfire managed for resource benefit has occurred in the past and will continue to be used in the future if conditions allow.  Personal and commercial fuelwood collection has occurred in the past and will continue to occur on the SZ and other adjacent land jurisdictions. In some areas, limited cross-country travel is authorized.  Urban development and interface growth is expected to continue on private lands within and adjacent to the SZ boundaries.  Road construction, maintenance, right-of-way management, decommissioning, and obliteration are expected to continue on roads within and adjacent to the SZ.  Existing constructed waters such as tanks and guzzlers will continue to be maintained.  Recreation activities are expected to continue to increase on and around the SZ.  Mining and quarrying activities have occurred in the past and are expected to continue to occur on the SZ.  Adjacent National Forest System lands have been and will continue to be managed to meet the multiple- use goals and objectives established in their Forest Plans.

The following is a list of specific projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis for this project:

Table A-1. Past projects and activities Year NEPA Project District completed Activities Status O’Connell Grassland Tusayan 2002 Grassland restoration Complete Maintenance Project Moqui Grassland Tusayan 2006 Grassland restoration Complete Maintenence

Table A-2. Present projects and activities Year NEPA Project District completed Activities Status McDougal Flat Grassland restoration; road Implementation in Grassland Restoration Williams 2015 decommissioning progress Project Restoration of ponderosa pine ecosystem (thinning, burning); Four Forest meadow and grassland Multiple Implementation in Restoration Initiative 2015 restoration (especially forests progress (4FRI) Government and Garland Prairie); road decommissioning (134 miles on KNF) Pinyon-juniper thinning; Rx Watts Vegetation Implementation to Tusayan 2014 burning; fuelwood gathering; road Management Project begin soon closure. Within project boundary.

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 163 Appendix A: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Year NEPA Project District completed Activities Status Ponderosa pine/ pinyon-juniper Implementation in McCracken Project Williams 2012 commercial/ non-commercial progress thinning; Rx burning Ponderosa pine and some pinyon-juniper non-commercial Russell Vegetation Implementation in Tusayan 2011 thinning; slash piling/burning; Rx Management Project progress burning; cross-country fuelwood collection Tusayan Ranger Prohibit cross-country travel District Travel (except as allowed under 36 CFR Implemented in 2011; Tusayan 2011 Management 212.51); designate open road ongoing Implementation system Williams Ranger Prohibit cross-country travel District Travel (except as allowed under 36 CFR Implemented in 2011; Williams 2010 Management 212.51); designate open road ongoing Implementation system Ponderosa pine/ pinyon-juniper Airport Hazardous hazardous fuels reduction; Implementation in Fuels Reduction Tusayan 2009 noncommercial mechanical progress Project thinning; Rx burning Grassland restoration (within Community Tank Williams 2009 ponderosa pine); Rx burning; Final sale in progress road obliteration Ida Grassland Grassland and savanna Williams 2008 Mostly completed Maintenance restoration Ponderosa pine and some pinyon-juniper thinning; includes Implementation in City Project Williams 2005 some temporary roads and dozer progress lines Ponderosa pine and some pinyon-juniper timber stand Twin Project Williams 2005 improvement and fuels reduction; Ongoing includes some temporary roads and dozer lines EIS for Treatment of Multiple Treatment of noxious or invasive Noxious or Invasive 2004 Ongoing forests weeds Weeds Grassland/ pinyon-juniper Winter Range Project Williams 2001 Ongoing grassland restoration 1999, Ch. 18 Fuelwood collection; some Irishman Dam Project Williams Ongoing Review 2011 grassland restoration White Hill Vegetation 1994, Ch. 18 Grassland/ pinyon-juniper Williams Ongoing Treatment Review 2012 grassland restoration Boggy Tank Fuelwood Tusayan 2002 Fuelwood, Prescribed fire Ongoing Project Grazing allotment Williams/ Authorizes grazing and related Various Ongoing management Tusayan activities Special uses Williams/ Continuation of recreation/ lands/ Various Ongoing authorizations Tusayan minerals special use activities

Table A-3. Foreseeable future projects and activities Estimated year NEPA Project District completed Activities Status Thinning; Rx burning; temporary Bill Williams Mountain Environmental analysis Williams 2015 and new road construction; road Restoration Project nearing completion obliteration Establishing camping corridors; South Zone Travel Williams/ opening and closing roads; Decision expected in Management Revision 2016 Tusayan establishing an adaptive 2016 Project management strategy for

164 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Appendix A: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Estimated year NEPA Project District completed Activities Status making future road system changes Prescott Data collection and Chino Valley grassland NF, Chino Next few years Grassland restoration proposed action restoration Valley RD development Grassland restoration on state and private Williams/ N/A; ongoing Grassland restoration Future and ongoing lands adjacent to Tusayan forest boundary

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 165

Appendix B: Roads Proposed for Obliteration The following table lists roads or segments of roads proposed for obliteration under alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Zone Grassland Restoration Project. These roads were selected using ArcGIS by overlaying the decommissioned roads layer with numerous resource layers. These are roads that are designated as decommissioned in the Forest Service road data and are thus not displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. In some cases other portions of these roads are designated open; when this is the case the open portions will not be obliterated. Only roads currently designated as decommissioned are considered for obliteration. Using this process, 49 miles of roads were identified as good candidates for obliteration. If new information revealing a need to restore Forest System road status to any road(s) included in this finding comes to light prior to completing obliteration actions, the appropriate site-specific analysis will be completed before a final determination of the status of the road(s) in question is made. Obliteration could consist of ripping, mulching with activity-generated slash, seeding with native species, and blocking with large boulders and/or logs.

Table B-1. Roads proposed for decommissioning Length Road Number (miles) Road Status 328F 0.26 DECOMMISSIONED 328E 0.16 DECOMMISSIONED 328G 0.64 DECOMMISSIONED 9104B 1.23 DECOMMISSIONED 2500AB 0.29 DECOMMISSIONED 9125 0.46 DECOMMISSIONED 2604A 0.89 DECOMMISSIONED 686A 0.57 DECOMMISSIONED 306H 0.33 DECOMMISSIONED 306F 0.23 DECOMMISSIONED 9422F 0.97 DECOMMISSIONED 9118HA 1.43 DECOMMISSIONED 9118HC 1.23 DECOMMISSIONED 9118HB 0.11 DECOMMISSIONED 306B 0.18 DECOMMISSIONED 306E 0.48 DECOMMISSIONED 347HA 0.40 DECOMMISSIONED 2736C 0.66 DECOMMISSIONED 2737B 1.39 DECOMMISSIONED 9136E 0.82 DECOMMISSIONED 2812 2.14 DECOMMISSIONED 2807 1.31 DECOMMISSIONED 682B 0.38 DECOMMISSIONED 2738A 0.10 DECOMMISSIONED 334A 0.71 DECOMMISSIONED 123CC 0.07 DECOMMISSIONED 123CB 0.50 DECOMMISSIONED 9212A 0.47 DECOMMISSIONED 9212 0.52 DECOMMISSIONED 9212JC 0.39 DECOMMISSIONED 123CA 0.52 DECOMMISSIONED 38B 0.68 DECOMMISSIONED 35F 0.14 DECOMMISSIONED 796M 0.13 DECOMMISSIONED 35E 0.20 DECOMMISSIONED 9215S 0.21 DECOMMISSIONED 722C 0.37 DECOMMISSIONED 9215T 0.67 DECOMMISSIONED 35CA 0.26 DECOMMISSIONED 38CC 0.16 DECOMMISSIONED 9217F 0.46 DECOMMISSIONED

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment 167 Appendix B: Roads Proposed for Obliteration Length Road Number (miles) Road Status 709AA 0.20 DECOMMISSIONED 709BB 0.23 DECOMMISSIONED 9211A 0.75 DECOMMISSIONED 9731MA 0.60 DECOMMISSIONED 41A 0.70 DECOMMISSIONED 9731Q 0.08 DECOMMISSIONED 9731X 0.19 DECOMMISSIONED 167C 0.91 DECOMMISSIONED 9185D 0.34 DECOMMISSIONED 124U 0.02 DECOMMISSIONED 9188D 0.72 DECOMMISSIONED 6A 3.11 DECOMMISSIONED 9701P 0.77 DECOMMISSIONED 6W 1.02 DECOMMISSIONED 9701R 0.54 DECOMMISSIONED 6SA 0.51 DECOMMISSIONED 4186A 1.15 DECOMMISSIONED 6MA 0.02 DECOMMISSIONED 6JA 0.14 DECOMMISSIONED 6B 1.81 DECOMMISSIONED 6RA 0.26 DECOMMISSIONED 6FB 0.02 DECOMMISSIONED 6NA 0.23 DECOMMISSIONED 6KA 0.25 DECOMMISSIONED 6DA 0.53 DECOMMISSIONED 6LA 0.09 DECOMMISSIONED 6GB 0.07 DECOMMISSIONED 6GA 0.36 DECOMMISSIONED 6BB 0.03 DECOMMISSIONED 6FA 0.34 DECOMMISSIONED 6MB 0.50 DECOMMISSIONED 9188 0.70 DECOMMISSIONED 9182Y 0.83 DECOMMISSIONED 9189BA 0.09 DECOMMISSIONED 9198 0.49 DECOMMISSIONED 9189B 1.24 DECOMMISSIONED 724R 0.41 DECOMMISSIONED 796CC 0.96 DECOMMISSIONED 9192A 0.42 DECOMMISSIONED 797A 0.28 DECOMMISSIONED 9521S 0.24 DECOMMISSIONED 2046 0.69 DECOMMISSIONED 9521S 0.24 DECOMMISSIONED 2046 0.69 DECOMMISSIONED 9153N 0.65 DECOMMISSIONED 710 1.16 DECOMMISSIONED

168 South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment