Final Management Indicator Species Report
Sunflower Allotment Grazing Analysis
July 2015
Table of Contents Background ...... 4
Alternatives Considered ...... 4
Alternative 1: No Action – No Grazing ...... 4
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 5
1) Authorization ...... 5
2) Range Improvement Infrastructure ...... 11
3) Monitoring ...... 14
4) Management Practices and Mitigation Measures ...... 17
Status of Management Indicator Species Populations ...... 23
Management Indicator Species Status and Trends ...... 31
Data Sources ...... 31
Breeding Bird Survey ...... 31
Christmas Bird Counts (National Audubon Society)...... 32
NatureServe...... 32
Arizona Game and Fish Department Data ...... 33
Arizona Wildlife and Fisheries Comprehensive Plan (USFS & AZGFD, 1990) Data ...... 33
Effects for the PJ/Woodland Habitat & Selected MIS ...... 33
Ash-throated Flycatcher ...... 33
Effects determination PJ/Woodland habitat type:...... 37
Effects for the Chaparral Habitat Type and Selected MIS ...... 37
Rufous-sided (spotted) towhee ...... 37
Black-chinned sparrow ...... 41
Page 2 of 81
Effects determination chaparral habitat type: ...... 45
Effects for the Desert Grassland Habitat Type and Selected MIS ...... 45
Horned Lark ...... 45
Savannah sparrow ...... 49
Effects determination desert grassland habitat type: ...... 53
Effects for the Desert Scrub Habitat Type and Selected MIS ...... 53
Black-throated sparrow ...... 54
Canyon Towhee ...... 58
Effects determination desert scrub habitat type: ...... 61
Effects For the Riparian (high/ low elevation) Habitat Type And Selected MIS ...... 62
Bell’s Vireo ...... 62
Common black hawk ...... 64
Effects determination high & low riparian habitat type: ...... 66
Effects For the Aquatic Habitat Type & Selected MIS ...... 66
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ...... 66
Effects determination aquatic habitat type: ...... 69
References ...... 71
Appendix A ...... 79
Page 3 of 81
Background The Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Tonto National Forest (Tonto NF), adopted in 1985, identified thirty management indicator species (MIS). The reason these species were selected as MIS is described in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Tonto National Forest Plan, 1985. The objective was to select species which would indicate successional stages of each vegetation type and serve as an indicator for detecting major habitat changes (LRMP p. 211). A forest level MIS report was prepared in 2002 and updated in 2005. Specifics on trends for MIS species across the forest can be found in that report.
The purpose of the report was to summarize current knowledge of population and habitat trends for species identified as MIS for the Tonto NF. Population trends needed to be monitored as the LRMP was implemented, and relationships to habitat changes over time determined (36 CFR 219.19). It is a dynamic document, subject to change as new inventory, monitoring, and habitat information is acquired and evaluated during the life of the Tonto NF LRMP.
Management guidance for MIS, other wildlife and fish resources, and diversity of plant and animal populations, is found in several key documents. The 1982 National Forest Management Act Regulations (Planning Regulations) at 36 CFR 219 set forth a process for developing, adopting, and revising land and resource management plans for the National Forest System (CFR 219.1), and identify requirements for integrating fish and wildlife resources in Forest Land Management Plans (CFR 219.13 and CFR 219.19). Key provisions for fish and wildlife resources require that fish and wildlife habitat be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area, where a viable population is considered to be one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of individuals to ensure its continued existence is well distributed through the planning area (CFR 219.19). By definition, the planning area is the area covered by a regional guide or forest plan (CFR 219.3). The Planning Regulations require that certain species, whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities, be selected and evaluated in forest planning alternatives (CFR 219.19). Additionally, the regulations require that the population trends of management indicator species be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined (CFR 219.19).
Specific management direction for MIS is also found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2600. Policy and direction that tiers to CFR 219.19 is provided for MIS for application at the Forest Plan and project levels relative to species selection, habitat analysis, monitoring and evaluation, and other habitat and planning evaluation considerations, in FSM 2620. FSM 2630 provides guidance on improving MIS habitat, and conducting habitat examinations, and project level evaluations for MIS within the project area.
Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1: No Action – No Grazing Under this alternative the term grazing permit for Sunflower allotment would be cancelled following guidance in 36 CFR 222.4 and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2231.62. Existing improvements no longer functional or needed for other purposes, including interior fences, cattle
Page 4 of 81
guards, and water developments would be evaluated for continued usefulness and removed as necessary.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The following prosed action was modified from the one scoped on November 14, 2014, and does not include the use of prescribed fire techniques in portions of the allotment to address fire condition class regimes. These treatments were removed to focus the actions of this analysis on actions specifically related to the reauthorization of grazing.
The proposed action consists of four components: authorization, improvements, monitoring, and management practices. The proposed action follows current guidance from Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 90 (Grazing Permit Administration; Rangeland Management Decision making).
1) Authorization The Mesa Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, proposes to authorize livestock grazing in the project area under the following terms:
Permitted Livestock Numbers: Proposed permitted use would vary between 2,700 to 6,300 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) year-long. Table 1 depicts this range of numbers per unit based on estimated capacity numbers. A rotational system of grazing would be implemented which would allow plants an opportunity for growth or regrowth.
Table 1: Proposed Stocking Numbers Based on Estimated Production Unit Estimated Initial Maximum Capacity Numbers Based on Stocking Stocking – Upper 2014 Production Data Limit AUMs/Number (cow/calf pairs) (cow/calf pairs)
Cottonwood East 50 – 75 100 – 125 3,599/300
Cottonwood West 50 – 75 100 - 125
Cline 75 – 100 125 - 150 1,841/153
Dos S 50 – 75 100 - 125 2,524/210
Total 225 - 325 425 - 525 7,964/664
Page 5 of 81
These capacity numbers are based on 2014 production data collected at 22 Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory (TEUI) map units throughout the allotment1, trend data, apparent trend ratings, historical grazing numbers and management, and permittee knowledge and experience (Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes. Figure 1).
Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes. Figure 1: Sunflower Allotment Proposed Action, Key Areas
1 Capacity estimates are based on average herbaceous forage production collected from March through May 2014, considering forage consumption of ungulates, per AUM. Capacity adjustments were made for conservative forage utilization guidelines (30-40%) distance from water and percent slope (Holechek et al. 2004).
Page 6 of 81 Availability of forage for livestock is based upon topography (slope), distance to water, and type or class of livestock. Adjustment to the total production for these variables can have a significant effect on stocking rate and identify opportunities for installation of additional range infrastructure such as water developments (NRCS 2009). Table 2 below indicates the general guidelines for determining the amount of adjustment.
When determining capacity numbers, Tonto NF Geographical Information System (GIS) data were used to evaluate forage availability based upon topography. Locations of all existing range improvements on the Tonto NF, including the Sunflower allotment, have not been inventoried using a Global Positioning System (GPS) device and added to the Structural Improvement GIS layer in the corporate database. Therefore, the District used available GIS data, range improvement maps, satellite imagery, and permittee/ District personnel knowledge to identify improvement locations to adjust capacity based on distance to water.
Table 2: Adjustment Factors in Determining Capacity Distance to Percent Percent Water (ft) Adjustment Percent Slope Adjustment
2640 100% 0 - 15 100%
5280 90% 15 - 30 70%
7920 70% 31 - 60 40%
10560 50% >60 0%
Initial stocking, within any given unit, would not occur until all existing water developments (windmills, pipelines, storage tanks, dirt tanks, and troughs) and new and/or existing unit/pasture fences (interior and allotment boundary) are functional and maintained to Forest Service Standard as required in FSM 2240.41a. Prior to any livestock returning to the allotment, a unit/pasture inspection would be conducted by Forest Service personnel and the permittee/manager to evaluate range condition, water distribution and availability, and ensure improvements are functional.
Initial stocking numbers, within any given unit, will not exceed those listed in the “Estimated Initial Stocking’ numbers listed in Table 1. Annual authorized livestock numbers may be adjusted from initial stocking levels. A stock and monitor approach, consistent with regional Forest Service direction R3 Supplement to FSH 2209.13 chapter 90, will be used to establish grazing capacity over the long term (five to ten years). Actual permitted levels of grazing will be determined annually by the Mesa District Ranger with the permittee based on the results of monitoring and successful implementation of management practices. Other considerations include development of new range improvements, forage utilization patterns, economic factors, and climate
Page 7 of 81
forecasts. Typical increases may be around 15 percent annually, up to the upper limit shown in Table 1. For example, for the Cline Unit it would take four to five years to reach the maximum stocking limit at an approximately 15 percent increase per year.
Grazing System: Livestock will be grazed using a rotational system. Stocking rates, within each unit, will be independent from the other units and managed as separate herds. The Otero, Ranger Station, Sycamore Creek Riparian, and Adams—west of State Route 87—pastures within the Dos S Unit, and the Desert Unit, will be placed into non-use (approximately 56,724 acres total). Non-use within these units/pastures will benefit riparian resources and sensitive species concerns associated with Sycamore Creek and Mesquite Wash. Additionally, non-use will benefit Sonoran Desert tortoise populations and habitat known to occur in the Adams pasture and remove conflict between heavy recreational pressure and livestock grazing practices. Non-use will continue until such time as a new environmental analysis is conducted to show the need for these pastures and the effects of authorizing grazing within them. Table 2 includes the proposed unit/pasture scheme, as well as the 2014 estimated AUMs and approximate acreage of each.
Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes. Figure 2: Sunflower Allotment Proposed Action with Improvements
Page 8 of 81 The reconfiguration of the Cline, Cottonwood (East and West), and Dos S Units would primarily be accomplished using existing fencing and natural barriers; however, there are a couple of known locations where short sections of new unit and/or pasture boundary fences or gap fencing will be required. When natural boundaries are used, livestock drift can occur along roads, trails, and drainages, if accessible to livestock. Active management practices such as herding and salting can be used to minimize this. However, if these management practices don’t correct livestock from drifting between pastures, the permittee would be responsible for immediately locating areas of drift and installing fence to ensure livestock remain in the appropriate pasture. Additionally, each unit herd would be ear tagged using different colored tags in order to differentiate between unit herds. This would be required to ensure that livestock are within their designated units; and if not, identify locations where additional gap fencing may be needed.
Table 3: Proposed Unit/Pastures Including Estimated and Proposed AUMs and Acreage
Approximate AUMs Based on Proposed Unit Pastures Acreage 2014 Production AUMs/Unit Data
Cline Ballantine 708 AUMs 900 – 1,800 6,228 AUMs Cline 714 AUMs 5,613
Mud Springs 419 AUMs 4,307
Total: 16,148
Cottonwood Adams 283 AUMs 600 – 1,500 2,426 Unit West AUMs North 1159 AUMs 12,469
South 550 AUMs 9,819
Total: 24,714
Cottonwood Alder Creek 648 AUMs 600 – 1,500 11,051 Unit East AUMs Cane Springs North 388 AUMs 5,167
Cane Springs South 571 AUMs 10,822
Total: 27,040
Dos S Maverick 567 AUMs 600 – 1,500 5,296 AUMs Picadilla 1089 AUMs 11,205
Page 9 of 81
Pine Creek 868 AUMs 13,482
Total: 29,983
Totals 7,964 AUMs 2,700 – 6,300 97,885 Acres* AUMs
*This number does not include the acreage associated with the various traps and corrals used for livestock management.
Each unit would be managed using a rotational grazing system, in which pastures within each unit would receive periodic deferment allowing for plant physiological needs in order to achieve desired resource conditions2. Pasture use periods would be kept flexible to the extent possible in consideration of estimated AUMs. Actual pasture season of use each year would depend on observed resource conditions. The grazing period within each pasture would be based upon weather/climate conditions, water availability, current growing conditions, and the need to provide for plant regrowth following grazing. The length of the grazing period within each pasture would also be considered and managed for the desired grazing intensity and utilization guidelines.
Management Tools
If monitoring indicates that desired resource conditions are not being achieved, in the desired time frame or areas for this allotment, there are tools, or administrative actions that would be used to modify management. Such changes may include annual administrative actions to adjust the specific number of livestock and/or animal unit months, specific dates for grazing, class of animal, or pasture rotations. These changes would not exceed limits for timing, intensity, duration, and frequency, as described in the proposed action.
Necessary changes would be implemented through AOIs, which will adjust use to be consistent with current productivity and resource conditions. The AOI will also include mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMP) to avoid or minimize effects to wildlife, soil, and water quality. Modifications to the AOI may be implemented at any time throughout the grazing season in response to unforeseen environmental concerns such as drought, fire, flood, etc., or management and livestock operation concerns.
The following is a list of when administrative actions would be necessary in the management of this allotment: Monitoring shows management objectives have not been achieved or that trend toward achieving desired conditions is not improving or improving at an adequate rate.
2 Desired resource conditions and management objectives for each resource area are identified and discussed in Chapter 3 of this analysis.
Page 10 of 81
Annual indicators of grazing use or grazing guidelines are not met. Climatic events, fire, flood, or uses and activities detrimentally impact resource conditions and a modification of grazing use is needed to provide for recovery of the site.
There are several types of administrative actions that could take place within the allotment. These actions would comply with the Forest Plan and mitigations detailed later in this section. The following list includes some of these actions: Extending or shortening time in a pasture based on utilization levels in uplands and riparian areas; Assessing the readiness of a pasture and changing its position in the rotation for the season; Time or season of pasture use; Resting a pasture for one or more growing seasons; High intensity, short duration, or other grazing system; In the event of extended drought, severe fire, or depleted rangelands, complete removal of livestock until rangelands have recovered; Decrease or increase herd size within the limits of the permitted numbers; Temporarily closing off water in a portion of a pasture to manipulate grazing pressure and intensity of use; Use of salting and mineral blocks to aid in distribution, especially away from critical areas such as riparian areas; Herding livestock; Excluding livestock from specific areas temporarily or permanently for other resource objectives; or Changing or limiting season of use to minimize impacts to riparian vegetation and water quality.
If monitoring indicates desired conditions are not being met, the range specialist, in consultation with the permittee and resource specialists as appropriate, will: Evaluate the potential cause for not meeting desired condition or indicator such as utilization; Evaluate the need to implement alternative actions under an adaptive management strategy; Generate documentation necessary in the AOI and/or permit and allotment files for the action to be implemented; and As necessary, conduct additional site specific surveying, such as for cultural resources.
2) Range Improvement Infrastructure Adding fencing, constructing livestock handling facilities, protecting springs, and developing additional watering sources may be beneficial to livestock management, facilitate better livestock distribution, reduce undesirable effects to riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat, or otherwise improve the rangeland resource. Existing range improvement infrastructure must be brought up to agency standard prior to installing any new developments. An exception to this could be that a particular existing improvement is determined, because of location, competing uses, livestock
Page 11 of 81
needs, or type is determined to no longer be feasible or necessary to maintain. Such improvements would then be removed. Allotment administration would determine whether identified structural improvements are necessary or need to be modified.
The effects of adding infrastructure such as fencing or waters to achieve resource objectives in the future will be disclosed in this document and tiered to this EA. All new structures would have heritage clearances prior to implementation. Additional sideboards include the following: New spring developments would be constructed with the spring box designed so that residual flow is left at spring head to prevent dewatering. Any new spring developments will be fence to exclude livestock access, with a trough(s) provided outside of the exclosure to provide water to livestock and wildlife. New troughs would be placed in the uplands, at least 300 feet away from riparian areas. New fencing would be constructed using a “wildlife friendly” design which includes; upper three strands barbed wire, top wire not to exceed 42 inches and lowest strand smooth wire set at 18 inches to allow wildlife to safely pass under. New troughs, supplements, and/or salt would not be located within .25 miles of the Sonoran desert tortoises’ preferred habitat, which includes rocky, boulder-covered hills and mountains in Sonoran desert scrub habitat. This would help ensure that livestock congregation areas (near water) are outside of tortoise foraging areas. Place supplements where forage is abundant and current grazing use levels are low. Supplements should not be placed at any one location more than once during the grazing season to prevent concentration of livestock. Improvements proposed within Sonoran desert tortoise habitat, would require pre- construction surveys and monitoring to ensure that individual tortoises are not present within the action area.
The following improvements would be constructed in order to facilitate livestock distribution throughout the allotment and assist in achieving the desired conditions and management objectives set forth in this analysis. The proposed fencing projects listed below will be installed prior to any livestock returning to the affected units/pastures. However, it is not necessary for the proposed additional water developments to be completed in a specific order or even in the same year. At present, funding has not been secured for the implementation of the proposed water developments. Examples of potential funding sources include individual allotment permittee funding, permittee labor matches, a variety of potential grants and Range Betterment Funds. Implementation of the proposed range improvement infrastructure will be based on available funding and management objectives (Figure 2).
Proposed Fencing: Installation of an exclosure fence above and below Hidden Water Spring (T3N, R9E, Section 21) to allow riparian vegetation above and below the spring to improve. The spring itself is currently fenced to exclude livestock access to protect an established Gila topminnow population. The trough located outside of the current exclosure, which is fed by the spring, will remain in place to provide water for livestock. This location is within the Four Peaks Wilderness, so no mechanized or mechanical equipment can be used
Page 12 of 81
during installation. The installation of this type of improvement is provided for under the Wilderness Act establishing the Four Peaks Wilderness and the Forest Plan for MA 3D.
Two sections of fence separating the Dos S Unit, Picadilla Pasture and the Ballantine Pasture of the cline Unit (T5N, R9E, Section 31). The remaining unit division will be accomplished using natural barrier.
Installation of two sections of fence within the proposed Cottonwood West Unit to separate the North and South pastures (T4N, R9E, Sections 29 and 32; and T3N, R9E, Section 3).
Proposed Water Developments:
Addition of a ≤10,000 gallon storage tank off of Forest Road (FR) 3484 (T4N, R9E, Section 3) to supply water to a new 300 gallon trough in the Cline Unit/Cline Pasture (T5N, R9E, Section 34).
Install a new pipeline from the existing Mountain Spring pipeline, to convey water to a new 300 gallon trough in Cline Unit/Ballantine Pasture. This pipeline currently conveys water to four troughs along its length (T5N, R9E, Section 34).
Addition of a ≤10,000 gallon storage tank off of FR 3537 in the Dos S Unit/Maverick Pasture (T6N, R8E, Section 35). Water would be hauled to fill new tank. Pipeline would convey water from tank to a new 300 gallon trough (T5N, R8E, Section 2).
Addition of a ≤10,000 gallon storage tank on the existing Mud Springs pipeline in the Dos S Unit/Pine Creek Pasture. This pipeline currently conveys water to four troughs along its length (T5N, R9E, Section 5).
Addition of a ≤10,000 gallon storage tank in Rolls Trap (Cottonwood West Unit/South Pasture) (T3N, R8E, Section 1) to supply water to a new 300 gallon trough (T3N, R9E, Section 6). Water to fill the storage tank would be hauled to tank.
In the Cottonwood West Unit/South Pasture, install approximately 1 mile of pipeline from an existing well (Cottonwood) to convey water to a new trough to be located in the uplands south of the well (T3N, R9E, Sections 8 and 17).
Addition of a ≤10,000 gallon storage tank at the head of Mine Mountain Spring in Cottonwood West Unit/North Pasture (T4N, R9E, Section 9). Tank would supply water to the existing five troughs along the pipeline. Additionally, a pipeline and trough would be added to an existing trough along the pipeline (T4N, R9E, Sections 17 and 20). The new pipeline and trough will be installed within the Four Peaks Wilderness. The installation of this type of improvement is provided for under the Wilderness Act establishing the Four Peaks Wilderness and the Forest Plan for MA 3D.
Page 13 of 81
3) Monitoring Forage utilization would be managed at a level corresponding to light to moderate grazing intensity in order to provide for grazed plant recovery, increases in herbage production, and retention of herbaceous litter to protect soils. Conservative use equates to 30 to 40 percent on herbaceous species and less than 50 percent use on browse (current year’s leaders). Consistent patterns of utilization in excess of 40 percent on key species in key areas would be used as a basis to modify management practices or take administrative actions necessary to reduce utilization in subsequent grazing seasons. It is inherent in the term “conservative use” that watershed conditions and vegetative ground cover would be optimized as appropriate to various range sites. At no time would excessive use be considered acceptable.
The goal is to achieve conservative use in the uplands over successive years. This strategy recognizes the importance of adaptive management. Management actions include, but are not limited to; adjustments of timing, intensity, frequency, and duration of grazing to reach resource objectives (FSH 2209.13 - Chapter 90). The document “Principles of Obtaining and Interpreting Utilization Data on Southwest Rangelands” (Smith et al. 2005) would provide guidance for utilization data collection and interpretation.
The objective of monitoring is to determine if management is being properly implemented and if the actions are effective at achieving or moving toward desired conditions.
Effectiveness monitoring includes measurements to track long-term condition and trend of upland and riparian vegetation, soil, and watersheds. Examples of effectiveness monitoring indicators include, but are not limited to pace transects, pace quadrat frequency, dry weight rank, ground cover, Parker 3-step, repeat photography, and Common Non-forested Vegetation Sampling Procedures (CNVSP) which measures; frequency, fetch, dry-weight rank, production, and utilization. Monitoring would occur at established permanent monitoring points. Both qualitative and quantitative monitoring methods would be used in accordance with the Interagency Technical References (ITA 1999), Region 3 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (USDA-FS 1997), and the Region 3 Allotment Analysis Guide. These data are interpreted to determine if management is achieving desired resource conditions, if changes in resource condition are related to management, and to determine if modifications in management are necessary.
Changes in riparian vegetation and stream channel geomorphology condition and trend would be measured at five to ten year intervals (effectiveness monitoring using methods described in Burton, et al., (2011), Harrelson, et al., (1994), photo point monitoring, or the most current acceptable method.
Implementation monitoring would occur yearly and would include such things as inspection reports, forage utilization measurements in key areas, livestock counts, and facilities inspections. Utilization measurements are made following procedures found in the Interagency Technical Reference (ITA 1999), or the most current acceptable method, and with consideration of the Principles of Obtaining and Interpreting Utilization Data on Southwest Rangelands. The purpose of implementation monitoring is to determine if grazing meets conservative use guidelines in upland and riparian areas.
Page 14 of 81
Utilization would be monitored on key forage species, which are native perennial grasses or browse species that are palatable to livestock. At a minimum monitoring would include use in key areas, but may include monitoring outside of key areas. The Mesa Ranger District range personnel, the permittee, and cooperators would be responsible for monitoring livestock grazing utilization. Over time, changes in resource conditions or management may result in changes in livestock use patterns. As livestock use patterns change, new key areas may be established and existing key areas may be modified or abandoned in cooperation with the permittee and cooperators.
Information would be collected through routine pasture inspections and end of season utilization monitoring. Specific schedules for monitoring would be flexible from year to year based upon resource needs, which could change with climatic variations and management changes. Monitoring for plant cover, vigor, recruitment, and diversity, using techniques described in aforementioned publications, would ensure that wildlife needs and riparian and watershed conditions were moving toward desired conditions.
Monitoring methods could include, but are not limited to utilization and stubble height monitoring, annual riparian monitoring, and photo point protocols. Data will be used, along with supporting information to determine when livestock must be moved from one pasture to another and to make any necessary adjustments to livestock numbers and/or season of use (determined in AOI).
Key areas are described in “Sampling Vegetation Attributes” (Interagency Technical Reference, 1996) as indicator areas that are able to reflect what is happening on a larger area as a result of on-the-ground management actions. A key area should be an area representative of the range as a whole, an area where livestock use occurs, located within a single ecological site and plant community, and be a minimum of 100 yards from fence lines, exclosures, roads, and trails.
While monitoring techniques as described above would be conducted in key areas, these would not be the sole locations for gathering information from the grazing allotment to make decisions about the timing, intensity, duration, or frequency of livestock grazing in a given grazing season. The overall condition of the allotment, and such things as distribution patterns or rangeland improvement conditions could be assessed at any given time to help make those decisions.
Riparian Utilization Monitoring Riparian components in key reaches would be monitored using riparian utilization measurements (implementation monitoring) following methods in “Sampling Vegetation Attributes and Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements” (ITT 1999) and “Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) of Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation” (Burton, et al. 2011) or the most current acceptable method.
In order to achieve Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines the following use guidelines for riparian components are as follows: obligate riparian tree species – limit use to less than 50 percent of terminal leaders (top one third of plant) on palatable riparian tree species accessible to livestock (usually less than 6 feet tall); deergrass – limit use to less than 40 percent of plant species biomass; emergent species (rushes, sedges, cattails, and horsetails) – maintain six to eight inches of stubble height during the grazing period.
Page 15 of 81
The Forest Plan limits use to 20 percent of tree and shrub annual production by volume. The percent of leaders browsed was chosen as a surrogate guideline in place of percent volume because volume is an extremely difficult parameter to assess on an annual basis. The method employed for determining the percent of leaders browsed is an expedient and repeatable sampling technique. Mathematical relationships between the number of twigs browsed and percent of current annual growth removed have been established in previous studies (Stickney 1966, USDA Forest Service 1991a).
Utilization limits for herbaceous riparian vegetation are intended to do two things: 1) protect plant vigor and 2) provide physical protection of streambanks or the sediment on the greenline that could develop into a bank feature. Deergrass was selected as the key species to monitor because it is the most common obligate, riparian, native, perennial grass on the Tonto NF. Additionally, deergrass exhibits a number of traits that make it an ideal stream-stabilizing plant. The above ground attributes of deergrass aid in preventing soil loss through decreasing flow velocity, they also trap sediment which aids in the rebuilding of stream banks. Furthermore, deergrass is a bunchgrass with an extensive root system which acts to stabilize streambanks (Cornwall 1998, Coppin 1990, Clary and Kruse 2003).
Monitoring short-term indicators, such as stubble height and woody utilization, during the grazing season, can help determine if grazing use criteria is moving riparian conditions toward management objectives over time (Burton, et al. 2011).
Once riparian utilization guidelines are met, cattle would be moved from the riparian area or to the next scheduled pasture, even though forage may still be available in the uplands. Actual use records in combination with utilization measurements will inform if it may become necessary to minimize or remove access to riparian habitat, if grazing pressure becomes a limiting factor in the use of pastures. Allowable use for riparian and upland vegetation is summarized in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Upland and Riparian Utilization Guidelines
Vegetation Use Threshold
Upland Herbaceous Use 30-40% of current year’s growth
Upland Browse Species 50% of current year’s growth
Riparian Herbaceous Use Limited to 40% of plant species biomass for deergrass and maintain 6-8 inches of stubble height for emergent species such as rushes, sedges, cattails, and horsetails; measured during grazing season.
Riparian Woody Species Limited to 50% of leaders browsed on upper 1/3 plants up to 6 feet tall
Page 16 of 81
Invasive Species Monitoring Invasive species known to occur within the project area would be treated as necessary. Permittee, Forest Service, or cooperators will coordinate weed inventory and treatment. Invasive species monitoring is carried out at the same time as allotment inspections are conducted. As noxious weed populations are found they are mapped, monitored, and treated. Treatment methods would follow guidelines established in the Environment Assessment for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds and DN/FONSI dated August 24, 2012.
Heritage Resources In conjunction with Forest Archaeologist special care will be carried out to protect heritage resources (historic and prehistoric sites) from impacts caused by range construction projects or livestock concentrations. An archaeological survey will be conducted prior to construction of any new range improvements and/or location selection where impacts to heritage resource sites are avoided. Existing range facilities (water troughs, corrals) where cattle regularly congregate are periodically inspected to determine whether or not livestock are causing damage to heritage resource sites.
4) Management Practices and Mitigation Measures
Range Livestock management practices such as herding and salting are critical to achieve proper livestock distribution within each unit/pasture. The permittee would be required to furnish sufficient riders or herders for proper distribution, protection, and management of cattle on the allotment. Tonto National Forest Grazing Practices are as follows:
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines applicable to livestock grazing would be followed (Forest Plan pg. 24). Salt and/or supplements will be placed where forage is abundant and current grazing use levels are low. Salt and/or supplements would not be placed any closer than .25 miles from developed or live water, recreation sites, or designated trails except where prior written approval had been obtained from the District Ranger. No salting would occur within or adjacent to identified heritage sites. Salt would be removed from pastures when cattle have left an area, and not placed within a pasture until the cattle arrive. Additionally, salt will not be placed in the same location(s) each year. All troughs would be left full of water and operational year round for wildlife accessibility, unless in limited circumstances where extreme freezing conditions may damage facilities. When entering the next scheduled pasture, all livestock would be removed from the previous pasture within two weeks (dependent on terrain). This is critical for pastures with key riparian reaches. Permittee would ensure that enough time is allowed to remove livestock to meet the pasture move date(s) and avoid unauthorized and excess use. Permittee would ensure all infrastructure is in functioning condition prior to entering the next scheduled pasture.
Page 17 of 81
Travel Management The permittee would continue to access the allotment on existing roads and trails as designated by Forest maps to avoid the creation of illegal OHV trails. Road maintenance that is required to access range improvements or livestock management must receive a road use permit for any road work. Tonto National Forest is currently planning the implementation of Travel Management Rule. These programs are aimed at reducing non-essential roads for watershed and resource protection and will require the following:
Travel Management Decision will be followed by the permittee. If access is needed to enter a motor vehicle restricted area, the permittee must have special authorization through an OHV Permit or special authorization through the AOI.
Road maintenance that is required to access range improvements or livestock management must receive a road use permit for any road work. In the event of significant future deviations from “current access needs” for motorized use as authorized by a Term Grazing Permit, there may be the requirement for additional NEPA analysis on a site specific basis. The AOI authorizing each year’s grazing activity will include a brief discussion of the use of vehicles and OHVs within the designated road system, any single purpose use roads or trails, and a description of the annually anticipated level of cross-country travel and access consistent with the Part 3 of the Term Grazing Permit and/or AMP.
Wilderness Management emphasis for wilderness is on wilderness values. It provides for livestock grazing and recreation opportunities that are compatible with maintaining wilderness values and protecting resources. Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 defines minimum requirements for administrative actions in wilderness areas, which includes grazing. Wilderness resources must be considered when preparing range improvement construction standards and techniques (2323.26a).
Section 4(d)(4)(2) in FSM 2320.5 states that “…wilderness designation should not prevent the maintenance of existing fences or other livestock management improvements, nor the construction and maintenance of new fences or improvements, which are consistent with allotment management plans and/or which are necessary for the protection of the range.”
Compliance with the Wilderness Act in the Four Peaks Wilderness area is important and expected of all users on the allotments. The permittee should strive to maintain the untrammeled, natural conditions within wilderness areas. No motorized equipment should be used in wilderness areas without obtaining authorization from the Regional Forester.
Wildlife Since site specific information regarding precise location and timing of the various and projects described above (water developments, pastures and fencing) are not available at
Page 18 of 81
this time, the Forest Service will implement the following actions to protect listed species: o The Forest Service will conduct site specific analysis of effects to listed species and/or proposed species or designated and/or proposed critical habitat before projects are implemented. o If the Forest Service determines that projects “may affect” any listed and/or proposed species or designated and/or proposed critical habitat, section 7 consultation with the Service will be reinitiated. All water developments would include wildlife access and escape ramps. When possible, waters would be kept available to wildlife year round. All fencing would be built to Forest Service standards to provide for wildlife passage through the fence. At a minimum, this would be a four-strand fence with smooth bottom wire 18 inches off the ground and a total height of 42 inches or less. Conservative forage utilization standards (30 – 40%) outlined in the proposed action will provide for adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and allow for plant regeneration in Mexican spotted own critical habitat. Livestock exclosure fences around Mud and Hidden Water Spring will be maintained to prevent unauthorized livestock access.
Heritage Protection measures identified for range improvements include:
Prior to ground disturbing management practices being implemented, archaeological surveys would be conducted for areas which have no previous survey coverage, or have outdated surveys which do not conform to current standards. Relocation or redesign of proposed range improvements and ground-disturbing management practices to avoid direct and indirect impacts to historic properties. Fencing or exclosure of livestock from individual sensitive historic properties or areas containing multiple sensitive historic properties being impacted by grazing.
Riparian Mitigation Measures Installation of an exclosure fence above and below Hidden Water Spring (T3N, R9E, Section 21) to allow riparian vegetation above and below the spring to improve. The spring itself is currently fenced to exclude livestock access to protect an established Gila topminnow population. The trough located outside of the current exclosure, which is fed by the spring, will remain in place to provide water for livestock. This location is within the Four Peaks Wilderness, so no mechanized or mechanical equipment can be used during installation. The installation of this type of improvement is provided for under the Wilderness Act establishing the Four Peaks Wilderness and the Forest Plan for MA 3D.
Page 19 of 81
All existing and new developed springs will be fenced to exclude livestock access. A trough(s) would be located outside of the exclosure to provide water for wildlife and livestock.
Livestock would not be trailed through riparian areas. Salt and/or mineral supplements would be placed at least .25 miles from riparian areas. New spring developments would be constructed with the spring box designed so that residual flow is left at spring head to prevent dewatering. New troughs would be placed in the uplands, at least 300 feet away
Climate Climate in the project area is characterized by a bimodal precipitation pattern with about 60 percent occurring as frontal systems in the winter from December to March and about 40 percent occurring as monsoons in the summer from July to September. Summer storms can be more intense than winter storms but are generally of shorter duration and smaller aerial extent.
The nearest climate gage to the project area with current data is Roosevelt 1WNW. The period of record is 1905-present (WRCC 2013) and the average annual precipitation is 16.48 inches (NOAA 2013). Of the last ten years (2003-2012) the data indicate seven years had below average precipitation (NOAA 2013). For the period 2002-2011, the temperature was above average eight of the years (WRCC 2013).
Fire Vegetative communities found within the Sunflower Grazing Allotment include riparian, Sonoran desert, semi-desert grassland, interior chaparral, pinyon-juniper chaparral, and ponderosa pine. The natural fire regimes for each of these vegetative communities’ ranges from frequent, low severity, to very long-interval, high severity, stand replacement fires. A significant fire event occurred in 2005, the Edge Complex, which affected a large portion of the allotment east of highway 87. In 2012, the Sunflower Fire burned roughly 17,500 acres north of the allotment. Several other fires >100 acres have burned within the allotment boundaries but did not significantly alter the vegetative types.
Recreation Dispersed recreational activities in and around the Sunflower Allotment consist of dispersed camping, hunting, target shooting, OHV activities, hiking, and pack and saddle in the Four Peaks Wilderness Area.
Management of OHV use in this area is enforced using the 1990 Resource Access/Travel Management (RA/TM) decision. Roads throughout the area that have been identified and posted open in RA/TM can be accessed by most vehicles, both licensed and unlicensed. With the increasing OHV community and limited signing on the ground user created routes have also been steadily increasing over the years and conflicts are occurring between OHV users and other forest users. User conflicts typically arise between livestock operations and recreational uses such as OHV (creation of trails and destruction of forage resource) and target shooting (destruction of range improvements and direct take of livestock). Range gates have often been left open by motorized recreationists and fencing has been cut for illegal entry into non-motorized areas. Page 20 of 81
Increased law enforcement presence has occurred since 2008, and with the Travel Management decision occurring in the near future, several user-created OHV riding areas may undergo administrative changes.
Forest visitors use lands in and around the Sunflower Allotment for target shooting. While many visitors are responsible target shooters, many are not and some forest visitors leave behind trash, targets, and shot up vegetation including Saguaro cactus. The Lower Sycamore and Sugarloaf Mountain areas are commonly used locations for target shooting and are heavily used by OHV visitors.
Five Outfitter Guides currently hold permits for OHV tours in and through this allotment. Use is moderate for this activity because of the close proximity to metropolitan areas. There are two Outfitter Guide permits issued for horseback riding in the Four Peaks Wilderness Area, and two Outfitter Guide permits for hiking trips. There are also two Outfitter Guides that hold permits for mountain biking in this allotment. Use is moderate year round.
The Sunflower allotment is adjacent to and in the Four Peaks Wilderness. According to the Four Peaks Wilderness Implementation Plan (FPWIP), the implementation objective of range is to provide for livestock grazing as authorized by law, while minimizing its impact on the Wilderness resource and visitors to it, through practical, reasonable, and uniform application of established guidelines and policy. (See FSM 2323.2 and FSH 2309.19, chapter 22.)
Heritage The allotment contains hundreds if not thousands of prehistoric archeological sites representing the occupation and agricultural modification and use of this area by people related to the Hohokam archaeological tradition over a period of 8,000 to 10,000 years. It also contains hundreds of historic sites reflecting its use and occupation by Yavapai and Apache hunters, gatherers, and farmers, the U.S. military, Anglo and Hispanic ranchers and stockmen, miners and prospectors, the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the U.S. Forest Service. Only a small fraction of the allotment has been intensively surveyed to produce an inventory of heritage resources. Known heritage properties include a wide range of features, from the first Anglo structure on the Forest, the Reno Military Road, to collapsed and buried pithouses. The great majority of these features, however, consist of collapsed stone masonry structures, various water control devices such as check dams and terraces, roasting pits for the processing of agave, and petroglyphs hammered into the surfaces of rock outcrops and boulders. There are also a few features associated with mining and ore processing. Many other prehistoric and historic archeological sites are represented by nothing more than a scatter of artifacts on the ground surface. No traditional cultural properties, native plant gathering areas or tribal sacred sites are currently known to be located within the allotment. From the 1870s to the early 1920s grazing of what would become the Sunflower Allotment was heavy and unregulated. This resulted in an initial reduction of vegetative cover which may have affected heritage resources by soil loss, erosion, and trampling. Since the implementation of
Page 21 of 81
grazing management, the known heritage resources inventoried there have stabilized and in many cases improved in condition as vegetative cover has returned.
Wildlife These various vegetation types support a variety of game and non-game species. The allotment is within Game Management Unit 22. Big game found on the allotment include: Desert bighorn sheep, black bear, mule deer, whitetail deer, javelina, and mountain lion. Elk do occur in limited numbers in the pine habitat near the top of Four Peaks. The whitetail inhabit the higher and brushier areas (Cline unit), while the mule deer use the desert scrub and open chaparral vegetation types. Mule deer and javelina population trends unit wide are stable with severe localized impacts in the off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation corridors. These corridors cover most of Adams pasture and the southern portion of the Picadilla pasture of the Dos S unit, Desert unit, and the western portion of Cottonwood unit. The presence of mule deer in these areas is low to non- existent. White-tailed deer, black bear and mountain lion population trends unit wide are stable. Elk population in the Four Peaks mountain range is stable (J. Dickson, personal communication February 28, 2013).
Game birds and small game found on the allotment include; Gambel’s quail, mourning dove, white-winged dove, cottontail rabbits, black tailed jackrabbit, Abert’s and grey squirrel. Most small game populations rely heavily on rainfall so populations can fluctuate annually. Currently small game populations are stable with no concerns (J. Dickson, personal communication February 28, 2013). Predators such as coyotes, bobcats, and gray fox, are commonly found on the allotment. Non-game species include a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
Availability of forage, and ground and canopy cover, are essential to sustaining wildlife populations, as is the availability of water. Wildlife not only use “live water” (perennial or intermittent streams), but depend on developed waters (dirt tanks, troughs), especially during times of drought.
Special Status Species are those given status by agencies responsible for managing plants, wildlife, and their associated habitat because of declines in the species’ population or habitat. Birds are given provisions under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Special Status Species that occur, or have suitable habitat on the allotment and will be considered in this assessment are listed in Table 5 below. Effects to these species will be analyzed through a biological evaluation (BE), which will be available in the project record.
Table 5: Special Status Species COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Gila Topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis Endangered
Desert Pupfish Cyprinodon macularius Endangered
Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Strix occidentalis lucida N/A
Page 22 of 81
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Habitat
Sonoran Desert Tortoise Gopherus morafkai Candidate, Sensitive
Lowland Leopard Frog Lithobates yavapaiensis Sensitive
Desert Sucker Catostomus clarki Sensitive
Hohokam Agave Agave murpheyi Sensitive
Endangered – Federally Listed as Endangered Under ESA Candidate - Fish and Wildlife Service has enough information on file to propose listing as threatened or endangered but listing has been precluded by other agency priorities. Sensitive – On Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (2013)
Status of Management Indicator Species Populations The Tonto National Forest Plan identified 29 wildlife species and one Macroinvertebrates species group as management indicator species to monitor the conditions of the Forest’s ecosystems [USDA Forest Service 1986, (pp. 97-98)] (Appendix A). The Forest Plan provides direction on managing quality habitat for MIS by “Management Area” (MA). Site-specific occurrence records are not available for most of these species, but each species’ occurrence in its respective habitat is assumed, as documented in the “Tonto National Forest Management Indicator Species Status Report” (USFS 2005) on file at the TNF Supervisors Office.
These indicator species reflect general habitat conditions or habitat components that are of value to these and other species with similar habitat needs. Habitats for a large number of the Forest MIS occur on the Sunflower allotment. Because most MIS are not rare species and the allotment contains a wide variety of vegetation types, it is assumed that at least some individuals of each MIS are present on the allotment. The ten MIS species that were selected for this allotment (Table 6) were done so based on the premise that livestock grazing and management can have an effect on habitat components (ground cover, species diversity, etc.) that can impact Forest-wide habitat and population trends.
Table 6: Tonto NF Management Indicator Species for the Sunflower Allotment Analysis Area Habitat Type Indicator of: Rational for Selection
Pinyon/Juniper
Ash throated flycatcher Ground cover Livestock grazing and management can affect ground cover.
Page 23 of 81
Habitat Type Indicator of: Rational for Selection
Chaparral
Rufous-sided (spotted) Shrub density Livestock grazing and management can affect towhee shrub density.
Black-chinned sparrow Shrub diversity Livestock grazing and management can affect shrub diversity.
Desert Grassland
Horned lark Vegetation Livestock grazing and management can affect aspect grassland communities.
Savannah sparrow Grass species Livestock grazing and management can affect diversity diversity of herbaceous species.
Desert Scrub
Black-throated sparrow Shrub diversity Livestock grazing and management practices can affect shrub diversity in desert scrub habitat.
Brown (canyon) Ground cover Livestock grazing and management practices towhee can affect ground cover.
Riparian (low & high elevation)
Bell’s vireo Well-developed Livestock grazing and management practices understory can affect riparian understory (herbaceous vegetation).
Common black hawk Riparian Livestock grazing and management practices streamside can affect the development of woody riparian species.
Aquatic
Macroinvertebrates Water Livestock grazing and management practices quality/fisheries can affect water quality.
Rationale for Omission of MIS from Analysis
The following species are omitted from the analysis (Table 7). Although they may occur at some point in the species life cycle, the alternatives considered are not expected to alter their habitat
Page 24 of 81
type.
Table 7: MIS Excluded from Analysis and Rational Habitat Type Indicator of: Rational for Omission
Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer
Elk General Forest Condition Grazing will not affect this component.
Pygmy Nuthatch Old growth ponderosa pine Grazing will not affect old growth ponderosa.
Violet-green Swallow Cavity nesting habitat Grazing will not affect cavity nesting habitat.
Western Bluebird Forest openings Grazing will not affect this component.
Hairy Woodpecker Snags Grazing will not affect snag density.
Goshawk Vertical diversity Grazing will not affect forest vertical diversity.
Abert Squirrel Successional stages of Grazing will not affect successional ponderosa pine stages of ponderosa pine.
Townsends Solitaire Juniper berry production Grazing will not affect juniper berry production.
Pinyon-Juniper
Gray Vireo Tree Density Grazing will not affect pinyon- juniper density.
Townsends Solitaire Juniper berry production Grazing will not affect juniper berry production.
Plain Titmouse General woodland Grazing will not affect late seral conditions pinyon-juniper density or canopy cover.
Common Flicker Snags Grazing will not affect snag density.
Spotted Towhee Successional stages of Grazing will not affect pinyon- pinyon-juniper juniper density
Page 25 of 81
Habitat Type Indicator of: Rational for Omission
Riparian – Low Elevation (1500 – 3500 feet)
Bald Eagle General riparian Riparian in analysis area inadequate to support this species. Known eagle nest sites south of analysis area are located on cliffs.
Summer Tanager Tall, mature trees Grazing will not affect this component.
Hooded Oriole Medium-sized trees Grazing will not affect this component.
Riparian – High Elevation (over 3000 feet)
Hairy Woodpecker Snags, cavities Grazing will not affect snag component.
Arizona Gray Squirrel General riparian Riparian in analysis area inadequate to support this species.
Warbling Vireo Tall overstory Riparian in analysis area inadequate to support this species.
Western Wood Pewee Medium overstory Riparian in analysis area inadequate to support this species.
The Tonto LRMP defines succession as “an orderly process of biotic community development that involves changes in species, structure, and community processes with time; it is reasonable directional and therefore predictable”. The publication, “Managing Forested Lands for Wildlife” page 456, defines succession as ‘the changes in vegetation and in animal life that takes place as a plant community evolves from bare ground to climax”. Generally, the steps involved in these changes are called “successional stage” and “seral stage” interchangeably. The publication, “Managing Forested Lands for Wildlife”, page 454, defines seral stage as, “one step in a series of steps in the process of ecological succession”. The Tonto LRMP use of the terms “low”, “moderate”, and “high” equate to the early, mid, and late seral stages respectively.
Vegetation types between 1985 and present are not entirely comparable due to advances in mapping technology and data collection. Below are the reference acres (1985) and the estimated current vegetation/habitat tables for the Tonto (TNF 2002).
Page 26 of 81
Table 8: Chaparral/Pinyon - Juniper, Tonto NF LRMP
Chaparral/Pinyon-Juniper Current Condition 2005 1985 Acres Trend Forest Wide Acres
Declining No Data 102,030
Stable 1,403,817 818,246
Upward No Data 49,3710
Total (s) 1,403,817 1,413,986
Table 9: Desert Grassland, Tonto NF LRMP Desert Grassland Current Condition 1985 Acres Trend Trend Forest-wide 2005 Acres
Declining ND 7,575
Stable 38,370 31,232
Upward ND 171
Total (s) 38,370 38,978 + 1.6% (Upward/Static)
Table 10: Desert Scrub, Tonto NF LRMP Desert Scrub Trend Current Condition 1985 Acres Trend 2005 Acres Forest-wide
Declining ND 212,275
Stable 909,418 463,336
Upward ND 221,160
Total (s) 909,418 896,771 -1.4% (Downward/Static)
Page 27 of 81
Table 11: Riparian, Tonto NF LRMP Riparian Acres Riparian Acres
*Riparian Trend Low Elevation High Elevation Total Forest Wide (1,500-3,500 ft.) (3,500 ft. +)
*I-III IV-VI I-III IV-VI
1985 4,243 26,904 5,782 4,450 41,379
2005 4,243 26,904 5,782 4,450 41,379**
1985 Point of Reference, Aquatic, Tonto National Forest.
The Aquatic Habitat Type has little data within the Tonto Forest MIS Report for Macroinvertebrate populations.
Trends in Vegetation Type at the Forest Plan Level and Anticipated Effects at the Project Level
Changes in condition may be due to a number of factors that include natural succession, wildfire, disease, drought, and human caused influences. In order to evaluate habitat changes associated with the above MIS, a review of all activities having the potential to change vegetation conditions was conducted (see Table I-3 through I-7, p. 10-11 and Tables 1-3, p. 261-264 of the Forest MIS Report (2005) for cumulative totals of vegetation changes since 1985).
Insects/Disease 1985-2007: The Tonto has experienced tree mortality due primarily to drought conditions, subsequent stress, and western pine beetle infestation. The number of snag trees has increased substantially the last 10 years. However, changes to the vegetation type as a whole is insignificant at the Forest scale.
Wildfire 1985-2014: The Tonto has had 5919 fires from 1985-2014. 77 (1.3%) of those were extended attack fires and burned approximately 929, 750 acres, of which approximately 63,650 acres were considered stand replacing, high severity or type conversion.
Grazing 1985-2015: There have been significant changes in grazing management since 1985 on the Tonto. Most allotments have been or are undergoing allotment plan revisions and NEPA. The number of permitted AUMs Forest wide has decreased from approximately 407,163 in 1985 to approximately 163,147 in 2015 (-40%).
Timber 1985-2007: Only approximately 283,000 acres of the 421,000 acres on the Tonto are considered operable for timber harvest. Any timber harvest that may have been altered is reflected in the cumulative tables reported in the Forest MIS Report.
Page 28 of 81
Table 12: MIS Habitat Within the Sunflower Allotment Action Area Acres of Habitat Forest Habitat Forest Population MIS Species Trend Trend in Project Area
Elk Static Stable Not selected for this project
Turkey Static Stable Not selected for this project
Abert Squirrel Static Decreasing Not selected for this project
Arizona Gray NC Stable Not selected for this project Squirrel
Ash-throated Static Stable 198 Flycatcher
Bald Eagle NC Stable Not selected for this project
Bell’s Vireo NC Decreasing 3,096
Black-chinned Static Stable 29,642 Sparrow
Black-throated Downward/Static Stable 113,065 Sparrow
Canyon Downward/Static Decreasing 113,065 Towhee
Common NC Decreasing 3,096 black-hawk
Common Static Stable Not selected for this project Flicker
Goshawk Static Decreasing Not selected for this project
Gray Vireo Static Decreasing Not selected for this project
Hairy Woodpecker Static Stable Not selected for this project (Ponderosa Pine)
Page 29 of 81
Acres of Habitat Forest Habitat Forest Population MIS Species Trend Trend in Project Area
Hairy Woodpecker NC Stable Not selected for this project (High Elev.)
Hooded Oriole NC Stable Not selected for this project
Horned Lark Upward/Static Decreasing 7,756
Plain Titmouse Static Decreasing Not selected for this project
Pygmy Static Decreasing Not selected for this project Nuthatch
Savannah Upward/Static Stable 7,756 Sparrow
Spotted Static Stable Not selected for this project Towhee (PJ)
Spotted Static Stable 29,642 Towhee (Chap)
Summer NC Decreasing Not selected for this project Tanager
Townsend’s Static Stable Not selected for this project Solitaire
Violet-green Static Stable Not selected for this project swallow
Warbling NC Stable Not selected for this project Vireo
Western Static Stable Not selected for this project Bluebird
Western Wood NC Decreasing Not selected for this project Pewee
N/A N/A Not selected for this project Macro-
Page 30 of 81
Acres of Habitat Forest Habitat Forest Population MIS Species Trend Trend in Project Area
invertebrates
Population Trend for Selected MIS in the Analysis Area
Population trend is most appropriately addressed at scales above the project. Many of these selected MIS occur and range far beyond a local scale such as a project analysis area. Individuals, family groups, or herds such as elk, annually use areas much larger than the analysis area, and population trend must be analyzed on a much larger scale to be meaningful. For National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementation, this is at the scale of the Tonto NF. Evidence from long-term censuses suggests that few natural populations persist at or near equilibrium at local scales (Martin and Finch 1995). At the site specific project level, there is a great deal of fluctuation in wide ranging populations. For most species, it would be technically, and practically, inappropriate to conduct population trend sampling at the scale of individual projects. For this reason it is not appropriate to determine population trend at the project level.
Management Indicator Species Status and Trends The following section contains an abstract on each MIS. The purpose of these abstracts is to: 1) present information on species status and trends at national, state and forest scales; 2) show forestwide distribution; 3) relate TNF management activities implemented since 1985 under Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&G’s) to habitat trends and MIS; 4) identify Key Habitat Components (KHC’s) that appear to be critical to reproduction, forage or other MIS requirements; and 5) identify the population trend of each species on the forest, if population information is available. The KHC’s and monitoring techniques will be used to conduct MIS evaluations of individual projects and attempt to obtain information on populations that are not currently being monitored.
Data Sources A variety of data sources were used to prepare this document. Key sources, used for a number of species accounts, are summarized below.
Breeding Bird Survey The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a large-scale, roadside survey of North American birds that is conducted annually. Started in 1966, it has become a major source of standardized data on populations of breeding birds. Routes are established throughout the continental United States and southern Canada, with routes recently initiated in Alaska and northern Mexico. Currently, there are over 4,100 routes that are surveyed by experienced birders every breeding season. These data have been processed on a computer system at the United States Geological Survey
Page 31 of 81
(USGS). The p-value indicates the probability that the trend is different from zero. The p-value can range from 1.00 to 0.00. This report considers the data significant when the p < 0.05.
The BBS species analyses used the extensive database that appears on the website: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. Assessments of continental and regional changes in bird populations were made for the periods 1966-1995, and 1994 to 1995 (Peterjohn et al. 1996), and for 1966-1999, 1995-1999, and 1998-1999 (Pardieck and Sauer 2000). Statistical significance is disclosed for changes and trends observed as appropriate. Occasionally, regional summaries or state summaries had significant results for species evaluated for this report. Most individual routes, however, showed too much variability in numbers of birds to show significant trends. These are discussed as to the amount of variability and the casual appearance of decreasing, increasing, or stable trends.
There are only three BBS routes on the Forest, Bartlett (Bartlett Reservoir to Seven Springs, Tonto Village (Kohls Ranch to SR 87 via the Control Road), and Aztec Peak (Junction 188/288 to Salome Creek), only the Bartlett route has data on the USGS website.
Christmas Bird Counts (National Audubon Society) More than 50,000 observers participate each year in this all-day census of early-winter bird populations. The results of their efforts are compiled into the longest running database in ornithology, representing over a century of unbroken data on trends of early-winter bird populations across the Americas. These data are count data, which represents population trends, but not population estimates. Data are compiled by the number of birds reported per party hour, to account for increased effort over time. These data are available at: http://www.audubon.org/conservation/science/christmas-bird-count. No statistical significance is associated with this data set, so casual relationships are described based on graphs of the data. Two Christmas Bird Count Circles are on or in proximity to the Forest: Salt/Verde rivers confluence and Carefree.
NatureServe NatureServe was formed in 1999 as the Association for Biodiversity Information. This occurred when The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Network jointly established an independent organization to advance the application of biodiversity information to conservation. NatureServe works in partnership with 85 independent Natural Heritage programs and Conservation Data Centers that gather scientific information on rare species and ecosystems. NatureServe is accessed at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (NatureServe Explorer 2002).
NatureServe assigns a conservation rank to each species in their database, which is designated by a whole number from 1 to 5, preceded by a G for Global rank, N for National rank, or S for Subnational rank (i.e., a State rank). The rankings are explained as follows:
1 = critically imperiled.
Typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals (<1,000) or acres (<2,000, globally only) or linear miles (<10).
Page 32 of 81
2 = imperiled.
Typically 6-20 occurrences or few remaining individuals (1,000-3,000) or acres (2,000-10,000, globally only) or linear miles (10-50).
3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction.
Typically 21-100 occurrences or between 3,000-10,000 individuals.
4 = apparently secure.
Typically >100 occurrences and >10,000 individuals.
5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure.
Typically considerably more than 100 occurrences and >10,000 individuals.
In addition, the website summarizes taxonomy, economic attributes, management issues, ecology and life history, authors and contributors, and references.
Arizona Game and Fish Department Data The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD, Department) is largely responsible for managing wildlife populations, and the Forest Service is responsible for wildlife habitat. Accordingly, the two agencies cooperate on matters relating to wildlife and fish management. The Department collects information on hunted species, and the Tonto relies heavily on this information for evaluating population trends. AZGFD data is identified as a primary monitoring method for assessing population status in the Forest Plan monitoring section for turkey, elk, Arizona gray squirrel and Abert’s squirrel, (USDA Forest Service 1987b). The Department also collects information on nongame species; the Forest uses this information as well. The AZGFD reports count data for game species, by Game Management Unit (GMU), annually (AZGFD, 2000, 1998, and 1993). The AZGFD Game Management Units (GMU) that are on the Tonto National Forest are 21, 22, 23, 24A, and 24B. Several of these GMU’s include areas adjacent to the Forest.
Arizona Wildlife and Fisheries Comprehensive Plan (USFS & AZGFD, 1990) Data This Comprehensive Plan was created in 1990 by the USFS and the AZGFD to provide a link between the Forest Plan for the Tonto NF and the Arizona Strategic Plan for the AZGFD. It contains population estimates for game species from 1985 to 1991.
Effects for the PJ/Woodland Habitat & Selected MIS
Ash-throated Flycatcher
Page 33 of 81
Species Discription Ash-throated flycatchers are habitat generalists. They have grayish-brown heads and upperparts, a white throat, pale gray breast, and a pale yellowish belly and undertail coverts. They have two white wing bars and rufous coloration on the tail, a stout, black bill and black legs and feet. Length averages 8.5 inches and wingspan averages 14.0 inches (Alsop III 2001). Distribution
The breeding areas for ash-throated flycatchers range from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming in the central U.S. to the west coast according to the NatureServe Explorer website (2001), which can be found at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm. They are long-distance migrants in most of their U.S. range, and are resident throughout the year in southeastern California, central Arizona, and parts of Mexico. Winter migrants range from northern Baja, southeastern California, and central Arizona, south into mainland Mexico, El Salvador, and casually into Costa Rica (Terres 1980) during the non- breeding season.
Habitat Ash-throated flycatchers inhabit elevations ranging from desert scrub below sea level to mountain regions of oak and pinion-juniper (Pinus edulis-Juniperus spp.) of more than 9,000 feet (AOU 1983, Ehrlich, et al. 1988). Forest types most associated with ash-throated flycatchers in Arizona are ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and pinyon – juniper; (Scott and Patton 1989). This species breeds in scrub, chaparral, and open and riparian woodlands, especially in oak (Quercus spp.) and pinyon – juniper. In Arizona, this species consists of both year-round residents and winter migrants. Provided there are open habitats, ash-throated flycatchers can be found anywhere on the Tonto National Forest, from Sonoran desert scrub to ponderosa pine forests. Ash-throated flycatchers are common in agricultural areas, golf courses, and parks (Pollock, Tonto National Forest unpubl.). Breeding Ash-throated flycatchers’ main breeding season runs from May to June in Arizona. They are considered cavity nesters, using natural cavities such as old woodpecker holes in dead or dying trees, holes in fence posts, old cactus wren nests (Bailey and Niedrach 1965, Harrison 1979, Terres 1980), or bluebird nest boxes (Alsop III 2001), anywhere from 3 to 20 feet above ground (Ehrlich et al. 1988). They lay an average of 4 to 5 eggs. Incubation takes an average of 15 days, and the young fledge in another 14 to16 days (Ehrlich et al. 1988). These flycatchers can have more than one clutch per year (Alsop III 2001). Food Habits Prey consists mainly of a variety of insects, some fruit, berries, small lizards, spiders (Alsop III 2001), bees and wasps, ants caterpillars, moths, and grasshoppers (Pollock unpubl. 2002). The ash-throated flycatcher hawks for prey, perching and then hovering and dropping down, or sallies from a perch to catch prey in flight (ibid.). The ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens) is identified as an indicator of ground cover and grassland modification in pinyon/juniper vegetation (USFS 2005). The Tonto NF projected
Page 34 of 81
population trend for this species is increasing. This species uses a variety of habitats, including the Arizona upland subdivision of Sonoran desert scrub, semidesert grassland, pinyon-juniper woodland, Madrean evergreen woodland, low elevation riparian, and high elevation riparian (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Provided there are open habitats, this flycatcher is capable of using all vegetation types in the project area, although it is only listed as an indicator species in the pinyon-juniper habitat (USFS 2005).
In the EIS for the Tonto LRMP, page 108 Table 20, the pinyon-juniper/chaparral vegetation type was determined to cover approximately 1,403,817 acres on the Tonto. Table 10 in Appendix K of the LRMP (Amendment no. 22, 06/05/96 page 268) indicates that 265,480 acres is the desired management condition at the end of the fifth period. Current data suggests that the pinyon- juniper/chaparral vegetation type is approximately 1,413,986 (+ 0.8%) acres in 2005.
Ground cover trend, for which this species was selected to be an indicator of in the pinyon- juniper vegetation type, is not defined in the 1985 EIS or LRMP. 2005 forest-wide estimates indicate that ground cover trends are estimated in the following classes:
Declining – 209,986 acres, Stable – 463,142 acres, Upward 219,760 acres. It is likely that based on wetter precipitation pattern in the late 1980s that ground cover parameters improved at that time and then were reduced in drought years of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Removing cattle from allotments during severe drought periods likely improved cover values in some areas. On the Tonto, habitat parameters for this species have not changed significantly since 1985.
Breeding Bird Survey data indicates an overall population increase in Arizona from 1966 to 2013. Refer to Figure 3 for a graph provided by the USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center website for Ash-throated flycatcher trends in Arizona.
Page 35 of 81
Figure 3: Ash-Throated Flycatcher Trends - North American BBS Data (1966 – 2013)
Two current BBS transects on the Tonto indicate that this species is commonly counted during survey efforts. In addition, regionally this species continues to expand or remain at current levels according to the National Audubon Society 2005.
Summary of Key Habitat Components and Alternatives Anticipated Effects
1. Secondary cavities
Alternatives 1 and 2 - There is no proposed alteration of the timber/snag component, thus no effects.
2. Open habitats
Alternative 1 – No grazing alternative would not affect open habitats.
Page 36 of 81
Alternative 2 – The grazing alternative is not expected to significantly alter open habitats due to improved management, rotational grazing, and conservative use levels.
3. Habitat Generalist - desert scrub, pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine
Alternative 1 – Ground cover will not be altered by livestock grazing.
Alternative 2 – Ground cover parameters may be changed in the above habitat types. Conservative use, rest, and implementation of a rotational grazing system may improve ground cover densities, especially in pastures where unsatisfactory soils exist.
Effects determination PJ/Woodland habitat type:
The proposed grazing alternative should provide for maintenance or improvement in ground cover parameters on slopes less than 40 percent. The no grazing and grazing alternative would result in increased ground cover from that of historic levels.
Based on the above, impacts from the implementation of the action alternative would not alter Forest-wide habitat and population trends for the ash-throated flycatcher.
Effects for the Chaparral Habitat Type and Selected MIS
Rufous-sided (spotted) towhee Distribution
The spotted towhee, formerly the western race of the rufous-sided towhee, is distributed from the Great Plains west, from southern Canada south to Guatemala. The spotted towhee appears to be well distributed across four Districts of the Tonto, and poorly distributed on the two Districts (Tonto Basin and Mesa) with large amounts of Sonoran desert, and grassland vegetation.
Habitat Spotted towhees are year around residents of brush vegetation types found in Arizona. They are known to inhabit interior chaparral, Gambel’s oak, riparian shrubs, sagebrush and a variety of other brush vegetation types. It uses dense shrubs for nesting and foraging. Spotted towhees also inhabit PJ woodland where there is a mid-successional stage of dense shrubs. This species is commonly observed on the Forest in areas with dense shrubs. Observations are common in the Pinal Mountains where a dense chaparral mid-story occurs beneath a pine overstory. They are also observed adjacent to streamside areas where there are dense shrub habitats. Shrub vegetation types on the Forest are thought to be increasing due to heavy grazing, fire suppression, timber harvest, and perhaps climatic factors. Management activities that could reduce the quality of SPTO habitats would include: fragmenting large dense stands by constructing trails or other developments. Type converting shrub or woodland vegetation types into grasslands for grazing forage would also reduce habitat. Spotted
Page 37 of 81
towhees are common cowbird hosts, and apparently do not have effective responses for ejecting cowbird eggs or young. Breeding Nests are usually built in a depression on the ground, in litter, or less often in low shrubs up to 3 feet above the ground. According to Bent (1968) nesting territories are established in early April, usually before leaves have appeared on oak brush or other deciduous shrubs. During this time, males are conspicuous as they sing from the tops of shrubs. By the first of May when most of the nesting activity is under way, leaves have usually appeared on the shrubs and the birds have ample protective cover. Food Habits The spotted towhee feeds primarily on plant materials and lesser quantities of insects (Ehrlich, et.al, 1988). Vegetation Status on the Tonto NF
In the EIS for the Tonto LMP, page 108 Table 20, chaparral vegetation type was determined to cover approximately 1,403,817 acres on the Tonto. Table 10 in Appendix K of the LRMP (Amendment no. 22, 06/05/96 page 268) indicates that 1,155,722 acres is the desired management condition at the end of the fifth period (2035). Trends in this vegetation type are considered stable forest-wide. According to the NatureServe Explorer website (2015), http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm, the Global Heritage Status for spotted towhees is G5, being common, widespread, and abundant. National Heritage Status is ranked as N5B, N5N, being common and widespread in breeding and non-breeding areas. In Arizona, this species is ranked as S5, being common, secure, widespread, and abundant. With a secure global, national, and state ranking, long-term population trends are stable.
BBS trend data for the years 2002 to 2012 show a non-significant increase of 0.8 percent over 35 survey routes in Arizona. Refer to Figure 4 for a graph provided by the USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center website for spotted towhees for the years 1966 - 2012 in Arizona.
On the Tonto National Forest the Breeding Bird Atlas has records of approximately 52 sightings. SPTO appear to be well distributed and moderately abundant across the Forest except in Sonoran desert and grassland vegetation.
Page 38 of 81
Figure 4: Spotted Towhee - North American BBS Regional Trend Data (1966 – 2013)
Christmas Bird Count data from 2005 – 2013 appear to show a stable to slight decline in individuals encountered during that time period.
The spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus) is identified in the LRMP as an indicator of successional stages of pinyon/juniper vegetation, indicating high mid-story and shrub densities (USFS 2005). It is also identified as an indicator of shrub density in the chaparral vegetation type, indicating overstory composition, crown density, and species diversity. The Tonto NF projected population trend for this species is increasing. This species uses a variety of woodland and shrubby habitats, and it is most abundant as a breeding species in the pinyon-juniper woodland and interior chaparral (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005).
A Forest MIS report suggested that shrub type habitats may be increasing on the Tonto due to grazing, lack of fires, timber harvest, etc.
Chaparral
Management direction of the chaparral vegetative type can be found in individual management units of the LRMP as follows.
Page 39 of 81
1. Manage the chaparral type to emphasize the production of whitetail deer (page 114).
2. Manage the chaparral type on a 30 year prescribed fire rotation on those sites managed intensively for forage production and water yield (page 114).
3. Use of approved herbicides on a selective basis where brush encroachment is clearly inhibiting forage production for wildlife and domestic livestock (page 114).
Summary of Key Habitat Components (Chaparral) and Alternatives Anticipated Effects
1. Maintain adequate large, dense stands of chaparral.
Alternative 1 – Chaparral component would not be affected.
Alternative 2 – Grazing would occur in the chaparral vegetation type under conservative utilization guidelines. Under the proposed stocking rates and conservative use standards, the existing large, dense stands of chaparral will not be significantly altered.
2. Avoid fragmenting large shrub stands with trails, livestock water developments, or other facilities that would attract cowbirds.
Alternative 1 – Fragmentation of shrub stands via livestock trails would not occur, nor would any other range facilities be planned that would attract cowbirds.
Alternative 2 – The chaparral vegetation type will not be significantly altered under these grazing alternatives. The proposed action includes the addition of a new water storage tank and two troughs along an existing pipeline in the Cline pasture of the Cline Unit. However, these improvements are not anticipated to significantly alter the habitat.
Page 40 of 81
Black-chinned sparrow
MIS Role: Shrub density in chaparral
Habitat
The black-chinned sparrow is common in arid brushlands throughout the southwestern U.S. and south-central Mexico (Tenney 1997). They are found in portions of California (Garrett and Dunn 1981), Baja, Mexico (Wauer and Ligon 1974), southern Nevada (Alcorn 1988), southwestern Utah, northwest, the Upper Sonoran desert zone from the northwest to east-central Arizona (Monson and Phillips 1981, AZ Breeding Bird Atlas unpubl.), central and southwestern New Mexico (Hubbard 1978), westernmost Texas (Texas Breeding Bird Atlas unpubl.), and south into central Mexico (Walters 1983, Behle et al. 1985). Their winter range includes southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and west Texas, and south into central Mexico (American Orthinologists’ Union 1983, Tenney 1997).
The black-chinned sparrow is thought to be well distributed on the Tonto National Forest. Arizona began a breeding bird atlas in the early 1990s. Figure BCSP-2 shows the results of this effort to date on the Tonto National Forest.
During the summer, this species prefers rocky slopes of mixed chaparral, arid scrub, or sagebrush, from near sea level to almost 8,200 feet in elevation (Tenney 1997). The brush inhabited by black-chinned sparrows is usually 3 to 6.5 feet tall. Very dense, mixed shrub species interspersed with scattered tall shrubs or trees and rocky outcrops on slight to steep slopes are preferred (Shuford 1993, Burridge 1995, Tenney 1997). Black-chinned sparrows prefer young stands with openings through the brush, and avoid overgrown stands. In montane chaparral, this species is associated with Ceanothus spp. and scrub oak (Quercus turbinella) dominated habitats (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Habitat quality may benefit with recurrent fires, dependent on the vegetation type and region (Tenney 1997).
They are fairly common and widespread in the Tonto Basin and Prescott regions of northwest and central Arizona, mainly in chaparral dominated by scrub oak (Phillips et al. 1964). They are also found in Arizona in manzanita (Arctostaphylos pungens; Tenney 1997), and they are uncommon and local in chaparral and pinyon–juniper (Pinus edulis-Juniperus spp.) woodland in southeastern Arizona (Davis and Russell 1995). This species is a partial migrant; moving down-slope or south into desert scrub and dry washes in the winter (Tenney 1997).
Breeding
Breeding season peak activity lasts from mid-May through mid-July for black-chinned sparrows, throughout their range (Tenney 1997). Their nests are usually located from 1.5 to 3 feet above
Page 41 of 81
ground (Ehrlich et al. 1988), placed near the center of dense shrubs and well-concealed (Tenney 1997). Nests are compact, but loosely constructed open cups of dried grasses, with finer materials on the inside of the cup (ibid.). Average clutch size is 2 to 4 eggs (Harrison 1979). Incubation lasts 12 to 13 days (Wheelock 1910), and young leave the nest 10 days after hatching (ibid.). They are rarely parasitized by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater obscurus; Freidman 1963).
Foraging
The main prey items of black-chinned sparrows are adult and larval insects (Weathers 1983). During the winter food consists mainly of the seeds of grasses and forbs (Oberholser 1974, Tenney 1997). These sparrows forage on brushy slopes under and within the dense shrub canopy, in pinyon, juniper, coffeeberry (Garrya wrightii), sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), ephedra (Ephedra spp.), and chamise (Atriplex spp.) chaparral (Newman 1968, Weathers 1983, Tenney 1997). They glean insects from inside shrubs and on the ground (Weathers 1983). During the winter in southern Arizona, they feed on grass seeds, including spangletop (Leptochloa dubia) and side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) either alone or in groups, and occasionally in flocks of mixed species.
Heavy grazing on wintering grounds in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico have reduced and degraded grasses and forb vegetation, and this may impact winter foraging habitat (DeSante and George 1994, Tenney 1997). The population has declined in southern California in conjunction with extensive mining and the use of bike trails and other off-road vehicles (Johnson and Cicero 1985).
Page 42 of 81
Figure 5: Black-Chinned Sparrow BBS Trends – Bartlett Reservoir Route (1992 - 2013)
Black-chinned sparrows are ranked with a Global Heritage Status of G5, being common and moderately widespread, or widespread with spotty distribution, throughout their range on the NatureServe Explorer website (2001). In the U.S. they are ranked as N5, being widespread and common throughout their range. In Arizona, they are ranked as S5, being also widespread and common within the state (ibid.). The LRMP predicted an upward trend of black-chinned sparrows based on management (amendment 22, pg 269).
Breeding Bird Survey data show steep and significant population declines for the western BBS region, of –6.7 percent per year, over 47 survey routes. Declines are possibly due to mining, off- road vehicles, and overgrazing (Tenney 1997). “In contrast to the BBS data, winter Christmas Bird Counts (CBC) show a moderate but significant increase of 1.7 percent …The highest winter abundance occurs in southern Arizona (2.4 percent per year; 22 survey routes).” (Sauer et al. 1996). In Arizona for the years 1966 to 2013, the BBS trend showed a decline of –4.04 percent, over 10 survey routes.
Two current BBS routes on the Tonto include Bartlett Reservoir and Tonto Village. Both routes have documented this species but appear to be at low densities. Regionally this species continues to expand or remain at current levels.
Page 43 of 81
Management direction of the chaparral vegetative type can be found in individual management units of the LRMP as follows.
1. Manage the chaparral type to emphasize the production of whitetail deer (page 114).
2. Manage the chaparral type on a 30 year prescribed fire rotation on those sites managed intensively for forage production and water yield (page 114).
3. Use of approved herbicides on a selective basis where brush encroachment is clearly inhibiting forage production for wildlife and domestic livestock (page 114).
These prescriptions may benefit the black-chinned sparrow by increasing shrub density and retaining a diversity of size and age classes of chaparral.
Summary of Key Habitat Components and Alternatives Anticipated Effects
1. Brush 3 – 6.5 ft tall
Alternative 1 – Palatable browse species will likely increase under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Grazing would occur in the chaparral vegetation type under conservative utilization guidelines. Under the proposed stocking rates and conservative use standards, the existing large, dense stands of chaparral will be maintained or increase. Livestock typically only browse new growth on chaparral species, and shrubs taller than six feet in height will be out of the reach of livestock.
2. Very dense brush of mixed species interspersed with scattered tall shrubs
Alternative 1 – Brush density and diversity would likely increase under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Grazing would occur in the chaparral vegetation type under conservative utilization guidelines. Under the proposed stocking rates and conservative use standards, the existing large, dense stands of chaparral will not be significantly altered.
3. Young stands with openings and passageways in brush
Alternative 1 – Young stands with openings and passageways in brush will not be affected.
Alternative 2 – Chaparral stands will not be significantly altered under implementation of the grazing alternative. Passageways may become more abundant if cattle use chaparral areas. Conservative utilization levels will insure reproduction of chaparral species.
4. Desert scrub and washes for winter habitat
Page 44 of 81
Alternative 1 – Desert scrub and washes for winter habitat will not be affected.
Alternative 2 – Desert scrub and washes for winter habitat are not expected to significantly change, primarily due to the implementation of conservative use levels, and use of annuals during the winter.
Effects determination chaparral habitat type: Under the grazing alternative, browse utilization is limited to ≤ 50 percent annual growth. Additionally, the grazing alternative includes rest and/or seasonal deferment, management practices, and mitigation measures; therefore, chaparral densities, diversity, and structure are likely to remain stable or improve.
Based on the above, impacts from the implementation of the action alternative would not alter Forest-wide habitat and population trends for the spotted towhee or black-chinned sparrow.
Effects for the Desert Grassland Habitat Type and Selected MIS
Horned Lark MIS Role: The LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1985), selected the horned lark as a MIS for the vegetative aspect of the Desert Grassland Vegetative Type (Appendix G, Tonto FLMP). The most recent analysis indicates that the quantity of desert grassland varies with elevation, drought, and grazing pressure. This habitat type is well represented and distributed across the Tonto with a majority of habitat at lower elevations.
SUMMARY OF KEY HABITAT COMPONENTS Prefers open, barren country year-round Indicator of reductions in shrub and grass cover Avoids forests and wetlands May respond positively to grazing or wildfire Occurs from sea level to 4000 meters Distribution This species is a common, widespread bird whose distribution is “holarctic, from the Arctic south to central Asia and Mexico with outlying populations in Morocco and Colombia” (Beason 1995). They are found from sea level to elevations of over 13,000 feet. Horned Larks live year-round throughout most of the U.S., excluding the southeast, and occur in Alaska and portions of Canada during breeding season, migrating south in the winter. They are an open country bird and are not found in heavily forested areas. Most populations at higher elevations move to lower elevations during the winter (ibid.). E. a. occidentalis breeds from northern Arizona to central New Mexico and is a darker colored race than that found in eastern New Mexico and northern Colorado. E. a. adusta occurs south of E. a. occidentalis, in the grasslands of southern Arizona and New Mexico.
Page 45 of 81
The E. a. adusta is smaller and has more reddish upperparts than the E. a. occidentalis race (ibid.).
Habitat Horned larks inhabit open ground with low vegetation; barren lands such as short, sparsely vegetated prairies, deserts, brushy flats, bare ground, areas scattered with low shrubs, desert playas, roadsides, row-crop stubble in agricultural lands (Forbes 1907, Cox 1958, Graber and Graber 1963, Beason 1970, AOU 1983), and alpine habitat (Beason 1995). “They prefer bare ground to grasses that are taller than a few centimeters” (Verbeek 1967, Cannings and Threlfall 1981, Beason 1995). Their breeding habitat is not usually associated with any specific vegetation type (Bigelow 1902, Behle 1942, Bent 1942, Beason and Franks 1974, With and Webb 1993). In areas grazed by livestock, numbers of horned larks are greatest in the heavily grazed areas, and are one of the most abundant bird species found in grazed areas (Kantrud and Kologiski 1983, Bock and Webb 1984). “Highest population densities coincide with the greatest amount of bare ground” (Beason 1995). Territories in shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) in Nevada ranged from 1.3 to 1.5 individuals per 2.47 acres (Medin 1990). Block locations where breeding horned larks are likely to occur are not available at this time, but are generally located in open, low stubble, herbaceous habitats. Breeding Pair formation in non-migratory populations, such as those in Arizona, begins in January, when the males begin to establish territories and sing. Most breeding activity throughout the horned larks’ range occurs from mid-March through early July (Beason 1995). Nests are shallow cups dug by the females, lined with courser plant materials on the outside, such as grass, small roots, shredded cornstalks; and are lined with finer materials such as down, fur, feathers, etc. (Pickwell 1931, Sutton and Parmelee 1955, Beason and Franks 1974, Verbeek 1967). Females often use a variety of items such as dirt clods, corncobs, cow dung, or pebbles to “pave” beside the nest, on the soil excavated from the nest cavity Food Habits Diet includes grass and forb seeds, insects fed mostly to young or before breeding or molting, and spiders (Ehrlich et al. 1988, Beason 1995). Horned larks forage mainly on bare ground or in short vegetation, by gleaning food as they walk, or by chasing and catching small insects that they flush out (Beason 1995). They are also reported to dig up larvae and worms with their beaks or pry them out of weed clumps or the base of corn plants (McAtee 1905, Pickwell 1931). The main insects taken are grasshoppers (Orthoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and Lepidopteran larvae (Pickwell 1931, Beason 1970, Wiens and Rotenberry 1979). Paired males and females often feed together during the breeding season. Population Trends According to the NatureServe Explorer website (2001), which can be found at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer, the Global Heritage Status for horned larks is G5, being common, widespread, and abundant. National Heritage Status is ranked as N5B, N5N, being common and widespread. In Arizona, this species is ranked as S5, being common, secure,
Page 46 of 81
widespread, and abundant. With a secure global, national, and state ranking, long-term population trends are stable. “NatureServe and the Heritage Natural Network was formed in 1999 as the Association for Biodiversity Information when The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Network jointly established an independent organization to advance the application of biodiversity information to conservation” (NatureServe Explorer website 2001)
Figure 6: Horned Lark - Regional BBS Trend Data (1966 - 2013)
This species is not documented on any BBS routes on the Forest due to the location of transects. Arizona statewide trends have remained relatively static since the 1990s. Based on this statewide information, it is likely that TNF populations are similar to the rest of the state and have declined from 1985 populations but are currently stable.
Statistically horned larks have declined approximately 2.8% in Arizona since BBS data collection was initiated in 1968. However, the downward trend is probably more associated with natural factors such as drought or changes in succession. Generally speaking this species is more likely increasing on the Tonto due to its preference for barren landscapes and open habitat types.
Page 47 of 81
Based on this statewide information, it is likely that the Tonto populations are similar to the rest of the state.
Forest wide management direction can be found in Amendment No. 21, 5/3/95 replacement page 38 to 52, which also incorporates Amendment No. 22, 06/05/96. Direction that specifically affects habitat for horned lark include:
Manage suitable rangelands at Level A, B, C or D. Rangeland in less than satisfactory condition will be treated with improved grazing management.
Integrate habitat needs through prescribed fire with fire suppression objectives.
Improve range condition in management areas that are unsatisfactory.
Achieve a savannah condition in the pinyon-juniper type by leaving a minimum of 40 mature trees per 40 acre cut block.
In addition to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, desired future conditions for the Desert Grassland Vegetative type include:
Maintain a minimum of 30% ground cover regardless of plant species composition.
Strive for a 60:40 ratio of cool and warm season grasses.
Have all allotments under proper stocking with approved Allotment Management Plans that defines improved management and proper grazing systems.
Summary of Key Habitat Components and Alternatives Anticipated Effects
1. Prefers open, barren country year-round
Alternative 1 – Habitat for this species may actually decline, due to projected increases in perennial herbaceous and browse.
Alternative 2 – The grazing alternative will likely contribute to maintaining open grassland conditions where applicable, although conservative grazing levels are intended to maintain residual levels of herbaceous and woody plants for watershed, soil protection and wildlife habitat.
2. Indicator of reductions in shrub and grass cover
Alternative 1 – Populations may show a slight decline with improvement of range condition.
Page 48 of 81
Alternative 2 – Shrub and grass cover are expected to be maintained or increase over the long term under the grazing alternative due to conservative use limits, adaptive management, and mitigation measures. Moderate slope classes may receive more use than steeper slopes and may compliment habitat preference for this species.
3. Avoids forests and wetlands
Alternative 1 – No wetland habitat exists on this allotment. Forest habitat is minimal, comprising roughly 813 acres, and will not be affected by this alternative.
Alternative 2 – No wetland habitat exists on this allotment. Forest habitat is minimal, comprising roughly 813 acres, and will not be affected by this alternative
4. May respond positively to grazing or wildfire
Alternative 1 – Populations may show a slight decline with improvement of range condition.
Alternative 2– Shrub and grass cover are expected to be maintained or increase over the long term under the grazing alternative due to conservative use limits, adaptive management, and mitigation measures which may cause a slight decline in habitat preference. Moderate slope classes may receive more use than steeper slopes and may compliment habitat preference for this species.
5. Occurs from sea level to 4,000 meters
None of the alternatives have the potential to affect this KHC.
Savannah sparrow
MIS Role: Grass species diversity in desert grassland SUMMARY OF KEY HABITAT COMPONENTS Prefers open habitats of >20-40 acres on the Tonto such as agriculture fields, meadows, marshes, weed patches with dense ground cover Avoids extensive tree cover Highly sensitive to fragmentation Winter resident on Tonto May be indicator of grassland diversity Distribution This species is widespread in open habitats throughout North America. Savannah sparrows breed in the northern two thirds of the continent, from northern Alaska and Canada south of the arctic islands, east to northern Labrador and Newfoundland, south through the western U.S. and locally
Page 49 of 81
in Mexico, to southwestern Guatemala, and south to southern Iowa and New Jersey in the east (AOU 1983). In Arizona, Savannah sparrows are known only to breed in a few high elevation sub-alpine grasslands in the White Mountains and on the Kaibab Plateau. The Savannah sparrow is only a migrant and possibly a wintering species in the arid grasslands of the Tonto National Forest. Their winter range is east of the Appalachian Mountains from Massachusetts south, and southern Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas, central New Mexico, northern Arizona, and southern British Colombia south to the Bahamas, Cuba, most of Mexico, Guatemala, and northern Honduras (ibid.). Habitat Savannah sparrows are found in a variety of open habitats across their range during breeding season, including agricultural fields, especially alfalfa (Medigo sativa), meadows, roadsides, marshes, coastal grasslands, and tundra (Wheelright and Rising 1993). They avoid areas with extensive tree cover, usually being found in areas with herbaceous plants or weeds. In the more arid parts of their range they are restricted to irrigated areas or to the grassy margins of ponds or river edges (ibid.), although they are more often found breeding in idle native grasslands or retired croplands than in active agricultural or grazed fields (The NatureServe Explorer website (2001). They prefer dense ground vegetation, especially grasses, and moist microhabitats (Wiens 1969). Short to intermediate grass heights with a well-developed litter layer are preferred (Wheelright and Rising 1993). Savannah sparrows may occupy small areas (< 12.4 acres) of suitable habitat but a minimum grassland size of 20 to 40 acres was suggested by (Jones and Vickery 1997); and Herkert et al. (1993) categorized the species as highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation, based on data collected in Illinois. Population density is not limited by nest sites or materials (Wheelright and Rising 1993). Breeding territories within habitat are small, ranging from 0.1 to 3.1 acres (Wheelright and Rising 1993). Management should promote grassland restoration with an emphasis on limiting fragmentation of habitat. “Restoration projects should be over 123 acres and preferably over 247 acres in size (Herkert 1991). Avoid disturbance by mowing, burning, or moderate-to-heavy grazing during breeding season, approximately 1 May to 1 August (Swanson 1996). During the migration and in the winter, which is the period when most savannah sparrows would be present in Arizona, they occupy varied habitats, including cultivated fields, pastures, golf courses, and roadsides (ibid.). Breeding The birds arrive on their breeding grounds between late March and early May (NatureServe Explorer 2001). Main breeding activity begins approximately the second week of June and continues into mid-to-late August (Wheelright and Rising 1993). Cup nests are built by the female, usually in a shallow depression on the ground, which occurs naturally among the goldenrods (Solidago spp.) or is created by the birds. Nests are well concealed by overhanging vegetation or tucked under a tussock with a tunnel averaging 13.5 inches in length (Dixon 1972). The nest is made of course grass and lined with closely woven finer materials (ibid.). Nests are usually located in open areas, but can be as close as 10.0 feet from coniferous forest edge (ibid.). Females often lay more than one clutch per season, and their later nests may be close to their first nest, but they seldom reuse nests or nest materials (ibid.). Polygyny is routine in many
Page 50 of 81
populations (ibid.). Parasitism of Savannah sparrow nests by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) is low, but does occur in areas where the two species overlap (Friedmann et al. 1977). Incubation lasts 12 to 13 days on average, and the young fledge in 7 to 10 or more days after hatching (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Block locations where breeding savannah sparrow are likely to occur are not available at this time but are generally located in open, low stubble, herbaceous habitats. Food Habits During breeding season, savannah sparrows eat mainly adult insects, larval insects, insect eggs, small spiders, millipedes, isopods, amphipods, decapods, mites, small mollusks, seeds, and fruits (Wheelright and Rising 1993). In migration and during the winter they mainly eat small seeds, fruits, and insects, when available (Judd 1901, Martine et al. 1951, Baird 1968). This species uses a variety of foraging techniques, including hunting for prey or fallen seeds while walking or scratching on the ground, or sometimes leaping from the ground in short sallies to capture butterflies or flies in flight (ibid.). They feed on caterpillars in great enough numbers to sometimes reduce caterpillar populations, “altering interactions between plant-feeding insects and patterns of herbivory on host plants” (Karban 1989). Tonto MIS Status The LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1985), selected the Savannah sparrow as a Management Indicator Species for grass species diversity in the Desert-Grassland Vegetative Type (Appendix G, Tonto FLMP). In the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Tonto LRMP, page 108 Table 20, the desert vegetation type was determined to cover approximately 316,894 acres on the Tonto. Table 10 in Appendix K of the FLMP (Amendment no. 22, 06/05/96 page 268) indicates that this is also the desired vegetative condition at the end of the fifth period. Forest wide management direction can be found in Amendment No. 21, 5/3/95 replacement page 38 to 52, which also incorporates Amendment No. 22, 06/05/96. Direction that specifically affects habitat for savannah sparrow include: 1. Manage suitable rangelands at Level A, B, C or D depending management emphasis. Rangeland in less than satisfactory condition will be treated with improved grazing management 2. Integrate habitat needs through prescribed fire with fire suppression objectives 3. Improve range condition in management areas that are unsatisfactory 4. Achieve a savannah condition in the pinyon-juniper type by leaving a minimum of 40 mature trees per 40 acre cut block In addition to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, desired future conditions for the Desert Grassland Vegetative type include: 1. Maintain a minimum of 30% ground cover regardless of plant species composition. 2. Strive for a 60:40 ratio of cool and warm season grasses. 3. Have all allotments under proper stocking with approved Allotment Management Plans that defines improved management and proper grazing systems.
Page 51 of 81
Global Heritage Status for the Savannah sparrows is ranked as G5, being common and widespread throughout its range on the NatureServe Explorer website (2001). National Heritage Status in the U.S. for this species is N5B, N5N, being considered widespread, common and abundant in breeding and non-breeding areas. In Arizona, this species is listed as S5, secure, common, widespread, and abundant (ibid).
Breeding Bird Survey trend estimates are not available at the USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center website for the state of Arizona, since this species is more common as a migrant and is extremely local as a breeding bird in this state. The Savannah sparrow has only been found breeding in a few high elevation sub-alpine grasslands in the White Mountains and on the Kaibab Plateau. Survey-wide, for the states they commonly breed in, the BBS trend data indicates a non- significant decline of –5 percent for the years 1996 to 2000, over 1,111 routes surveyed, as reported on the USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center website.
There are three breeding bird survey routes on the Tonto National Forest (ARI-065, ARI-071, ARI-122), but due to the migratory nature of this species and absence of breeding habitat, breeding bird surveys are not a reliable indicator of status on the Tonto. Statewide CBC data indicates that this species is wide spread and within the normal range of variability. Based on this statewide information, it is likely that the Tonto populations are similar to the rest of the state.
Savannah sparrow population trend for the Arizona region 1985-2004 (National Audubon Society 2005)
Page 52 of 81
Summary of Key Habitat Components and Anticipated Effects from Proposed Alternatives
1. Prefers open habitats of >20-40 acres on the Tonto such as agriculture fields, meadows, marshes, weed patches with dense ground cover.
Alternative 1 – The most rapid increase in ground cover would likely occur under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Conservative utilization levels are anticipated to allow for maintenance of or increased density of perennial ground cover.
2. Avoids extensive tree cover
Alternative 1 – Would not affect the tree cover component on the allotment.
Alternative 2 – Grazing alternative will not affect tree cover parameters.
3. Highly sensitive to fragmentation
Alternative 1 – The least amount of fragmentation would occur under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Grazing alternative is not likely to increase fragmentation due to conservative grazing limits, adaptive management, and mitigation measures.
4. May be indicator of grassland diversity
Alternative 1 – Most rapid increase in species diversity under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Species diversity is likely to increase due to conservative utilization limits, rest and deferred use, and improved distribution.
Effects determination desert grassland habitat type: Under the implementation of alternative 2, overall species diversity and productivity should be maintained or increase. Habitat for these MIS and other grassland species would likely improve. Implementation of the no grazing alternative would likely result in an increase in ground cover, overall species diversity, and productivity more rapidly than under the grazing alternative.
Based on the above, impacts from the implementation of the action alternative would not alter Forest-wide habitat and population trends for the horned lark or savannah sparrow.
Effects for the Desert Scrub Habitat Type and Selected MIS
Page 53 of 81
Black-throated sparrow
MIS Role: Shrub density in desertscrub.
SUMMARY OF KEY HABITAT COMPONENTS
Occurs primarily in desert-scrub with a preference for rocky uplands, mesquite, yucca, and cacti
Prefers < 25% vegetative cover
Vegetative density appears to be more important than vegetation type
Closely associated with creosote bush throughout southern range
Eats primarily insects and seed depending on time of year
Distribution
Black-throated sparrows are found throughout the southwestern U.S. and Mexico in arid habitats. They breed locally as far north as eastern Washington and Oregon; and in desert lowlands throughout Nevada, south and western Utah, possibly in southern Wyoming, western Colorado, southeastern California, most of Arizona, southern New Mexico and Texas, into Baja and central mainland Mexico, in areas that are not forested. The northern populations migrate south during the non-breeding season, while they are year-round residents in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico (Johnson et al. 2002).
Habitat This species occurs semi-open habitat with evenly spaced shrubs and trees from approximately 3 to 9 feet tall (Johnson et al. 2002), and especially in rocky uplands in desert scrub (Ehrlich et al. 1988). On the coast, it is found in chaparral (Stokes and Stokes (1996). “Black throated sparrows occur in desert alluvial fans, canyons, washes, flats, badlands, and desert scrub type such as creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), cholla (Opuntia spp.), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), antelope brush (purshia tridentata), and rabbitbrush (Chrysothammus spp.), interspersed with taller plants such as Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia), piñon-juniper (Pinus edulis-Juniperus spp.), and crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha)” (Johnson et al. 2002). Desert scrub habitat with less than 25 percent vegetative cover is preferred, and water sources during the dry season are necessary for this species in the southwest (USDA Forest Service 1994). Moderate grazing on a semi-desert grassland in southern Arizona appeared to promote the desert shrub habitat used by this species (Bock et al. 1984). The black-throated sparrow is closely associated with creosote bush throughout its southern range, and vegetation density appears to be more of a factor in habitat selection than specific species (ibid.). Black-throated sparrow population density in a study in creosote-burrobush habitat in California was 7 individuals per 99 acres (Kubik and
Page 54 of 81
Remsen 1977). During the non-breeding season, this species can be found in riparian areas, grasslands, and weedy fields, as well as in xeric shrub habitats (AOU 1983, Rising 1996). Breeding Black-throated sparrows breed mainly from early April through mid-July throughout their range. Nest-building timing is variable, depending on rainfall, elevation, and food availability (Johnson et al. 2002). In central Arizona, nest building begins in mid-April (van Riper and Johnson in press). Nesting is triggered by summer rains, but they may begin nesting in early spring in years of adequate winter rainfall. In south-central Arizona, out of 11 nests, 46 percent were built in teddybear cholla (Opuntia bigelovii), 27 percent in brittlebrush (Encelia farinosa), 18 percent in box thorn (Lycium andersonii), and 9 percent in buckhorn cholla (Opuntia acanthocarpa) (Torres 1983). In central Arizona, of 56 nests, 65 percent were in creosote bush, 29 percent in crucifixion thorn, 2 percent in one-seeded juniper (Juniperus monosperma), 2 percent in catclaw acacia, and 2 percent in algerita (Berberis haematocarpa) (van Riper and Johnson in press). Nests are loose cups built in cactus or shrubs from ground-level to 2.0 feet above ground (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Nests are made of course grasses, plant stems, fine branches, weeds, rootlets; usually lined with hair (Delesantro 1978), built in cactus or shrubs from ground-level to 2.0 feet above ground (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Clutches usually consist of 3 to 4 eggs (Banks 1968, Rising 1996). Second clutches are common in years with adequate rainfall and prey items. In Arizona, incubation lasts approximately 12 days, and the young fledge in 9.5 days, on average (Johnson and van Riper in press). In a study in the Verde Valley, Arizona, the cowbird parasitism rate for 56 black-throated sparrow nests was 52 percent (Johnson and Van Riper in press). Feeding Habits During the breeding season, black-throated sparrows prey items include grasshoppers (Acrididae), butterfly and moth (Lepidoptera) larvae, mantids (Mantidae), robber flies (Asilidae), walking sticks (Phasmatidae), and dragonflies (Ansioptera) (Johnson et al. 2002). In a study in New Mexico by Zimmer (1993), clutch sizes were lower in a year when grasshoppers were scarce. This species feeds mainly on the ground, taking a variety of insect prey and seeds during breeding season, and seeds such as fillaree (Erodium spp.), large grasses (Schizmus spp.), small grasses, creosote plant material, and prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia spp.) (Johnson et al. 2002). They also glean foliage on the lower portions of shrubs and trees and occasionally flush and make short aerial chases to capture prey (Zimmer 1983). During the non-breeding season, this species may forage in mixed flocks (Ehrlich et al. 1988, Rising 1996). This species was selected to be an indicator of shrub diversity of the desert scrub vegetation type. Forest-wide estimates indicate that shrub diversity has decreased (-1.4%) from 1985 to 2005. Desert scrub acres decreased from 909,418 acres in 1985 to 896,671 acres in 2005. The desert scrub component has decreased across the Forest primarily due to natural and human caused fires. The desert scrub vegetation type is not fire adapted and is often replaced by annual grasses and non-native plants and grasses post-fire.
Breeding Bird Survey data “suggest the highest average numbers of black-throated sparrows occur in Nevada, Arizona, California, and Utah, where four major deserts, the Great Basin, Sonoran, Chihuahuan, and Mojave deserts, overlap (Johnson et al. 2002). Of these four deserts,
Page 55 of 81
the lowest density occurred on the Sonoran Desert. In Arizona, at Organ Pipe National Monument within creosote bush habitat, black-throated sparrow density was 56 individuals per 247 acres (Parker 1986). In the Verde Valley within creosote-brush and crucifixion thorn habitat, densities ranged from 49 individuals per 247 acres in 1995, to 47 individuals per 247 acres in 1996, which was a drought year (Johnson 1997). Drought affects food availability, and black-throated sparrow nesting productivity (i.e. increased morality, smaller clutches, lower density, and fewer breeding attempts per season) and return rates (Martin 1987).
Loss of habitat due to clearing of desert and mesquite for agricultural and residential developments may threaten some populations, since black-throated sparrows do not use urban landscaped vegetation (Emlen 1974, Mills et al. 1989). Both black-throated sparrows and canyon towhees are especially susceptible to urban development and were found in greatly reduced numbers in urban environments, regardless of the use of native vegetation (Mills et al. 1989). Fire suppression in the southwest has allowed shrub species to become thicker and taller, reducing black-throated sparrow habitat and creating the possibility that high-intensity wildfires could destroy much desert-shrub vegetation (Cooperrider and Wilcove 1995). The spread of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), which is fire-tolerant, slows or prevents native plants from recovering (Hastings and Turner 1965, Cooperrider and Wilcove 1995). Agricultural and urban areas that enhance cowbird feeding also significantly reduces the reproductive success of black-throated sparrows (Johnson et al. 2002).
Only one breeding bird survey route is active on the Tonto National Forest (Bartlett Reservoir). Due to the small sample size for this species the data at this scale is not adequate to determine trend. In addition to the BBS route, regional Christmas Bird Counts indicate that percent change from year to year is quite static in Arizona.
Page 56 of 81
Figure 7: Black-Throated Sparrow - Regional BBC Trend Data (1966 – 2013)
Summary of Key Habitat Components and Anticipated Effects by Alternative
1. Occurs primarily in desert-scrub with a preference for rocky uplands, mesquite, yucca, and cacti.
Alternative 1 – Desert scrub habitat will like improve under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Through implementation of conservative utilization, adaptive management, and mitigation measures, desert scrub habitat is expected to remain stable or improve.
2. Prefers < 25% vegetative cover.
Alternative 1 – Vegetative cover is expected to increase under this alternative.
Page 57 of 81
Alternative 2 – Conservative utilization guidelines and adaptive management are expected to maintain or improve vegetative cover.
3. Vegetative density appears to be more important than vegetation type.
Alternative 1 – Vegetative density is most likely to increase the fastest under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Vegetative density will likely be maintained or increase under this alternative. Conservative utilization levels, rest, and improved livestock distribution will ensure vegetation density is maintained or improved over time.
4. Closely associated with creosote bush throughout southern range.
Alternative 1 – The no grazing alternative will not affect creosote populations on the allotment.
Alternative 2 – Creosote occurs on the allotment, although limited, and for the most part is not utilized by livestock. Therefore, grazing alternatives are not expected to reduce the occurrence or range of creosote on the allotment.
Canyon Towhee
MIS Role: Ground cover in desert scrub SUMMARY OF KEY HABITAT COMPONENTS Found primarily on Tonto in sonoran desert scrub, dry washes, grasslands, mesquite, and sometimes pinyon-juniper and conifer Forage on open ground and use shrubs for hiding cover Exhibit site fidelity and permanent territories Appear to be susceptible to development and fragmentation Distribution
Canyon towhees are “sedentary, permanent residents of the southwest” (Johnson and Haight 1996). They occur from southeast Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992), extreme northwest Oklahoma (Baumgartner and Baumgartner 1992), northern New Mexico (Hubbard 1978), central and western Texas (Texas Breeding Bird Atlas unpubl.), central and western Arizona (Monson and Phillips 1981), south through central Mexico, (Howell and Webb 1995). They do not occur in the hottest deserts of Mexico (Johnson and Haight 1996).
Habitat This species occurs in a variety of the drier habitats in the southwest, except in heavily urbanized areas. Elevations
Page 58 of 81
range from near sea level in Mexico to over 8,000 feet in New Mexico and occasionally in Colorado. They most typically are found in the Upper Sonoran desert grasslands, often in remote, rocky areas with dense shrubs. They also occupy scrub along dry desert washes, desert mesquite in riparian areas, upland desert scrub at lower elevations, plus grasslands with dense stands of chaparral or pine-oak-juniper (Pinus-Quercus-Juniperus spp.) and some coniferous forest (Johnson and Haight 1996). Miller (1995) reports their occurrence in “canyon mouths and open, rocky canyon walls up to 5,200 feet, with scattered mesquite (Prosopis spp.), catclaw (Acacia spp.), and algerita (Berberis spp.) shrubs. “Canyon towhees prefer open spaces for feeding on bare ground, plus dense shrubs or trees for hiding…in rural areas they can be found around sheds and woodpiles (Marhsall and Johnson 1968). In New Mexico they are reported to occupy riparian vegetation along irrigation ditches, the edges of streams, and irrigated fields near villages. In upland habitats they nest near creeks but not in the creek bottom area. This species “appears to be particularly susceptible to the negative effects of development” (Mills et al. 1989). In a suburban Tucson paloverde mixed cactus-desert scrub vegetation area, breeding density was reported as 1 pair per 74 acres (Johnson and Haight 1996); in riparian mesquite-desert scrub vegetation, density was reported as 1 pair per 17.3 acres (Marshall 1960). Density in higher elevation mature oak woodland was 1 pair per 131 acres (Balda 1970). Canyon towhees exhibit site fidelity, inhabiting permanent territories (Marshall 1960). Breeding According to Marshall (1960), “pairs persist normally for the life of the mates and exist only in conjunction with the holding of a territory.” Main breeding activity begins in mid-March and goes through mid-October (Johnson and Haight 1996). They often have 2 to 3 clutches per season in the southwest, often timed for spring and late summer or fall, coinciding with Sonoran desert bi-modal precipitation periods; winter and summer rains; that are thought to correlate with high insect populations after rains (Marshall 1963). Canyon towhees create bulky cup nests made of stems, grasses, and sticks, and lined with finer materials. They often have plant stems and “garlands of yellow flowers, of daisies or mustard flowers,” woven through the nest (Brandt 1951). Nests are usually built inside the thickest parts of a shrub, tree, or vine; usually 3 to 12 feet above ground (Marshall and Johnson 1968). Nest plants used include juniper and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Clematis species in the higher elevations (Bailey and Niedrach 1965). In New Mexico, sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata; Jensen 1923, Ligon 1961), cholla cactus (opuntia spp), and Yucca species (Anthony 1892) are used. At lower elevations or latitudes, Mesquite (prosopis glandulosa), paloverde (Cercidium spp.), Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), and net leaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata) (Marshall and Johnson 1968) are often used for nesting. In general, nests are found lower to the ground at higher elevations, and higher at lower elevation sites (Johnson and Haight 1996). Clutches usually consist of 3 eggs (range of 2 to 5) (Marshall and Johnson 1968). Incubation lasts 11 days on average and the young stay in the nest for 8 to 9 days (Alsop III 2001). Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater and M a. obscurus) is uncommon (Johnson and Haight 1996).
Page 59 of 81
Population Trends According to the NatureServe Explorer website (2001), which can be found at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer, the Global Heritage Status for canyon towhees is G5, being common, widespread, and abundant. National Heritage Status is ranked as N5B, N5N, being common and widespread in breeding and non-breeding areas. In Arizona, this species is ranked as S5, being common, secure, widespread, and abundant. With a secure global, national, and state ranking, long-term population trends are stable. “NatureServe and the Heritage Natural Network was formed in 1999 as the Association for Biodiversity Information when The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Network jointly established an independent organization to advance the application of biodiversity information to conservation” (NatureServe Explorer website 2001). Breeding Bird Survey trend data for the years 1996 to 2000 show a non-significant increase of 1.14 percent over 38 survey routes. Refer to figure 2 for a graph provided by the USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center website for canyon towhees for the years 2003 - 2013 in Arizona.
Figure 8: Canyon Towhee - Regional BBS Trend Data (1968 - 2013)
Page 60 of 81
There are three breeding bird survey routes on the Tonto National Forest (ARI-065, ARI-071, ARI-122). However, because of the small sample size for this species the data at this scale is not adequate to determine trend. Overall, data for Arizona, as well as range wide data, suggest that the canyon towhee populations are stable, or slightly decreasing. Populations may decline on a short-term basis but recover when habitat conditions become more favorable. The resolution of the data is such that a population trend for the Tonto National Forest is not possible. Summary of Key Habitat Components and Anticipated Effects by Alternative 1. Found primarily in Sonoran desert scrub, dry washes, grasslands, mesquite, and sometimes pinyon-juniper and conifer.
Alternative 1 – Desert scrub and grassland communities will likely show an increase in herbaceous density more rapidly under this alternative. Pinyon-juniper and coniferous vegetation will are not expected to change significantly under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Conservative utilization levels and adaptive management are expected to maintain and or improve desert scrub, grassland, and mesquite dominated communities which will benefit this species.
2. Forage on open ground and use shrubs for hiding cover.
Alternative 1 – There will likely be an increase in the amount of herbaceous vegetation for foraging, and increase shrub density for cover. Open ground may decrease as cover increases.
Alternative 2 – Herbaceous vegetation and shrub density will likely increase due to conservative utilization levels and associated monitoring to trigger pasture moves. Open ground may decrease as cover increases, though likely not as rapidly as Alternative 1.
3. Exhibit site fidelity and permanent territories.
Alternatives 1 and 2 – None of the alternatives are expected to significantly affect habitat for the species, thus not affecting site fidelity or permanent territories.
4. Appear to be susceptible to development and fragmentation.
Alternatives 1 and 2 – Neither of the alternatives involve development of new facilities that may displace habitats and conservative utilization is not expected to contribute to habitat fragmentation.
Effects determination desert scrub habitat type: Under the implementation of grazing alternative it is expected that the desert scrub habitat type will be maintained or improved over time under conservative utilization levels, pasture rest and/or deferment, adaptive management, and mitigation measures. Overall vegetation diversity and productivity should continue to increase. Habitat for these MIS and other desert scrub species may improve over longer periods. Page 61 of 81
Based on the above, impacts from the implementation of the action alternative would not alter Forest-wide habitat and population trends for the black-throated sparrow or canyon towhee.
Effects For the Riparian (high/ low elevation) Habitat Type And Selected MIS
Bell’s Vireo In the EIS for the Tonto LMP, Page 108 Table 20, the riparian vegetation type was determined to cover approximately 35,022 acres on the Forest. Table 10 in Appendix K of the LMP (Amendment no. 22, 06/05/96 page 268) indicates that 35,022 is also the desired vegetation condition at the end of the fifth period. Current data states that the Riparian vegetation type is approximately 41,379 (+13%) acres in 2005.
This species was selected to be an indicator of the well-developed understory of the riparian vegetation type. 2005 Forest-wide estimates indicate that well developed understory trends are estimated in the following classes are stable and encompass 41,379 acres. It is likely that riparian acres remain unchanged from 1985 to 2005 due to no net loss or gain of riparian habitat because emphasis has been placed Forest-wide on proper management within riparian areas. The late 1980s involved wetter precipitation patterns and the late 1990s involved significant drought. It is likely that riparian acres have remained unchanged due to the effects of drought and wet cycles over the past 20 years and active management of riparian areas throughout the Forest. Removing cattle from allotments during severe drought periods and stocking conservatively since livestock returned has likely improved riparian conditions in some areas. On the Tonto, habitat parameters for this species have not changed significantly since 1985.
Bell’s vireos breed in the central and southwestern U.S. They are widespread in the central and southwestern U.S. and in northern Mexico; although habitat loss, cowbird parasitism, and other changes have negatively affected nesting vireos in the southwestern U.S. (Brown 1993). The least Bell’s vireo subspecies has been designated an Endangered Species and the State of California (ibid.). Their winter range extends “from southern Baja California and southern Sonora south along the west coast of Mexico and Central America to the Honduras and casually to northern Nicaragua. There are also scattered winter records from southern California, southern Arizona, southern Texas, Louisiana, and southern Florida (Barlow 1980).
Although the population of Bell’s vireo as a whole is apparently stable, population numbers of Bell’s vireos have exhibited sharp declines in some localities, as in the central U.S., as indicated by the Breeding Bird Survey data. In Arizona for the years 1966 to 2000, the BBS trend showed a non-significant decline of –1.7 percent over 22 survey routes. Refer to the above graph provided by the USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center website (Sauer et al. 2001) of Bell’s vireo trends for the years 1968 to 2003 in Arizona. The percent change per year in BBS counts in central Arizona, appears to be low.
Page 62 of 81
On the Tonto National Forest, this species appears to be well distributed. Arizona began a breeding bird atlas in the early 1990s. Figure BEVI-2 shows the results of this effort to date on the Forest. There are 50 blocks with BEVI sightings distributed across the Forest. The points displayed in the figure represent “atlas blocks” (survey areas) within which, one or more BEVI’s was sighted. Atlas blocks are relatively large survey areas that were established at the beginning of the atlas survey work to insure adequate sampling of the various biomes within the state.
Statewide CBC suggests low detection of this species with peaks in the late 1990s. During the breeding season this species has been documented on the Bartlett reservoir BBS route on a regular basis. On the Tonto Basin Ranger District in 2003, this species was detected 23 times on 11 different dates on 10 different transect points (Plank 2005). Low elevation riparian habitat has improved in some areas but has declined in others due to grazing, drought, and wildfire. Based on this data the population on TNF appears to be declining.
Figure 9: Bell's Vireo - Regional BBS Trend Data (1966 - 2013)
Summary of Key Habitat Components and Anticipated Effects by Alternative
Page 63 of 81
1. Provide dense stands of understory (shrubs, small trees) vegetation for nesting, underneath a tree canopy (shade) for optimum microclimate (cool).
Alternative 1 – Riparian vegetation throughout the entire allotment most likely to improve at a more rapid rate than under the grazing alternative.
Alternative 2 – Riparian vegetation is likely to improve through adherence to conservative utilization guidelines, monitoring, and rest. The proposed non-use within Sycamore Creek, Mesquite Wash, Rock Creek, and Log Corral Canyon will likely result in an increase in understory vegetation density at the same rate as Alternative 1.
2. Manage for large, contiguous blocks (70 acres, >100yds. wide) of riparian habitat rather than for small fragmented areas. Large, continuous blocks of habitat reduce cowbird parasitism.
Alternative 1 – Riparian habitat throughout the entire allotment, most likely to improve at the most rapid rate under this alternative; however, there are currently no contiguous blocks meeting the 100 yard width requirement. Continuous blocks of riparian vegetation are dependent upon perennial and/intermittent water in order to establish and be maintained.
Alternative 2 – Currently there are no contiguous blocks meeting the 100 yard width requirement. Portions of Sycamore Creek may have the potential to develop larger blocks of riparian habitat. Utilization limits, rest, and non-use within Sycamore Creek, Mesquite Wash, Rock Creek, and Log Corral Canyon are anticipated to improve riparian habitat on the allotment.
Common black hawk In the EIS for the Tonto LMP, Page 108 Table 20, the riparian vegetation type was determined to cover approximately 35,022 acres on the Forest. Table 10 in Appendix K of the LMP (Amendment no. 22, 06/05/96 page 268) indicates that 35,022 is also the desired vegetation condition at the end of the fifth period. Current data states that the Riparian vegetation type is approximately 41,379 (+13%) acres in 2005.
This species was selected to be an indicator of riparian streamside vegetation for high elevation riparian vegetation type. It is likely that riparian acres remain unchanged from 1985 to 2005 due to no net loss or gain of riparian habitat because emphasis has been placed Forest-wide on proper management within riparian areas. The late 1980s involved wetter precipitation patterns and the late 1990s involved significant drought. It is likely that riparian acres have remained unchanged due to the effects of drought and wet cycles over the past 20 years and active management of riparian areas throughout the Forest. Removing cattle from allotments during severe drought periods have likely improved riparian conditions in some areas. On the Tonto, habitat parameters for this species have not changed significantly since 1985.
Page 64 of 81
On the Tonto National Forest, the common black-hawk is an "obligate riparian nester." It is generally dependent on mature broadleaf trees along perennial streams for nest sites (Porter and White 1977, Schnell et al. 1988), although a few nests are situated along intermittent watercourses where small impoundments may persist through the breeding season (Schnell et al. 1988). A reliable supply of riparian associated vertebrate and invertebrate prey is also required for successful nesting (Millsap 1981).
Its nesting territories are restricted to, and disjunct within, riparian communities (Millsap 1981). Riparian communities (Brown et al. 1980) in which the species is found include the cottonwood-willow series of the Sonoran Riparian Deciduous Forest (< 3,900 feet elev.), the cottonwood-willow series and mixed broadleaf series of the Interior Southwestern Riparian Deciduous.
The migrant common black-hawk population is limited by the availability of suitable riparian habitat. The migrant population is thought to be self-sustaining (Snyder and Snyder 1975, Schnell 1994). Estimates of historic population size for migrant common black- hawks are not available; most historical information is in anecdotal form. A survey in the mid-1970s suggests 220-250 pairs of common black-hawks nest in the southwestern U.S. (Schnell et. al. 1988). Currently, 183 nest territories are known in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Most of the available information is occupancy data only and has been collected sporadically.
There is a known nesting pair in Sycamore Creek north of the project boundary.
Summary of Key Habitat Components and Anticipated Effects by Alternative
1. Cottonwood-willow vegetation type in Low Elevation Riparian areas (<3,900 feet elev.) and cottonwood-willow and mixed broadleaf vegetation types in High elevation Riparian areas (>3,600 feet elev.).
Alternative 1 – Riparian vegetation is most likely to increase in density and vertical structure under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Non-use within Sycamore Creek, Rock Creek, Mesquite Wash, and Log Corral Canyon will result in an increase in density and vertical structure at the same rate as Alternative 1. Utilization limits, seasonal deferment and rest, and mitigation measures will help minimize impact to the remaining riparian areas; thereby, increasing riparian vegetation.
Page 65 of 81
2. Isolated groves of mature broadleaf trees rather than single mature trees along perennial streams for nesting
Alternative 1 – Riparian vegetation is most likely to increase in density and vertical structure under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Non-use within Sycamore Creek, Rock Creek, Mesquite Wash, and Log Corral Canyon will result in an increase in density and vertical structure at the same rate as Alternative 1. Utilization limits, seasonal deferment and rest, and mitigation measures will help minimize impact to the remaining riparian areas; thereby, increasing riparian vegetation.
3. Low branches, downed trees, exposed roots, and prominent rocks are important for hunting perches.
Alternatives 1 and 2 – None of the alternatives will affect the KHC’s above.
4. A reliable supply of riparian associated vertebrate and invertebrate prey aquatic vertebrates and reptiles are primary prey but a diverse array of prey species may be necessary.
Alternative 1 – Under the no grazing alternative, riparian herbaceous and woody vegetation density is likely to increase; thereby improving habitat for prey species. Improvement in overall riparian health rating would occur most rapidly throughout the entire allotment. Alternative 2 – Non-use within Sycamore Creek, Rock Creek, Mesquite Wash, and Log Corral Canyon will result in an improvement in the riparian health rating at the same rate as Alternative 1. Utilization limits, seasonal deferment and rest, and mitigation measures will help minimize impact to the remaining riparian areas; thereby, resulting in improved riparian health ratings, water quality and likely, prey species abundance.
Effects determination high & low riparian habitat type: Under the implementation of the grazing alternative it is expected that the riparian habitat type will be maintained or improved over time under conservative utilization limits, rest and/or deferment, non-use, and appropriate monitoring to trigger livestock moves into other pastures. With increased vegetation density, habitat available for prey species will be improved, benefiting MIS species.
Based on the above, impacts from the implementation of the action alternative would not alter Forest-wide habitat and population trends for Bell’s vireo or common black hawk.
Effects For the Aquatic Habitat Type & Selected MIS
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates (class Insecta) are the most abundant and diverse group of animals found on earth. Aquatic macroinvertebrates inhabit a diverse array of aquatic environments including springs, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and wetlands. These animals lack a backbone, are greater
Page 66 of 81
than 0.5 mm in body size, and require an aqueous environment to persist and reproduce.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates were selected as a management indicator (MIS) for late-seral riparian and aquatic habitats across elevational gradients for the Tonto National Forest. Macroinvertebrates can be used to monitor the effects of land use activities such as mining, timber extraction, grazing, and road building in a watershed. Developing baseline data on groups or species of aquatic macroinvertebrates enables scientists and lands managers to evaluate the ecological health and productivity of the system. Groups or species of macroinvertebrates are classified by habitat preferences and life history characteristics. A main distinction between species or groups is their tolerance to pollution. Species are classified as Pollution Intolerant taxon or a Pollution Tolerant taxon. Monitoring of macroinvertebrate populations on a regular basis can detect negative land use activities that are impacting watersheds. The Monitoring Plan for the Tonto National Forest Land Use and Monitoring Plan specifies monitoring of aquatic ecosystem health through the systematic field sampling The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1989) identifies the following advantages of using macroinvertebrates for bioassessments and indicators of aquatic ecosystem health and functioning:
Because aquatic macroinvertebrates have limited migration patterns they are well suited for assessing localized, site-specific impacts in aquatic habitats.
Macroinvertebrates complete their life cycle in 1 – 2 years. Short-term perturbations or environmental stressors in the aquatic environment can is often reflected the structure and abundance of aquatic invertebrate communities.
Long-term degraded environmental conditions are reflected in the species composition and abundance of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities.
Sampling of macroinvertebrate communities is relatively simple and cost effective.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates are the primary food source of many recreationally and commercially important fish. An understanding of the macroinvertebrate community lends insight into the sustainability of forest fish resources.
Macroinvertebrates are often present in small aquatic systems where other higher-level aquatic life forms are absent.
Federal, State, and local governments routinely use aquatic macroinvertebrates evaluate aquatic health. Protocols for collection and evaluation are standardized which allows for comparison by various agencies.
Monitoring Methodology
To evaluate stream ecological health and water quality trends the following guidelines and methods have been established for the Tonto National Forest:
Page 67 of 81
Establish aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling stations in 15 streams and conduct a Biotic Condition Index Survey (BCI) at each station in each stream.
Each stream and each station will be sampled 2 times per year every 5 years. Three macroinvertebrate samples will be taken at each sampling location. Macroinvertebrate samples will be collected using modified Hess or Surber samplers with 280 micron mesh.
Samples will be preserved for analysis using 95% ethanol.
Samples will be analyzed by the Bureau of Land Management Aquatic Ecosystem Laboratory - Logan, Utah or other qualified macroinvertebrate analysts.
Table 13: Watershed Health Criteria and Biotic Condition Indices
Diversity Index1 Standing Crop2 Biotic Condition3 Ecosystem Health Rating (DAT) Dry g/m2 Index (BCI)
Excellent 18-26 4.0-12.0 Above 90
Good 11-17 1.6-4.0 80-90
Fair 6-10 0.6-1.5 72-79
Poor 0-5 0.0-0.5 Below 72
1 DIVERSITY INDEX is a measure of dominance and number of taxa where dominance of one taxon indicates stress and numerous taxa indicate health in an aquatic system.
2 STANDING CROP is the dry weight or biomass in grams of macroinvertebrates per square meter.
3 BIOTIC CONDITION INDEX (BCI) is a value expressed as a percent of expected. A community tolerance quotient is predicted based on its potential as determined by natural physical and chemical characteristics, then divided by the community tolerance quotient estimated from samples.
Population Trend:
Macroinvertebrates have been sampled in 15 perennial streams on the Tonto National Forest from 1986 to 2005. The nearest four sampling location are listed in Table 14 below.
Page 68 of 81
Table 14: Nearest Sampling Locations to the Sunflower Allotment Project Area
Stream Station Location District Elevation (ft)
Sycamore Creek 3 Round Valley Mesa 2,060
Mesquite Wash Sycamore Creek 4 Mesa 2,345
Bushnell Sycamore Creek 1 Mesa 3,389
Bushnell Sycamore Creek 2 Gauge Mesa 3,321
Aquatic Conditions
Sycamore Creek - The macroinvertebrate community in this stream is currently dominated by sediment tolerant taxa. Cleanwater taxa were absent from the community. BCI values for this stream were 67 and 76 in 1986 and 1987, respectively. BCI declined to 54 and 57 by 2005 indicating declining biotic conditions in this stream.
Summary
Data from Sycamore Creek indicate the system is impaired to some degree. This data indicate that opportunities exist for managers to improve conditions in the watersheds. Analysis of grazing regimes, timber harvest, recreation, and road networks needs to be conducted so that management practices contributing to impairment can be identified.
Summary of Anticipated Effects by Alternative:
Alternative 1 – The discontinuation of grazing would likely result in improvement in biotic conditions. Alternative 2 – Non-use with Sycamore Creek and its tributaries west of SR 87 will likely result in improvement in biotic conditions similar that of Alternative 1. However, some of these tributaries originate within units/pastures proposed for grazing, so there may be some upstream impacts to habitat. These impacts are not expected to significantly affect aquatic habitats due to upland and riparian utilization levels, adaptive management, and mitigation measures.
Effects determination aquatic habitat type: Under the implementation of grazing alternatives it is expected that the aquatic habitat type will be maintained or improved over time under conservative utilization levels, adaptive management, and mitigation measures. Aquatic conditions will likely improve under conservative use guidelines compared to past use. Implementation of the no grazing alternative would likely result in improved aquatic habitat, especially compared to past conditions.
Page 69 of 81
Based on this information the alternatives considered will not negatively affect Forest population or habitat trends for macroinvertebrates.
Prepared By:___/s/ Kelly M. Kessler______Date:____04/30/2015___
Page 70 of 81 References Allen, L. S. 1989. Roots of the Arizona livestock industry. Rangelands, Vol. 11, No. 1, February 1989. pp. 9-13. Alsop, F. J. III. 2001. Birds of North America: western region. DK Publishing, Inc. New York.
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU), Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. 6th ed. American Ornithologists Union; Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS.
Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. Wildlife management program strategic plan. 96 pp.
Balda, R.P. 1970. Effects of spring leaf-fall on composition and density of breeding birds in two southern Arizona woodlands. Condor 72:325-331.
Baumgartner, F. M., and A. M. Baumgartner. 1992. Oklahoma bird life. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. In R. R. Johnson and L. T. Haight. 1996. Canyon towhee (Pipilo fuscus). The Birds of North America, No. 264 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C. Beason, R.C. 1995. Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris). In The Birds of North America No. 195 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, W.R. Kenney, and V.M. Hawthorne. 1984. Responses of birds, rodents, and vegetation to livestock exclosure in a semi-desert grassland site. Journal of Range Management. Life History Summaries In NatureServe Explorer. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, VA.
Bock, C.E. and B. Webb. 1984. Birds as grazing indicator species in southeastern Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1045-1049.
Barlow, J.C. 1980. Patterns of ecological interactions among migrant and resident vireos on the wintering grounds, pp 79-107. In Migrant birds in the neotropics: ecology, behavior, distribution, and conservation (A. Keast and E.S. Morton, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Boness, P. 2013. Affected environment Sunflower allotment soils affected environment report. USDA Forest Service, Phoenix, AZ.
Page 71 of 81
Brown, B.T. 1993. Bell’s vireo. In The Birds of North America, No. 35 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.
Brown, D.E., C.H. Lowe, and C.P. Pase. 1980. A digital systematic classification for ecosystems with an illustrated summary of the natural vegetation of North America. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Tech. Rep. RM-73. Ft. Collins, CO.
Burridge, B. 1995. Sonoma County breeding bird atlas: detailed maps and accounts for our nesting birds. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, CA. In C R. Tenney. 1997. Black- chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis). The Birds of North America, No. 270 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Burton, T. A., E. R. Cowley, S. J. Smith. 2007. Monitoring stream channels and riparian vegetation-multiple indicators (Version 3.0). Idaho Technical Bulletin 2007-01. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 47 p and appendices.
Cannings, R.J., and W. Threlfall. 1981. Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) breeding biology at Cape St. Marys, Newfoundland, Canada. Wilson Bull. 93:519-530.
Cooperrider, A.Y., and D.S. Wilcove. 1995. Pp 44-45 In Defending the desert: conserving biodiversity on BLM lands in the southwest. Environ. Def. Fund, New York.
DeSante, D.F., and T.L. George. 1994. Population trends in the landbirds of western North America. Stud. Avian Biol. 15:173-189. In C.R. Tenney. 1997. Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis). The Birds of North American, No. 270 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Dickson, J. 2013. Personal communication. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Region
VI, Wildlife Manager, Mesa, AZ.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of north American birds. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York.
Emlen, J.T. 1974. An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona: derivation, structure, regulation. Condo 76:184-197.
Friedmann, H., L. F. Kiff, and S. J. Rothstein. 1977. A further contribution to knowledge of the host relations of parasitic cowbirds. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 235:45. In N. T. Wheelwright and J. D. Rising. 1993. Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). The Birds of North America, No. 45 (A. Poole and F. Gills, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Page 72 of 81
Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Soc. Los Angeles, CA. In C. R. Tenney. 1997. Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis). The Birds of North America, No. 270 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM-245. USFS Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Harrison, H. H. 1979. A field guide to western birds’ nests. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Hastings, J. R., and R. M. Turner 1965. The changing mile; an ecological study of vegetation change with time in the lower mile of an arid and semi-arid region. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Herkert, J.R. 1991. An ecological study of the breeding birds of grassland habitats within Illinois. PhD. Dissertation. Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL. In N.T. Wheelwright and J.D. Rising. 1993. Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). The Birds of North America, No. 45 (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.) Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Herkert, J. R., R. E. Szafoni, V. M. Kleen, and J. E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat establishment, enhancement, and management for forest and grassland birds in Illinois. Illinois Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Natural Heritage, Natural Heritage Tech. Publ. 1, Springfield, IL. In NatureServe Explorer. An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, VA. Holecheck, J., D. Galt. 2000. Grazing intensity guidelines. J. Rangelands 22(30), pg 11 14.
Howell, S.N.G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
Hubbard, J. P. 1978. Revised checklist of the birds of New Mexico. New Mexico Ornithol. Soc. Publ. No. 6. In C. R. Tenney. 1997. Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis). The Birds of North America, No. 270 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Interagency Technical Reference. 1999. Utilization studies and residual measurements. Cooperative Extension Service, USDA Forest Service, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management.
Interagency Technical Team. 1996 (revised 1999). Utilization studies and residual measurements. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver CO. p.3.
Johnson, M.J. 1997. Cowbird parasitism of the black-throated sparrow in the Verde Valley of central Arizona. Master’s thesis, Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ.
Page 73 of 81
Johnson, M.J., C. Van Riper III, and K.M. Pearson. 2002. Black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata). In The Birds of North America, No. 637 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.
Johnson, N.K. and C. Cicero. 1985. The breeding avifauna of San Benito Mountain, California: evidence for a change over a half-century. West. Birds 16:1-23.
Johnson, R.R., and L.T. Haight. 1996. Canyon towhee (Pipilo fuscus). In The Birds of North America, No. 264 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C.
Jones, A.L., and P.D. Vickery. 1997. Conserving grassland birds: managing agricultural lands including hayfields, crop fields, and pastures for grassland birds. Massachusetts Audubon Society. Lincoln, MA. In NatureServe Explorer. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, VA.
Kantrud, H.A., and R.L. Kologiski. 1983. Avian associations of the northern Great Plains grasslands. J. Biogeogr. 10:331-350.
Karban, R. 1989. Community organization of Erigeron glaucus folivores: effects of competition, predation, and host plant. Ecology 70:1028-1039. In N. T. Wheelwright and J. D. Rising. 1993. Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). The Birds of North America, No. 45 (A. Poole and F. Gills, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union Kubik, M.R., Jr., and J.V. Remsen, Jr. 1977. Creosote-burrobush desert scrub. Pp. 76-77 In W.T. Van Velsnm, ed. Fortieth breeding bird census. American Birds 31:24-93.
Mason, L. 2013. Affected environment Sunflower Allotment Stream Channels and Riparian Areas. USDA Forest Service, Phoenix Arizona.
Mason, L. W. and J. L. Johnson. 1999. Tonto National Forest stream assessment method. In: AWRA symposium proceedings on wildland hydrology June 30-July 2, Bozeman, MT. American Water Resources Association, pp. 255-257.
Marshall, J.T. 1960. Interrelations of Abert and brown towhees. Condor 62:49-64.
Marshall, J. T., and R. R. Johnson. 1968. Pipilo fuscus mesoleucus, canyon brown towhee. Pp. 662-630 In Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies (O. L. Austin, Jr., ed.). US Natl. Mus. Bull. 237, Part 2. In R. R. Johnson and L. T. Haight. 1996. Canyon towhee (Pipilo fuscus). The Birds of North America, No. 264 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C. Martin, T.E. 1987. Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life history perspective. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18:453-487.
Page 74 of 81
Martin, T.E., D.M. Finch. 1995. Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds. Oxford University Press US. 489 pp.
Medin, D.E. 1990. Birds of shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) habitat in east central Nevada. Great Basin Nat. 50:295-298. In NatureServe Explorer. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, VA. USA.
Miller, A. H. 1955. Avifauna of the Sierra del Carmen of Coahuila, Mexico. Condor 57:154-178. Mills, G.S., J.B. Dunning, and J.M. Bates. 1989. Effects of urbanization on breeding bird community structure in the southwestern desert habitats. Condor 91:416-428.
Millsap, B.A. 1981. Distributional status of falconiforms in west central Arizona-with notes on ecology, reproductive success, and management. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tech. Note 355. 102 pp.
Monson, G., and A. R. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona. 2nd ed. Univ. Of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. NatureServe. 2001. NatureServe Explorer. version 1.6. Association for biodiversity information.
Newman, J. D. 1968. Arizona black-chinned sparrow. Pp 1241 – 1246 In Life Histories of cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and their allies (O. L. Austin, Jr., ed). U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 237.
Oberholser, H. C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX. . In
C. R. Tenney. 1997. Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis). The Birds of North America, No. 270 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Parker, K. C. 1986. Partitioning of foraging space and nest sites in a desert shrubland bird community. Am. Midl.. Nat. 115(2):255-267. In M. J. Johnson, C. van Riper III, and K. M.Pearson. 2002. Black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata.). The Birds of North America, No. 637 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA. Pfankuch, D. J. 1975. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. USDA Forest Service, R1-75-002. GPO #696-260/200, Washington, D.C. 26 p. Pickwell, G. B. 1931. The prairie horned lark. St. Louis Acad. Sci. Trans. 27:1-153. In R. C. Beason. 1995. Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris). The Birds of North America No. 195 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Plafkin, J.L., M.T Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. EPA/440/4-89/001, May, 1989.
Page 75 of 81
Plank, H. 2005. Unpubl. Tonto National Forest Management Indicator Species Survey Data. USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest, Region 3. Tonto Basin, AZ.
Pollock, D. A. unpubl. Tonto National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS). USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest, Region 3. Payson, AZ.
Porter, R.D., and C.M. White. 1977. Status of some rare and lesser known hawks in western United States. Pp 39-57. In R.D. Chancellor, ed., Proc. World Conference on Birds of Prey, Vienna. International Council for Bird Preservation.
Rising, J.D. 1996. A guide to the identification and natural history of the sparrows of the United States and Canada. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Sauer, J.R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1. USGS Biological Resource Division, Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis 1966-2000. Version 2001.2. USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis 1996 – 2004. Version 2001.2. USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Schnell, J.H., R.L. Glinski, and H.A. Snyder. 1988. Common black-hawk. Pages 65-70 in R.L. Glinski, B.G. Pendleton, M.B. Moss, M.N. LeFranc, Jr., B.A. Millsap, and S.W. Hoffman, eds., Proc. southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Sci. Tech. Ser. No 11., Washington, D.C.
Schnell, J.H. 1994. Common black-hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 122 (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.
Scott, V. E. and D. R. Patton. 1989. Cavity-nesting birds of Arizona and New Mexico Forests. USDA Forest Service Gen Tech. Rep. RM-10. Reprinted by the Arizona Wildlife Foundation, AZ. Shuford, W. D. 1993. The Marin County breeding bird atlas: a distributional and natural history of coastal California. California Avifauna Series No. 1. Bushtit Brooks.
Smith, L., G. Ruyle, J. Maynard, S. Barker, W. Meyer, D. Stewart, B. Coulloudon, S. Williams, J. Dyess. 2005. Principles of obtaining and interpreting utilization data on southwest rangelands. University of Arizona Cooperative Extension. Tucson, AZ. 11 pp.
Page 76 of 81
Snyder, N.F.R., and H.A. Snyder. 1975. Raptors in range habitat. Pp 190-209 In D.R. Smith, tech. coord., Proc. Symposium on management of forest and range habitats for nongame birds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Tech. Rep. WO-1.
Stokes, D., and L. Stokes. 1996. Field guide to birds: Western region. Little, Brown, and Co. New York. Swanson, D.A. 1996. Nesting ecology and nesting habitat requirements of Ohio’s grassland- nesting birds: A literature review. Ohio Fish and Wildlife Report 13. Div. of Wildlife, Ohio Dept, of Natural Resources. In NatureServe Explorer. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, VA.
Tenney, C. R. 1997. Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis). In The Birds of North America, No. 270 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Publ. New York.
USFS. Tonto National Forest Plan. 1985. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.
USFS. Southwest Region (3). 2005. Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: Management Indicator Species Status Report. Tonto National Forest, Phoenix, AZ.
USGS Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center website (2013; http://www.mbrwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html
Verbeek, N.A.M. 1967. Breeding biology and ecology of the horned lark in alpine tundra. Wilson bull. 79:208-218.
Wauer, R. H., and J. D. Ligon. 1974. Distributional relations of breeding avifauna of four southwestern mountain ranges. Transcactions of the sypmposium on the biological resources of the Chiricahua desert region, U.S. and Mexico: Sul Ross State Univ., Nat. Park Service 1977: 567-573. In Tenney, C. R. 1997. Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis). The Birds of North America, No. 270 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Weathers, W. 1983. Birds of southern California’s deep canyon. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.
Wheelwright, N.T. and J.D. Rising. 1993. Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) In The Birds of North America, No. 45 (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.) Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences: Washington D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Page 77 of 81
Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1979. Diet niche relationships among North American grassland and shrubsteppe birds. Oecologia 42:253-292. In R. C. Beason. 1995. Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris). The Birds of North America No. 195 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. With, K.A., and D.R. Webb. 1993. Microclimate of ground nests: the relative importance of radiative cover and wind breaks for three grassland species. Condor 95:401-413.
Zimmer, K. J. 1983. The foraging ecology of nesting black-throated sparrows. Master’s thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, NM. In M. J. Johnson, C. van Riper III, and K. M. Pearson. 2002. Black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata.). The Birds of North America, No. 637 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.
Page 78 of 81
Appendix A
Table 15: Tonto LRMP Management Indicator Species List Potential Natural Managemen Vegetation Habitat Populatio t Indicator Crosswalk w/ Indicator of Trend n Trend Species Forest Plan Vegetation
Elk PPM, MCA general forest conditions Static Stable
vertical diversity – forest Static Turkey PPM, MCA Stable mix
Pygmy Static PPM Old growth pine Decrease Nuthatch
Violet-green Static PPM, MCA Cavity-nesting habitat Decrease swallow
Western Static PPM, MCA Forest openings Stable Bluebird
Hairy Static PPM, MCA Snags Stable Woodpecker
Static Goshawk PPM, MCA Vertical diversity Decrease
Abert Static PPM, MCA Successional stages of pine Decrease Squirrel
Ash-throated Static PJC, PJG, Ground cover Stable Flycatcher
Static Gray Vireo PJC, PJG Tree density Decrease
Townsend’s Static PJC, PJG Juniper berry production Stable Solitaire
Page 79 of 81
Potential Natural Managemen Vegetation Habitat Populatio t Indicator Crosswalk w/ Indicator of Trend n Trend Species Forest Plan Vegetation
Juniper General woodland Static PJC, PJG Decrease Titmouse conditions
Northern Static PJC, PJG Snags Stable Flicker
Spotted Successional stages of Static PJC, PJG Stable Towhee pinyon-juniper
Spotted Static IC Shrub density Stable Towhee
Black- Static chinned IC Shrub diversity Stable Sparrow
Savannah Upward/s CPG, PJG Grass species diversity Stable Sparrow tatic
Upward/s Horned Lark CPG, PJG Vegetation aspect Decrease tatic
Black- Downwar throated DC Shrub diversity Stable d/static Sparrow
Canyon Downwar DC Ground cover Decrease Towhee d/static
No Bald Eagle CWRF General riparian Stable change
CWRF Bell’s Vireo Well-developed understory No Decrease
Page 80 of 81
Potential Natural Managemen Vegetation Habitat Populatio t Indicator Crosswalk w/ Indicator of Trend n Trend Species Forest Plan Vegetation
change
CWRF Summer No Tall, mature trees Decrease Tanager change
CWRF Hooded No Medium-sized Trees Stable Oriole change
Hairy No MBDRF Snags, cavities Stable Woodpecker change
MBDRF Arizona Gray No General riparian Stable Squirrel change
Warbling MBDRF No Tall overstory Stable Vireo change
MBDRF Western No Medium overstory Decrease Wood Pewee change
MBDRF Common No Riparian streamside Decrease black-hawk change
Marcro- Aquatic Water quality N/A N/A invertebrates
CPG - colorado plateau grassland, CWRF - cottonwood willow riparian forest, DC - desert communities, IC - interior chaparral, MBDRF - mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest, MCA - mixed conifer w/ aspen, MWRF- montane willow riparian forest, PJC - PJ chaparral, PJG - PJ grassland, PPM - ponderosa pine – mild, SDG - semi-desert grassland.
Page 81 of 81