United States Department of Agriculture
Heber Allotment Draft Environmental Assessment
Apache-Sitgreaves Black Mesa Forest Service National Forests Ranger District May 2015
For More Information Contact: Kendell Hughes, Rangeland Management Specialist Black Mesa Ranger District 2748 Hwy 260 Overgaard, AZ 85933 Phone: 928-535-7300
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Environmental Assessment
Contents
Chapter 1 - Project Overview & Need for the Project ...... 3 Introduction ...... 3 Allotment Area Description & Background...... 3 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 6 Proposed Action ...... 6 Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan Consistency ...... 6 Decision Framework ...... 6 Public Involvement ...... 7 Issues…………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 Chapter 2 - Alternatives ...... 9 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 9 Alternatives Considered In Detail ...... 9 Alternative 1: No Action/No Grazing ...... 9 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 9 Summary ...... 17 Chapter 3 - Affected Environment & Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives ...... 18 Range & Vegetation ...... 18 Watershed & Soils ...... 28 Wildlife ...... 44 Fire & Fuels………………………………………………………………………………………...…104 Cultural Resources……………………………………………………………………………………106 Economic & Social…………………………………………………………………………………...108 Noxious Weeds……………………………………………………………………………………….111 Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination ...... 111 All Documents Cited in the EA ...... 115 Appendix A- Project Design and Best Management Practices ...... 123 Appendix B – Cumulative Effects Table ...... 128
i Heber Allotment
Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:
Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area (i.e. wildlife, soils, etc.). Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of alternative 2. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Black Mesa Ranger District Office in Overgaard, AZ.
ii Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 Project Overview & Need for the Project Introduction Analysis of the effects of livestock grazing under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is mandated by the Range Rescission Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-19) for all allotments where grazing occurs. Other laws governing grazing and use of public lands indicate Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives for management of those lands (Multiple Use and Sustained Yield act of 1960, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Forest Service policy also indicates intent of the agency to make forage producing suitable land available for grazing to qualified livestock operators consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1, 36 CFR 22.2 (c)). Following these laws and regulations and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan (USDA 1987), an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists developed this site-specific environmental assessment analyzing the effects of a proposed action of authorizing livestock grazing, maintaining and installing improvements, and restoring grassland and savanna as well as a no grazing alternative, as required by Forest Service Handbook 2209.92.31, that would not authorize livestock grazing on the Heber Allotment. Allotment Area Description & Background The Heber Allotment is located on the Black Mesa Ranger District, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) (Figure 1). The allotment covers approximately 157,000 acres and surrounds the community of Heber/Overgaard on the north, east, and south sides extending from the Fort Apache Indian reservation boundary on the south boundary to the forest boundary on the north. The allotment is composed of 12 main pastures: Gentry, Bunger and Phoenix Park, which lie south of State Highway 260, and Nelson, Halter Cross, Oil Well, North Ancient, South Ancient, Red Knoll, Mud Tank, Squaw, and Bigler, located north of State Highway 260 (Figure 2). Elevations on the allotment range from approximately 6,000 ft. on the northern end of the allotment to 7,700 ft. on the southern end. Topography on the allotment is generally flat with small rolling hills and a few steep canyons on a small amount of acreage near the southwestern boundary of the allotment. Vegetation types on the allotment include mainly ponderosa pine type in the southern portion of the allotment and pinon- juniper woodland, savanna, and grassland types in the northern portion. The last planning effort for the allotment occurred in 1989 with the development of a Range Management Plan (RMP). At that time, the allotment consisted of nine pastures and was approximately 135,000 acres. A neighboring allotment has since been incorporated, adding additional acres and pastures, forming the Heber Allotment as it currently exists. The allotment has been identified as suitable for livestock grazing in the ASNFs Forest Plan and is currently authorized for 5430 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) under a permit for 905 head of cattle (cow/calf) for six months from May 1 to October 31. The permittee grazes two livestock herds typically beginning in the southern pastures in the spring/early summer and moving to the northern pastures in the summer/fall. The current rotation provides for deferment and rest of one to two pastures a year.
Acres discussed in this analysis for the Heber Allotment may differ slightly depending on which resource is being analyzed. In general, these acreage differences are less than 0.1 percent of the project area and are a result of rounding errors and slight boundary differences that occur when combining multiple geospatial data layers. 3
Heber Allotment Figure 1. General Location of Heber Allotment, Black Mesa Ranger District
4 Environmental Assessment Figure 2. Heber Allotment with Pasture Names
5
Heber Allotment Purpose and Need for Action Management and monitoring of livestock grazing on the Heber Allotment needs to be analyzed and updated from the 1989 RMP to provide more flexibility to adapt management to fit conditions of resources on the allotment as they change and move certain resources on the allotment toward Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions. Grasslands and savanna understory vegetation in the pinon- juniper vegetation need to be restored to desired conditions to protect or improve soils and watershed conditions, enhance forage quality and availability, and help maintain or improve herbaceous vegetation species diversity and production for the future. NEPA analysis for grazing on the allotment also needs to be completed to fulfill legal requirements of the Rescission Act of 1995.
Objectives to fulfill the purpose and need of this project include:
Continue to manage vegetation to promote stable to upward trends within key areas and long- term transect locations Incorporate flexibility into the management of the Heber Allotment in order to allow the Forest Service to adapt management to changing resource and environmental conditions. Reduce canopy cover of pinon-juniper in order to maintain and restore ground cover and herbaceous vegetation to move towards desired conditions in grassland and woodland areas Maintain watershed and riparian conditions at levels that are stable or on an upward trend. Maintain current satisfactory soil conditions and improve soil conditions rated as impaired or unsatisfactory. Develop a monitoring plan to verify that management actions are maintaining or moving resource conditions toward those desired. Proposed Action In response to the purpose and need, the Black Mesa Ranger District proposes to
1. Authorize livestock grazing on the Heber Allotment to maintain and/or improve vegetation, soil, and watershed conditions relative to livestock grazing, including Flexibility to adaptively manage livestock to fit resource and weather conditions as they change. Monitoring to ensure that resource conditions are meeting or moving toward desired conditions 2. Maintain existing improvements and install new improvements needed to provide water and optimize management and distribution of cattle 3. Mechanically and manually (by hand) remove juniper trees within historical grassland and savanna woodland areas to restore those areas 4. Prescribe burn grassland and savanna woodland areas to restore and maintain those areas Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan Consistency Management direction is found within the resource prescriptions of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (A-S LRMP), 1987. The Forest Plan’s desired condition and prescriptions for management occur within Management Area 1, Forested Land; Management Area 2, Woodland; Management Area 3, Riparian, and Management Area 4,
6 Environmental Assessment Grasslands. This analysis was developed in consideration of the best available science and is consistent with the 1987 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. Decision Framework The Black Mesa District Ranger is the responsible official for this project who will review the alternatives of no action and the proposed action and the associated environmental consequences to make a decision. The decision should contain activities that best meet the purpose and need of the project, provide consistency with forest plan standards and guidelines for resources in the project area, and comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The District Ranger will decide whether to
Implement the proposed action as described or with modifications If modifying the proposed action, specify which design criteria and BMPs to use Develop an environmental impact statement Implement the No Action Alternative Public Involvement The proposal was listed in the ASNFs Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in January 2014. In July 2014, the Black Mesa Ranger District provided a field trip allowing collaborators to visit various sites in the proposed project area and review conditions. The purpose of the trip was to discuss the proposed authorization of grazing and treatment of invading pinon-juniper in grassland and savanna areas on the allotment. Four people attended.
On August 13, 2014, a scoping package was sent to approximately 59 individuals, groups, and federal and state agencies. Four public comment letters were received. Four letters from tribes were also received.
Issues An issue is a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of the proposed activities. Issues are cause-effect relationships directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Following our initial scoping process, we reviewed all comments received to determine if any key issues were identified. Comments were sorted by:
1. Key issues: Issues which are directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed activity that would require development of an alternative to address or resolve them:
2. Issues eliminated from detailed study, which include those that are outside the scope of the proposed activity; already decided by law, regulation, forest plan, or other higher level decisions; Irrelevant to the stated decision to be made; or conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.
3. Concerns including: requests addressed by comment responses and/or in forthcoming analyses or correspondence, general questions about the project, and/or interest in documents and continued correspondence.
4. Supportive comments
5. Neutral comments
7
Heber Allotment No key issues were identified. Some concerns expressed, including projected costs of rangeland improvements, are addressed in this assessment. Some comments were eliminated from detailed study for reasons listed above, some were supportive, and some were neutral.
8 Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action This section provides a comparison of alternatives and defines the differences between each alternative for the public and to provide a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker. The information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Alternatives eliminated from detailed study and the rationale for their elimination follows:
Current Management Alternative According to guidance in the Forest Service Grazing Permit Administrative Handbook (FSH) 2209.13 92.31, “Current management would also be analyzed in detail as an alternative to the proposed action if current management meets the stated purpose and need for action.” Current management was not analyzed in detail because it does not fully meet all aspects of the purpose and need. Current management livestock levels are incorporated into the proposed action as the initial and possibly continued levels of authorized livestock grazing, so an alternative with current management levels is not needed as a separate alternative. Alternatives Considered In Detail Alternative 1: No Action/No Grazing Under alternative 1, grazing by domestic livestock on the allotment would not be authorized. The permittee would be given one year from the date of the decision for the allotment to remove livestock. Existing improvements contributing to resource protection or enhancement, such as water developments important for wildlife, may be maintained where feasible through other resource program areas with use of their funds. Periodic inspection of existing structural improvements would be made to determine whether maintenance or removal of the improvement is needed. Forest boundary fences would be maintained by the Black Mesa Ranger District. Existing allotment boundary fences would remain in place, and maintenance of the allotment boundary fences would be re-assigned to adjacent grazing permit holders No vegetation treatments would be implemented.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action The proposed action consists of three major components:
1. Re-authorization of livestock grazing on the Heber Allotment through a new Allotment Management Plan that includes
A monitoring plan to ensure that desired conditions are being met
Adaptive management strategies to provide flexibility to adjust management to fit changing resource conditions
2. Structural improvements including maintenance of existing improvements and installation of new improvements
3. Grassland and pinon-juniper woodland restoration treatments 9
Heber Allotment Re-authorization of Livestock Grazing In response to the purpose and need, the Black Mesa Ranger District proposes to re-authorize livestock grazing on the Heber Allotment under a new Allotment Management Plan (AMP) that would include strategies for adaptive management of livestock grazing to fit resource conditions as they change. The proposal would include authorization of a range of AUMs with a maximum of 7,600 AUMs and a six month grazing season from May 1 to October 31 under a deferred, rest rotation grazing system.
Up to 5,430 AUMs would be authorized for up to six months between May 1 and October 31. Adjustments that increase the numbers up to 5,430 AUMs could be made annually through the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI), based on factors like weather or plant health, or if data collected through implementation monitoring supports an increase. An increase above 5,430 AUMs may not occur until after three grazing seasons following the decision. For every increase above 5,430 AUMs that is greater than 10%(543 AUMs), the following must occur: 1) effectiveness monitoring and a review of all monitoring to validate that existing conditions are still within or working toward the desired conditions and trends are stable to improving and 2) three full grazing season years must pass before the next 10%(543 AUMs) increase. Adjustments that decrease the numbers could be made annually through the Annual Operating Instructions, based on factors like weather or plant health, or if data collected through implementation or effectiveness monitoring warrants a need for reduction. Any changes to grazing management could include numbers, timing, intensity, or frequency of grazing. Under this system, every pasture would receive rest once every twelve to thirteen years with periodic growing season rest and the ability to adjust for rest based on pasture conditions. Total use at the end of the growing season would generally be maintained within conservative use levels of 25-35 percent utilization.
Monitoring Implementation Monitoring Upland Vegetation: Monitoring would occur the first year following implementation and would be conducted every year or every other year thereafter as needed and determined upon completion of the last recent monitoring. Utilization monitoring would occur either during or at the end of the growing season. Monitoring data would be used to determine if any adjustments in management should be implemented to allow for plant development, regrowth, and recovery from the grazing event. Implementation monitoring methods may include, but are not limited to comparative yield, stubble height, paired plot clipping and weighing, height/weight, Landscape Appearance Method, or photography. Implementation monitoring may also include review of livestock numbers and dates of use in each pasture, conditions of range improvements, and compliance with the AOI.
Riparian: Proposed use guidelines for riparian components are as follows: obligate riparian tree species-limit use to 20% use by weight of palatable riparian tree species; or <50 percent of terminal leaders (top one third of the plant) on palatable riparian tree species accessible to livestock (usually ≤ 6 feet tall); deergrass – minimal stubble height of 8 inches where key species; emergent species (rushes, sedges, cattails, and horsetails)-maintain six to eight inches of stubble height during the grazing period where key species; stream banks – limit use to ˂ 20 percent of alterable banks where stream banks are present or forming. Once riparian utilization guidelines are met, cattle would be moved from the area or to the next scheduled pasture regardless of available forage in the uplands.
Effectiveness Monitoring Upland vegetation: Monitoring would be used to assess the effectiveness of management in achieving desired objectives in relation to species composition, ground cover, and trends. This monitoring would occur in the sites described within the EA (ex. NATT1, Phoenix Park C4). Effectiveness monitoring methods may include, but are not limited to Parker 3-step, frequency, dry-weight rank,
10 Environmental Assessment Common Non-Forested Vegetation Sampling Protocol (CNVSP), Daubenmire, and/or photography. Depending on the method selected, monitoring would occur at an interval of at least every 5-10 years in established areas.
Soil Condition Monitoring for Impaired Soil Conditions Not Receiving Vegetation Treatments: Some small, localized special extents TES map units 52 were identified across the northern portion of the allotment during the analysis process, particularly in the northwestern portion of the Oil Well pasture and the southeastern portion of Red Knoll, where current soil conditions are in a less than desired or impaired state (USDA-FS, 2013; 1999).
Riparian Monitoring: Monitoring would include at least three riparian designated monitoring areas (DMAs). Initially, one DMA each would be established in Black Canyon, Pierce Wash, and Phoenix Park Wash drainages. Additional DMAs could be added later or relocated along these or other streams as necessary. Effectiveness monitoring would also be conducted in the riparian DMAs. This monitoring would include use of Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) (Burton et al. 2011), a modification of the method, or the most current acceptable method. Effectiveness monitoring should occur every 3-5 years or when the aforementioned AUM increase criteria are met. PFC assessments would be the critical determinate of riparian condition trend and should be conducted in conjunction with upland vegetation effectiveness monitoring.
Structural Improvements Existing improvements should be maintained to further promote proper management and achievement of objectives. The following list of proposed improvements would aid in the achievement of desired conditions (Figures 3 &4): Drill 1 new well Add approximately 9 ¼ miles of pipeline to existing wells and 1 new well Install 14 troughs and 2 storages on the new pipelines from the wells Install 2 new cattleguards and re-locate 1 existing cattleguard Construct 7 new waterlots and 8 new corrals Construct 16 new roadside stock tanks Create 2 new holding pastures Expand 1 trick tank and build 4 new trick tanks Install 14 new troughs and 7 ¾ miles of pipe on the new trick tanks
11
Environmental Assessment
Figure 3. Proposed Structural Improvements, South Part of Allotment
13
Heber Allotment Figure 4. Proposed Structural Improvements, North Part of Heber Allotment
14 Environmental Assessment Grassland and Pinon-Juniper Woodland Restoration Treatments Mechanical treatments are proposed within the northern eight pastures (Figure 5) north of Highway 260 totaling approximately 39,000 acres. Approximately 17,800 acres would be treated for restoration of grasslands and approximately 21,200 of woodland would be thinned to reduce canopy cover and restore understory vegetation (Table 1, Figure 5). Methods for implementation of the treatments may include mastication, whole tree removal using heavy equipment, personal and commercial fuelwood sales, tree shearing, and hand thinning. Prescribed burning may be used to restore and maintain grasslands and woodland areas and improve understory vegetation across the allotment. No treatment for removal of ponderosa pine would occur.
Table 1. Treatment type by acres and percentage of total Desired Canopy Treatment Type Treatment Acres Percentage of Total Cover Percent
Grassland Restoration <10% 17,758 22%
Woodland Thinning 10-20% 21,196 26%
No Treatment 20%+ 42,379 52%
Total 81,333 100%
Grassland Restoration: These areas have been identified generally as areas that were historically grasslands where the herbaceous understory made up more of the composition than the woody overstory. The goal for this type of treatment is to reduce the canopy cover of pinon and juniper tree species to less than 10%.
Woodland Thinning: These areas have been identified as woodland stands that were historically more open, providing for a diverse mix of overstory and understory vegetation structure. The majority of these stands are currently between 35 and 50% canopy cover. The goal for this type of treatment is to retain between 10% and 20% canopy cover of pinon-juniper.
15
Heber Allotment Figure 5. Proposed Vegetation Treatments
16 Environmental Assessment Transportation for Vegetation Treatments All access to vegetation treatment areas would occur on existing system roads. The following miles of existing system roads have been identified as potential for use for vegetation treatment activities in the northern portion of the allotment (these numbers may vary by up to 10%):
Table 2. Roads by Maintenance Level and Miles Maintenance Level Miles
1 54
2 125
3 17
Total Miles 196
Maintenance Level 1- closed roads, may be opened and closed after use Maintenance Level 2 - roads only suitable for high clearance vehicles Maintenance Level 3 - low speed, single lane roads
Temporary roads may be needed for implementation of vegetation treatments in order to avoid cultural resources, comply with the Clean Water Act, or other circumstances. Temporary roads would be needed to complete treatments and would be closed and rehabilitated following use. No new permanent road construction would occur. In addition to the closing of the temporary roads, unauthorized roads and ATV trails that are within impaired soils would be closed and rehabilitated. Summary
Table 3.General Alternatives Comparison Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Animal Unit Months 0 up to 7,600 Season of Use 0 05/01 – 10/31 Proposed Structural Improvements Wells 0 1 Pipeline 0 17 miles Water Troughs 0 28 Water Storages 0 2 Trick Tanks 0 4 new, 1 expansion Stock Tanks 0 16 Waterlots 0 7 Corrals 0 8 Holding Pastures 0 2 Cattleguards 0 2 new, 1 move Vegetation Treatments(acres) Grassland Restoration 0 17,758 Savanna Thinning 0 21,196
17
Heber Allotment Chapter 3 Affected Environment & Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
Range/Vegetation Affected Environment Livestock Grazing The allotment is currently permitted for 905 head of cattle (cow/calf) for six months from May 1 to October 31 (5430 Animal Unit Months (AUMs)). The current allotment is composed of 12 main pastures. Livestock grazing occurs in two different herds typically beginning in the southern pastures in the spring/early summer and moving to the northern pastures in the late summer/fall. The current rotation provides for deferment and rest of one to two pastures a year.
Vegetative trends and attributes, such as species composition and ground cover were measured using methods such as the Parker 3-step and the Common Non-Forested Vegetation Sampling Protocol (CNVSP). Six Parker 3 step sites currently show stable trends and of the 11 CNVSP sites, 3 have an upward trend and 8 were rated as stable with no trend. These 17 sites are proposed for future monitoring locations.
Utilization measurements have been collected since 2002 in 9 of the 12 pastures (all north of Highway 260), with the exception of 2011. The Gentry, Bunger, and Phoenix Park pastures have had utilization measurements performed since 2007.
Table 4. Summary of actual use since 2001 and overall average utilization of all measurements since 2002 or 2007. Actual Use Average Utilization Pasture (AUM’s) (%) North Ancient 80 to 304 5 South Ancient 70 to 304 12 Oil Well 160 to 568 12 Red Knoll 80 to 349 8 Mud Tank 241 to 465 8 Squaw 133 to 621 8 Bigler 167 to 705 4 Halter Cross 160 to 605 5 Nelson 292 to 732 22 Gentry 579 to 1017 15 Bunger 597 to 1017 11 Phoenix Park 460 to 843 11
Vegetation Over 90% of the allotment is made up of three vegetation types: ponderosa pine, pinon-juniper woodland, and Great Basin grassland. The remainder of the allotment is made up of mixed conifer, oak woodland, dry streams, wetlands, reservoirs, or rock pits. The majority of the Nelson, Gentry, Bunger, and Phoenix Park Pastures consist of ponderosa pine while the remainder of the pastures is mainly pinon-juniper woodland and Great Basin grassland. Desired conditions for vegetation treatments were derived using aerial photos, site visits, specialist’s knowledge of the area, existing cover types, and Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVT).
18 Environmental Assessment Table 5. Existing acres, by cover type, and the percent of the project area that each cover type represents Cover Type Cover Type Acres Percent of Project Area Ponderosa Pine 61,306 39% Pinon-Juniper Woodland 60,289 39% Great Basin Grassland 18,307 12% Mixed Conifer 2,109 1% Oak Woodland 244 <1% Dry Stream 99 <1% Wetland, Reservoir, and Rock 62 <1% Pit Unidentified/Unknown* 14,112 9% *This category falls within areas where stands have not been updated to reflect a cover type. These acres all fall south of the highway, in the Bunger and Phoenix Park pastures. They are presumably ponderosa pine or a mix of ponderosa pine and alligator juniper.
Within the project area, there are approximately 18,000 acres identified as Great Basin grassland. Many of these grassland acres have become invaded by pinon-juniper, resulting in higher canopy cover than what is desired. Currently on the allotment, there are 12,476 acres that are classified as having less than 10% canopy cover. However, even in these areas, pinon-juniper canopy cover is increasing. The remaining grasslands currently have 10 to 35% existing canopy cover. It is desirable on these grasslands to restore a desired canopy cover less than 10% on approximately 18,000 acres.
There are approximately 60,000 acres within the project area identified as pinon-juniper woodland. The pinon-juniper woodland is further divided into savanna and persistent woodland. Savannas generally have an herbaceous dominated understory, occur on flats, basins, gentler east, south, and west facing foothills, gentle uplands and transitional valleys, and are generally at lower elevations than the ponderosa pine. Savannas typically have canopy cover between 10 and 15%, but may range up to 30%. Currently, there are 3,914 acres classified as existing savanna that have canopy covers between 10 and 20%. It is desirable to have approximately 25,000 acres of savanna that have less than 20% canopy cover of pinon-juniper.
Persistent woodlands generally have a spare discontinuous understory of grasses, occur on flats, ridgetops, rugged uplands, and steep slopes on soils that may be shallow and rocky. These areas generally have greater than 30% canopy of pinon-juniper. Currently there are approximately 56,000 acres classified as having canopy covers greater than 30%. It is desirable to have approximately 35,000 acres of persistent woodland within the project area
19
Heber Allotment Table 6. Summary of existing and desired ground cover, species composition, and trend on CNVSP transects for the Heber Allotment (all numbers are expressed in terms of percent) Combined Transect Basal Bare Overall Rock Gravel Litter Species Name Veg Soil Trend Composition Slightly Existing 8 2 5 56 31 86 Up NATT1 Static to Desired 5 to 15 0 to 5 5 to 15 45 to 65 20 to 35 52 to 90 Up Existing 10 0 2 37 52 81 Static OWTT1 Static to Desired 5 to 20 0 to 5 0 to 5 20 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 90 Up Existing 9 0 6 46 38 66 Static RKTT1 Static to Desired 5 to 25 0 to 5 5 to 10 40 to 60 20 to 40 60 to 90 Up Existing 8 0 0 54 39 86 Static MTTT1 Static to Desired 5 to 20 0 to 5 0 to 5 40 to 70 25 to 50 52 to 95 Up Existing 9 0 5 46 41 84 Up SQTT1 Static to Desired 5 to 20 0 to 5 1 to 10 35 to 55 35 to 50 60 to 95 Up Existing 7 0 0 67 27 74 Static BGTT1 Static to Desired 5 to 20 0 to 5 0 to 5 50 to 75 20 to 35 51 to 90 Up Existing 12 0 4 53 30 73 Static HCTT1 Static to Desired 10 to 25 0 to 5 1 to 10 40 to 65 20 to 40 55 to 90 Up Existing 6 5 2 67 17 41 Static NLTT1 Static to Desired 5 to 15 1 to 10 1 to 5 50 to 75 5 to 25 30 to 75 Up Existing 7 0 0 63 30 79 Static GNTT1 Static to Desired 5 to 20 0 to 5 0 to 5 50 to 75 15 to 40 55 to 95 Up Slightly Existing 20 0 0 58 23 70 Up BNTT1 Static to Desired 10 to 30 0 to 5 0 to 5 40 to 70 10 to 35 40 to 85 Up Existing 10 0 0 69 21 51 Static PPTT1 Static to Desired 5 to 20 0 to 5 0 to 5 55 to 80 10 to 30 35 to 85 Up
20 Environmental Assessment Table 7. Summary of existing and desired ground cover, species composition, and trend on Parker-3 Step transects for the Heber Allotment (all numbers are expressed in terms of percent) Combined Transect Plant Overall Litter Rock Bare Species Name Hits Trend Composition Existing 13 20 3 64 96 Static Red Knoll Static to C5 Desired 10 to 25 10 to 30 1 to 10 50 to 70 70 to 100 Up Existing 17 34 1 45 95 Static Mud Tank Static to C1 Desired 10 to 25 30 to 50 0 to 5 35 to 65 70 to 100 Up Existing 20 25 0 55 98 Static Squaw Static to C4 Desired 15 to 40 20 to 40 0 to 5 35 to 65 70 to 100 Up Existing 41* 52 3 4 52 Static Nelson Static to C5 Desired 5 to 30 45 to 70 1 to 10 1 to 25 40 to 70 Up Phoenix Existing 11 65 3 21 72 Static Park Static to Desired 10 to 25 45 to 75 1 to 10 15 to 35 55 to 90 C3 Up Phoenix Existing 42 46 <1 11 79 Static Park Static to Desired 20 to 50 30 to 60 0 to 5 10 to 45 55 to 90 C4 Up *This number may be higher than it should be based on how plant hits were recorded in 2004.
Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Over the long-term, the effects of this alternative would be a lack of or no maintenance at all of structural range improvements. The effect of no maintenance on earthen stock tanks would result in them being filled in with sediment, at a similar rate to alternative 2, which would result in decreased water volume holding capability and eventually breaching the dam, resulting in no water holding capability. Trick tanks, wells, and water systems would not be maintained under this alternative. The effects of this would result in trick tank aprons, storages, and troughs not being maintained and would eventually become non-functional. Wells and the improvements associated with them would not be maintained and the wells would not be pumped in the short term. In the long term, these improvements would eventually become non-functional, which would have an effect on the available water for wildlife, changing the amount of available habitat. Interior fencelines would degrade to a point that they would pose problems for wildlife and the public and would eventually need to be removed.
Although there would be no livestock grazing authorized, light utilization would take place by wildlife (elk, insects, etc.) and horses. Studies have shown that forage production was 24% higher under light than moderate grazing (Holechek et al 1999). Light use is classified where only choice plants and areas are used and there is no use of poor forage plants (Holechek 1998). Light use may show some increases in palatable forage species composition, however different stocking rates, which correlate to use levels, generally had more impact on forage production than plant composition (Holechek et al. 1999). No vegetation monitoring would be conducted, resulting in a lack of data for understory vegetation.
21
Heber Allotment The northern pastures (Bigler, Squaw, Mud Tank, Red Knoll, North Ancient, South Ancient, Oil Well, and Halter Cross), currently dominated by blue grama, may experience an increase in production of blue grama, but likely would not see much change in species composition as a result of removing livestock. A general slight increase in ground cover, resulting from increased production, may be expected in the short term. Under light stocking, upward trends have been seen in ecological condition (Holechek 1999). The upward degree of these trends was not classified in that study. In the long term, without vegetation treatments, these increases in production, ground cover, and trends would begin to diminish as a result of increasing overstory canopy cover. Dense stands of even aged trees can dominate a site so that the soil surface is largely barren of understory grasses and forbs. Displacement of understory plants by juniper resulted in a loss of 70 percent of the perennial grasses, forbs, and half-shrubs in an ungrazed study plot (USDA 1964). Species composition changes would likely be more related to the overstory juniper increase rather than the removal of livestock.
For the southern pastures (Nelson, Gentry, Bunger, and Phoenix Park), which are dominated by understory species more closely related to the ponderosa pine type, light use levels would still be expected, but may be slightly higher based on a more prominent elk population. In the ponderosa pine type, lightly grazed areas generally showed more abundant flower stalks and seed heads than moderately grazed areas. Light grazing provided for the best vigor, slightly above moderate grazing levels, and herbage production of mountain muhly and Arizona fescue, when compared to moderate and heavy grazing. Even in lightly grazed pastures, areas of heavy and moderate grazing may occur (Johnson 1953). Under Alternative 1, there would still be areas that receive concentrated use by wildlife, even with the removal of livestock. These areas would likely be more preferable areas, like open timber stands and drainage bottoms that produce desirable forage species. Ponderosa pine tends to increase with the removal of domesticated livestock in these ponderosa pine dominated sites. According to studies on New Mexico Forests, ponderosa pine had a greater increase under protection from grazing than when grazed. Where protection from grazing had been provided, dense coverages of pine seedlings developed (Potter and Krenetsky 1967). Under Alternative 1, increases in vigor and production of some species can be expected, while blue grama may decrease in vigor and production. Ground cover could increase, resulting from increased production and vigor, which may result in slightly upward trends. In the long term, without the presence of livestock grazing, ponderosa pine would continue to increase. Increases in ponderosa pine canopy would decrease the production of understory vegetation by producing more needle cast and limiting the amount of light and water that reaches the forest floor. The amount of light reaching the forest floor is the most influential and manageable variable affecting understory forage production. Dense forest canopies, resulting under Alternative 1, intercept significant snow and rainfall throughout the year. Most of the intercepted precipitation evaporates directly into the atmosphere thereby reducing the amount of water reaching plant roots (Kolb 1999). In these southern pastures, ground cover would be expected to increase, mainly provided by pine needles, instead of basal coverages provided from native perennial grasses. Trends would likely decline as understory forage is replaced by ponderosa pine canopy and needle cast. Species composition of existing forage plants would decline as canopy cover and competition for resources increases.
Alternative 2 Livestock grazing on the allotment would be authorized and would continue under issuance of a new term grazing permit. Under the new permit, a range of numbers would be authorized up to 7,600 AUM’s and a six month grazing season (May 1 to October 31) under a deferred, rest rotation grazing system. Conservative stocking levels would result in utilization between 25 and 35%. A new allotment management plan would be developed to include adaptive management strategies. A monitoring plan for both implementation and effectiveness monitoring would be developed as part of the allotment management plan. New structural range improvements would be developed under this
22 Environmental Assessment alternative. Vegetation treatments that include pinon-juniper grassland restoration and savanna thinning would occur under this proposal.
A monitoring plan would be developed under this alternative to evaluate conditions moving toward desired conditions. The monitoring plan would include implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring would be used to determine if any adjustments in management should be implemented to allow for plant development, regrowth, and recovery from the grazing event. Effectiveness monitoring would be used to assess the effectiveness of management in achieving desired objectives. Short term effects of livestock grazing would be tracked through implementation monitoring and long term effects would be tracked through effectiveness monitoring.
The effects of livestock grazing at the proposed conservative levels (25-35% utilization) would maintain or even improve the density, composition, vigor, and production of desirable forage plants within areas that have or would have less than 20% canopy cover(grasslands and savannas). Increases in these attributes would also have a positive effect on ground cover and trends, likely increasing at a minimum or improving both. Areas that have greater than 20% canopy(persistent woodlands), and would not receive any treatment would produce the same amount of grass and forbs, with maybe a slight decline in production of understory vegetation in the long term. In these areas, ground cover, species composition, and trends are expected to stay the same. Livestock grazing would have little effect on these areas with greater than 20% canopy, compared to the effects created by the overstory component. In these areas, the amount of understory vegetation may be controlled by the tree overstory and may not reflect grazing effects (Arnold 1964). A seasonal deferred, rest rotation grazing system would allow for varied timing of grazing among plants. This allows for different plants to be grazed at different growth stages within any given year and from year to year. In the long term, combined with other management factors, this grazing system would help promote a healthy understory of desirable forage species. Across all studies in a Holechek paper, forage production was 7% higher under rotation compared to continuous grazing and has shown to be more beneficial to desirable forage species (Holechek 1999). Adaptive management strategies built into the allotment management plan would allow for greater flexibility in timing, intensity, numbers, etc. These strategies allow for a greater level of management, increasing efficiency and effectiveness of management for both the Forest Service and the livestock operator. Strategies are further described in the adaptive management section of this report.
Livestock grazing at the proposed levels would not be contingent upon completion of any of the identified proposed range improvements. Proposed management levels are based upon existing conditions and current historical data. Should these improvements be completed, utilization in key areas may decrease, indicating that stocking levels are either appropriate or need to be adjusted within levels specified in this analysis. Proposed structural range improvements would enhance livestock and vegetation management, promote better livestock distribution and make handling livestock more efficient, resulting in movement toward management objectives, including a positive effect on ground cover, species composition, and trends. New improvements identified under Alternative 2 include:
Waters: (1 well, 17 miles of pipeline, 28 water troughs, 2 water storages, 4 new trick tanks and 1 expansion, and 16 new stock tanks) These improvements deal mainly with either the improvement of existing water sources or the development of new water sources, with the objective of trying to establish more permanent water sources on the allotment. The addition of these more permanent water sources would aid in livestock distribution and overall use of the allotment, allowing for more flexible management practices. These waters would help in areas that are currently lacking water. This would spread out livestock distribution and make more efficient use of the available forage. Some disturbance would occur during installation and some additional trailing, compaction, loss of ground cover and species may occur around these areas (typically less than 5 acres). There also may be some localized trampling of 23
Heber Allotment plants during the implementation phase of these projects, but the effects to the plant community would be of minimal scale and of short duration.
Livestock Handling: (7 waterlots, 8 corrals, 2 holding pastures, 2 new cattleguards and re-locate one) These improvements deal with the actual on the ground livestock handling and gathering. These improvements increase efficiency in livestock handling, allowing for a greater level of management to be implemented. Waterlots allow the permittee to close waters off, which allows for a different part of the pasture to be utilized that may not have received use otherwise. Waterlots also provide for the capability to hold livestock for a short time for livestock management purposes. More corrals help with handling livestock, whether they are being moved from pasture to pasture, branding or doctoring animals, or being counted. Holding pastures allow for livestock to be placed in an area that is smaller than the main pasture for management activities and ease of movement between pastures. Cattleguards would replace gates that are on roads that receive higher than normal public use, which presents the opportunity for gates to be left open and allow for livestock to enter another pasture. Cattleguards would prevent cattle from moving between pastures due to gates being left open. Some disturbance would occur during installation and some additional trailing, compaction, loss of ground cover and species may occur around these areas (typically less than 5 acres). There also may be some localized trampling of plants during the implementation phase of these projects, but the effects to the plant community would be of minimal scale and of short duration, with positive long term effects outweighing the negative short term effects.
Vegetation Treatments: (17,758 acres of grassland restoration, 21,196 acres of savanna thinning) These vegetation treatments are proposed to decrease the overall canopy cover of pinon-juniper canopy. More than one treatment may be needed to accomplish the desired outcomes. A reduction in canopy cover would result in increased understory vegetation with greater production, vigor, ground cover, and species composition. Herbage production in open pinon-juniper stands may be as much as six times higher than dense pinon-juniper stands (Clary 1986). Grassland restoration treatments would result in canopy cover less than 10%. These grassland areas would show a greater increase in attributes associated with increased understory vegetation and would improve livestock distribution more so than the untreated areas, if climate and soil types are appropriate. In Arizona, an increase of tree canopy cover from 0 to 10% can reduce herbage production by as much as 50% while additional increases in canopy cover have comparatively modest effects on herbage production (Clary 1986). In a study done by Clary and Jameson (1981), the proportion of grasses by weight in the post-treatment composition increased to 73% from a pretreatment average of 46%. The most prominent species was blue grama with about 24% of the post-treatment production. Blue grama, which has a reputation of low productivity and was not expected to respond greatly to pinon-juniper removal, increased approximately 11 times (Clary and Jameson 1981). Western wheatgrass, a cool season grower, responds rapidly to the removal of pinon and juniper, particularly on heavy swale soils, where it is a prominent part of the understory vegetation (Arnold 1964). The extra production in forage, more so on native perennial grasses than forbs, associated with grassland vegetation treatments would allow for greater flexibility in management.
Savanna thinning treatments would result in canopy cover of pinon-juniper between 10 and 20%. These savanna thinning areas would show an increase in herbaceous understory vegetation in terms of production, species diversity, vigor, and litter accumulation, but at slightly lower levels than grassland treatments. Mechanical methods used to remove the vegetation would disturb the soil and remove some of the vegetation in the short term, generally 1-2 years. In general, after two years of summer rainfall, soils should be stabilized and vegetation production, ground cover, and species composition would have surpassed pre-treatment levels, based on results for similar treatments done on the Black Mesa Ranger District in the last decade. Arnold’s study in 1964, shows that herbage production
24 Environmental Assessment increased until about 10 years after treatment, from 198 lbs/acre before juniper control to about 690 lbs/acre ten years after treatment. He noted that maximum herbage production probably occurs 5 to 10 years after treatment (Arnold 1964). Landing areas associated with processing the removed material may take longer to recover, but are small in scale to the overall treatment area. Landing areas may be ripped and seeded if needed. Vegetation treatments would maintain or improve ground cover, species composition of desirable forage species, and overall trends in grasslands and savannas.
Table 8. Existing and proposed acres for grassland, savanna woodland, and persistent woodland vegetation types under Alternative 2 Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Savanna Savanna Persistent Persistent Pasture Grassland Grassland Woodland Woodland Woodland Woodland (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) North and South 874 1,260 378 2,955 8,828 5,867 Ancient Oil Well 101 753 805 6,493 11,514 5,175 Red Knoll 2,117 2,449 404 1,297 6,917 5,691 Mud Tank 219 610 345 3,863 9,166 5,263 Squaw 3,318 4,709 234 298 7,703 6,248 Bigler 4,687 6,409 1,247 4,159 10,503 5,868 Halter Cross 1,160 1,568 501 2,131 4,563 2,571 Total 12,476 17,758 3,914 21,196 59,194 36,683 % of Total Area 17% 23% 5% 28% 78% 48% (81,333 acres) Grassland = <10% Canopy Cover Savanna Woodland = 10-20% Canopy Cover Persistent Woodland = 20+% Canopy Cover
Effects of Livestock Grazing Under alternative 2, conservative utilization levels (25 to 35%) are being proposed. Conservative use levels are generally lower than moderate levels but higher than light levels. Moderate grazing (generally up to 50%) means a degree of herbage utilization that allows the palatable species to maintain themselves but usually does not permit them to improve in herbage producing ability. Light grazing (generally up to 25%) means a degree of herbage utilization that allows palatable species to maximize their herbage producing ability (Holechek 1999). Conservative use levels have shown to provide benefits from both levels of utilization, with the greatest benefit of light or conservative stocking in terms of forage production occurring in dry years (Holechek 1999). Most of the studies available are in terms of light, moderate, or heavy grazing, so for this report, an assumption must be made that data presented for moderate grazing levels could have had up to 50% utilization, whereas Alternative 2 proposes levels of 25-35%. Holechek (1999) also stated that different stocking rates generally had more impact on forage production rather than plant composition, although stocking rates can influence species composition.
For the northern pastures (Bigler, Squaw, Mud Tank, Red Knoll, North Ancient, South Ancient, Oil Well, and Halter Cross), blue grama makes up the majority of the species composition. Under Alternative 2, blue grama would continue to dominate the northern pastures, with a small amount of other desirable grass species making up the remainder of the composition. In a study completed by Schuster in 1964 comparing grazing intensities to root development, he found that blue grama and other grasses had a higher percentage of ground cover and composition in moderately grazed areas 25
Heber Allotment than in exclosures which excluded livestock. A similar study completed on a high elevation grassland near Flagstaff, AZ (Loeser et al 2007), showed similar results. That study showed that cattle removal demonstrated no consistent differences in cover from the moderate grazing control in any plant functional category. This study also showed that native species richness, which is correlated to species composition, in the moderately grazed treatment was greater or similar to that in cattle removal plots, even in dry years. Under Alternative 2, species composition should remain similar or increase compared to what is existing currently. Ground cover should remain relatively stable, with no major changes likely to take place. Trends on long term transects should remain stable or improve under the actions proposed in Alternative 2. It is likely that more influence on ground cover, species composition, and trends is provided by overstory canopy cover rather than livestock grazing.
For the southern pastures (Nelson, Gentry, Bunger, and Phoenix Park), which are more dominated by ponderosa pine rather than pinon-juniper, effects from livestock grazing are similar to the northern pastures, but would vary slightly in species composition and ground cover. Similar to the northern pastures, it is more likely that species composition, ground cover, and trend would be more influenced by overstory vegetation rather than livestock grazing. Potter and Krenetsky (1967) actually found that ponderosa pine had a greater increase under protection than when grazed and found that dense coverages of pine seedlings developed in the areas protected from grazing. Based on this data, Alternative 2 should help to slow down some of the ponderosa pine regeneration, which has a major influence on understory vegetation, that occurs in these pastures. Herbage production increased on the moderately and lightly grazed grassland and was maintained on the moderately and lightly grazed open timber (Johnson 1953). Vigor of Arizona fescue and mountain muhly would remain the same under the use levels proposed under Alternative 2 (Johnson 1953). In conclusion, Alternative 2 would maintain or improve production and vigor of desirable perennial grass species in the ponderosa pine type. Species composition should remain similar to existing conditions, as well as ground cover and trends under the proposed management activities.
26 Environmental Assessment Table 9. Alternatives Comparison by Pasture Proposed Grassland/Savanna Result in Long Term Proposed Structural Improvements Pasture Treatment Acres (% Trend* of pasture) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 North and 1 waterlot 4,215 None 0 → or ↘ → or ↗ South Ancient 1 corral (41%) 5 ¾ miles of pipe 7 troughs 7,246 Oil Well None 0 → or ↘ → or ↗ 1 storage (53%) 1 trick tank 1 cattleguard 3,746 Red Knoll None 0 → or ↘ → or ↗ Re-locate 1 cattleguard (39%) 2 corral expansions 2 waterlots 1 trick tank expansion 4,473 Mud Tank None 0 → or ↘ → or ↗ 1 new trick tank (34%) 1 ½ miles of pipe 5 troughs 1 mile of pipe 5,007 Squaw None 0 → or ↘ → or ↗ 1 trough (45%) 1 well 8 ½ miles of pipe 8 troughs 10,568 Bigler None 0 → or ↘ → or ↗ 1 storage (66%) 1 waterlot 1 corral 2 stock tanks 1 trick tank 3,699 Halter Cross None 0 → or ↘ → or ↗ 4 troughs (50%) 2 ¼ miles of pipe Nelson None 1 holding pasture 0 0 → → 1 cattleguard 1 holding pasture Gentry None 3 stock tanks 0 0 → → 1 corral 1 waterlot 4 stock tanks Bunger None 0 0 → or ↗ → or ↗ 2 waterlots 5 stock tanks 1 corral expansion 2 corrals Phoenix Park None 1 holding trap 0 0 → → 1 trick tank 1 ¼ miles of pipe 3 troughs *based on 6 Parker 3-Steps and 11 CNVSP transects → - stable with no apparent trend ↗ - upward trend ↘ - downward trend
27
Heber Allotment Cumulative Effects Past Activities The past activities are as follows: Broadcast Burning, Pile Burning, Timber Cuts, Compacting/Crushing of Fuels, Fuel Break, Noxious Weed Treatments, Piling, Chipping, Rearrangement of Fuels, Wildfires (such as Rodeo-Chediski and the Potato), Tree Planting, Grazing, Range Forage Improvement, Tree Encroachment Control, Non-Structural Watershed Improvements, Pinon-Juniper Removal, and Wildlife Habitat Improvement. In general, these past activities have had a cumulative effect on existing conditions. The vegetation and landscape that is present within the Heber Allotment is a result of these activities, along with several other factors. These activities have generally provided a benefit to the range and vegetation portions of the allotment.
Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Rodeo-Chediski Prescribed Burn – An environmental analysis was completed in 2012 that analyzed prescribed burning in the Rodeo-Chediski fire. This activity should reduce ponderosa pine regeneration and restore vigor in herbaceous understory vegetation. Prescribed burning, depending on the scale, could impact pasture rotations, livestock distribution, and overall livestock productivity.
Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Plan – A Record of Decision was signed January 2015 for a revision to the regulations regarding the gray wolf. This revision expanded the territory to include the Sitgreaves National Forest, which includes the Heber Allotment. It also allows for the release of wolves on the Sitgreaves. The presence of wolves on the Heber Allotment could impact pasture rotations, livestock, distribution, and livestock productivity.
Heber Wild Horse Territory – The Heber Wild Horse Territory (HWHT) is approximately 20,000 acres, entirely on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Approximately 9,349 acres of the HWHT overlaps the Heber Allotment, mainly within the Gentry Pasture (7,326 acres), with the remainder in the Bunger Pasture (1,892 acres), and the Holding Pasture (131 acres). The HWHT is currently undergoing analysis, with no current proposed action developed at this time. As part of the NEPA process, a management plan for the HWHT would be developed which would result in the development of an Appropriate Management Level (AML).
OHV Trails and Use – In the project area, there are numerous OHV trails and routes. Unauthorized OHV use can decrease production and ground cover. OHV use can also impact long term monitoring transects by reducing vegetation and potentially destroying the transect location itself. The effects of OHV use are minor in scale when compared to the total project area.
Watershed & Soils
Affected Environment Air Quality The ASNFs management activities do not appreciably contribute to the increase of the six pollutants identified by the EPA, except for particulate matter. The primary source of particulate matter from the forests comes from road and fugitive1 dust and emissions from smoke, contributing to regional haze. The forests also contribute emissions from motor vehicles. Five Class 1 airsheds are identified within a 80 mile radius of the project area: Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Mazatzal Wilderness, Sierra Ancha Wilderness, and Pine Mountain Wilderness. Motor vehicle
1 Fugitive dust is fine particulate matter from windblown soil and dust which becomes airborne.
28 Environmental Assessment emissions from within the ASNFs are deemed negligible in relation to these airsheds. The number of vehicles operating across the forests is not considered to measurably impact air-quality. Mount Baldy, located within the ASNFs is located generally upwind of all roads on the forests and this area has few roads and receives little traffic. In addition, the majority of motor vehicles are approved to meet EPA emission standards, which reduce forest impacts further.
The Heber Allotment does not currently fall within non-attainment areas for any of the listed pollutants (ADEQ 2011). According to Arizona, this eliminates the need to do complex modeling or projections for minor projects and activities that do not have regional significance other than burning. Counties and municipalities may invoke additional requirements for projects or activities that are a source of pollutants, however, none have been identified in lands associated with the ASNFs.
Dust generated from vehicles driving on unpaved national forest system roads can contribute to regional haze. There is no direct relationship between miles of roads on the forests and actual miles traveled by motor vehicles. This is more a function of peak usage times such as during summer holidays when the forests get high use. During winter, the same forest roads generate almost no usage by vehicles. Additionally, dust generated from unpaved roads generally settles out within a short distance (around 20 feet) of the point of generation. Larger particle sizes of road dust drop out within tens of feet, while smaller particles drop out within a quarter-mile. Unless winds carry road dust a farther distance, dust generated on the forests does not leave the forests. There are currently 529 miles of road within the allotment, most are very low speed causing little dust.
Soil Condition and Trends Eighty-one percent of the Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey (TES) map units within the Heber allotment exhibit satisfactory soil conditions while 17 percent was rated as impaired. No TES map units were rated as unsatisfactory. The remaining acreage was given an inherently unstable or “unsuited” soil condition classification as the area occurs on slopes exceeding 40 percent. Soils on slopes exceeding 40 percent are typically unsuited for management activity and generally only receive incidental use by livestock.
Field observations and soil condition assessments indicate previous treatment areas that were opened up to 0 – 10 percent canopy cover of pinyon-juniper within grassland vegetation types, 10 – 20 canopy cover in pinyon-juniper savanna types, and between 20 – 30 percent cover in persistent pinyon-juniper woodlands exhibit satisfactory soil conditions and are functioning well ecologically. Trends for these site conditions are stable.
There are some locations within the allotment where current juniper encroachment has caused an overall reduction in soil condition to an impaired state. This trend was observed in areas where pinyon-juniper canopy cover is in excess of 30 - 35 percent with juniper accounting for the vast majority of the encroachment. Generally, current trends suggest a stable state. However, if juniper encroachment continues to occur, a downward trend is possible overtime. Persistent juniper encroachment tends to outcompete understory species for site resources such as available nutrients, water, and sunlight. Ultimately, this reduces grass and forb cover on these sites as well as reduces the potential for soil biotic crusts to become established. Subsequently, more bare soil is exposed, leaving soils susceptible to accelerated soil loss. The presence of desirable grass, forb, and soil biotic crust cover aid against soil loss and is generally indicative of good soil productivity. Most of the area within the allotment also benefits from a large amount of rock fragments on the surface which helps protect against soil loss.
Contiguous, accelerated soil loss is occurring in locations of impaired soil conditions along stretches of FS road 95 through the northwestern portion of the Oil Well pasture and the southwestern portion
29
Heber Allotment of the Red Knoll pasture. The potential for a downward trend exists in these localized areas. Upland slopes adjacent to these locations exhibit grass, litter, and soil biotic crust cover amounts well below desirable conditions. Inherently, these soils are shallow, rocky, and not as productive for grass establishment compared to bottomland soils. Past ground disturbances coupled with current juniper encroachment in these particular locations has exacerbated soil loss and has had some negative impacts to desirable site stability and productivity. If these site conditions persist, there is the potential for a downward trend in soil conditions. However, the spatial extent of these conditions is minimal across the entire allotment and is associated primarily with one soil type in TES map unit 52 in the Oil Well and Red Knoll pastures.
Soils in riparian-intermittent and ephemeral drainages across the allotment exhibit impaired soil conditions. Trends are currently stable. Although they make up only 2 percent of the project area, riparian-intermittent and ephemeral drainage soils can be sensitive and are inherently important to the health of these ecosystems. The overall condition and function of the soils in these areas has an impact on the system’s ability to adequately filter water. They are also important locations for wildlife habitat. Soil compaction is visibly evident in locations where ungulates concentrate and accelerated sheet erosion is occurring in some locations as pedestalling of grass and forb species is present. Riparian plant species cover and diversity is less than desirable conditions in some areas as well. Some of this can be attributed to drought and watershed condition affects linked to the Rodeo- Chediski fire, however, localized trampling from ungulate usage has had some negative impact to desirable site stability and productivity in these areas. While the aforementioned factors describe an impaired soil condition, field observations and documentation does not indicate an apparent downward trend specifically linked to current grazing management.
Water Quality As reported in Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s “Status of Water Quality in Arizona – 2012” (ADEQ 2014), no streams within the allotment boundary were assessed or found to be impaired.
Black Canyon Lake, with a designated use for Aquatics and Wildlife (coldwater fishery), has been listed as being impaired (category 5) with ammonia. The listed potential sources of ammonia in Black Canyon Lake include: impacts from hydrostructure flow regulation/modification, internal nutrient recycling (natural and wildlife), municipal point source discharges, natural sources, other recreational pollution sources, and watershed runoff following forest fire. ADEQ has recommended more samples be collected for TMDL development. Although the actual source of the ammonia has not been definitively identified, watershed runoff following forest fire is a strong possibility. The sampling which triggered the 303d listing occurred in 2004, just a few a years after the area around the lake burned during the Rodeo-Chediski wildfire. No sampling has occurred since. Cattle were removed from the Rodeo-Chediski burned area from the time the fire occurred to the time the sample was collected.
Roads can be a major contributor of sediment to streams. There are currently 529 miles of roads within the allotment, this does not include the many miles of user created roads. Average road density for the allotment is about 2.2 miles/square miles. BMPs for road maintenance were incorporated into forest policy in 2012.
Water Quantity Within the Heber Allotment project boundary, approximately 413 miles of stream were identified in the forest stream geodatabase, of which 234 miles are ephemeral, 178 miles are intermittent, and less than a mile is perennial (Table 10). According to the geodatabase, perennial stream reaches were
30 Environmental Assessment located in Hangman’s Draw (0.4 miles), Jersey Canyon (0.3 miles) and the West Fork of Black Canyon (0.1 miles).
Table 10. Existing miles by stream type and the percent of total (413 miles) that each stream type represents in the project area Stream Type Stream Type Miles Percent of Total Ephemeral 234 57% Intermittent 178 43% Perennial 0.8 <1%
The major drainages within the Heber Allotment are: Black Canyon, Wildcat Canyon, Buckskin Wash, Brookbank Canyon, Phoenix Park Wash, Pierce Wash and Larson Draw. As discussed in the riparian section, many of the streams, especially in the south half of the allotment have experienced direct or indirect effects from the Rodeo Chediski wildfire in 2002. These effects include increased flow from runoff, increased magnitude of peak flows, with accompanying sediment movement, and channel erosion. A portion of the increased flow from runoff has probably been negated by the continuing long term drought the region is currently experiencing. Recovery to pre-fire peak flows normally occurs within 5 to 10 years following wildfire. After nearly 13 years of recovery, the hydrologic regime in the Rodeo-Chediski affected areas have likely stabilized to pre-fire conditions.
Riparian Areas Riparian can be simply defined as the vegetation or habitats that are associated with the presence of water, whether it is perennial, subsurface, intermittent or ephemeral in nature (Krueper 1993). These areas are transitional between aquatic and terrestrial areas and have components of both (DeBano and Schmidt 1989). Riparian areas have distinctly different vegetative species composition than adjacent areas. Three types of drainage segments occur on the Heber Allotment. The most robust riparian vegetation occurs in association with perennial and intermittent stream systems. However, some transitional ephemeral drainages do support isolated pockets of riparian woody vegetation because of the presence of shallow subsurface water.
Examples of the various drainage types are given, but are not an all-inclusive list. Some of the reaches may have some attributes of more than one drainage type, but were categorized based on overall characteristics.
1. Ephemeral Drainages: in steeper, headwater reaches of drainages these drainages function solely to collect and transmit water off the uplands, hence, they contain primarily vegetation of the same species and stature as the upland vegetation. As moisture runs off before any substantial amount can be stored, there is no immediate beneficial effect to vegetation. In ephemeral reaches with lower gradients and wider valley widths, where water slows and moisture is stored in deeper alluvial soils, upland vegetation takes advantage of the greater residence time of water to grow larger and denser than what grows in the uplands or in ephemeral reaches. Tree species such as oaks grow to large trunk diameters with impressive spreading crowns while shrubby species easily attain twice the height found on adjacent uplands. Although vegetation is typically not obligate riparian in these reaches, some pockets of riparian woody vegetation do occur were shallow ground water is available for roots to tap into. Channel morphology (drainage configuration) is typically too variable in ephemeral reaches to allow applying any sort of standard or expectation. Examples of ephemeral drainages are: Bear Springs, Buckskin Reach 1, Bunger, Decker Wash, Tributary to Black Canyon, West Park Draw, and Wildcat Canyon.
31
Heber Allotment 2. Riparian-Intermittent Drainages: found where obligate riparian species occur intermittently along the reach due to sporadic presence of water from spring sources or from subsurface flows; also includes areas such as isolated springs. Presence of surface water is dependent upon subterranean bedrock configuration that allows water retention at relatively shallow depths or actual surfacing of low flows along intermittent sections of the stream course. The presence of a shallow water table allows obligate riparian species to sustain themselves during dry periods. Proper functioning condition (PFC) of intermittent streams includes the 17 critical elements found in standard lotic PFC assessments, which encompasses hydrology, vegetation, and geomorphology. Reaches meeting PFC criteria are also in satisfactory riparian condition in terms of Forest Plan standards. Examples of riparian-intermittent drainage reaches are: Baca Meadow reach BACA, Black Canyon reaches BC1 and BC4, Buckskin Wash reach BW1, Phoenix Park Wash reaches PP1 though PP4, Pierce Wash reaches PW1 through PW5, Turkey Canyon reach TC. 3. Riparian-Perennial Drainages: found where there is perennial surface and ground water and riparian-obligate vegetation is fairly continual along the reach. Generally, perennial reaches are located at the mouths of fairly sizable watersheds, which are required to supply sufficient and continual discharge to sustain surface flows throughout the year. Similar to intermittent streams, PFC of perennial streams includes the 17 critical elements found in standard lotic PFC assessments, which encompasses hydrology, vegetation, and geomorphology. Reaches meeting PFC criteria are also in satisfactory riparian condition in terms of Forest Plan standards. Gentry reach GEN and Hangman’s Draw reach HANG (both perennial interrupted) are examples of riparian-perennial surveyed sites. As stated earlier, less than one mile of perennial stream exists of the 413 miles of stream on the allotment. Therefore, most of the riparian areas within the Heber Allotment are associated with intermittent streams. The most persistent surface water in these systems occurs in areas with shallow depth to bedrock and is found in channel pools after sporadic steam flow has ceased. Because of the lack of long continuous stretches of permanent water, riparian vegetation could best be described as discontinuous and ‘patchy’. Herbaceous riparian vegetation occurs infrequently and is typically narrow in width. Woody riparian vegetation is more common and depends on a large extent on water stored in the alluvium. The total linear length of streams with riparian vegetation was approximately 46 miles (USDA, 2011). The proportion of the riparian units identified by RMAP was: 94% of the Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Shrub, 4% Herbaceous, and 2% Arizona Walnut.
Proper functioning condition assessments were performed on a total of 30.1 miles of intermittent and perennial stream within the project boundary in 2013 and 2014 (note: this protocol is not applicable to ephemeral streams). These stream segments possessed the strongest riparian characteristics as far as vegetative diversity and density. The results of the PFC assessment work for this project are shown in Table 9. The PFC assessment ratings yielded a total of 1.4 miles at PFC, 11.4 miles at Functional at Risk with an upward trend (FAR U), and 17.3 miles at Functional at Risk with no trend apparent (FAR NA). There were no reaches that were rated nonfunctional or Functional at Risk with a downward trend (FAR D). Although PFC is not considered a monitoring tool because of its lack of precision and repeatability (Crowely et al, 2006), comparisons to previously completed assessments is useful. With one exception, all the reaches showed either PFC ratings that improved or remained the same when compared with those completed in 2004. Eight reaches showed improvement (total of 14.9 miles), eight stayed the same (total of 13.7 miles), and one rating went from a FAR U to a FAR NA (1.5 miles). The IDT concurred that many of the reaches that remained at FAR NA were on an improving trajectory, however not enough to improve the rating. In the reach where the rating went from a FAR U to a FAR NA, it is likely that the actual conditions have not degraded, but that there were differences in how the check list items were judged.
32 Environmental Assessment Table 11. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Results Stream System PFC Length Date Most Most Recent Previous Trend Name (miles) Recent PFC rating Rating Assessment Completed
Black Canyon BC1 1.5 11/13/2013 FAR U FAR U same Black Canyon BC2 1.7 6/26/2014 FAR NA FAR NA same Black Canyon BC4 4.7 9/20/2014 FAR NA FAR NA same Black Canyon BM 0.6 12/4/2014 FAR NA NF improvement (Baca Meadow) Buckskin Wash BW1 2.9 12/13/2013 FAR NA NF improvement Gentry GEN 0.6 11/12/2013 FAR U FAR D improvement Hangman's HANG 0.4 11/11/2013 FAR U FAR U same Draw Phoenix Park PP1 1.4 9/18/2013 FAR U FAR U same Wash Phoenix Park PP2 1.4 9/18/2013 PFC FAR U improvement Wash Phoenix Park PP3 1.1 9/19/2013 FAR NA FAR NA same Wash Phoenix Park PP4 2.6 9/19/2013 FAR U FAR NA Improvement, Wash new reach, formally part of PP3 Pierce Wash PW1 3.6 9/18/2013 FAR U FAR NA improvement Pierce Wash PW2 1.3 9/18/2013 FAR U FAR U improvement Pierce Wash PW3 1.1 9/19/2013 FAR NA FAR NA same Pierce Wash PW4 1.8 9/19/2013 FAR NA FAR NA same Pierce Wash PW5 1.5 9/20/2013 FAR NA FAR U downgraded Turkey Creek TC 2.5 6/25/2014 FAR NA NF improvement PFC is proper functioning condition, FAR is functional at risk which is showing an upward trend (U), downward trend (D) or trend not apparent (NA)
The effects of past management practices include entrenchment of stream channels, increased gradient, decreased sinuosity and subsequent decrease of the streams available floodplain. The Rodeo-Chediski fire burned through the southern portion of this allotment in 2002. The Wildcat/Little Wildcat Canyons were the only riparian areas not directly affected by the fire. Severity of wildfire effects varied throughout the allotment. Effects to the riparian systems included but were not limited to burning of the overstory, increased peak flows, increased bank erosion and sediment transport and deposition. PFC assessments conducted in 2004, two years after the Rodeo-Chediski wildfire, recorded substantial post-fire effects including downcutting, eroded banks, and loss of riparian vegetation.
33
Heber Allotment Reaches BM, PW1, PW2, and TC are showing post-fire recovery since those initial assessments were completed. These improvements included redevelopment of floodplains, and reestablishment of riparian vegetation on stream banks and within channel, resulting in improvement in PFC rating. GEN has showed substantial improvement since 2004 and the construction of an elk exclosure around the meadow. Headcutting has been stabilized and raw banks have been vegetated over.
One of the most common problems recorded was the lack of midsized riparian woody vegetation, specifically narrowleaf cottonwood and willow. Also, many of the larger woody trees were decadent. A positive outcome of the increase flows and sediment transport resulting from the Rodeo Chediski fire was in woody recruitment. Woody species reproduction is episodic, as they require a seed source, freshly deposited soil, and moisture for a sufficient time to develop a root system adequate to support the seedling until it is established (Winward 2000). Although woody recruitment was good, browsing by large ungulates was apparent in several areas. Another common observation was that several channel reaches were overly wide. This was apparent in a number of locations in Pierce Wash and Black Canyon reach BC2. The ‘dished out’ appearance at these localities is likely a direct result of excess hoof shear. The channel banks and associated herbaceous vegetation were trampled by large ungulates to the degree that disturbed fine grained soils were easily dislodged and eventually flushed downstream. Stream riffle sections were degraded, creating extended shallow pools.
Watershed Condition Framework The Heber allotment is located within twenty two 6th code watersheds. Table 12 provides the proportional extent of the allotment within the watersheds, and Watershed Condition Classification ratings. Watersheds with less than 1% of allotment area were assessed as not contributing detectable effects and dropped from further analysis. Information from the allotment analysis, including soil condition and PFC data, were used to update the 2011 scores. Indicator scores used to calculate Watershed Condition ratings are available in the project record. All the 6th code watersheds (about 79% of the total area) on the Heber Allotment were considered as Functioning at Risk for National Forest System lands, with the exception of Decker Wash, Lower Potato Wash, Middle Wildcat Canyon, Upper Potato Wash, and Upper Wildcat Canyon which were at Properly Functioning Condition. Watersheds that are rated as Proper Functioning Condition exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Watershed rated as Functional-at-Risk exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Watershed condition would be used for analysis in the cumulative effects section of this report.
34 Environmental Assessment
Table 12. Watershed Condition Classification Ratings of Watersheds within the Heber Allotment. th Total 6 Heber 6th Code Watershed Level HUC Allotment Proportiona Watershed Condition Classification Name Acres Acres l Extent Rating 6th Level HUC Bull Flat Canyon 14,374 4,991 35% Class 2-Functional at Risk Canyon Creek Headwaters 25,819 3,594 14% Class 2-Functional at Risk Lower Brookbank Canyon 20,989 19,359 92% Class 2-Functional at Risk Trap Tank-Chevelon Canyon 17,333 2,784 16% Class 2-Functional at Risk Buckskin Wash 18,626 14,700 79% Class 2-Functional at Risk Class 1-Proper Functioning Decker Wash 20,119 4,070 20% Condition Bear Canyon-Black Canyon 16,915 7,670 45% Class 2-Functional at Risk Squaw Wash-Black Class 1-Proper Functioning Canyon 15,879 4,615 29% Condition Lower Pierce Wash 12,489 834 7% Class 2-Functional at Risk Upper Phoenix Park Wash 19,279 10,765 56% Class 2-Functional at Risk Class 1-Proper Functioning Lower Wildcat Canyon 10,923 2,098 19% Condition Long Hollow Tank-Black Canyon 24,176 19,285 80% Class 2-Functional at Risk Upper Pierce Wash 16,415 12,618 77% Class 2-Functional at Risk Class 1-Proper Functioning Upper Potato Wash 12,971 5,802 45% Condition Class 1-Proper Functioning Middle Wildcat Canyon 10,362 142 1% Condition Buckskin Canyon-Carrizo Creek 23,931 3,842 16% Class 2-Functional at Risk Class 1-Proper Functioning Lower Potato Wash 24,200 10,523 43% Condition Long Draw 15,538 9,741 63% Class 2-Functional at Risk West Fork Black Canyon 8,670 6,093 70% Class 2-Functional at Risk Upper Day Wash 12,183 250 2% Class 2-Functional at Risk Class 1-Proper Functioning Upper Wildcat Canyon 25,488 6,908 27% Condition Upper Brookbank Canyon 16,593 5,849 35% Class 2-Functional at Risk
Air Quality Effects for All Alternatives There would be minimal differences in regards to air quality between the alternatives. Total smoke emissions from a wildfire would be expected to be greater than from a controlled prescribed burn, which must comply with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requirements for reporting and approval. Smoke emissions modeling would be completed as part of the permitting process. The Fire and Fuels Specialist report provides a detailed analysis of prescribed burning and air quality. Air quality impacts other than smoke are limited to the generation of dust generated by grazing/recreation activities. Grazing management use of the transportation system is limited.
35
Heber Allotment Fugitive dust may be generated in areas with the highest livestock concentration or from vehicles accessing allotments to conduct livestock management. These impacts are expected to stay within the analysis area as dust from the very few roads settles out relatively quickly. There is no measurable difference expected between alternatives as related to dust generated from livestock grazing activities. BMPs should be effective in retaining protective ground cover, reducing exposed soil susceptible to wind erosion and creation of dust in all action alternatives. The allotment is not within a State designated non-attainment area, therefore no conformity assessment was necessary or completed.
Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Soil Condition and Trends The existing condition of soils rated as satisfactory in grassland vegetation types being maintained at 0 – 10 percent canopy cover, pinyon-juniper savanna types at 10 – 20 canopy cover, and pinyon-juniper persistent woodlands at 20 – 30 percent canopy cover would continue under the no action alternative and trends would remain stable. Organic soil carbon would accumulate at potential rates and soil fertility would slowly improve commensurate with the accumulation of organic matter at its existing response rate to previous pinyon-juniper thinning and grassland restoration treatments within the allotment. Where residual coarse woody debris has been left from previous treatments and natural recovery of vegetative ground cover is intact and well developed, soils would be adequately protected and stable and infiltration rates would be near potential as surface runoff is minimized.
Grassland, savanna, and persistent woodland vegetation types with impaired soil conditions due to juniper encroachment would remain on a stable trend or have the potential for a downward trend overtime if treatment is not implemented or maintained and current site conditions continue to persist. Brockway et al (2001) determined that competition for limited site resources (nutrient stock, water, sunlight, etc.) from a relatively dense juniper overstory was a principal cause for decline in understory productivity and deterioration of soil condition at their study site on the Mountainair Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico. As woody species encroachment occurs, grass biomass and cover decrease as woody species biomass and cover increase. Additionally, herbaceous species richness and diversity tends to decline as woody species density increases (Van Auken 2009). If these site conditions persist, infiltration rates would gradually decrease as sheet erosion exacerbates compaction and a reduction in organic matter accumulation in the topsoil occurs. Bare soil exposure and connectivity would increase erosion rates and loss of vegetative ground cover could have long- term negative impacts on site stability and productivity.
Satisfactory soils would remain in their existing state and retain a stable trend. Impaired soils have the potential for an upward trend overtime in the absence of livestock grazing. Without the ground disturbing impacts (compaction, soil displacement) from trampling and growth stress applied to herbaceous vegetation during utilization, vegetation would be allowed to recover more quickly. As re- establishment of vegetative ground cover occurs in the absence of usage/disturbance from cattle, desirable soil productivity and stability would return at a quicker rate overtime compared to the proposed action.
Soils across the allotment would remain in their existing condition and trend. Increased sedimentation into stock tanks or troughs is possible if they are not maintained or improved, but the spatial extent of these effects is very minimal across the entire allotment. Any potential effects from sedimentation in a trough or tank would not have an influence on the overall soil condition and trend of a particular soil unit.
Soils in locations of heavy fuel loading under a dense pinyon-juniper canopy are generally impaired
36 Environmental Assessment and have the potential for a downward trend under alternative 1. Encroached, woodland vegetation types across the allotment with heavy fuel loading on the ground are more susceptible to high soil burn severity in the event of a wildfire. The loss of canopy cover, ground cover, and organic debris on the soil surface, together with the possible occurrence of hydrophobic soil layers in these areas typically associated with high burn severities, would likely lead to increases in soil erosion, loss of soil organic matter, and reduction in soil fertility. Soils in grassland vegetation types would not be affected under alternative 1 since fuel loading is inherently low in these areas. Soils would remain in their existing conditions and have the same trends.
Roads would continue to negatively impact soil condition in some localized areas across the allotment in the long term. Some locations are currently at impaired conditions due to instability and erosion issues resulting from heavy ground disturbance via high densities of user-created roads and heavy usage of off highway vehicles (OHVs). If the current usage remains the same in these particular areas, a downward trend in soil condition may occur as current ground disturbance continues and soil loss rates become increasingly exacerbated.
Water Quality There would be no changes with compliance with the Clean Water Act. No potential direct or indirect effects would occur from livestock. Although a water body within the project area, Black Canyon, is listed (303d) as impaired with ammonia, grazing is not listed as a possible source. This alternative would retain the most amounts of vegetation and litter, and reduce hoof compaction in areas that currently receive livestock concentrations. Potential improved upland conditions associated with removal of grazing could benefit water quality from decreased sediment product and transport, and also potential loading from livestock waste.
There would be no potential benefit to water quality from reducing the risk of an altered sediment regime associated of extensive soil high severity in areas with high coarse woody debris loading.
Without the construction of additional road side tanks, there would be no potential benefits to water quality from greater dispersal of large ungulates away from streams and lakes within the project area.
Water Quantity In the uplands, herbaceous ground cover, residual plant material, and plant vigor would increase surface roughness. Soil compaction would start to break up and additional organic material incorporated into the soil allowing for increased water infiltration and a reduction in surface runoff. Overall, these conditions could promote more stable hydrologic flow regimes.
In areas where overstory densities are high, little long-term improvement in hydrologic flow regime would be seen without mechanical treatment and/or prescribed fire. The soils in these areas have reduced moisture storage and infiltration capacity and are frequently overwhelmed by high intensity summer precipitation events, producing runoff events with relatively large peak flows of short duration
There would be minimal effects to water quantity with the absence of the proposed infrastructure improvements.
Riparian Areas Alternative 1 would allow the fastest possible recovery of riparian areas to desired conditions. Riparian corridors would not be impacted by livestock related herbivory or hoof-related impacts.
Since no vegetation treatments or prescribed burning would occur under alternative 1, there would be no improvement to upland watershed condition and riparian conditions. Coarse woody debris loading remains high, thus there is greater risk of high burn severity and subsequent flooding effects, which 37
Heber Allotment could negatively affect riparian condition.
There would be no benefit to riparian areas, such as decreased herbivory and bank disturbance, from increased dispersal of large ungulates from installation of additional road side tanks. Alternative 2: Proposed Action Soil Condition and Trends Overall, alternative 2 would improve vegetative and soil conditions greater than alternative 1. Alternative 2 would retain satisfactory soil conditions across 81 percent of the project area. These soils indicate that desirable soil function is being sustained and the ability of the soil to maintain resource values and sustain outputs is high. Approximately 2 percent of the soil conditions across the allotment are rated as inherently unstable or “unsuited”. Soils with this condition rating generally occur on very steep slope gradients (greater than 40 percent), are extremely rocky, and very shallow to bedrock. Typically, they are deemed unsuited for land management activities and use by livestock is incidental. Soils receiving impaired condition ratings indicate the ability of the soil to function properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to degradation. Impaired soils make up the remaining 17 percent of the project area. Approximately 6 percent of that total occurs within the southern portion of the allotment in forest vegetation types that exhibit impaired conditions primarily due to effects from the Rodeo-Chediski fire. None of these areas are slated for woodland or Great Basin grassland vegetation treatments. However, it is anticipated that soil conditions would improve from prescribed fire activities in these areas as part of the Rodeo-Chediski prescribed burn project. Therefore, the total effected spatial extent of land area across the allotment based on the proposed action for this project is 92 percent. Of the remaining 11 percent impaired soils across the project area in pinyon-juniper woodlands, Great Basin grasslands, and ephemeral drainage bottoms, approximately 3 percent is proposed for vegetation treatments that should improve soil conditions in the long-term. In total, 84 of the 92 percent potentially effected land area across the allotment are currently at or have the potential to be improved to desirable soil conditions over time with the implementation of the proposed action. The remaining 8 percent spatial extent is not considered “potentially effected” acreage as the areas are either rated as unsuited for land management or would receive treatment to improve impaired conditions through implementation of a separate proposed action. If long-term monitoring yields data that indicates an apparent cause, the proper measures or management actions would be explored to protect conditions against further degradation.
Water Quality Alternative 2 would comply with the Clean Water Act. Although a water body within the project area, Black Canyon Lake, is listed (303d) as impaired with ammonia, grazing is not listed as a possible source. Recent field reviews and monitoring across the uplands indicate that current resource conditions across the allotment are meeting or moving towards Forest Plan standards and guidelines. There area few isolated areas receiving heavier use from livestock, resulting in less herbaceous vegetation and soil compaction. These areas make up a minimal portion of the entire allotment. It is not anticipated that water quality would be negatively impacted under this alternative based on existing resource conditions.
As discussed above, Black Canyon Lake is listed (303d) as impaired with ammonia. Runoff from forest fire is listed as a possible source. No prescribed fire is proposed in areas contributing water to the lake, therefore there would be no effects from the prescribed fire treatments proposed in the proposed action. Long-term water quality would benefit from treatment of upland areas currently not meeting desired conditions because of departures in vegetation and fuel composition. Increased vegetative ground cover and decreased heavy fuel loading would promote stability in natural flow and sediment regimes. Although there may be isolated, short term disturbance of soils and vegetative cover from implementation of these treatments, BMPs (Appendix A) would be used to maintain
38 Environmental Assessment compliance with federal and state water quality laws. BMPs would also be utilized to minimize potential effects of road maintenance necessary for the administration of the allotment and the proposed temporary roads to be used to complete the treatments. All proposed temporary roads would be decommissioned when they are no longer needed (Appendix A).
The construction of additional road side tanks would benefit water quality with greater dispersal of large ungulates away from streams and lakes within the project area.
Water Quantity This alternative does not provide relief from grazing pressure, as does alternative 1, however watershed upland condition would be maintained with the monitoring/adaptive management plan (see Monitoring/Adaptive Management Plan section).
Long-term watershed functioning would likely improve with the proposed mechanical treatments and prescribed fire, bringing portions of the uplands to desired conditions. Site stability and fertility can be maintained with improved hydrologic function in the uplands. Departures from historical ranges of variability in vegetation and fire regimes have the potential for alteration of hydrologic regimes. Juniper removal can create more uniform and dense groundcover across the uplands. Increased understory production may add surface roughness to slow overland flows and to promote increased infiltration rates to hold moisture on site for longer periods, thus reducing sheet flow and peak flows. In addition, juniper treatments have resulted in increased spring flow, groundwater, and soil moisture (Deboobt et al 2008).
Riparian Areas Although the current condition of most of the riparian areas was improving, they were not at desired conditions currently, being in a condition somewhat less than PFC. Because grazing is allowed in riparian areas and during the growing season, it is expected that riparian recovery would be slower than the no grazing alternative. Few of the riparian areas of concern are separately fenced off from the rest of the pasture. Although, the proposed action would allow grazing on a deferred rotational pattern throughout the year, the bottomlands would only get complete rest from livestock use during entire growing season in pastures 1 to 2 out of every 13 years. As long-term drought conditions persist, surface water resources are anticipated to decrease. Thus, areas with riparian vegetation are likely to see more grazing stress. Monitoring of riparian species would be a critical component of the proposed action. Research has shown that light to moderate use maintains overall plant health (Thorne et al 2005). Riparian areas have a greater chance for substantial improvement if browsing is monitored on riparian herbaceous and woody species. The actual improvement that occurs in riparian areas during or at the end of this plan would primarily depend on:
1. Climatic input: "Normal" precipitation patterns are assumed to produce sufficient moisture for forage production in the watershed, as well as produce flows to sustain and improve riparian conditions. Setbacks are common in riparian recovery and can be caused by unusually high precipitation events with ensuing flood damage, or more commonly, unusually low precipitation, causing droughts that limit growth potential. In both cases riparian recovery is substantially affected and may produce results lower than potential under ideal conditions. 2. Adaptive management riparian monitoring: Riparian recovery depends on vegetative recovery as well as maintenance of hydrological features such as stream banks and floodplains. Close monitoring of livestock effects along with timely preventive action would be key to showing success in riparian recovery. The proposed mechanical treatments and prescribed burning could benefit riparian areas by moving the upland vegetation and fire regime towards desired conditions. Watershed hydrologic and sediment 39
Heber Allotment regimes are more likely to remain in balance, thus reducing potential degradation of riparian systems from excess erosion or deposition. Increased infiltration resulting from the vegetative treatments would move excess moisture into sub-surface storage and groundwater, resulting in a slower release of water, minimizing channel bank and bed instability (Fisher et al 2008). Specific BMPs would be in place to ensure that potential negative effects from mechanical and prescribed fire treatments would be minimized to acceptable levels.
Additional watering points (16 new stock tanks and a new well) proposed under this alternative could improve livestock and wildfire distribution and decrease pressure on riparian areas, thus improving the rate at which a particular reach would meet desired conditions (PFC). Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects analysis at the watershed scale was completed using the Watershed Condition Framework as a basis. As described earlier in the report, Watershed Condition scores are based on the 12 indicators composed of attributes related to watershed processes. This analysis would qualitatively describe the potential changes of the relevant seven indicators and consequently the watershed condition scores in relation to 1) the effects of past, present and reasonable foreseeable activities within the watershed and 2) the effects that are expected with implementation of the alternatives associated within the Heber Allotment. Examples of activities and events which are at a scale and magnitude to effect watershed condition indicators include but are not limited to: livestock grazing, wildfire, prescribed fire, forest thinning, and grassland and woodland restoration. Table 13 is a summary of the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on the indicators.
Table 13. Summary of Effects on Watershed Condition Indicator Scores. Action Effect on Indicators Past Activities and events watershed condition indicator ratings originally developed in 2011 (Table 10). (prior to 2010) All watersheds scored as Properly Functioning Condition or Functional at Risk Past Activities (2011 - maintenance or improvement of indicators: water quality, water quantity, soils, 2014) fire regime and wildfire, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, and forest health Reasonably Foreseeable maintenance or improvement of indicators: water quality, water quantity, soils, (2015 and beyond) fire regime and wildfire, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, and forest health Heber Allotment Proposed Alternative 1 No Alternative 2 Proposed Action Action (2015 and beyond) Action Grazing Water quality, riparian Water quality, riparian vegetation Permit vegetation, soils and indicators, soil, and rangeland Renewal rangeland vegetation vegetation indicators maintained with indicators improve effective adaptive management strategy Fuels and No benefit to water Maintenance or improvement of water Vegetation quality and quality, quality and quality, riparian/wetland Treatments riparian/wetland vegetation, soils, rangeland vegetation, vegetation, soils, fire regime and wildfire indicators. rangeland vegetation, Roads and trails maintained with fire regime and wildfire BMPs. indicators.
Past activities and events for a 25 year period ending in 2010 were considered in development of the watershed condition ratings by the forest in 2011. Reasonably foreseeable activities include project with completed NEPA (planned) and those still in the planning process. Finally, superimposed on the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, are the effects with respect to full implementation the proposed action (Alternative 2).
40 Environmental Assessment Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Project Activities: Heber-Overgaard WUI Project ♦ Mechanical treatment of Pinyon-Juniper Hilltop II Fuels Reduction ♦ Broadcast Burning/Pile Burning Park Day Allotment Management Plan ♦ Pinyon-Juniper Treatment Rodeo Chediski Fire Prescribed Burn Project ♦ Primarily Broadcast Burning ♦ Some mechanical thinning These projects either include fuels reduction through prescribed fire or are mechanical vegetative treatments. Coupled with similar fuels reduction and vegetative treatments included in the proposed action for the Heber Allotment, watershed condition indicators including: soils, fire regime or wildfire, water quantity and quantity indicators, and rangeland vegetation are expected to be maintained or improved over the long-term. The rational on how these types of treatments benefit the various indicator attributes was discussed in greater detail in the environmental consequences section of this report.
The upland soils and rangeland vegetation WCF indicators would benefit from moving upland vegetation towards desired conditions. Some short-term, localized negative effects from ground disturbance via heavy machinery operations may occur on soils where previously completed projects overlap proposed or future activities in watersheds across the allotment. Temporary roads constructed in order to implement the mechanical vegetation treatments, would be opened, maintained, and closed using forest road BMPS. Therefore, there would be no change to the roads and trails WCF indicator. Overall, no long-term cumulative effects from ground disturbance (compaction, topsoil displacement, etc.) from mechanical operations are anticipated to occur to a degree or spatial extent that would negatively affect current soil condition ratings and the existing trend for any TES map unit within the allotment with the proper implementation of soil and watershed BMPs.
Prescribed fire activities as part of this project have the potential to benefit the WCF wildfire indicator with respect to attaining desirable vegetation structure and composition, fuel composition, and restoring natural fire regimes in the long-term. Upland satisfactory soil condition would remain stable and impaired soils have the potential for improvement. The proper timing and frequency of burns planned accordingly with vegetation type characteristics (type of vegetation, climate, veg. structure, moisture conditions, etc.), burn severity maintenance, adequate soil and watershed BMP implementation, and the proper temporal / spatial planning of burns as not to overlap previously burned areas still recovering are all important factors for reaching the desired condition. Recurring, low intensity prescribed fire is a key component in the maintenance of desirable ecological and soil condition. As long as it is maintained regularly at low to low-moderate intensities, it has the potential to increase the rate of soil organic matter decomposition and incorporation in the long term. This helps stimulate more vigorous herbaceous plant growth which improves site stability / productivity. Ultimately, this should increase infiltration rates, reduce overland flow, promote stable hydrologic / sediment regimes and ultimately improve the WCF water quality and quantity and riparian/wetland indicators overtime.
Regarding grazing, the following allotments are active, also included is the year of the decision notice (DN) for the last NEPA completed for the allotment: Black Canyon Allotment (DN 1998), Wildcat 41
Heber Allotment (DN 1998), Chevelon Canyon (DN 2000), Clay Springs (DN- 1995), Willow Wash (DN 1999), Pierce Wash (DN 1999), Park-Day (DN 1994), Long Tom (DN 2007). The management of these allotments is expected to continue consistent with the past, therefore there are no expected changes to watershed condition indicators. With respect to grazing permit renewal part of this proposed action, soil condition, rangeland vegetation, water quality, and water quality indicators are expected to remain unchanged with implementation of an effective adaptive management strategy.
Table 14 shows the proportion of watershed extent of present and reasonably foreseeable planned activities, and those included in the Heber Allotment proposed action. Also, included are acres associated with the Wash Fire, which occurred in 2011. Wildfire was included because as with the vegetative and fuel reduction treatments they are at scale and magnitude to potentially contribute to cumulative effects at the watershed scale. The proposed action treatment acres (including both mechanical treatment and prescribed fire) is proportionally large in a few watersheds, for instance Long Draw, Lower Brookbank, and Lower Potato, with 44, 33 and 25%, respectively. However, it is expected that no more than around 3,000 acres of mechanical treatment would occur within the entire allotment boundary in any given year. Three thousand acres is on average 18 % (varying between 12- 35%) of total watershed area. Prescribed burning on mechanically treated areas would not occur for a few years after completion of the mechanical treatments when sufficient herbaceous cover is present to carry a fire. If all the Heber Allotment proposed action mechanically treated acres did occur in a single watershed for a given year, and in combination with all the other activities occurring in a watershed (which would also be lagged temporally and spatially), the potential intensity of all the watershed treatment activities are not expected to adversely affect watersheds in the short term. In summary, the degree to which a particular indicator would improve would vary with the percentage of watershed treated. Changing a watershed condition class would, in most cases, require changes within a watershed that are substantial in their scope and include treatments from multiple resource areas.
42 Environmental Assessment
Table 14. Proportional watershed extent of present, reasonably foreseeable planned activities, and Heber Allotment proposed action vegetative treatments (yellow).
Proportion of Sum of Proportion of Sum of Watershed Watershed Period/Activity or Event Acres Watershed Area Watershed Period/Activity or Event Acres Area 150200080101 Decker Wash 3605 18% 150200100105 Middle Wildcat Canyon 113 1% Present Event 467 2% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Wildfire 467 2% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 113 1% Planned (reasonably forseeable) 3138 16% 150200100303 Trap Tank-Chevelon Canyon 2584 15% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 3138 16% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & 150200100201 West Fork Black Canyon 138 2% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 2584 15% Present 138 2% 150200100302 Lower Potato Wash 6044 25% Mechanical Treatment of Forest 138 2% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & 150200100202 Buckskin Wash 4511 24% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 6044 25% Planned (reasonably forseeable) 4511 24% 150200100206 Long Draw 6812 44% Broadcast Burning 3348 18% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Mechanical Treatment of Forest 1163 6% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 6812 44% 150200100203 Bear Canyon-Black Canyon 1350 8% 150200100209 Lower Brookbank Canyon 6917 33% Present 526 3% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Broadcast Burning 360 2% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 6917 33% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 166 1% 150200100210 Squaw Wash-Black Canyon 2926 18% Planned (reasonably forseeable) 823 5% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Broadcast Burning 334 2% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 2926 18% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 489 3% 150200100301 Upper Potato Wash 1876 14% 150200100204 Upper Pierce Wash 2576 16% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Planned (reasonably forseeable) 359 2% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 1876 14% Mechanical Treatment of Forest 309 2% 150200100109 Lower Wildcat Canyon 1722 16% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 51 < 1% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 1722 16% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 2217 14% 150200100205 Upper Brookbank Canyon 248 1% Present 169 1% Broadcast Burning 168 1% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 1 < 1% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 79 < 1% 150200100207 Lower Pierce Wash 1498 12% Planned (reasonably forseeable) 815 7% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 815 7% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 683 5% 150200100208 Long Hollow Tank-Black Canyon 7789 32% Present 1010 4% Broadcast Burning 1010 4% Planned (reasonably forseeable) 13 < 1% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 13 < 1% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 6766 28% 150200080102 Upper Phoenix Park Wash 6175 32% Present Event 1406 7% Wildfire 1406 7% Planned (reasonably forseeable) 4733 25% Mechanical Treatment of Forest 2382 12% Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 2351 12% Heber Allotment EA Prescribed Fire & Mechanical Treatment of Pinyon Juniper 36 < 1%
Other Projects in the Planning Stage A decision on the Larson Restoration project, which overlaps portions of Upper Wildcat Canyon and Canyon Creek Headwaters watersheds is expected in June of 2015. The Larson project proposes watershed improvement activities: forest thinning, obliterating user created and system roads, and prescribed fire. The Heber Allotment proposed action includes grazing in these watersheds (27% and 14% of watershed area within the allotment for Upper Wildcat and Canyon Creek, respectively). No 43
Heber Allotment mechanical treatments or prescribed fire acres are proposed in these watersheds. A Record of Decision was signed January 2015 for a revision to the regulations regarding the Mexican gray wolf (USDI 1982). This revision expanded the territory to include the Sitgreaves National Forest, which includes the Heber Allotment. It also allows for the release of wolves on the Sitgreaves. The presence of wolves on the Heber Allotment could impact pasture rotations, livestock, distribution, and livestock productivity. A signed decision is expected for the Forest’s Travel Management Rule in late 2016. The rule should also reduce the number of roads crossing drainages and riparian area and keep road users in designated areas.
In summary, because Watershed Condition Framework indicator scores are maintained or improved with the multitude of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (including the proposed action) watershed condition framework ratings would be maintained or improved. Therefore, no adverse watershed cumulative effects are expected.
Wildlife Affected Environment This section includes key effects analysis and conclusions for threatened, endangered and proposed species and critical habitat listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Region 3 Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species, and Migratory Birds and their habitats within the Heber Allotment, Black Mesa Ranger District. The Wildlife Specialist report contains detailed information and background on law, regulation, policy, forest plan requirements, metholdology, species descriptions, etc., which are not repeated here. The Wildlife Specialist Report is located in the project record. Each of the species that occur or have potential to occur within the project area is analyzed in detail within their respective section. In some cases, surveys for these species have confirmed their presence in or near the project area. In cases where a species has not been detected, the presence of suitable habitat indicates they could be present and their presence was assumed under this analysis. The effects to listed species are also analyzed in a separate Biological Assessment (BA) for the purpose of section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species, and Potential and Designated Critical Habitat A species list was obtained on September 17, 2014 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Arizona Ecological Services, Information, Planning, and Conservation System (iPAC) [Version 1.4] website. Concurrence on presence of species and critical habitat within the analysis area was obtained by various FWS species specialists. For the purpose of including these species for effects analysis, species that are known or have potential to occur within the Heber Allotment are further analyzed, and species that are not present or do not have potential habitat in the allotment are dismissed from further analysis as the project would have no affect to these species (Table 15).
44 Environmental Assessment
Table 15. Federally listed species on the ASNFs potentially occurring within the Heber Allotment Analysis Area and those excluded from further analysis Species Analyzed in Detail Known Potential Common Federal Scientific Name to to Critical Habitat Name Status Occur? Occur? Experimental Mexican Gray Canis lupus Yes Yes Population, non- No Wolf baileyi essential Strix Mexican occidentalis Yes Yes Threatened Yes Spotted Owl lucida
Narrow- Thamnophis headed No No Threatened Yes (proposed) rufipunctatus Gartersnake Species Not Analyzed in Detail Known Potential Common Federal Scientific Name to to Rationale Name Status Occur? Occur? Two experimental, non-essential population reintroduction sites occur in Arizona: Aubrey Valley (236 mi to the NW of Heber Allotment) and Espee Ranch Experimental Black-Footed (100 mi to the NW of Heber Mustela nigripes No No Population, Ferret Allotment). No wild populations non-essential have been found despite intensive searches throughout the ferret’s historic range. It is very unlikely any wild populations remain. The project area contains minimal cottonwood and willow vegetation communities along Southwestern Empidonax creeks and streams; previous Willow No No Endangered traillii extimus surveys in target areas on Flycatcher district had no detections. No Critical Habitat occurs within the Heber Allotment. The project area contains minimal cottonwood and willow Coccyzus Yellow-billed vegetation communities along americanus No No Threatened Cuckoo creeks and streams; previous occidentalis surveys in target areas on district had no detections. Though several intermittent and ephemeral drainages in the Chiricahua Lithobates Yes No Threatened project area as well as several Leopard Frog chiricahuensis perennial stock tanks may represent potentially suitable 45
Heber Allotment habitat for the species, declines in population levels since the 1980s have eliminated many nearby populations. This species has likely been extirpated from the Little Colorado River watershed. No recent (past ten years) or historic records for the species occur in the project vicinity. The nearest extant population occurs in the upper Cherry creek drainage approximately three miles south of the Allotment. Due to extreme topography, dispersal would require greater than 1 mile overland movements. This is further than the preferred dispersal distances identified in the Recovery Plan. No THEQME have been documented as occurring on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Threatened The nearest viable population Northern with Thamnophis occurs in Tonto Creek near Mexican No No Proposed eques megalops Gisela, AZ approximately 32 Gartersnake Critical miles from the project area. No Habitat proposed Critical Habitat occurs within or near the Heber Allotment. The LCS occurs at two reintroduction sites on the Black Mesa Ranger District. The West Chevelon and Willow Creek sites are about 11 and 16 miles (respectively) west of the project area. West Chevelon Creek enters Chevelon Creek below Chevelon Lake dam. Willow Little Lepidomeda Creek flows north and enters Colorado No Yes Threatened vittata Clear Creek at the ASNFs- Spinedace Coconino NF boundary. From the project area all water flows north into Chevelon Creek. Critical habitat occurs in the lower Chevelon Creek drainage, about 35 miles north of the project area. The distance downstream yields a no effect determination for the LCS.
Forest Service Sensitive Species Sensitive species are defined as “those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5(19)).” It is
46 Environmental Assessment the policy of the Forest Service regarding sensitive species to: (1) assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species; (2) as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species; (3) avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern; (4) if impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole (the line officer, with project approval authority, makes the decision to allow or disallow impacts, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing); and (5) establish management objectives in cooperation with the state when projects on National Forest System lands may have a significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distributions. Establish objectives for Federal candidate species, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state of Arizona (FSM 2670.32). The Black Mesa Ranger District utilized the Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List from 2013 to assist with development of species that may occur or have suitable habitat within the project area for effects analysis or are not analyzed in detail based upon species occurrence or habitat in the project area (Table 16). Table 16. Sensitive species analyzed or dismissed from further review for Effects Analysis in the project area SPECIES STATUS SPECIES ON SPECIES STATUS IN ACTION AREA DISTRICT * Mammals Corynorhinus townsendii U Species not known to occur; habitat present in pallescens AMP area Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Euderma maculatum U Species not known to occur; habitat present in Spotted Bat AMP area Idionycteris phyllotis B Species not known to occur; habitat present in Allen’s lappet-browed bat AMP area Cynomys gunnisoni H Species may occur; habitat present in AMP area Gunnison’s Prairie dog Microtus mogollonensis navaho U Species may occur; habitat present in AMP area Navajo Mogollon Vole Perognathus flavus goodpasteri Springerville Silky Pocket U Species may occur; habitat present in AMP area Mouse Birds Accipiter gentilis B Species and habitat present in AMP area Northern Goshawk Falco peregrinus anatum B Species and habitat present in AMP area American Peregrine Falcon Buteogallus anthracinus B Species and habitat present in AMP area Common Black Hawk Haliaeetus leucocephalus B Species and habitat present in AMP area Bald Eagle Amphibians Lithobates pipiens H Species may occur; habitat present in AMP area Northern Leopard Frog 47
Heber Allotment Fish Catostomus sp. 3 P Species and habitat present in AMP area Little Colorado Sucker Gila robusta P Species and habitat present in AMP area Roundtail Chub Plants Helenium arizonicum P Species and habitat present in AMP area Arizona Sneezeweed Rumex orthoneurus Species and habitat present in AMP area P Blumer's Dock Heuchera eastwoodiae P Species not known to occur; habitat present in Eastwood Alum Root AMP area Huechera glomerulata U Species not known to occur; habitat present in Arizona Alum Root AMP area Helianthus arizonensis U Species not known to occur; habitat present in Arizona sunflower AMP area Salix bebbiana P Species may occur; habitat present in AMP area Bebb’s Willow Phlox amabilis U Species not known to occur; habitat present in Arizona Phlox AMP area * Key to Status of Species on District: P = Presence of species documented and likely still occurs B = Breeding of species documented H = Historic presence of species documented, but current status uncertain U = Presence of species not documented on district but may occur due to presence of suitable habitat
The following species were not analyzed in detail because the species and habitat were determined to not occur within the analysis area and the project would have no impact to the species under the action alternatives. These include the following: mammals; Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), White Mountains ground squirrel (Ictidomys tridecemlineatus monticola), Arizona montane vole (Microtus montanus arizonensis),White Mountains chipmunk (Neotamias minimus arizonensis), American water shrew (Sorex palustris), and New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus); birds; Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) , and Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis); amphibians; Lowland leopard frog (Lithobates yavapaiensis); fish; desert sucker (Catostomus clarkii); clams; California floater (Anodotona californiensis); insects; Ferris’ Copper (Lycaena ferrisi), A Stonefly [Mogollon Snowfly( Capnia caryi), A Caddisfly (Lepidostoma apache, Lepidostoma knulli, and Limnephilus granti); and plants; heathleaf wild buckwheat (Erigonum ericifolium var. ericifolium), White Mountains paintbrush (Castilleja mogollonica) yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens)(=C. calceolus var. pubescens, C. pubescens), Arizona willow (Salix arizonica), Greene milkweed (Asclepias uncialis ssp. Uncialis), villous groundcover milkvetch (Astragalus humistratus var. crispulus), Wislizeni gentian (Gentianella wislizeni), Goodding’s onion (Allium gooddingii), Gila thistle (Cirsium gilense), Mogollon hawkweed (Hieracium brevipilum)(=H. fendleri var. mogollense), heartleaf groundsel (Packera cardamine)(-Senecio cardamine), Maguire’s beardtongue (Penstamon linariodes ssp. Maguirei), Mogollon clover (Trifolium longipes ssp. Neurophyllum) (=T. neurophyllum), Davidson’s cliff carrot (Pteryxia davidsonii), and Parish’s Alkali Grass (Puccinellia parishii).
Management Indicator Species (MIS) Management indicator species (MIS) often are selected because their life history and demographics are thought to reflect a suite of ecosystem conditions that are too difficult or costly to measure directly. In the 1982 forest planning regulations (36 CFR 219) MIS were defined as “plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are
48 Environmental Assessment monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent” (FSM 2620.5). Important characteristics of MIS are that they are capable of being effectively monitored, and that relationships between species, habitats and response to the effects of management activities of interest are well understood. MIS and their habitats have been used as part of a strategy to monitor implementation of the Forest Plan and the effects to wildlife and plants. The role of MIS and the criteria to select MIS are described in 36 CFR 219.19 (a)(1) (1982 Rule) as follows: “In order to estimate the effects of each [Forest Plan] alternative on fish and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as management indicator species and the reasons for their selection will be stated. These species shall be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. In the selection of management indicator species, the following categories shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal lists for the planning area; species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs; species commonly hunted, fished or trapped; non-game species of special interest; and additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water quality.” In 1987 the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan designated specific MIS and their associated habitats to gauge the effects of management activities. The ASNFs LRMP lists sixteen wildlife species and one wildlife category (aquatic macro-invertebrates) as MIS for the Forests (Table 17). Table 17. Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (1987), the habitat component they’re selected to represent, and forest-wide habitat and population trends.
MIS Species by Forest Habitat Component Forest-wide Habitat Forest-wide Management Area Indicated Trend Population Trend
Hairy Woodpecker Snags (all types) Upward Stable Red-naped sapsucker Snags (Aspen) Stable Stable Northern Goshawk Late Succession (PP) Stable to Declining Declining Merriam’s Turkey Late Succession Stable Stable Pygmy Nuthatch Late Succession (PP) Declining Stable Mexican Spotted Owl Late Succession Declining Declining Rocky Mountain Elk Early Succession Increasing Stable to Declining Mule Deer Early Succession Increasing Stable to Increasing Pronghorn Antelope Early succession Stable to Increasing Stable Early Succession Abert’s Squirrel Stable to Declining Stable (ponderosa pine) Late Succession Red Squirrel Declining Stable to Declining (spruce/mixed conifer) Lincoln’s sparrow High elevation riparian Stable Stable Juniper (Plain) Titmouse Snags Stable to Increasing Stable Lucy’s warbler Low-elevation riparian Stable Stable Yellow-breasted chat Low elevation Stable Stable Cinnamon teal Wetlands Stable to Declining Stable Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Riparian Habitats Declining Declining Forested and non-forested management areas are present on the allotment, although planned vegetative treatments would only occur within pinon-juniper woodlands (MA-2) and grasslands (MA- 4). The effects of authorizing livestock grazing under the proposed action is not expected to affect the population viability of any of the management indicator species listed above due to conservative grazing utilization levels and associated BMPs. Based on proposed vegetative treatments in 49
Heber Allotment woodland and grassland areas within the allotment, the MIS listed in Table 18 would be evaluated further. Table 18. MIS within the Heber Allotment project area, with forest-wide habitat and population trend and project area acres present.
Acres of Acres to be MIS Species by Habitat Forest-wide Forest-wide Habitat analyzed Forest Component Habitat Population Trend Forest-wide in Project Management Area Indicated Trend Area
Early Stable to Mule Deer Increasing 1,769,299 53,725 Succession Increasing Early Rocky Mountain Elk Increasing Stable to Declining 1,690,439 73,913 Succession Late seral and snag component Stable to Juniper titmouse Upward 784,532 51,406 of piñon- Increasing juniper woodland Early Stable to Pronghorn antelope successional Stable 854,151 71,594 Increasing woodlands
Migratory Birds Executive Order 13186 (2001) and a 2008 memorandum of understanding between the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service provide direction to conserve migratory birds, restore or enhance habitat, and consider them in the planning process. This order requires that an analysis be made of the effects of Forest Service actions on species of concern and important bird areas (IBAs) as listed and identified by Partners in Flight (Latta et al 1999), and the effects to important overwintering areas. Considered for these analyses were (1) birds identified as priority species in the Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Latta et al 1999) (APIF Plan) and (2) birds in Bird Conservation Regions 34 and 16 of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (USDI 2008). Important Bird Areas (IBAs) are also addressed.
Based on the APIF Plan and BCC, a total of 41 species have been identified as species of concern in ASNFs habitats. Five of these, including Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and common blackhawk are discussed in the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Biological Analysis and Evaluation and will not be discussed further here. Swainson’s thrush (spruce-fir), pine grosbeak (spruce-fir), golden-crowned kinglet (spruce-fir), Cassin’s sparrow (semi- desert grassland), Bendire’s thrasher (semi-desert grassland), black-chinned sparrow (interior chaparral), Virginia’s warbler (interior chaparral), Lucy’s warbler (low elevation riparian), veery (low elevation riparian), elf owl (low elevation riparian), Western yellow-billed cuckoo (low elevation riparian), Bell’s vireo (low elevation riparian) and yellow warbler (low elevation riparian) were not discussed in this analysis because no habitat for these species occurs within the project area.
50 Environmental Assessment
Table 19. Summary of Migratory Birds Considered in this Analysis. Species Habitat Olive-sided Flycatcher Mixed Conifer Purple Martin Flammulated Owl Lewis’ Woodpecker Ponderosa Pine Grace’s Warbler Cassin’s Finch Olive Warbler Gray Flycatcher Piñon Jay Gray Vireo Piñon Juniper Woodland Black-throated Gray Warbler Brewer’s Sparrow Juniper titmouse Swainson’s Hawk Ferruginous Hawk Burrowing Owl High Elevation Grassland Golden Eagle Prairie Falcon Chestnut-collared Longspur Southwestern willow flycatcher MacGillivray’s warbler High Elevation Riparian Red-faced warbler Red-naped sapsucker
Important Bird Areas Important Bird Areas (IBAs) are listed on the Audubon Society’s website. There are no identified or potential IBAs within the project area. The Snowmelt Draw IBA occurs twelve miles west of the project area. Therefore, no IBAs would be affected by the project.
Applicable Laws and Regulations National Environmental Policy Act: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. National Forest Management Act (NFMA): The primary statute governing the administration of national forest lands and was an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. NFMA substantially enacted detailed guidance for forest plans, and identifying requirements for integrating fish and wildlife resources in forest land management plans (CFR 219.13 and CFR 219.19). Forest 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 Planning Regulations require that population trends of management indicator species be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined (CFR 219.19). Endangered Species Act (ESA): (Public Law 93-205, as amended): Requires all Federal agencies to utilize their authorities in seeking to conserve endangered and threatened species through conservation of ecosystems on which these species depend, implementation of a program for the 51
Heber Allotment conservation of these species, and taking appropriate steps to achieving the purposes of treaties and conventions set forth in the Act. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act): The Eagle Act, originally passed in 1940, prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, or barter, transport, export, or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16U.S.C 668(a);50CFR 22). “Take” is defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb” a bald or golden eagle. The term “disturb” under the Eagle Act was recently defined via a final rule published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2007 (72 FR 31332). “Disturb” means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. E.O. 31186 Responsibilities for Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds: President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186 on January 10, 2001, placing emphasis on conservation of migratory birds. This order requires that an analysis be made of the effects of Forest Service actions on species of concern and important bird areas (IBAs) as listed and identified by Partners in Flight (Latta et al 1999), and the effects to important overwintering areas. E.O. 13443 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation: The purpose of this order is to direct Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Resources Threatened, Endangered, and proposed species, and designated and proposed critical habitat (Listed), Region 3 Sensitive Species, ASNFs Management Indicator Species, and Migratory Birds and their habitats are analyzed for effects and determinations of the No Action (alternative 1) and Proposed Action (alternative 2) considering existing conditions, life history and affected habitats, and cumulative effects. Alternative 1 - No Action Federally Listed and Forest Service Sensitive species Direct and Indirect Effects Not authorizing livestock on the allotment would reduce utilization of herbaceous and browse plant species and provide more forage and cover for wildlife. The opportunity for recruitment of individuals into populations would be higher with the implementation of this alternative compared to the proposed action alternative. The implementation of this alternative would provide the greatest opportunity for habitat improvement for many plant and wildlife species. Consumption, trampling, and compactions normally associated with larger animals (cattle) would not occur under this alternative, which could result in improved soil stability and less stream turbidity. Since there would be no livestock grazing of the forage resources on the allotment, disturbance related to the herding and management of livestock such as their associated herders, 4-wheelers, and horses would not occur. Proposed vegetation treatments would not occur, and stands of piñon-juniper woodlands would remain dense and overstocked, with continued degradation of the habitat, for those species dependent on woodland. Grassland maintenance would also not occur with encroachment of piñon-juniper into grasslands continuing to degrade habitat for those species dependent on grasslands. The species not expected to benefit from this alternative are those associated with piñon-juniper and grassland habitats. Gunnison’s prairie dog, Navajo Mogollon vole, and Springerville silky pocket
52 Environmental Assessment mouse would benefit from thinning of overstocked piñon-juniper woodland, and these woodlands would continue to exhibit reduced habitat quality due to high canopy cover and reduced forage production.
The primary benefit of this alternative is that recovery of soils, watershed, and riparian conditions would occur, and would be quicker than with the action alternative. Increases in ungrazed available herbaceous and browse forage would be expected to result in higher densities of insects, small mammals, passerine birds, game animals and other wildlife species that depend on grasses, forbs, and leaders on woody shrubs and mast for food.
Cumulative Effects Past cumulative effects for this report were bounded by the Heber Allotment Boundary and took into account all activities within the last 25 years that may have an effect on wildlife resources (Appendix B) under alternative 1. Present and reasonably foreseeable activities are activities that are currently in progress or may take place in the near future. These activities were obtained from various specialists on the ID Team and district personnel. Only activities that are likely to affect vegetation and grazing within the Heber Allotment are reported. Generally, these activities are likely to occur in the next 5 years. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Maintaining conservative utilization standards with a deferred, rest rotation grazing system would ensure effects to listed, proposed, sensitive, MIS, and migratory bird species are minimized. Responses of wildlife to forest treatments vary widely based on species studied, response variable, treatment examined, and the temporal and spatial extent of the study design (Kalies et al 2009). In general, wildlife that utilize a mosaic of disturbed and undisturbed forest stands for reproduction, foraging, and cover may benefit from fuel treatments while other species that are associated with large patches of high density trees and more complex structure may lose habitat through fuel treatments (Pilliod et al 2006).
The following are direct effects to wildlife from restoration treatments: • Direct mortality to wildlife to crushing from heavy equipment, incineration, or asphyxiation during fuel reduction is considered low. It is believed that most species are able to find refuge or move away from approaching equipment, heat, or smoke (Pilliod et al 2006). • Human disturbance may be in the form of noise, human presence, or anything that causes displacement, avoidance, stress or other behavioral responses. Although short-term, human presence during treatment activities, and human-created unfamiliar or proximate noise disturbance, may displace wildlife from preferred habitats, may cause animals to move faster and further than they otherwise would, and may also cause stress to wildlife. This disturbance would likely be very short- term while the activities are taking place. • Modification to habitat features or loss of habitat could occur for some species. Important habitat components for wildlife include snags, downed logs and woody debris, old growth, oaks, and browse. Although the immediate direct effects may have some negative impacts on wildlife, long-term effects are expected to result in beneficial impacts. Wildlife species in the Southwest have evolved in fire adapted ecosystems. Studies show that small-diameter removal and/or burning does not negatively affect species’ densities compared to unmanaged forest stands, and is less detrimental than overstory removal or wildfire; therefore, it is assumed that treatments which restore conditions consistent with these species have adapted to over evolutionary time and would have more beneficial effects (Kalies 53
Heber Allotment et al 2009). Treatments would create a forest with reduced tree densities and an open, patchy structure, mostly of mature trees with herbaceous ground cover maintained by a frequent fire regime (Kalies et al 2009). These conditions would be more consistent with historic forest structures and would diversify habitat available for wildlife, ultimately restoring a native, diverse assemblage of animal species (Pope and Block 2010). The proposed structural improvements may have short-term direct affects to wildlife species during initial implementation, but occur across a very limited spatial scale on the District, occurring on only a few hundred acres across the entire allotment. These improvements are also limited temporally, meaning that the improvements would be installed over several years. For this reason, the proposed structural improvements are expected to yield minor, insignificant, and unmeasurable effects to all wildlife species.
Effects Analysis – Threatened and Endangered Species The following section analyzes the effects of the action alternative on Threatened and Endangered Species. Included are descriptions of each species considered for the analysis area. The narratives are based on the current habitat availability, species habitat requirements, and recommendations for maintaining or improving habitat for the species. The analyses of effects for the following species are patterned after criteria established in the Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities (USDA 2005), a document developed by the U.S. Forest Service, Region 3, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service concurred with the rationale and determinations for threatened and endangered species addressed in this document on May 2, 2005. Mexican Gray Wolf In Arizona and New Mexico, there is a single, wild, nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves existing within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), which falls within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA). The BRWRA consists of the entire Gila and Apache National Forests in east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico, while the MWEPA surrounds the BRWRA and extends from Interstate Highway 10 to Interstate Highway 40 across Arizona, New Mexico, and a small portion of Texas north of U.S. Highway 62/180. The BRWRA Mexican wolf population also occupy habitat within the Fort Apache Indian Reservation of the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) adjacent to the western boundary of the recovery area. In 2013, the FWS proposed to modify the MWEPA designation (USDI 2013). A portion of the proposed modification would include expansion of the MWEPA to include the entire Sitgreaves National Forest. The modification also proposes to allow natural dispersal of wolves into the revised MWEPA without the requirement to bring them back into the BRWRA. The FWS hopes this new designation will improve their ability to establish a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican wolves in the wild as identified as the population objective in the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (USDI 1982). The most recent count of Mexican wolves in the BRWRA estimated that there was a minimum of 83 wolves as of December 31, 2013. The number of collared wolves was 46 wolves. These animals occur among 15 packs and five single wolves and represent an increase from December 31, 2012 when the count resulted in an estimated minimum of 75 wolves. The 2013 minimum population included 17 wild born pups that survived through the end of the year. Due to the ability of wolves to disperse onto the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, the likelihood of additional protections preventing removal of dispersing wolves into the proposed expanded MWEPA, as well as the likely releases of this species on the Sitgreaves National Forest in the future, the potential of wolves occurring within the Heber Allotment is high. For these reasons, analysis of effects on the Mexican gray wolf is necessary.
54 Environmental Assessment Per the 10(j) rule, “disturbance-causing land use activity” means any land use activity that the FWS determines could adversely affect reproductive success, natural behavior, or survival of Mexican gray wolves. These activities may be temporarily restricted within a 1-mile radius of release pens, active dens, and wolf rendezvous sites. Such activities, as related to livestock grazing, may include, but are not limited to, timber or wood harvesting, management-ignited fire, […] livestock trailing and drives, […], and any other use or activity with the potential to disturb wolves. The following activities are specifically excluded from this definition: 1) legally permitted livestock grazing and use of water sources by livestock; 2) livestock trailing or drives (only if no reasonable alternative route or timing exists); […] 5) prescribed fire and associated management actions (except in the vicinity of wolf release pens); […].
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and indirect effects Livestock grazing can have potentially negative direct effects on wolves especially if wolves become accustomed to cattle as preferred prey. This would often induce management activities aimed at controlling or eliminating these large predators (Zwartjes et al 2005). In instances where proposed livestock grazing and livestock management activities may adversely affect the wolf, it is strongly recommended that USFS personal and affected livestock permittees work with the Mexican gray wolf IFT to arrive at a solution. Cumulative Effect: Activities identified in Appendix B add to the cumulative effects to this species by disturbance related activities. Determination of effect The effect of this project on the Mexican gray wolf considers the following information: 1. The 10(j) rule establishes that certain activities associated with the proposed action for the Heber Allotment would be considered “disturbance-causing land use activities”. These include the proposed woodland and grassland restoration, management-ignited fires, livestock trailing, and water developments. 2. The 10(j) rule excludes certain activities from its rule that would “disturb” any Mexican gray wolves within the project vicinity. Activities that would be excluded as related to the Heber Allotment include legally permitted livestock grazing and use of water sources by livestock, livestock trailing where no reasonable alternative route or timing exists, and prescribed fire and associated management actions. 3. Where negative interactions occur between wolves and livestock, it is strongly recommended that USFS personal and affected livestock Permittees work with the Mexican gray wolf IFT to arrive at a solution. In compliance with 50 CFR 17.84(k) this species is treated as proposed endangered. Given the continued health of captive Mexican gray wolves and the determination by the FWS that these Mexican gray wolves are not essential “to the continued existence of the species in the wild”, the occurrence of any “unavoidable and unintentional take” and/or the occurrence of any “opportunistic, non-injurious harassment” of nonessential experimental Mexican gray wolves is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Based on the above information it has been determined that the actions proposed for the Heber Allotment Management Plan are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Mexican gray wolf. This is consistent with the direction given in the “guidance criteria” (March 15, 2005).
55
Heber Allotment Mexican spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PAC’s) are categorized as MSO protected habitat in the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USDI 2012). The Heber Allotment Analysis Area contains approximately 7,287 acres of MSO protected habitat within 12 designated PACs. Four of these PACs (consisting of 2,426 acres) are proposed for decommissioning due to a lack of MSO detections since the 2002 RC Fire. Recovery habitat is defined as areas outside of PACs that are managed as nest/roost, foraging, dispersal, and wintering habitats. Recovery habitat typically includes pine-oak, mixed conifer, and riparian forests as well as rocky canyons (USDI 2012). Recovery habitat has not been generated for this project through current stand data; however, a restricted habitat layer (1995 Recovery Plan) identifies 2,545 acres within the Heber Allotment as Restricted habitat. This acreage figure should be used with caution due to its creation prior to the RC Fire. Though these areas experienced low severity burns many of them experienced other habitat changes after the fire due to stressors associated with drought and bark beetles. These stressors further altered habitat conditions resulting in less than optimal habitat components required for MSO nesting and roosting. Mexican spotted owl critical habitat was designated by the FWS in 2004 (USDI 2004). Critical habitat is defined as protected and restricted habitats which contain the primary constituent elements (PCEs) necessary for conservation of the species within the designated critical habitat units (USDI 2004). Approximately 37,222 acres of the Heber Allotment occur within the critical habitat boundary. Areas within designated critical habitat must be managed to maintain or enhance primary constituent habitat elements. These elements include criteria associated with the range of tree and plant species, canopy closure, snags, downed logs, and residual plant cover (USDI 2004).
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and indirect effects The USDA Forest Service provides a framework for streamlining informal consultation for livestock grazing activities (USDA 2005). This framework uses the following criteria to support a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination on Mexican spotted owls for livestock grazing activities. The livestock grazing activity must meet criteria 1 through 3 below: 1. In the action area, livestock grazing or livestock management activities would occur within PACs, but no human disturbance or construction associated with the livestock grazing would occur in PACs during the breeding season. 2. Livestock grazing and livestock management in PACs would be managed to provide the woody and herbaceous cover for rodent prey, biomass to support broadcast burns that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and regeneration of riparian trees. 3. Forage utilization would be maintained at conservative levels in owl foraging areas. Regarding criteria 1: Twelve PACs occur within the Heber Allotment action area south of Highway 260. Livestock grazing and associated management activities would occur in PACs during the breeding season; however, grazing related human disturbance or construction activities would not occur in PACs during the breeding season. No fences occur within any established PACs; therefore, fence maintenance would not be an issue in the breeding season. No cattleguard installation or vegetation treatments are proposed for any MSO protected or recovery habitats. Four pit tanks are proposed within three PACs; however, these PACs are designated for decommissioning. Actions associated with the construction of these pit tanks would not occur during the breeding season unless FWS concurs with the District’s request to decommission these PACs in the future.
56 Environmental Assessment Regarding criteria 2: The Heber Allotment management plan proposes to authorize conservative grazing on the Allotment allowing for 25 to 35 percent utilization levels by the end of each grazing season. Each pasture would receive periodic growing season rest and the ability to adjust for rest based on pasture conditions (determined via proposed monitoring plans). Through no vegetation treatments are proposed within PACs, this type of grazing regime is expected to provide for adequate levels of herbaceous cover for rodent prey as well as biomass to support low severity fires and reduce hazards associated with stand-replacing wildfire in PACs. The development of waters within and near PACs would also decrease reliance on riparian systems and allow for higher regeneration of riparian plant species. Regarding criteria 3: The Heber Allotment proposed action has determined that initial AUMs of 5,430 cows/calves and a rest rotation schedule of each pasture would allow for forage utilization levels to be maintained at conservative levels as defined in the Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities (USDA 2005). Designated Critical Habitat The primary constituent elements (PCEs) essential to the conservation of the MSO include those physical and biological features that support nesting, roosting, and foraging. These are separated into those that meet forest structure requirements and those that meet adequate prey species requirements. PCEs related to forest structure are: A range of tree species, including mixed conifer, pine-oak, and riparian forest types, composed of different tree sizes reflecting different ages of trees, 30 percent to 45 percent of which are large trees with a trunk diameter of 12 inches or more when measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. A shade canopy created by the tree branches covering 40 percent or more of the ground. Large dead trees with a trunk diameter of at least 12 inches when measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. PCEs related to maintenance of adequate prey species are: High volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris. A wide range of tree and plant species including hardwoods. Adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and allow plant regeneration. Direct and indirect effects to forest structure Grazing may impact PCEs related to forest structure in pine-oak woodland through altered susceptibility to high severity crown fires (USDI 1995b). A reduction in ground cover from grazing decreases low-intensity ground fires and encourages fuel accumulations and shrub and tree propagation. Fire regimes of other forest types such as mixed-conifer or spruce-fir are not as impacted through grazing; however, the risk of catastrophic fire in these forests may be increased if they are adjacent to dog-hair thicket ponderosa pine forests (Zwartjes et al 2005). MSO PACs only occur within the 2002 RC Fire boundary on the Heber Allotment. Since the 2002 RC Fire, ponderosa pine regeneration has been prolific. Many upland areas are experiencing heavy growth of ponderosa pine dog-hair thickets. This growth, however, is unrelated to grazing due to the fact that grazing was not authorized within the RC area until 2006 and 2007 and only at conservative levels. Therefore, any current risk of wildfire to the MSO due to upland conditions is unrelated to current grazing practices. Proposed grazing within the allotment would also be maintained at conservative levels. This reduces the pressure on herbaceous vegetation and allows for the continued presence of the beneficial low-intensity ground fires should natural or management fires occur within
57
Heber Allotment the Allotment. Therefore, grazing within the Heber Allotment is not expected to alter any MSO habitat’s susceptibility to fire. Grazing in riparian habitat may adversely impact PCEs related to forest structure, because of degeneration of riparian plant communities and impaired ability of plant communities to develop into MSO habitat (USDI 1995b). Approximately 57.4 acres of Cottonwood/Willow/Riparian habitat has been fenced within the Heber Allotment. This occurs mainly in Wildcat Canyon (five fences totaling 1.8 acres), Gentry Canyon (one fence totaling 32.8 acres), Black Canyon (one fence totaling 18.2 acres), and Phoenix Park Wash (one fence totaling 4.6 acres). Riparian habitat in the Heber Allotment primarily occurs in drainage bottoms. Since less than 1 mile of perennial water occurs within drainages in the Heber Allotment, riparian habitat is likely maintained by subsurface water. In addition, there are 30 water developments (guzzlers, trick tanks) scattered across the allotment, most placed north of Highway 260 where drier conditions exist. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is currently replacing these structures with a high capacity design (from 2-3,000 gallon capacity to 20,000 gallon capacity) at a rate of 2 to 4 structures per year per GMU. This would aid in better distributing livestock and wildlife across the allotment, reducing the pressure from grazers on sensitive riparian habitat. Native vegetation has evolved with herbivores, and has adapted to be grazed periodically. Riparian habitat has persisted under current grazing pressure. With proposed grazing pressure in riparian habitat, structural complexity of the habitat would remain intact by allowing recruitment of new woody vegetation (Zwartjes et al 2005). Reduced grazing pressure through conservative forage utilization standards throughout the allotment would allow for structural complexity to be maintained and vegetation to continue developing the PCEs in riparian habitat for MSO prey species. Direct and indirect effects to maintenance of adequate prey species Grazing that takes place in upland, meadow, and riparian habitats has the potential to impact PCEs related to maintenance of adequate prey species (USDI 1995b). Changes in plant communities or structures not only result in changes to the small mammal composition, it also results in a decrease in small mammal abundance, which influences the owl’s reproductive success (USDI 1995b). The conservative forage utilization standard within the Heber Allotment is expected to provide adequate levels of residual plant cover for MSO prey species as a result of proposed vegetation treatment projects. This level of utilization should allow for plant regeneration and maintenance of fruits and seeds used as forage by small mammals. Proposed vegetation treatments may produce short-term affects to rodent prey species. Rodents may be killed or injured during mastication or thinning activities. As habitat recovers, increased herbaceous vegetation may provide better habitat structure and forage for rodent prey. Changes in small mammal species composition may occur as habitats open up and support more grassland dependent species. This, however, should not have a major effect on the amount of available prey. These effects would be of minimal importance to the owl during the summer months since the proposed treatments would occur in pinyon-juniper habitats that are not utilized by the owl as foraging areas during the breeding season. However, it is not well known what habitat types support the foraging needs of this species outside of the breeding season. It is likely that open pinyon-juniper and grassland habitats may provide important foraging habitats for these birds during the winter. Wet meadows within the Heber Allotment occur mainly within Gentry Canyon and Baca Meadow, both of which have been fenced to keep cattle and other wild ungulates out and provide adequate herbaceous cover for important MSO prey species such as voles and shrews. Based on the analysis above, a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” was made for MSO and its designated critical habitat. Under this determination, incidental take of Mexican spotted owls would not occur as a result of the proposed action.
58 Environmental Assessment Based on this, the proposed action is consistent with The Biological Assessment for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Forest Service’s Continued Implementation of the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs of the Southwestern Region U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USDI 2012b). Cumulative Effects: Activities identified in Appendix B were considered for the cumulative effects to critical habitat, forest structure, and prey species by disturbance related activities.
Determination of effect The effects of this project the Mexican spotted owl considers the following information: 1. Twelve PACs occur within the Heber Allotment. While livestock grazing and associated management activities will occur in PACs during the breeding season, grazing related human disturbance or construction activities will not occur in PACs during the breeding season. 2. A conservative grazing utilization level and period pasture rest/rotation schedule is proposed for the Heber Allotment. Under this grazing structure adequate levels of herbaceous cover for rodent prey and biomass to support low severity fires will occur. 3. Water developments would reduce pressure on riparian areas and allow for higher regeneration of riparian plant species. 4. Proposed action management and conservation measures are in place. In the event that conservation measures do not accomplish site specific resource objectives, additional optional measures may be implemented. Field surveys for MSO will be conducted prior to extensive reconstruction of existing improvements or the construction of new range improvements. Adjustments will be made in the location of improvements or the timing of construction, as appropriate, in order to avoid adverse effects. Consultation with the FWS will be conducted as appropriate. The effect of this project on Mexican spotted owl critical habitat considers the following information: 1. Proposed grazing on the Heber Allotment is not expected to alter any MSO habitat’s susceptibility to fire due to the conservative grazing level. 2. Riparian habitat has persisted under current grazing pressure. Proposed grazing pressure in riparian habitats should allow for maintenance of structural complexity through the recruitment of new woody vegetation. 3. The conservative forage utilization standard and proposed vegetation treatments are expected to provide for adequate levels of residual plant cover for MSO prey and will allow for plant regeneration and maintenance of fruits and seeds used as forage by small mammals. 4. Wet meadows and spring seeps are fenced are fenced and excluded from all ungulate grazing within the Heber Allotment. This will provide adequate herbaceous cover for important MSO prey species such as voles and shrews. Based on the above discussion, it has been determined that the actions proposed for the Heber Allotment Management Plan may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl or its designated critical habitat. Narrow-headed Gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) The NHG was designated as a threatened species in 2014 (USDI 2014). There are no current or historical records of NHGs occurring within the Little Colorado River Subbasin (Servoss 2014), which surrounds the majority of the Black Mesa Ranger District and the Heber Allotment. The potential for the NHG occurrence would be within the Upper Salt River Subbasin, specifically within the Carrizo Creek drainage on White Mountain Apache Tribal lands. This is based upon observation reports for NHG from the 1980’s as well as a photo voucher from 1997 as documented by Holycross 59
Heber Allotment and others (2006). No NHG have been documented from the upper-most reach of Carrizo Creek on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Critical habitat has been proposed since July of 2013 (USDI 2013b). Proposed critical habitat occurs within the Heber Allotment along the Carrizo Creek drainage (1.1 miles on the allotment). The Carrizo Creek drainage on the ASNFs is not perennial but does contain small ephemeral pools of natural water mainly during periods of snow melt but also occasionally during the monsoon season. These pools are short in duration and do not provide for the habitat components necessary, such as riparian vegetation or perennial water, to support NHG life history requirements. Native and nonnative soft-rayed fish species, preferred prey for the NHG, would be unable to persist in these short-lived pools. In addition, dispersal of these fishes into the pools is unlikely due to the distance from perennial water sources and the steep topography associated with the Mogollon Rim in which the fish would have to negotiate. Habitat conditions in Carrizo Creek were field verified by ASNFs biologists during July 2013. The stream is classified as perennial about 31 miles downstream from its end on White Mountain Apache Tribal lands (NRCS and UA 2007). The action area for effects is defined as ten miles along streams and drainages south of the project area boundary. Approximately 45% of the entire Carrizo Creek proposed critical habitat burned during the 2002 RC Fire. Of this, 46% had high to moderate severity burns while the rest (54%) had low severity to unburned. One-hundred and sixty-one acres of the proposed gartersnake Critical Habitat occur within the Heber Allotment. Ninety-nine of these acres (61%) had high to moderate severity burns while the rest (29%) had low severity to under burns.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and indirect effects NHG are not expected to occur within the Carrizo Creek drainage on the Heber Allotment, so effects from the project are likely only indirect from managed livestock grazing. To alleviate grazing pressure within sensitive drainages many stock tanks are proposed across the Allotment. Specifically, three stock tanks are proposed within one mile of the Carrizo Creek drainage. Three other stock tanks currently exist within one mile of the Carrizo Creek drainage and contain water at least seasonally. These additional water sources should alleviate use of the Carrizo Creek drainage and keep the majority of grazing in upland areas. Proposed Critical Habitat The primary constituent elements (PCEs) essential to the conservation of the NHG include those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. The following lists the snake’s PCE’s and the potential effects to those PCE’s from the proposed action. Stream habitat, which includes: o Perennial or spatially intermittent streams with sand, cobble, and boulder substrate and low or moderate amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness, and that possess appropriate amounts of pool, riffle, and run habitat to sustain native fish populations; o A natural, unregulated flow regime that allows for periodic flooding or, if flows are modified or regulated, a flow regime that allows for adequate river functions, such as flows capable of processing sediment loads;
o Shoreline habitat with adequate organic and inorganic structural complexity (e.g., boulders, cobble bars, vegetation, and organic debris such as downed trees or logs, debris jams), with appropriate amounts of shrub- and sapling-sized plants to allow for thermoregulation, gestation, shelter, protection from predators, and foraging opportunities; and
60 Environmental Assessment o Aquatic habitat with no pollutants or, if pollutants are present, levels that do not affect survival of any age class of the NHG or the maintenance of prey populations. Adequate terrestrial space (600 feet lateral extent to either side of bankfull stage) adjacent to designated stream systems with sufficient structural characteristics to support life-history functions such as gestation, immigration, emigration, and brumation. A prey base consisting of viable populations of native fish species or soft-rayed, nonnative fish species. An absence of nonnative fish species of the families Centrarchidae and Ictaluridae, bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and/or crayfish (Orconectes virilis, Procambarus clarki, etc.), or occurrence of these nonnative species at low enough levels such that recruitment of NHG and maintenance of viable native fish or soft-rayed, nonnative fish populations (prey) is still occurring. Direct and Indirect Effects to Stream Habitat The Carrizo Creek drainage on the Heber Allotment is ephemeral and so lacks sufficient water to support NHG or native fish populations. The Heber Allotment AMP proposes to manage livestock at conservative levels, which would decrease the amounts of vegetation removed and maintain structural components available for the snake’s life history requirements within proposed critical habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects to Terrestrial Space The section of Carrizo Creek within the Heber Allotment boundary does not contain riparian vegetation or sufficient structural characteristics to support life-history functions of NHG. Direct and Indirect Effects to Prey Base Since no native fish populations exist within the Carrizo Creek drainage on the Heber Allotment, there would be no impacts to native fish from livestock grazing or management actions. The Heber Allotment proposes to manage livestock grazing at conservative levels, which would minimize the amounts of vegetation removed and reduce erosion and subsequent sedimentation impacts to downstream fish populations. In addition, the development of upland watering systems within the pasture containing the proposed critical habitat should alleviate livestock use within any drainage corridors further protecting downstream fish species. Cumulative Effects: Activities identified in Appendix B were considered for the cumulative effects to proposed critical habitat, terrestrial space, and prey base by disturbance related activities. Consistency with Continued Implementation of the 2012 LRMP Biological and Conference Opinion Incidental Take Statement Based on the above analysis, the proposed action is consistent with The Biological Assessment for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Forest Service’s Continued Implementation of the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs of the Southwestern Region U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USDI 2012b). Determination of effect The effect of this project to NHG considers the following information: 1. It is highly unlikely for NHG to occur within the Heber Allotment. NHG may occur downstream of the project area in the action area defined as ten miles downstream within streams and drainages. It is assumed that suitable habitat occurs approximately 31 miles downstream on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. 2. Small ephemeral pools occur seasonally on the Carrizo Creek drainage on the Heber Allotment. These pools are short in duration and do not provide the habitat components necessary, such as riparian vegetation or perennial water, to support NHG life history 61
Heber Allotment requirements. Three seasonal stock tanks currently exist within one mile of the Carrizo Creek drainage while three others are proposed for construction within one mile of the drainage. This should reduce livestock impacts to the drainage and keep the majority of grazing in the upland areas. The effects of this project on NHG proposed critical habitat considers the following information: 1. The proposed critical habitat along Carrizo Creek does not provide for the habitat components necessary, such as riparian vegetation or perennial water, to support NHG life history requirements. 2. Conservative use levels are expected to minimize overuse of vegetation and maintain adequate cover for stable soil conditions. 3. Conservative use levels would minimize vegetation removal and subsequent erosion and sedimentation impacts to downstream fish populations. Water developments within the pasture containing the proposed critical habitat would alleviate use within the drainage, further protecting soil from disturbance and therefore protecting downstream fish species. Based on the above discussion, it has been determined that the actions proposed for the Heber Allotment Management Plan may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the NHG and are not likely to adversely modify its proposed critical habitat.
Impacts Common to All Forest Sensitive Species
Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 1 would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of habitat used by any of the Sensitive Species. Pinon-juniper woodlands would remain overstocked and grassland habitats would continue to receive conifer encroachment over time. Species would not be disturbed by smoke or displaced because no burning or thinning would occur.
Determination of Effects: Based on the above discussion, it is determined that Alternative 1 (no action) for the Heber Allotment would have no impact to the Sensitive Species identified in Table 16 (except Gunnison's prairie dog).
Effects Analysis for Sensitive Species
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) Day roosts for these bats typically occur in caves and mines from desert-scrub up to woodlands and coniferous forests. These bats prefer to hang from open ceilings at roost sites and do not use cracks or crevices. Maternity roosting bats prefer dim light near the edges of lighted zones. Night roosts can be old, abandoned buildings. Winter roosts are also in caves and the bats would typically roost near cave entrances and in well ventilated areas to maintain temperature below 54 degrees Fahrenheit. Moths are the primary food item for these bats. The bats can forage up to four to five miles from roost sites (AGFD 2003a). Bat surveys have not been conducted recently in the Heber Allotment. No Pale Townsend’s Big-eared bats were documented during surveys conducted on the Black Mesa Ranger District by Petryszyn and Sidner in 1994. It is unlikely the Heber Allotment contains caves where this species may roost. The allotment contains suitable foraging habitat for this bat. All forested and non-forested habitats in the project area are considered for effects analysis for foraging. Direct and Indirect Effects: Forest management treatments potentially benefiting bats and their prey
62 Environmental Assessment include piñon-juniper woodland thinning. These treatments create gaps which enhance edge habitat and provide diverse vegetation structure increasing herbaceous vegetation important for bats’ insect prey (Taylor 2006). Moving these habitats towards historic conditions would also increase resilience of these habitats and decrease the hazards of uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire. Tree thinning activities are not likely to affect Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat roosting habitat because these bats generally roost in caves. Prescribed burning occurring when bats are rearing young (April – July) or in deep hibernation (mid-winter) can have negative effects on local populations; however, most prescribed burning would occur in the fall. Thinning and prescribed burning activities would indirectly affect bats through the disturbance or removal of understory vegetation, which would subsequently alter the composition and abundance of insect prey. Moths are the principal prey item and are often associated with trees and other vegetation. These effects would be short-term and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. In contrast, reducing canopy closure, removing trees in and at edges of meadows, restoring meadows and grasslands, and prescribed burning would encourage the development of understory vegetation and increase the amount of edge. These would all aid in the increased availability of food for the bat over the long-term. Indirect benefits could potentially result from restoring meadows and grasslands encroached by piñon-juniper trees and reducing uncharacteristic tree densities and patterns in woodlands and grasslands resulting from fire exclusion. These efforts would aid in restoring openings and edge habitat within the woodland and improving understory vegetation that would benefit pale Townsend’s big-eared bats and their prey. Ungulate grazing has the potential to affect Pale Townsend big-eared bat foraging habitats. Ungulate grazing within the project area may reduce understory vegetation, which reduces plant availability to adult insects, a primary food source. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The Heber Allotment has also maintained a conservative utilization standard of 25 to 35 percent. This level of grazing minimizes effects to wildlife species through retention of sufficient ground cover for insects. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for prey species habitat requirements. Broadcast burning would create smoky conditions in the proximity of burn blocks. Dense smoke is likely an irritant to bats and could cause roosting bats to leave the area until the smoke dissipates. Smoke could also affect foraging behavior, triggering bats to forage elsewhere until air quality improves. Smoke effects would be short-term and transitory. Bats may relocate to areas outside of ongoing broadcast burning treatments. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect pale Townsend big-eared bats include past, present and future timber sales, woodland thinning and prescribed fire; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; HWHT, and powerline maintenance. Past and present timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected and may continue to affect pale Townsend big-eared bats. Other project decisions may not account for cave habitat within the project areas. Thinning and burning occurring near cave entrances may have disturbed bat roosts and forced this species to seek cave roosts elsewhere. It is unknown how disturbance of one cave roost affects its suitability as a future roost. Additionally, bats that are disturbed during hibernation would likely die as a result of increased activity and their use of limited stored resources during the disturbance. Long term benefits occur from all thinning and burning activities and include increased herbaceous vegetation with a subsequent increase in insect prey species. 63
Heber Allotment Recreational activities are high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Recreational off-road driving may indirectly affect bats when ATV users drive through and damage herbaceous vegetation important for the production of bat prey species. The Travel Management Rule would limit off-road recreational activities, and therefore improve habitat conditions for Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat. Powerline maintenance does not directly affect bats or cave roosts. The clearing of encroaching conifers within the powerline corridor likely improves bat foraging habitat. Herbaceous cover is high where conifers are lacking, which aids in the production of important bat insect prey. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: No Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats were captured on the Black Mesa Ranger District during bat surveys conducted in the 1990s. Suitable roosting habitat may exist and foraging habitat exists for this species within the Heber Allotment. Broadcast burning would generally occur in the fall, which is not critical in the life history of the bat (i.e. would not occur during young rearing or hibernation). Thinning and broadcast burning activities may indirectly affect bats with the removal of understory vegetation, which would subsequently alter the composition and abundance of insect prey. Effects would be short-term and prey is likely to increase as herbaceous understory recovers. Conservative grazing utilization levels with adaptive management monitoring and a deferred rest rotation grazing regime would minimize effects to Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat prey species habitat. Broadcast burning would create smoky conditions and bats would likely relocate outside of treatment areas until air quality improved. Maintenance broadcast treatments would result in similar effects as the first entry. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) The spotted bat occurs at variable locations throughout Arizona, but typically in dry, rough desert scrub. A few have been captured or heard in ponderosa pine forests. Limited evidence suggests these bats prefer to roost singly in cracks or crevices in cliff faces. Moths are the primary food item for these bats (AGFD 2003b). This species may forage from between zero to six miles from day roosts each night (Wai-Ping and Fenton 1989). Bat surveys have not been conducted recently in the Heber Allotment. No spotted bats were documented during surveys conducted on the Black Mesa Ranger District by Petryszyn and Sidner in 1994. Cliffs exists nearby the Heber Allotment in Chevelon, Willow Springs, Horse Trap, Long Tom, Slim Jim, Little Springs, Wildcat, St. Joe, and Smith Canyons. All forested and non-forested habitats in the project area are considered for effects analysis for foraging, while cliff habitats are considered for roosting. Direct and Indirect Effects: Forest management treatments potentially benefiting bats and their prey include piñon-juniper woodland thinning and prescribed fire. These treatments create gaps which enhance edge habitat and provide diverse vegetation structure increasing herbaceous vegetation important for bats’ insect prey (Taylor 2006). Moving these habitats towards historic conditions would also increase resilience of these habitats and decrease the risk of uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire.
64 Environmental Assessment Tree thinning activities are not likely to affect spotted bat roosting habitat because these bats typically roost in cracks and crevices of cliff faces. Most of the cliffs in the vicinity of the project area only exist immediately adjacent to the project area in Chevelon Canyon (northwest corner of allotment). Cliffs and rock outcroppings would not be affected by tree thinning. Prescribed burning occurring when bats are rearing young (April –July) or in deep hibernation (mid-winter) can have negative effects on local populations; however, most prescribed burning would occur in the fall. Thinning and prescribed burning activities would indirectly affect bats through the disturbance or removal of understory vegetation, which would subsequently alter the composition and abundance of insect prey. Moths are the principal prey item and are often associated with trees and other vegetation. These effects would be short-term and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. In contrast, reducing canopy closure, removing trees in and at edges of meadows, restoring meadows, and prescribed burning would encourage the development of understory vegetation and increase the amount of edge. These would all aid in the increased availability of food for the bat over the long-term. Indirect benefits could potentially result from restoring meadows encroached by pine trees and reducing uncharacteristic tree densities and patterns in the ponderosa pine forest resulting from fire exclusion. These efforts would aid in restoring openings and edge habitat within the forest and improving understory vegetation that would benefit spotted bats and their prey. Ungulate grazing has the potential to affect spotted bat foraging habitats. Ungulate grazing within the project area reduces understory vegetation, which reduces plant availability to adult insects, a primary food source. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The Heber Allotment has also maintained a conservative utilization standard of 25 to 35 percent. This level of grazing minimizes effects to wildlife species through retention of sufficient ground cover for insects. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for prey species habitat requirements. Broadcast burning would create smoky conditions in the proximity of burn blocks. Dense smoke is likely an irritant to bats and could cause roosting bats to leave the area until the smoke dissipates. Smoke could also affect foraging behavior, triggering bats to forage elsewhere until air quality improves. Smoke effects would be short-term and transitory. Bats may relocate to areas outside of ongoing broadcast burning treatments. Maintenance low severity broadcast burning would occur every two to ten years, so impacts associated with the initial broadcast burn treatments would reoccur. Benefits from maintenance treatments would include management towards desired conditions and increased understory herbaceous and browse species that would benefit forest health. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect spotted bats include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; woodland thinning; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; HWHT, and powerline maintenance. Past and present timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected and continue to affect spotted bats. Thinning and burning occurring near roosts may have disturbed bats and forced this species to seek roosts elsewhere. Additionally, bats that are disturbed during hibernation would likely die as a result of increased activity and their use of limited stored resources during the disturbance. Long term benefits occur from all thinning and burning activities and include increased herbaceous vegetation with a subsequent increase in insect prey species. Recreational activities are high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Most activities do not directly impact the bat; however, recreational off-road driving may indirectly affect bats when ATV users drive through and damage herbaceous vegetation important for 65
Heber Allotment the production of bat prey species. The Travel Management Rule should reduce the number of forest roads crossing through bat foraging habitat, thus improving habitat conditions for the spotted bat. Powerline maintenance does not directly affect bats or roosts. The clearing of encroaching conifers within the powerline corridor likely improves bat foraging habitat. Herbaceous cover is high where conifers are lacking, which aids in the production of important bat insect prey. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the spotted bat and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: No spotted bats were captured on the Black Mesa Ranger District during bat surveys conducted in the 1990s. Suitable foraging habitat exists for this species within the project area. Suitable roosting habitat likely only exists outside of the project area in Chevelon Canyon. Cliff face roosting sites are unlikely to be directly affected during thinning treatments. Broadcast burning would generally occur in the fall, which is not critical in the life history of the bat (i.e. would not occur during young rearing or hibernation). Thinning and broadcast burning activities may indirectly affect bats with the removal of understory vegetation, which would subsequently alter the composition and abundance of insect prey. Effects would be short-term and prey is likely to increase as herbaceous understory recovers. Broadcast burning would create smoky conditions and bats would likely relocate outside of treatment areas until air quality improved. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of spotted bats, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Allen’s Lappet-Browed Bat (Idionycteris phyllotis) Plant communities associated with Allen’s lappet-browed bat includes ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, Mexican woodland, and riparian areas of sycamores, cottonwoods, and willows (AZGF 2001b). Bat surveys have not been conducted recently in the Heber Allotment. Allen’s lappet-browed bat has been documented at several sites on the Black Mesa Ranger District, including areas within a few miles south and east of the project area (Petryszyn and Sidner 1994). One individual of the species was netted in 2003 at Bruno Tank, within 0.6 mile of the project area boundary. Other locations include an observation in Chevelon Canyon (no date given) approximately seven miles west of the project area and an observation in Hart Canyon in 1975 approximately 14 miles to the west of the project area (Black Mesa District Files). The project area has several thousand snags that could be used by Allen’s lappet-browed bat for roosting, as they are known for using tree roosts (AZGF 2001b). The Mogollon Rim and several canyons in and near the project area also provide suitable roosting habitat for this species. Water in the form of lakes, cienegas, stock tanks, and streams is also readily available. All forested and non-forested habitats in the project area is considered for effects analysis for foraging, while forested habitats are considered for roosting. Direct and Indirect Effects: Forest management treatments potentially benefiting bats and their prey include piñon-juniper woodland thinning and prescribed fire. These treatments create gaps which enhance edge habitat and provide diverse vegetation structure increasing herbaceous vegetation important for bats’ insect prey (Taylor 2006). Moving these habitats towards historic conditions would also increase resilience of these habitats and decrease the risk of uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire. Tree thinning activities are not likely to affect Allen’s lappet-browed bat roosting habitat because
66 Environmental Assessment these bats generally roost in caves and abandoned mines. There are no known caves or abandoned mines within the project area. Prescribed burning occurring when bats are rearing young (April –July) or in deep hibernation (mid-winter) can have negative effects on local populations; however, most prescribed burning would occur in the fall. Prescribed burning occurring when bats are rearing young (April –July) or in deep hibernation (mid- winter) can have negative effects on local populations; however, most prescribed burning would occur in fall. Cliffs, rock outcrops, boulder piles, and other structures would not be affected by tree thinning and burning activities and would continue to provide habitat to the bats. Thinning and prescribed burning activities would indirectly affect bats through the disturbance or removal of understory vegetation, which would subsequently alter the composition and abundance of insect prey. Moths and beetles are the principal prey item and are often associated with trees and other vegetation. These effects would be short-term and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. In contrast, reducing canopy closure, removing trees in and at edges of meadows, restoring meadows and grasslands, and prescribed burning would encourage the development of understory vegetation and increase the amount of edge. These would all aid in the increased availability of food for the bat over the long-term. Ungulate grazing has the potential to affect Allen’s lappet-browed bat foraging habitats. Ungulate grazing within the project area may reduce understory vegetation, reducing plant availability to adult insects, a primary food source. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The Heber Allotment has also maintained a conservative utilization standard of 25 to 35 percent. This level of grazing minimizes effects to wildlife species through retention of sufficient ground cover for insects. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for prey species habitat requirements. Broadcast burning would create smoky conditions in the proximity of burn blocks. Dense smoke is likely an irritant to bats and could cause roosting bats to leave the area until the smoke dissipates. Smoke could also affect foraging behavior, triggering bats to forage elsewhere until air quality improves. Smoke effects would be short-term and transitory. Bats may relocate to areas outside of ongoing broadcast burning treatments. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Allen’s lappet-browed bats include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; woodland thinning; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; and powerline maintenance. Past and present thinning and burning occurring near roosts or maternity colonies may have disturbed and forced Allen’s lappet-browed bats to seek roosts elsewhere. Maternity colonies are easily disturbed, often resulting in abandonment. Additionally, bats disturbed during hibernation would likely die as a result of increased activity and their use of limited stored resources during the disturbance. Long term benefits occur from all thinning and burning activities and include increased herbaceous vegetation with a subsequent increase in insect prey species. Recreational activities may be high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Most activities do not directly impact the bat; however, recreational off-road driving may indirectly affect bats when ATV users drive through and damage herbaceous vegetation important for the production of bat prey species. The Travel Management Rule should reduce the number of forest roads crossing through bat foraging habitat, thus improving habitat conditions for Allen’s lappet-browed bat.
67
Heber Allotment Powerline maintenance does not directly affect bats or roosts. The clearing of encroaching conifers within the powerline corridor likely improves bat foraging habitat. Herbaceous cover is high where conifers are lacking, which aids in the production of important bat insect prey. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the Allen’s lappet-browed bat and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: Allen’s lappet-browed bats were captured on the Black Mesa Ranger District during bat surveys conducted in the 1990s. Suitable habitat exists for this species within the project area. Broadcast burning would generally occur in the fall, which is not critical in the life history of the bat (i.e. would not occur during young rearing or hibernation). Broadcast burning would create smoky conditions and bats would likely relocate outside of treatment areas until air quality improved. Thinning and broadcast burning activities may indirectly affect bats with the removal of understory vegetation, which would subsequently alter the composition and abundance of insect prey. Effects would be short-term and prey is likely to increase as herbaceous understory recovers. Conservative grazing utilization levels with adaptive management monitoring and a deferred rest rotation grazing regime would minimize effects to Allen’s lappet-browed bat prey species habitat. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individual Allen’s lappet-browed bats, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Gunnison’s Prairie Dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) Gunnison’s prairie dogs are a Forest Service sensitive species. This species has not been surveyed for recently on the Black Mesa Ranger District but habitat for this species is available within the District. The range of Gunnison’s prairie dogs extends from central Colorado to central Arizona, including a small portion of southeastern Utah and much of the northwestern half of New Mexico (NatureServe 2014). Gunnison’s prairie dogs occupy high mountain valleys and plateaus at elevations of 6,000 to 12,000 feet. Habitat typically consists of open or brushy country with scattered junipers and pines (NatureServe 2014). Colonies of this species contain between 50 to 100 individuals and are organized into territories consisting of one adult male, one or more adult females, non-breeding yearlings, and young of the year. Activity periods begin in March and occur through October in Northern Arizona (NatureServe 2014). Gunnison’s prairie dogs feed mainly on grasses, forbs, and sedges but will also eat insects (Hoffmeister 1986). The most significant threat to this species is sylvatic plague, which is not native to North America and was first detected in New Mexico in 1938 (USDI 2008b). Though this species also suffers from habitat loss and degradation, shooting, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, these factors are not regarded as significant to this species throughout all or a significant portion of its range by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI 2008b). Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects –Though this species is known to tolerate scattered trees within its habitat, fire exclusion would allow for the encroachment of overstory trees within openings used by this species. These dense overstory trees would limit the growth of understory vegetation and grasses necessary for the prairie dogs survival. Habitat availability would also be limited by reduced line-of- sight required by this species. As piñon-juniper woodlands increase in density due to a lack of fuel reduction treatments, many trees would become unhealthy and succumb to insects and disease resulting in high snag numbers across the project area. Encroachment into grasslands by junipers
68 Environmental Assessment reduces habitat availability to Gunnison’s prairie dogs. These factors would contribute to high severity stand replacing fires in the future. Initially, these fires would limit the prairie dogs ability to occupy the habitat; however, as the forest recovers, grasses, forbs and shrubs would reestablish and provide suitable habitat for this species. Effects Determination – The No Action Alternative may impact, is likely to adversely impact Gunnison’s prairie dogs due to a continued decrease in habitat availability and quality over time. Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects – Grassland restoration would occur on 17,700 acres of habitat within the Heber Allotment project area. These areas may not support the habitat conditions necessary for Gunnison’s prairie dog colony establishment due to conifer encroachment; however, equipment and personnel may cross over open grassland conditions to access encroachment areas. This could crush prairie dog burrow openings with young if done during the breeding season. Vegetation could also succumb to trampling and crushing by mechanical treatment equipment and personnel. Short term negative effects of fire have been observed for other small mammals but the effects of fire on Gunnison’s prairie dog are unknown. Most small mammals avoid fire by using underground tunnels, pathways under moist forest litter, stump and root holes, and spaces under rock, talus and large dead wood (Smith 2000). Specifically, prairie dogs would have adequate protection from flames and smoke within their burrow systems. While initially detrimental to prairie dog colonies, grassland restoration activities can aid in the establishment of food resources provided by early and mid-seral fruit producing shrubs and the plentiful grasses and forbs (Pilliod et al 2006). Long-term, indirect effects of fire are unknown for Gunnison’s prairie dogs; however, generalizations can be made on fire effects to this species based on research conducted on a similar species, the black-tailed prairie dog. Prescribed fire has been shown to benefit black-tailed prairie dog colonies in a shortgrass steppe community in Colorado. Fire has been shown to facilitate prairie dog colony expansion. The authors of this study hypothesize that expansion of colonies occurs due to reduced vegetation height and associated improvement in visibility and predator detection. An increase in forage nutrient content (particularly in minerals such as calcium and phosphorus) was also suggested as a reason for prairie dog expansion (Augustine et al 2007). Cumulative Effects – Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Gunnison’s prairie dog include woodland thinning; prescribed fire; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; and powerline maintenance. Past projects such as timber harvest, prescribed burning, and grassland maintenance have likely increased the amount of habitat available for this species. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, which consequently provided habitat for Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Grazing has been shown to be beneficial to prairie dogs. Extensive grazing reduces vegetation height, which aids in visibility and predator detection. Prairie dog populations can be regulated where livestock numbers are reduced and intensity of grazing lessened (Uresk et al 1982). Recreational activities can impact Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Due to high accessibility, ATV use may be a preferred activity within prairie dog habitat. The Travel Management Rule should reduce the number of forest roads crossing through Gunnison’s prairie dogs habitat and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on Gunnison’s prairie dogs populations by compacting soils in preferred habitats due to public interference. Roads also are a large obstruction to small mammal dispersal and are likely eliminating the prairie dogs ability to
69
Heber Allotment colonize other preferred habitats. The reductions in roads across the Forests would allow this species to proliferate in other areas they have otherwise been excluded from. Cumulatively, these activities are not expected to impact Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Effects Determination – The effects of this project on the Gunnison’s prairie dogs consider the following information: a) Surveys of Gunnison’s prairie dogs on the Black Mesa Ranger District have not occurred recently but populations and habitat have been documented in the past. b) Equipment from mechanized grassland treatments may destroy Gunnison’s prairie dog burrows with young if done during the breeding season. Vegetation may also be destroyed. c) Gunnison’s prairie dogs can avoid direct effects of prescribed burning by hiding in burrows. d) Grassland restoration activities can aid in the establishment of food resources provided by fruit-producing shrubs, grasses, and forbs. e) Prescribed fire may facilitate Gunnison’s prairie dog colony expansion in some areas due to reduced vegetation height and increased forage nutrient content. Based on the above discussion it is determined that the proposed action may impact individual Gunnison’s prairie dogs, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Navajo Mogollon Vole (Microtus mogollonensis navaho) This species is a subspecies of the Mexican vole (M. mexicanus) and occurs along and on both sides of the Mogollon Plateau and on some mountain ranges south of the Plateau. The species inhabits dry, grassy habitats, usually in areas adjacent to ponderosa pine but sometimes also occurring as low as grassy areas in pinyon-juniper woodland or as high as spruce-fir forests. This species is more active throughout the year and more during the day than at night (Hoffmeister 1986). When inactive, the vole occupies a nest located either in a clump of vegetation, under a log, or in ground depressions. Breeding occurs throughout the spring and summer months and young are born in grass nests (NatureServe 2014). Small mammal surveys have not been conducted recently in the Heber Allotment. The most recent documentation of this species occurred at various locations approximately six to ten miles west of the Heber Allotment, mainly around Dutch Joe Ranch, Hart Canyon, and Bart’s Crossing. These observations occurred between 1970 and 1975 by an unknown observer (Black Mesa District files). The Heber Allotment contains suitable habitat for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects: Proposed activities could negatively affect the Navajo Mogollon vole. Tree thinning and broadcast burning could result in injury or mortality of individuals. Areas proposed for grassland maintenance may disturb the Navajo Mogollon vole by tree thinning and associated vehicle traffic. Voles could be injured or killed by falling trees or vehicles running over them. Skidders and other equipment could run over nests, causing harm or disturbance to individual voles. Navajo Mogollon voles would likely be injured and killed during broadcast burning activities since they do not seek shelter in underground burrows. Low severity broadcast burning is also likely to negatively affect above ground foraging habitats through the temporary removal of herbaceous materials. However, fire exclusion has resulted in uncharacteristically dense forests and meadow and grassland encroachment. This has caused a reduction in herbaceous cover and food for the Navajo Mogollon vole across the project area. Burned habitat and herbaceous cover are expected to recover by the late spring and summer and it is anticipated that meadows and open areas would rebound afterwards, with more vigorous herbaceous vegetation and healthier understory habitats. It is likely that no more than about 2,000-3,000 acres within the Heber Allotment would be burned in any one year, which would limit the amount of vole habitat affected at any one time. Although individual voles may be affected by broadcast burning, this activity is not expected to negatively affect large
70 Environmental Assessment groups or populations of the species. Piñon-juniper treatments can indirectly affect potential vole habitat by restoring openings and grasslands and reducing uncharacteristic tree densities and patterns in piñon-juniper woodland. Restoring grasslands and creating openings in the woodlands would increase potential understory development, including bunch grasses and other C-3 plants providing preferred food sources. Moving piñon-juniper and grassland habitats towards historic conditions could increase potential habitat quality and quantity and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire. Ungulate grazing has the potential to affect Navajo Mogollon vole habitats. Ungulates likely forage more within vole habitats due to the high productivity of herbaceous food sources. Ungulate grazing within the project area reduces understory vegetation. The Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The Heber Allotment has also maintained a conservative utilization standard of 25 to 35 percent. This level of grazing minimizes effects to wildlife species through retention of sufficient ground cover for small mammals. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for small mammal species habitat requirements. Voles likely inhabit powerline corridors due to the presence of preferred habitat elements; therefore, corridor maintenance could decrease herbaceous vegetation important for food and cover. However, the clearing of encroaching conifers within the powerline corridor likely improves vole habitat in the long-term by increasing herbaceous vegetation. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Navajo Mogollon voles include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; and powerline maintenance. Past and present timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected and continue to affect Navajo Mogollon voles. Short-term impacts of all thinning and burning activities include removal of herbaceous cover and forage and the direct killing of individual voles. Long term benefits occur from all thinning and burning activities and include increased herbaceous vegetation with a subsequent increase foraging habitat. Implementation of other project activities could occur simultaneously however, it is not anticipated to combine to cause a negative effect. All present and future activities are designed to move these habitats towards historic conditions, which would increase potential habitat quality and quantity and reduce risk of uncharacteristic, high severity wildfire. Ungulate grazing may have affected Navajo Mogollon vole habitats in the past (see discussion under Direct and Indirect Effects). Recreational activities occur in some areas of the Heber Allotment. This has the potential to displace voles from preferred habitat. The Travel Management Rule should reduce the number of forest roads crossing through vole habitat, thus improving habitat conditions for Navajo Mogollon voles. Determination of Effects: The determination of effects for the Navajo Mogollon vole and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: Navajo Mogollon voles have not been recently detected on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Suitable habitat exists within the Heber Allotment. Fire exclusion has resulted in uncharacteristically dense woodlands and grassland encroachment, which has reduced available habitat for Navajo Mogollon voles.
71
Heber Allotment Short-term impacts to voles will occur from project activities and include direct injury or mortality of individual voles and a temporary reduction in herbaceous cover and food sources. Long-term impacts are beneficial and include an increase in vigorous herbaceous vegetation and healthier understory habitats. Treatments within the Heber Allotment would be incremental and generally not exceed 2,000-3,000 acres per year, thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year. Conservative grazing utilization levels with adaptive management monitoring and a deferred rest rotation grazing regime would minimize effects to Navajo Mogollon vole habitat. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individual Navajo Mogollon voles, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Springerville Silky Pocket Mouse (Perognathus flavus goodpasteri) The Springerville silky pocket mouse occupies plains and grassland habitat from the southwestern and west-central Great Plains and intermountain plateaus of South Dakota, eastern Wyoming, and southeastern Utah, south through Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, western Nebraska, western Kansas, western Oklahoma, north-central and western Texas, and the central plateau of Mexico to Puebla, Mexico (NatureServe 2014). This species has been documented on the neighboring Lakeside Ranger District, with an expected distribution reaching the eastern boundary of the Heber Allotment. The Heber Allotment has approximately 20,296 acres of grassland habitat available for this species; however, small openings within forested and woodland habitat types may also be used and would not be accounted for in the available habitat for this species. In Arizona, Hoffmeister (1986) states that these mice occupy plains and desert grasslands and the sagebrush-cactus association, extending into juniper woodland. The presence of grassy cover may be the most important requisite in habitat selection for these mice. In Springerville, AZ, this species was caught in shortgrass, boulders, and tumbleweed (Hoffmeister 1986). Most habitats consist of prairies of sandy, gravelly, or rocky areas with sparse vegetation of various grasses and forbs. It is not restricted to a specific plant association, but rather seems to have broad tolerance for various types of vegetation as long as the understory is sparse (AGFD 2002d). Globally, the Springerville silky pocket mouse is ranked G5 (secure). In Arizona, the Heritage Status Rank for the species is S5 (secure, NatureServe 2014). It is important to note that this baseline does not account for the P. f. goodpasteri subspecies. Direct Effects and Indirect Effects – Direct effects of woodland thinning, grassland maintenance and prescribed fire on Springerville silky pocket mice are relatively unknown. Assumptions can be made based on effects of these treatments on other small mammals with similar habitat and natural history requirements. Thinning and grassland maintenance could destroy nests with young if done during the breeding season. Additionally, these treatments could initially reduce vegetation these mice rely on for foraging as it becomes crushed or trampled by equipment and personnel. Short term negative effects of fire have been observed for other small mammals but the effects of fire on Springerville silky pocket mice are unknown. Generalizations can be made on fire effects to this species based on research conducted on various other small mammals. Most small mammals avoid fire by using underground tunnels, pathways under moist forest litter, stump and root holes, and spaces under rock, talus and large dead wood (Smith 2000). While mortality may occur for this species, their high reproductive potential would enable them to increase rapidly in favorable environments and disperse readily into burned areas (Smith 2000).
72 Environmental Assessment Small mammals tend to respond positively to thinning disturbances in woodlands, especially if habitat is poor prior to treatments. This may be due to increases in food availability and course woody debris in disturbed areas (Converse et al 2006). Some small mammal species that prefer open habitat conditions may benefit from the food resources provided by early and mid-seral fruit producing shrubs and the plentiful grasses and forbs that establish after fuel reduction (Pilliod et al 2006). In the case of the Springerville silky pocket mouse, these resources would provide increased foraging habitat for the mouse as well as provide cover from predators. Thus this species would likely benefit from thinning activities once grasses and shrubs reestablished. Prescription burning, though initially reducing cover and vegetation, would soon improve habitat conditions for Springerville silky pocket mice especially if thinning had occurred prior to burning. This would open up the canopy to allow for the establishment of necessary grasses and forbs. Springerville silky pocket mice may be sensitive to grazing based on documented effects on other small mammals in a variety of habitats. Soil compaction, litter reduction, and microhabitat alteration all contribute to a reduction in mouse habitat components. Livestock grazing is also associated with the introduction of exotic plants, which influences structural and floristic shifts in the plant communities these mice rely on. Deferring grazing would allow forage a chance to recover. The Heber Allotment has also maintained a conservative utilization standard of 25 to 35 percent. This level of grazing minimizes effects to wildlife species through retention of sufficient ground cover for small mammals. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for small mammal species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects – Present and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to affect Springerville silky pocket mice include past timber sales, past burning, past grassland maintenance activities, livestock grazing, and recreational activities and Travel Management Rule. Past projects such as timber harvest, prescribed burning, and grassland maintenance have likely increased the amount of habitat available for this species. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which consequently provided food and habitat for Springerville silky pocket mice. Ungulate grazing may have affected Springerville silky pocket mouse habitats in the past (see discussion under Direct and Indirect Effects). Recreational activities can impact Springerville silky pocket mice Current forest projects, such as Travel Management Rule, would aid in the reduction of fuel wood gathering in areas away from open roads. Cumulatively, these activities are not expected to impact Springerville silky pocket mice. Determination of Effects: The determination of effects for the Springerville silky pocket mouse and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: No occupancy within the project area has been documented but habitat is available. Equipment from thinning treatments may destroy Springerville silky pocket mouse nests with young if done during the breeding season. Woodland thinning, grassland maintenance, and prescribed fire treatments may initially reduce habitat component necessary for this mouse’s survival; however, long term benefits are anticipated as grasses and shrubs recover improving foraging habitat and providing better cover from predators.
73
Heber Allotment Conservative grazing utilization levels with adaptive management monitoring and a deferred rest rotation grazing regime would minimize effects to Springerville silky pocket mouse habitat. Direct mortality on mice from prescription burning is rare due to the species ability to retreat into burrows, stump and root holes, or spaces under rocks. Prescription burning would aid in reducing cover and increasing grasses and forbs necessary for this species survival. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individual Springerville silky pocket mice, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern goshawk habitat was identified in the Heber Allotment. Goshawk surveys had been conducted in and around parts of the analysis area since the early 1990s (Table 20). These surveys have resulted in the establishment of ten goshawk post-family fledging areas (PFAs) within the Heber Allotment. Table 20. Monitoring summaries of NOGO PFAs within the Heber Allotment (Last 10 years)
PFA No. PFA NAME 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0105004 Mud Tank INR
0105008 Heber Hollow FNR FNR INR INR NU NU FNR INR 1f
PFA No. PFA NAME 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0105010 Baca U INR FNR NL 0105014 Dead Horse 1f 1n INR INR NN INR 1n 0105016 Outlaw FNR 1f INR INR INR 0105020 Wildcat Canyon INR 0105026 Wyrick NL NU INR 0105028 Shipping 1f 3f INR INR U INR INR 0105029 Pierce 1f 3f-1df 2f U 1f INR INR 0105030 Brookbank Canyon 2f Coding: P = Adult pair f = Number of fledglings NU = Territory occupied, but nesting status undetermined M = Adult male n = Number of nestlings NL = Active nest found, but fate of nest undetermined F = Adult female df = Number of dead fledglings NF = Nest (attempt or active) failed U = Adult, unknown sex e = Number of eggs INR = No response during informal monitoring NR = No response during monitoring FNR = No response during formal grid monitoring Direct and Indirect Effects: None of the proposed vegetative treatments would occur within PFAs. Unintentional disruption of normal foraging patterns could occur to foraging northern goshawk adults outside of PFAs during felling, chipping, piling, road maintenance and broadcast burning activities. This disruption should be limited in scope, as treatments would be approximately 2,000-3,000 acres in any given year throughout the Heber Allotment. Ungulate grazing within the project area can negatively affect goshawk foraging habitat through reduced herbaceous cover, soil compaction, sedimentation, and microhabitat alteration. Ungulate grazing may reduce understory vegetation, which has an indirect effect on the northern goshawk by reducing understory herbaceous components important to prey species. The Heber Allotment would be managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to
74 Environmental Assessment ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for prey species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Northern goshawks include past, present and future timber sales and restoration projects; prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; powerline maintenance; road maintenance; and HWHT. Past timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected northern goshawks through even-aged forest management in nesting and foraging habitat. Current timber sales and restoration projects meet goshawk guidelines for forest structure in nesting and foraging habitat (Reynolds et al 1992). All projects adhered to northern goshawk timing restrictions and likely did not directly affect any resident goshawks. Present projects focus on uneven-aged management and also adhere to goshawk guidelines identified in the Forest Plan. All present and future activities are designed to move these habitats towards historic conditions, which would increase potential habitat quality and quantity and reduce the hazard of high severity wildfire. Ungulate grazing in the past had the potential to affect northern goshawk foraging habitat (see discussion under Direct and Indirect Effects). Recreational activities may be high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Goshawks may avoid areas where people congregate to camp. Recreational off- road driving may directly affect goshawks when occurring within PFAs during the breeding season. Travel Management Rule is likely to decrease motorized use across the ASNFs. This would be very beneficial to breeding goshawks when cross-country travel is reduced in nesting and foraging habitats. Goshawks likely forage within the powerline corridor due to the presence of preferred habitat elements for some prey species; therefore, corridor maintenance may cause short-term impacts to goshawks as they avoid those areas for foraging and as habitat is temporarily disturbed. However, the clearing of encroaching conifers within the powerline is short-term and herbaceous vegetation improves creating favorable conditions for prey. Road Maintenance may indirectly affect foraging goshawks. Goshawks likely avoid areas undergoing road maintenance. This may occur only once or twice a year and is short-term. The HWHT would likely contribute to a reduction in herbaceous vegetation in the project area. This may cumulatively impact goshawk prey species and indirectly affect northern goshawk foraging. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the northern goshawk and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: There are 10 established northern goshawk PFAs present within the project area and one within a ½ mile buffer of the allotment (Bear Springs PFA). All proposed vegetative treatments would occur outside of goshawk PFA’s. Goshawks are expected to avoid foraging in areas where project activities take place. Project activities will only occur on approximately 2,000-3,000 acres in any given year and should limit disruption. Treatments within piñon-juniper woodlands would be managed for moving towards Forest Plan requirements with a mixture of aged/size class of trees within a mosaic of openings and tree groups. An increase in herbaceous and shrub understory would result from treatments and provide more forage and cover for northern goshawk prey species post treatment.
75
Heber Allotment Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of northern goshawk but would not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) The American peregrine falcon was removed from the Endangered Species Act’s threatened and endangered species list in 1999 (USDI 1999). It is now classified as a Region 3 Forest sensitive species. Range in Arizona: breeds in the state wherever sufficient prey is available near cliffs. Areas of spectacular cliffs such as the Mogollon Rim, Grand Canyon and Colorado Plateau, contain most of Arizona's breeding peregrines (AZGF 2002a). Surveys for peregrine falcons have been conducted along much of the Mogollon Rim adjacent to the Heber Allotment and in portions of canyons north of the project area. There are two known eyries along the Mogollon Rim on the Tonto National Forest just southwest of the project area. The mule Creek Eyrie was last monitored in 2007 and was occupied. Fledglings were observed during an informal visit to the Al Fulton Eyrie in 2013. While the Heber Allotment itself contains no suitable nesting habitat, the cliffs along the Rim just south of the project area as well as Chevelon Canyon immediately west of the project area are excellent habitat. The project area is likely used by peregrine falcons as foraging habitat. Forest Service policy provides for protection of peregrine falcon eyries and restrictions on activities during the nesting season. All forested and non-forested habitats in the Heber Allotment are considered for effects analysis as foraging habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects: The project area falls within the USFS R3 primary, secondary, and tertiary management zones policy for de-listing. Primary management zones are an average of 0.5 mile around active nest cliffs, secondary management zones are 0.5 – 2.0 miles, and tertiary management zones are 3.0 miles from an active cliff. Primary nesting zones are managed to enhance or be neutral in effects on peregrine nesting activity and prey habitat. Activities within this zone should occur outside the nesting period (February 1 – August 15). Secondary and tertiary zones are managed to eliminate potential effects during the nesting season from sources such as aircraft or explosives, or activities within the line-of-sight of the eyrie. The project area is within ½ mile of two active peregrine falcon eyries. Implementation of project activities within the primary management zone would be restricted to periods outside the peregrine falcon breeding season. Because of the timing restriction there would be no disturbance to the eyries. The de-listing guidelines for R3 state “habitat maintenance or enhancement of prey species in all Zones should include consideration of snags and large woody material, hardwood components, and grass/forb/shrub and seedling successional stages.” Harvesting and burning treatments would alter foraging habitat by thinning tree densities and reducing existing canopy closures. The post treatment conditions within piñon-juniper woodlands would provide a variety of foraging habitat and cover for peregrine falcon prey. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning, and other project activities may cause visual or auditory disturbance to foraging peregrine falcons. Approximately 2,000-3,000 acres would be treated annually; however, these are short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. This disturbance would be localized, of short duration and low intensity and may affect individual birds but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the species. A fall and winter burning period would reduce any impact to nesting and fledgling peregrine falcons from broadcast burning activities and smoke as burning would only occur outside the sensitive reproductive season. Fire and smoke effects from broadcast burning may disturb individual birds outside of the breeding season but this should be short-term impact and would not adversely affect peregrine falcon due to implementing a low severity prescription. The loss of snags from burning could reduce available foraging and nesting habitat for swallows and other songbirds, which are
76 Environmental Assessment identified prey species. However, some studies (e.g. Saab et al 2007) have found that broadcast burning often creates enough new snags to replace those that were consumed by the fire. Burning techniques would be adjusted to retain as many existing snags and logs as possible. Additionally, because peregrine falcons forage up to 17 miles from nesting cliffs, any snag reduction in the project area is not expected to cause a significant reduction in prey availability for peregrines in the area. Peregrine falcon foraging habitat would be altered in some areas by thinning and prescribed burning activities. Prey populations may be affected by changes in tree densities, canopy closures, and ground cover. In a study conducted in southwestern ponderosa pine forests, Szaro and Balda (1979) found that bird abundance and species diversity was higher on “silviculturally cut” areas than on untreated control areas. The more open understory created by fuel reduction treatments may be advantageous to species of raptors that prey on birds in open forests and small clearings. Some prey species prefer more open forests and these species have less cover and can more easily be captured (Pilliod et al 2006). Thinning treatments in the project area are expected to result in more open stands but are not expected to change small bird abundance significantly. Ungulate grazing has the potential to affect peregrine falcon foraging habitat. Ungulate grazing within the project area can negatively affect riparian areas through reduced herbaceous cover, soil compaction, sedimentation, and microhabitat alteration. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for prey species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect peregrine falcons include past, present, and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing, recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; road maintenance; and HWHT. Past timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected peregrine falcons through even-aged forest management in nesting and foraging habitat. All present and future timber sales, restoration projects and prescribed burning are designed to move these habitats towards historic conditions, which would increase potential habitat quality and quantity and reduce the hazard of high severity wildfire. Ungulate grazing in the past had the potential to affect peregrine falcon foraging habitat (see discussion under Direct and Indirect Effects). Development is expected to continue in the community of Forest Lakes, Heber-Overgaard, and Show Low/Pinetop/Lakeside. Increased development is associated with a decrease in available foraging habitats. An increase in the number of people in an area also increases the potential for falcons to be hit by cars while foraging near highways and forest roads. Recreational activities may be high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Peregrine falcons may avoid areas where people congregate to camp. Falcons may also flee areas during recreational shooting activities, which seem frequent within the project area. Recreational off-road driving may indirectly affect falcons when ATV users drive through and damage herbaceous vegetation important to falcon prey species. Travel Management should reduce the number of forest roads crossing through peregrine falcon foraging habitat and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on peregrine falcon populations by increasing hawk-human interactions and causing avoidance of some preferred foraging habitats.
77
Heber Allotment Road Maintenance may indirectly affect foraging peregrine falcons. Falcons likely avoid areas undergoing road maintenance. This may occur only once or twice a year and is short-term. The HWHT would likely contribute to a reduction in herbaceous vegetation in the project area. This may cumulatively impact peregrine falcon prey species and indirectly affect foraging. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the American peregrine falcon and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: There is no known peregrine falcon eyries present in the project area. No suitable nesting cliff habitat is present. Two active eyries exist adjacent to the project area along the Mogollon Rim and habitat exists adjacent to the project area along the southern boundary. No treatment activities are planned within the primary management zone. Short-term effects may occur during mechanical and prescribed burning treatments but effects would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated and would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the species. Thinning treatments in the project area are expected to result in more open stands but are not expected to change small bird abundance significantly. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individual American peregrine falcons but would not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. Common Black Hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus) Common black hawks arrive in Arizona as early as March through April and migrate across the Mexican border for the winter by mid-October. The bird is an obligate, riparian nester that depends on mature, relatively undisturbed habitat supported by a permanent flowing stream (AGFD 2013). Surveys for common black hawks have not occurred on the Black Mesa Ranger District; however, incidental observations have occurred. The most recent observations were two juvenile (recently fledged) birds located in Chevelon Canyon west of the Heber Allotment. The project area is likely used by common black hawks for foraging. Standing pools and stock tanks within the project area are prime locations for black hawk foraging. All forested and non-forested habitats in the project area are considered for effects analysis as foraging habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects: Common black-hawks are unlikely to be directly affected by the proposed action. Mechanical treatments would not occur in suitable black-hawk nesting and foraging habitat. Broadcast burning could be implemented in foraging habitat but it would take place in the fall outside the sensitive reproductive season. Ungulate grazing has the potential to affect common black hawk foraging habitat. Ungulate grazing within the project area can negatively affect riparian areas through reduced herbaceous cover, soil compaction, sedimentation, and microhabitat alteration. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for prey species habitat requirements. Conservation measures to protect threatened species and BMPs are designed to minimize downstream effects on soil and ash movement. The prey base and riparian conditions in canyons downstream of the project could be affected by sedimentation and ash produced by broadcast burning. The prey most likely to be affected would be snakes, frogs, fish, and crayfish. Increased sedimentation and ash could
78 Environmental Assessment affect downstream water chemistry, water quality, and channel stream structure (Rieman et al 2003). It could also affect interstitial spaces between rocks in a streambed for amphibians to lay eggs, forage, and hide (Pilliod et al 2003). A fall and winter burning period would reduce any impact to nesting and fledgling black hawks from broadcast burning activities and smoke as burning would only occur outside the sensitive reproductive season. Fire and smoke effects from broadcast burning may disturb individual birds outside of the breeding season but this should be a short-term impact and would not adversely affect common black-hawks due to implementing a low severity prescription. Maintenance low severity broadcast burning would occur every two to ten years, so impacts associated with the initial broadcast burn treatments would reoccur. Benefits from maintenance treatments would include management towards increased understory herbaceous species that would benefit common blackhawk prey. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect common black hawks include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; road maintenance; and HWHT. Past timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected common black hawks through even-aged forest management in nesting and foraging habitat. All present and future timber sales, restoration projects and prescribed burning are designed to move these habitats towards historic conditions, which would increase potential habitat quality and quantity and reduce the hazard of high severity wildfire. Ungulate grazing in the past had the potential to affect common black hawk foraging habitat (see discussion under Direct and Indirect Effects). Recreational activities are high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Common black hawks may avoid areas where people congregate to camp. Recreational off-road driving may indirectly affect black hawks when ATV users drive through and damage riparian habitats important to common black hawk prey species. Travel Management should reduce the number of forest roads crossing through common black hawk foraging habitat and keep road users in designated areas. Road Maintenance may indirectly affect foraging common black hawks. Hawks likely avoid areas undergoing road maintenance. This may occur only once or twice a year and is short-term. The HWHT would likely contribute to a reduction in herbaceous vegetation on lands in the project area. This may cumulatively impact common black hawk prey species and indirectly affect foraging. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the common black hawk and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: There are no known common black hawk nests within the project area although black-hawk fledglings have been sighted in Chevelon Canyon indicating that the birds may nest within a few miles of the project area. Conservation measures and BMPs should minimize the amount of sediment and ash on downstream riparian habitat and the effects on common black-hawk prey. Thinning trees would improve watershed conditions, which may result in increased water quality and quantity for common black hawk prey. Broadcast burning would occur in the fall and winter, reducing impacts to nesting and fledging common black hawks. Smoke may be present in the project area outside of the breeding season but it is likely to be short-term and transitory in nature.
79
Heber Allotment Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 2,000- 3,000 acres per year, thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the common black-hawk but would not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The bald eagle south of the 40th parallel was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, and was reclassified to threatened status on July 12, 1995 (USDI 1995). Bald eagles were delisted from the Endangered Species Act throughout most of Arizona and the United States in July 2007 (USDI 2007). The Sonoran Desert population continues to be protected under ESA as a threatened species (USDI 2008). Bald eagles remain protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Both acts prohibit “take” of bald eagles. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) and the AGFD have developed management guidelines for bald eagle nesting and roosting areas. Region 3 of the Forest Service has agreed via a Memorandum of Understanding to implement the AGFD’s Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Bald Eagle in Arizona. No breeding bald eagles occur within the Heber Allotment; however, bald eagles have been detected roosting and foraging at Black Canyon Lake (within the project area) during the summer months. Should bald eagles begin nesting within the project area steps would be taken to implement restrictions found in the Conservation Assessment Strategy. Wintering bald eagles have been observed at Black Canyon Lake as well as foraging on Highway 260. There are no known roost sites in or near the proposed vegetation treatment areas. Where known, roost trees would be protected from project activities. If bald eagle winter roost sites are discovered in the project area during project implementation, buffers would be established around the sites according to guidelines in the Conservation and Assessment Strategy. Activities would be restricted in accordance with these guidelines. All forested and non-forested habitats in the project area are considered for effects analysis as foraging habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects: There is no effect to nesting eagles since no nests occur within the project area and proposed vegetative treatments are more than 7 miles from known roost sites (Black Canyon Lake). A fall and winter burning period would reduce any impact to nesting and fledgling bald eagles adjacent to the project area from broadcast burning activities and smoke as burning would only occur outside the sensitive reproductive season. Fire and smoke effects from broadcast burning may disturb individual birds outside of the breeding season but this should be a short-term impact and would not adversely affect bald eagles due to implementing a low severity prescription. Maintenance low severity broadcast burning would occur every two to ten years, so impacts associated with the initial broadcast burn treatments would reoccur. Benefits from maintenance treatments would include management towards desired conditions. Approximately 2,000-3,000 acres would be treated annually; however, these are short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. This disturbance would be localized, of short duration and low intensity and may affect individual birds but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the species. Ungulate grazing has the potential to affect bald eagle foraging habitat. Ungulate grazing within the project area can negatively affect riparian areas through reduced herbaceous cover, soil compaction, sedimentation, and microhabitat alteration. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock
80 Environmental Assessment grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for prey species habitat requirements. Indirect effects to the bald eagle include effects to eagle habitat, eagle prey species, or prey species habitat. There are no anticipated adverse effects to prey species or prey species habitat. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect bald eagles include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; and recreational activities and Travel Management Rule. Past timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected peregrine falcons through even-aged forest management in nesting and foraging habitat. All present and future timber sales, restoration projects and prescribed burning are designed to move these habitats towards historic conditions, which would increase potential habitat quality and quantity and reduce the hazard of high severity wildfire. Ungulate grazing in the past had the potential to affect bald eagle foraging habitat (see discussion under Direct and Indirect effects). Recreational activities may be high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Recreational activities can impact bald eagles when less tolerant eagles are disturbed through mere human presence, hiking, fishing, boating, bird-watching, off-road vehicles, and noise from hunting. Responses range from temporary agitation to flushing to displacement. Nest abandonment and reproductive failure are possible during the nesting season (Buehler 2000). Another threat from recreational activities includes entanglement in improperly discarded monofilament by anglers (Driscoll 2005). Potential prey items become caught in the line and die becoming enticing food for the eagle thus exposing them to the threat of entanglement or entanglement of young that are being fed. Eagles perched on lakeshores are also at risk of becoming entangled in discarded monofilament. Travel Management Rule is likely to decrease motorized use across the ASNFs. This would be very beneficial to bald eagles when cross-country travel is reduced in foraging habitats. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the bald eagle and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: There are no known breeding areas within the project area. The nearest breeding area is 9 miles to the west of the project area at Woods Canyon Lake. Eagles have been observed foraging at Chevelon Canyon immediately west of the project area. The area is likely used by wintering eagles. Short-term disturbance from project activities could occur to foraging or roosting eagles. Snags (potential roost trees) would be managed according to Forest Plan guidelines. Fall and winter broadcast burning would reduce impacts to any breeding eagles adjacent to the project area. Broadcast burning is not expected to change the availability of perch sites but some large live trees may be killed by the activity. Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 2,000- 3,000 acres per year, thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year. Project activities are not expected to adversely affect bald eagle prey or prey habitat. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the bald eagle, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. 81
Heber Allotment Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) The northern leopard frog is the most cold-adapted of all leopard frogs. They generally occupy permanent waters with rooted aquatic vegetation. These can take the form of ponds, canals, marshes, springs, and streams. In Arizona, this species occupies elevations between 2,640 to 9,155 feet (AGFD 2002c). Observations of northern leopard frogs have not occurred in recent years adjacent to or within the Heber Allotment. One observation occurred within the allotment at Twin Lakes stocktanks in 1984 and 1985, and the most recent observation occurred in Black Canyon in 2004. Surveys for this species in the Heber Allotment would take place in 2015. Surveys would be conducted annually in areas identified for treatments. All wetland habitats and stocktanks would be considered breeding habitat while forested habitats in the project area would be considered as dispersal habitat in regards to the effects analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects – Northern leopard frogs may be killed during project activities if caught outside of the wetland zone during thinning or prescribed burning. Mortality of amphibians is thought to occur rarely and be of relatively minor importance due to the ability of most amphibians to take refuge in underground burrows or moist leaf litter (Pilliod et al 2003). Northern leopard frogs likely take refuge in emergent vegetation of wetland habitats or under water. Northern leopard frogs are highly mobile; however, they risk desiccation if they escape into areas where nearby water sources do not exist. Thinning and prescribed burning would initially result in less favorable conditions for amphibians due to a reduction of understory vegetation and downed woody debris, which causes warmer temperatures and dryer conditions in dispersal habitat. This loss of important amphibian cover in microhabitats can result in exposure to extremes in temperature and desiccation thereby elevating risk of predation or physiological stress (Pilliod et al 2003). Thinning activities would also increase the amount of runoff reaching stock tanks within the allotment, providing breeding and dispersal habitat. Amphibians, such as northern leopard frogs, may be less affected by changes in environmental conditions associated with thinning because of their tendency to travel at night and during rain events (Pilliod et al 2006). Ungulate grazing has the potential to affect northern leopard frogs and their habitats. Livestock may congregate in wetland ecosystems because of higher forage volumes and palatability of riparian species, increased water availability, improved upland grazing sites, and cooler temperatures and shade near riparian/wetland areas. Livestock effect leopard frog habitat components through declines in the structural richness of the vegetative community, increased aridity of habitat, loss of thermal cover and protection from predators, and a rise in water temperatures to lethal levels to larval stages of amphibians. Livestock are also propagators of non-native vegetation, which compete with native vegetation for water and space, and create fine fuels in vegetation communities not adapted to fire. This encourages the number and severity of fires across the landscape which affects the suitability of habitat for the frog by increasing the turbidly of streams and filling important pool habitat, increasing water temperature, and lowering dissolved oxygen contents. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for prey species habitat requirements. Stock tanks, if properly managed, can provide habitat suitable for the northern leopard frog when it remains devoid of non-native species, provides adequate vegetative cover, and provides reliable water sources in periods of prolonged drought. The existing road system would experience increased use during project implementation. Higher use of the road system could result in the interruption of dispersal or direct mortality of northern leopard
82 Environmental Assessment frogs. This disturbance would most likely be limited to fall and possibly winter months when leopard frogs are hibernating and would affect only a fraction of the total project area at any one time. Wetlands may provide refuge from fire and breeding activities may be carried out with little interruption (Smith 2000); however, thermal stress or rapid changes in water chemistry may result in mortality of adult and larval amphibian populations of northern leopard frogs. Depending on the size and type of the water body, water temperature can increase during fires from intense heat of combustion or after a fire from increased solar radiation (Pilliod et al 2003). Fire intensities within the wetland areas are expected to be low to non-existent but some poolside vegetation may be consumed. This can alter the quantity and composition of emergent vegetation within wetlands, which provide cover for adult frogs, eggs, and tadpoles. Slash piling and broadcast burning could have indirect effects to aquatic habitat by reducing surrounding ground cover and increasing sediment flow into stock tanks and drainages. Sedimentation and nutrient pulses or longer-term loading into lakes and ponds could occur as a result of project activities, affecting amphibian populations that are sensitive to such changes. Sedimentation results in a loss of breeding, feeding, and cover habitats for amphibians (Pilliod et al 2003). This would only effect one growing season. Enhanced productivity of the herbaceous and shrub layers on the forest floor following treatments may create favorable microclimates for prey or cover (Semlitsch et al 2009). Approximately 2,000-3,000 acres would be treated annually; however, these are short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. This disturbance would be localized, of short duration and low intensity and may affect individual frogs but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the species. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect northern leopard frogs include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing, recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; powerline maintenance; road maintenance; and HWHT. Past timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected northern leopard frogs through even-aged forest management in breeding and dispersal habitat. All present and future timber sales, restoration projects and prescribed burning are designed to move these habitats towards historic conditions, which would increase potential habitat quality and quantity and reduce the hazard of high severity wildfire. Ungulate grazing in the past may have affected northern leopard frog habitats (see discussion above under Direct and Indirect effects). Recreational activities are high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Recreational activities can impact northern leopard frogs through mere human presence, hiking, fishing, and off-road vehicles. Increased human use in northern leopard frog habitat results in trampling of nearshore vegetation reducing cover for the frog. It also increases the potential for human-frog interactions, which frequently lead to the capture, injury, or death of the frog. OHV’s tend to travel more often through undeveloped habitat and often cross directly through water bodies. This can cause mortality and injury to northern leopard frogs that attempt to cross trails created through occupied habitat. OHV use may also affect leopard frogs through a reduction in vegetative cover and plant species diversity and a reduction in infiltration rates by soil compaction leading to increased erosion and reduced habitat connectivity. Current forest projects, such as Travel Management Rule, would aid in the reduction of OHV use in areas away from open roads. TMR should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through northern leopard frog habitat and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on frog populations by increasing frog-human interactions, causing avoidance of some preferred habitats, and trampling of individuals.
83
Heber Allotment Northern leopard frogs likely utilize the powerline corridor during dispersal. Maintenance of the corridor may cause short-term impacts to dispersing leopard frogs. Frogs may be killed or injured during activities. However, the clearing of encroaching conifers within the powerline corridor is short-term and herbaceous vegetation improves creating increased cover and more favorable conditions for dispersing frogs. Road maintenance can affect northern leopard frogs. Northern leopard frogs generally disperse at night and would likely be unaffected directly by road maintenance activities occurring during the day. However, maintained roads allow for increased traffic which can kill or injure dispersing frogs the rest of the year. Roads also fragment and modify habitat allowing for a reduction in the genetic diversity of amphibians. The HWHT would likely contribute to a reduction in herbaceous vegetation on lands adjacent to the project area. This decreases cover and increases soil erosion in breeding habitats such as stock tanks and riparian areas. Effects Determination – The effects of this project on the northern leopard frog and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: No northern leopard frogs have been observed in or adjacent to the project area in recent years. The most recent observation occurred in Black Canyon in 2004. Northern leopard frogs could be killed during thinning or prescribed burning if caught outside the wetland zones. This mortality is assumed to be low due to the ability northern leopard frogs to take refuge in emergent vegetation of wetland habitats or under water. A reduction in understory vegetation may provide less favorable conditions to northern leopard frogs due to a reduction in understory vegetation and downed woody debris resulting in exposure to temperature extremes and desiccation. This impact to northern leopard frogs may be mitigated due to the frog’s tendency to travel at night and during rain events. In addition, enhanced productivity of the herbaceous and shrub layers on the forest floor following treatments may create more favorable microclimates for cover and prey. Roads will receive higher traffic volumes than currently occurs, which could result in interruption of dispersal or direct mortality. This activity would likely be limited to the fall and winter when frogs are hibernating and would affect only a fraction of the project area at any one time. Prescribed fire will be managed for low intensities and will likely not significantly affect wetland habitats, though some poolside vegetation may be consumed, which provide cover for adult frogs, eggs, and tadpoles. Conservative grazing utilization levels with adaptive management monitoring and a deferred rest rotation grazing regime would minimize effects to northern leopard frog habitat. Sedimentation and nutrient pulses or longer-term loading into lakes and ponds could occur as a result of project activities. Invertebrate prey populations may be altered by prescribed fire. Project activities are expected to benefit northern leopard frogs by restoring historical mosaics of successional stages, habitat structures, and vegetative species compositions. Small pools may be created as a result of project activities due to a reduction in forest canopy and an extension of hydroperiods from reduced evapotranspiration. Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 2,000- 3,000 acres per year, thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year.
84 Environmental Assessment Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the northern leopard frog but would not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. Little Colorado Sucker (Catostomus sp. 3) The Little Colorado sucker occupies creeks, small to medium rivers, and impoundments. It can be predominantly found in pools with abundant cover but also in riffles between 2,200 to 7,100 feet elevation (AGFD 2001a). Food consists of detrital material, algae and some higher vegetation, and a substantial proportion of aquatic invertebrates (Minckley 1973). Chevelon Creek is the only perennial creek that exists near the project area and offers habitat for this species. Individuals of Little Colorado Sucker were identified in Chevelon Canyon in 2005 upstream of Chevelon Lake approximately seven miles west of the project area and at Durfee Draw, approximately four miles west of the project area (McKell 2005). This species was also located downstream of Chevelon Canyon Lake in 1995 (Lopez et al 1998). All stream habitat located in Chevelon Creek downstream of the project area (downstream from Wildcat Canyon) are considered for effects analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects: No direct effects to the Little Colorado sucker would occur with the implementation of livestock grazing, proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire, and structural improvements since this species is not present in the project area. Indirect effects to Little Colorado sucker could occur since it is likely present in the action area based on distribution in the 1990s. Suitable or potential habitat occurs near the project area in Chevelon Creek. Indirect sediment effects to suitable and potential habitats could occur but these effects should be minimal and primarily short-term. Habitats may be indirectly affected by elevated sediment delivery from increased surface erosion generated by ground disturbing activities such as road maintenance and reconstruction, mechanical harvesting activities, pile burning and broadcast burning throughout the Chevelon Creek Headwaters watersheds. These activities could indirectly affect Little Colorado sucker habitat through increased sediment delivery to habitats, which may add to existing substrate embeddedness and increase stream temperatures. The majority of any increased sediment deposition is expected to occur in the short term (within 1-2 years after treatment completed) and should be flushed out during peak flows or when the reservoirs spill. Once the disturbed upland areas have revegetated those sediment inputs should subside to a discountable level and are not likely to modify potential or suitable habitats for Little Colorado sucker to the degree that habitats are no longer suitable or potentially suitable. Strict implementation of streamside management zone restrictions, designed to protect streams from excessive sediment generated on uplands and on roads, should prevent any significant deterioration of water quality. An important habitat component for Little Colorado sucker includes an ample food supply. Since the species is dependent upon aquatic macroinvertebrates for a major portion of their diet, potential effects to this group are relevant to sucker habitats. Aquatic macroinvertebrates would be indirectly affected by project activities that result in increased sediment loading within their habitats. Increased sediment deposition would likely alter aquatic macroinvertebrate production, although not significantly. Deleterious changes to stream substrate and/or water quality parameters, related to increased sediment loading, would likely occur for Chevelon Creek tributaries (Wildcat Canyon) over the short term, but BMPs have been designed to minimize these effects and would be applied during project implementation. Riparian condition which includes stream-bank soil and vegetative stability should not be significantly affected with implementation of the proposed action. BMPs, including streamside management zone guidelines, would be implemented to retain the integrity of riparian habitats. It is unlikely that changes in water quality from ash nutrient loading would occur with the implementation of prescribed burning. Baker (1990) indicated that studies show that additional nutrients in stream- flow after burning do not significantly impair the quality of surface waters for municipal purposes but 85
Heber Allotment more information is needed on effects to riparian communities. Gottfried and DeBano (1990) reported that although a 1991 prescribed fire conducted on Alpine Ranger District in ponderosa pine habitat did statistically alter the concentrations of some nutrients in stream water; the changes were too small to adversely affect water quality. An increase in ash would likely occur after prescribed burning in the project area, but that the filtering capacity of the stream management zone combined with the burn prescriptions, which limit the extent and severity of the burns, should keep the input of ash into stream channels to negligible levels. Approximately 2,000-3,000 acres would be treated annually; however, these are short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Little Colorado suckers include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; powerline maintenance; and road maintenance. Past timber sales and prescribed burning may have affected Little Colorado suckers through even- aged forest management in nesting and foraging habitat. All present and future timber sales, restoration projects and prescribed burning are designed to move these habitats towards historic conditions, which would increase potential habitat quality and quantity and reduce the hazard of high severity wildfire. Ungulate grazing in the past may have affected Little Colorado suckers habitats. Livestock may congregate in wetland ecosystems because of higher forage volumes and palatability of riparian species, increased water availability, improved upland grazing sites, and cooler temperatures and shade near riparian and wetland areas. Livestock effect sucker habitat components through declines in the structural richness of the vegetative community, increased aridity of habitat, loss of thermal cover and protection from predators, and a rise in water temperatures. Current grazing systems are managed on a rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. Wild ungulates have the potential to reduce vegetative understory and affect plant composition in meadows and riparian areas. However, the amount of forage consumed by wild ungulates would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources.
Recreational activities are high during the spring, summer, and fall months in some areas of the Heber Allotment. Recreational activities can impact Little Colorado suckers through mere human presence, hiking, fishing, and off-road vehicles. OHV’s tend to travel more often through undeveloped habitat and often cross directly through water bodies. OHV use may affect suckers through a reduction in vegetative cover and plant species diversity and a reduction in infiltration rates by soil compaction leading to increased erosion and sedimentation of streams. Travel Management Rule would aid in the reduction of OHV use in areas away from open roads. High recreation also facilitates the transport of nonnative species into other riparian habitats. Trout, bullfrogs, and crayfish all have the potential to be transported into areas containing Little Colorado suckers, resulting in negative impacts to the fish. Travel Management Rule should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through drainages and riparian areas and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on sucker populations by increasing sediment loads into streams.
Powerline corridor maintenance may cause short-term impacts to Little Colorado suckers. Increased surface erosion is generated by ground disturbing equipment and cause increased sediment delivery to habitats, which may add to existing substrate embeddedness and increase stream temperatures. These effects would be short-term and would dissipate during high flow events.
86 Environmental Assessment Road maintenance could cause slight sedimentation into streams where roads cross drainages or riparian areas. Maintenance of roads also causes increased traffic, which could further facilitate sedimentation into streams. These sedimentation events are confined only to road areas and likely do not contribute greatly to alterations in stream habitat components.
Effects Determination – The effects of this project on the Little Colorado sucker and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following:
Project activities will strictly adhere to Streamside Management Zone restrictions, which will protect streams from excessive sediment generated on uplands and roads and will prevent significant deterioration of water quality. Increased sediment delivery to habitats would be short-term and sediment is expected to flush out during peak flows. Revegetation of disturbed uplands will reduce sediment inputs to discountable levels and will not likely modify potential or suitable habitats for Little Colorado suckers. Increased sediment deposition will likely alter aquatic macroinvertebrate production, although not significantly and only short-term. BMPs have been designed to minimize these effects and will be applied during project implementation. Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 2,000- 3,000 acres per year, thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the Little Colorado sucker but would not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta) Roundtail chub is a candidate species that occupies cool to warm water in mid-elevation streams and rivers where typical adult microhabitat consists of pools up to 6.6 feet deep adjacent to swifter riffles and runs. Cover is usually present and consists of large boulders, tree root wads, submerged large trees and branches, undercut cliff walls, or deep water. Smaller chubs generally occupy shallower, low velocity water adjacent to overhead bank cover. These fish occur at 1,210 to 7,220foot elevation (AGFD 2002b). The fish is primarily carnivorous with adults feeding on aquatic and terrestrial insects, filamentous algae, and other fishes, while young feed on small insects, crustaceans, and algae in quiet backwaters (AGFD 2002b). Chevelon Creek passes just outside the project area at the far northwest corner of the Allotment boundary (Wildcat Canyon). Individuals of roundtail chub were identified in Chevelon Canyon in 2005 upstream of Chevelon Lake approximately seven miles west of the project area; at Durfee Draw, approximately 4 miles west of the project area; and at Chevelon Crossing, approximately 3 miles west of the project area (McKell 2005). This species was also located downstream of Chevelon Canyon Lake in 1995 (Lopez et al 1998). All stream habitat located in Chevelon Creek downstream of the project area are considered for effects analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects: No direct effects to roundtail chub would occur with the implementation of the proposed action since the species is not present in the project area. Indirect effects to roundtail chub could occur since the species is likely present in Chevelon Creek. Short term and long term effects to habitat are the same as described for Little Colorado sucker. Habitats could be altered by short term increases in sediment loading into Chevelon Creek resulting in short-term impacts: higher substrate embeddedness and diminished invertebrate food source. Significant water quality declines are unlikely. Any short term increases in sediment levels would not impact species viability.
87
Heber Allotment Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects are the same as described for Little Colorado sucker. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the roundtail chub and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: All effects are the same as described for the Little Colorado sucker. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the roundtail chub but would not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. Arizona Sneezeweed (Helenium arizonicum) This plant is endemic to north-central Arizona in Coconino, Gila, Apache, and Navajo counties (AZGF 2005a). It occurs around wet places such as ponds, lakes, and roadside ditches. It can be abundant in its habitat and does not appear to be grazed even though its habitat can have heavy grazing impacts. It is vulnerable to drainage or drying of wetlands. While Arizona sneezeweed has not been documented within the project area, many incidental observations have occurred just west and southwest of the project area along the wetter areas of highway 260 west of Forest Lakes. Direct and Indirect Effects: Since no treatments or structural improvements would occur near where Arizona sneezeweed habitat is located, there would be no direct effects to this species from vegetative treatments of structural improvements. Arizona sneezeweed is thought to be relatively unpalatable to livestock (Fletcher 1978). Therefore, this species likely does not experience direct pressure from grazing. Indirectly, Arizona sneezeweed may be impacted when grazing alters environmental factors such as species composition, soil compaction, nutrient levels, and vegetation structure. Grazing may be more intense in wetland and meadow habitat where this species occurs. Trampling by livestock may be a common threat to Arizona sneezeweed. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing. The amount of forage consumed by all grazers would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for multiple species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Arizona sneezeweed include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; powerline maintenance; and road maintenance. Past projects such as timber harvest and prescribed burning have likely had a positive impact on Arizona sneezeweed. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which consequently may provide habitat for this species growth. Additionally, timber harvest generally includes the development of skid roads, which accumulate water and create new habitat for this species. Recreational activities can impact Arizona sneezeweed by human destruction of plants and habitat. Recreationist can unknowingly trample plants when walking through Arizona sneezeweed habitat. OHV use is the most detrimental to the species. The species tendency to occur in open boggy meadows areas makes it vulnerable to OHV that search out those specific areas for their activity. This can uproot individual plants and destroy habitat where the plants may colonize in the future. Indirectly, OHV use may also affect Arizona sneezeweed plants through a reduction in vegetative cover and plant species diversity and a reduction in infiltration rates by soil compaction leading to increased erosion and reduced habitat quality. Current forest projects, such as Travel Management
88 Environmental Assessment Rule, would aid in the reduction of OHV use in areas away from open roads. Open roads would remain suitable habitat for this species. Travel Management should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through drainages and riparian areas and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on Arizona sneezeweed populations by trampling of plants within wetland areas. Powerline corridor maintenance may cause short-term impacts to Arizona sneezeweed. Maintenance activities can temporarily destroy individual plants in that may occur in low areas where water accumulates. Post-treatment, activities may be beneficial to the plant since it prefers disturbed habitats. Road maintenance is likely beneficial to plants such as Arizona sneezeweed. Maintenance activities may uproot individual plants; however, activities that disturb soil and create new habitats in the form of drainage ditches may increase habitat available to this plant. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the Arizona sneezeweed but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Eastwood Alum Root (Heuchera eastwoodiae) Habitat for this species is strictly in moist, shaded slopes of ponderosa pine forests and canyons at elevations between 3,480 and 7,874 feet. It is generally found on rocky clay soils and has been collected from crevices of basalt boulders and deep basaltic soils (AGFD 2005b). Surveys for Eastwood alum-root have not been conducted on the Black Mesa Ranger District. The species has not been documented as occurring within the project area. The Heritage Data Management System documents a 1985 observation of this species along a trail to Chevelon Creek near Telephone Ridge (AGFD 2005b) about 10 miles from the western edge of the project area. All forested habitats in the project area are considered for effects analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects: It is unlikely Eastwood alum-root would be directly impacted by mechanical treatments or low severity broadcast burning because treatments would not occur within ponderosa pine forests. There are no known documentations of fire effects to Eastwood alum-root. No information can be found on effects of ungulate grazing on this plant. Therefore, this species may or may not experience impacts from grazing. Indirectly, Eastwood alum-root may also be impacted if grazing alters environmental factors such as species composition, soil compaction, nutrient levels, and vegetation structure. Trampling by livestock may be a common threat to this plant. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. The amount of forage consumed by all grazers would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for multiple species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Eastwood alum-root include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; and road maintenance. Past projects such as timber harvest and prescribed burning have likely had a positive impact on Eastwood alum-root. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which consequently may provide habitat for this species growth. Recreational activities can impact Eastwood alumroot by human destruction of plants and habitat. Recreationists can unknowingly trample plants when walking through Eastwood alum-root habitat. The species tendency to occur on moist, shaded slopes likely provides some level of protection for 89
Heber Allotment this species from OHV use. Future forest projects, such as Travel Management Rule, would aid in the reduction of OHV use in areas away from open roads. Open roads would remain suitable habitat for this species. Travel Management should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through drainages and riparian areas and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on Eastwood alumroot populations by trampling of plants within wetland areas. Road maintenance occurring above slopes where this plant is likely to occur may impact Eastwood alum-root through increased sedimentation and runoff from roads during activities and during higher traffic events associated with higher user comfort roads. Effects Determination: The determination of effects for the Eastwood alum-root and its habitat are based on the above discussion and the following: Forest Service personnel have not conducted surveys of suitable habitat in the project area to determine presence or absence of the species. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the Eastwood alum-root but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Arizona Alum Root (Huechera glomerulata) Arizona alum root is located on shaded rocky slopes, in humus soil, near seeps, streams, and riparian areas at elevations between 4,000 to 9,000 feet, typically on north facing slopes. Associated plant communities include oak and pine-oak habitats, pinyon juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests (AGFD 2004). Surveys for Arizona alum root have not occurred within the Heber Allotment. No historic records exist for this species on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Habitat for this species exists within the project area. For that reason all forested habitats in the project area are considered for effects analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects: Arizona alum root could be directly impacted by mechanical treatment and low severity broadcast burning. Mechanical treatments are not expected to significantly affect Arizona alum root habitat. There are no known documentations of fire effects to Arizona alum root. Approximately 2,000-3,000 acres would be treated annually; however, these are short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. This disturbance would be localized, of short duration and low intensity and may affect individual plants but would not affect the overall distribution of the species. No information can be found on effects of ungulate grazing on this plant. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for direct and indirect impacts. The amount of forage consumed by all grazers would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for multiple species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Arizona alum root include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; and road maintenance. Past projects such as timber harvest and prescribed burning have likely had a positive impact on Arizona alum root. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which consequently may provide habitat for this species growth.
90 Environmental Assessment No information can be found on effects of ungulate grazing on this plant. Grazing systems are generally managed on a rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. However wild ungulates would continue to reduce vegetative understory and affect plant composition in Arizona alum root habitat. Recreational activities can impact Arizona alum root by human destruction of plants and habitat. Recreationists can unknowingly trample plants when walking through Eastwood alum-root habitat. The species tendency to occur on moist, shaded slopes likely provides some level of protection for this species from OHV use. Travel Management Rule should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through drainages and riparian areas and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on Eastwood alumroot populations by trampling of plants within wetland areas. Road maintenance occurring above slopes where this plant is likely to occur may impact Arizona alum root through increased sedimentation and runoff from roads during activities and during higher traffic events associated with higher user comfort roads. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the Arizona alum root but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Arizona Sunflower (Helianthus arizonensis) The Arizona sunflower occurs in Coconino and Navajo Counties, Arizona in dry, sandy soils ranging in elevation from 4,000 to 7,000 feet (NMRP, accessed March 5, 2014). Surveys for Arizona sunflower have not occurred within the Heber Allotment. It is unknown whether this species exists within the project area. This species is listed in the national plants database (http://plants.usda.gov/index.html) as occurring on the Sitgreaves National Forest with a photograph of the location appearing to have been taken within a drainage with dark loamy soils. All forested and non-forested habitats in the project area are considered for effects analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects: Upland areas with dry, sandy soils are within locations that would receive both mechanical treatments and low severity broadcast fire. Individual Arizona sunflower plants that may exist in these areas could be damaged or removed by mechanical and broadcast fire treatments. There is no known documentation of fire effects to Arizona sunflower. Broadcast burning could kill or damage the plants. Benefits from maintenance treatments would include management towards desired conditions and increased understory herbaceous species. Approximately 2,000-3,000 acres would be treated annually; however, these are short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. This disturbance would be localized, of short duration and low intensity and may affect individual plants but would not affect the overall distribution of the species. No information can be found on effects of ungulate grazing on this plant. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for direct and indirect effecs. The amount of forage consumed by all grazers would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for multiple species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Arizona sunflower include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; powerline maintenance; and road maintenance.
91
Heber Allotment Past projects such as timber harvest and prescribed burning have likely had a positive impact on Arizona sunflower. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which consequently may provide habitat for this species growth. Arizona sunflower historically evolved with low grazing pressure from wild ungulates occupying their habitat. Recreational activities can impact Arizona sunflower by human destruction of plants and habitat. Recreationist can unknowingly trample plants when walking through Arizona sunflower habitat. OHV use is the most detrimental to the species. The species tendency to occur in dry, sandy areas makes it vulnerable to OHVs that search out those specific areas for their activity. This can uproot individual plants and destroy habitat where the plants may colonize in the future. Indirectly, OHV use may also affect Arizona sunflower plants through a reduction in vegetative cover and plant species diversity and a reduction in infiltration rates by soil compaction leading to increased erosion and reduced habitat quality. Travel Management Rule should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through Arizona sunflower habitat and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on Arizona sunflower populations by trampling of plants. Powerline corridor maintenance may cause short-term impacts to Arizona sunflower. Maintenance activities can temporarily destroy individual plants in that may occur in the corridor. Post-treatment, this activity may benefit Arizona Sunflowers by decreasing canopy cover. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the Arizona sunflower but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Blumer’s Dock (Rumex orthoneurus) Blumer’s dock is found in mid- to high-elevation (4,480 – 9,660 feet) wetlands with moist, organic soils generally adjacent to perennial springs or streams in canyons and meadow situations. Surrounding forested areas are characterized by Madrean Subalpine Grassland meadows (within Montane Conifer or Mixed Conifer forests) or Interior Southwestern Riparian Deciduous Forest (AGFD 2002d). Surveys for Blumer’s dock have occurred within the Heber Allotment. Blumer’s dock has been documented in Gentry Canyon within the project area and found elsewhere in the Black Mesa Ranger District outside of the project area (Willow Springs Canyon, Woods Canyon, Double Cabin Draw, Fairchild Draw, Pius Draw, and Long Tom Canyon). Direct and Indirect Effects: Since there would be no vegetative treatments or prescribed burning within the habitats described above for Blumer’s dock, there would be direct or indirect effects from proposed treatments. No information can be found on effects of ungulate grazing on this plant. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for direct and indirect impacts. In addition, the documented occurrence of Blumer’s dock in Gentry Canyon has been fenced (32.8 acres) to exclude grazing. Another exclosure in Baca Meadows (18.2 acres) may provide an additional protected area for this species. The amount of forage consumed by all grazers would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for multiple species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Blumer’s dock include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire;
92 Environmental Assessment ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; powerline maintenance; and road maintenance. Past projects such as timber harvest and prescribed burning have likely had a positive impact on Blumer’s dock. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which consequently may provide habitat for this species growth. Blumer’s dock historically evolved with low grazing pressure from wild ungulates occupying their habitat. Recreational activities can impact Blumer’s dock by human destruction of plants and habitat. Recreationist can unknowingly trample plants when walking through Blumer’s dock habitat. OHV use is the most detrimental to the species. The species tendency to occur in open, wet meadows areas makes it vulnerable to OHV users that search out those specific areas for their activity. This can uproot individual plants and destroy habitat where the plants may colonize in the future. Indirectly, OHV use may also affect Blumer’s dock plants through a reduction in vegetative cover and plant species diversity and a reduction in infiltration rates by soil compaction leading to increased erosion and reduced habitat quality. Travel Management Rule should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through drainages and riparian areas and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on Blumer’s dock populations by trampling of plants within wetland areas. Powerline corridor maintenance may cause short-term impacts to Blumer’s dock. Maintenance activities can temporarily destroy individual plants in that may occur in low areas where water accumulates. Road maintenance activities may uproot individual plants. Increased traffic associated with higher user comfort roads may also disturb Blumer’s dock that occur near roadways. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the Blumer’s dock but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Bebb’s Willow (Salix bebbiana) Suitable habitat for Bebb’s willows include borders of mountain streams, swamps, lakes, hillsides, open meadows, forest margins, and irrigation ditches. Soils where Bebb’s willows colonize tend to be a variety of cobble, gravel, sand, loam, and clay. Due to their high nutrient requirements, colonized soils tend to be relatively nutritious. Specifically, Bebb’s willow is a species of seepage areas, wet meadows, and is often in the headwaters of major drainages or in open upland forests. Ideal habitat for Bebb’s willows is comprised of ample water and less than ample plant competition and herbivory, which are highly important to seedling success. Bebb’s willows establish readily in sites disturbed by fire or flooding due to the opening of the canopy and a reduction in competition for resources such as sunlight, space, water, and nutrients. As a mature plant, this species is tolerable of drier conditions but seedlings require ample water and recruitment would cease to grow in areas that have dried out (NatureServe 2014). Surveys for Bebb’s willow have occurred within the Heber Allotment. Granfelt (2001) surveyed portions of the Black Mesa Ranger District in 2001. There are extant populations of Bebb’s willow in Gentry Canyon and Baca Meadow within the project area. Both of these areas have fence enclosures to protect Bebb’s willow from grazing (total of about 51 acres). Direct and Indirect Effects: None of the proposed vegetation treatments or prescribed burning would occur in Bebb’s willow habitat. Therefore, direct effects to Bebb’s willow plants is not anticipated from vegetative treatments or prescribed fire.
93
Heber Allotment The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for direct and indirect impacts. In addition, the documented occurrence of Blumer’s dock in Gentry Canyon has been fenced (32.8 acres) to exclude grazing. Another exclosure in Baca Meadows (18.2 acres) may provide an additional protected area for this species. The amount of forage consumed by all grazers would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for multiple species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Bebb’s willow include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; powerline maintenance; and road maintenance. Past projects such as timber harvest and prescribed burning have likely had a positive impact on Bebb’s willow. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which consequently may provide habitat for this species growth. Bebb’s willow historically evolved with low grazing pressure from wild ungulates occupying their habitat. Grazing may be more intense in wetland and meadow habitat where this species occurs, making it even more vulnerable to this practice. Recreational activities can impact Bebb’s willow by human destruction of plants and habitat. Recreationist can unknowingly trample seedlings when walking through Bebb’s willow habitat. OHV use is the most detrimental to the species. The species tendency to occur in open, wet meadows areas makes it vulnerable to OHV users that search out those specific areas for their activity. This can uproot individual plants and destroy habitat where the plants may colonize in the future. Indirectly, OHV use may also affect Bebb’s willow plants through a reduction in vegetative cover and plant species diversity and a reduction in infiltration rates by soil compaction leading to increased erosion and reduced habitat quality. Travel Management Rule should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through drainages and riparian areas and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on Bebb’s willow populations by trampling of plants within wetland areas. Road maintenance occurring above slopes where this plant is likely to occur may impact Bebb’s willow through increased sedimentation and runoff from roads during activities and during higher traffic events associated with higher user comfort roads. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the Bebb’s willow but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Arizona Phlox (Phlox amabilis) Arizona phlox is found on open, exposed, limestone-rocky slopes within pinyon-juniper woodlands and pine-oak communities at elevations between 3,500 to 7,800 feet (AGFD 2005c). Surveys for Arizona phlox have not occurred within the Heber Allotment. This species has not been documented as occurring anywhere within the Black Mesa Ranger District. Suitable habitat exists within the project area. All pinyon-juniper woodland habitat in the project area are considered for effects analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects: Limestone outcrops on slopes within pinyon-juniper woodlands are limited within areas proposed for treatments; therefore, mechanical treatments are not expected to affect Arizona phlox on a large scale. Individual Arizona phlox plants that exist in these areas could be damaged or removed by mechanical treatments. There are no known documentations of fire effects
94 Environmental Assessment to Arizona phlox. However, limestone outcrops may not have enough fuels to carry a broadcast fire and plants would therefore be protected. Approximately 2,000-3,000 acres would be treated annually; however, these are short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. This disturbance would be localized, of short duration and low intensity and may affect individual plants but would not affect the overall distribution of the species. No information can be found on effects of ungulate grazing on this plant. The grazing system for the Heber Allotment is managed on a deferred rotational grazing system allowing forage and soils a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for direct and indirect effects. The amount of forage consumed by all grazers would be accounted for during utilization monitoring, and provide feedback to the adaptive management process. This is to ensure adequate residual groundcover remains at the end of the growing season to protect soil and water resources and provide for multiple species habitat requirements. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities expected to cumulatively affect Arizona phlox include past, present and future timber sales and prescribed fire; ungulate grazing; recreational activities and Travel Management Rule; powerline maintenance; and road maintenance. Past projects such as timber harvest and prescribed burning have likely had a positive impact on Arizona phlox. All of these projects allow for the increase in growth of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which consequently may provide habitat for this species growth. Arizona phlox historically evolved with low grazing pressure from wild ungulates occupying their habitat. Recreational activities can impact Arizona phlox by human destruction of plants and habitat. Recreationist can unknowingly trample plants when walking through Arizona phlox habitat. OHVs are not able to access Arizona phlox habitat safely and are likely not a problem for this species. Travel Management Rule should also reduce the number of forest roads crossing through drainages and riparian areas and keep road users in designated areas. This activity would eliminate cross country travel, which is likely currently having a negative effect on Arizona phlox populations by trampling of plants. Powerline corridor maintenance may cause short-term impacts to Arizona phlox. Maintenance activities can temporarily destroy individual plants in that may occur in the corridor. Post-treatment, this activity may benefit Arizona phlox by decreasing canopy cover. Road maintenance activities may uproot individual plants. Increased traffic associated with higher user comfort roads may also disturb Arizona phlox that occur near roadways. Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the proposed action for the Heber Allotment may impact individuals of the Arizona phlox but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.
Management Indicator Species – Effects Analysis The effects analysis that follows is based on implementation of livestock grazing, range structure improvements, piñon-juniper woodland and grassland maintenance vegetation treatments, and prescribed burning within the Heber Allotment. Many mitigation measures and design criteria are incorporated into the effects analysis. Although the Forested Cover Types cover the majority (53%) of the project area, the species that inhabit woodland and grassland habitats have the potential to be most affected, both positively and negatively, by the action alternative. 95
Heber Allotment No Forest Habitat Cover Type would be converted to another Forest Habitat Cover Type for any MIS under the No Action or Action alternative. The following is a description of each MIS considered for the analysis area. The narratives are based on the current habitat availability, species habitat requirements, and recommendations for maintaining or improving habitat components for each individual species.
The actions proposed in the action alternative are not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, juniper titmouse, or pronghorn antelope Forest-wide. Mule Deer Mule deer were selected as a management indicator species for early successional habitat in forested habitat types. The Forest Plan EIS did not define or describe early succession habitat with regard to MIS. Early succession generally refers to forested habitats in the non-stocked or seedling/sapling stages of regeneration. Natural or anthropogenic events that result in the creation of early successional habitat embedded in a matrix of older forest stands that provide sufficient security cover would ultimately benefit mule deer (Watkins et al 2007). The mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is a wide-ranging species in North America and is listed as globally secure and common throughout its range (Heritage Global Status Rank G5; NatureServe 2014). In Arizona, the mule deer population is considered secure. The population peaked during the mid-1980s in response to favorable precipitation and good fawn survival (Watkins et al 2007). Since the early 1990s the statewide population has been in a decline (Heffelfinger and Messmer 2003). Currently there appears to be a downward trend in the overall Arizona mule deer population. Wildfire activity over the past decade would likely improve habitat conditions by creating early successional habitats that benefit browse production. Although large scale fires, such as the Wallow Fire in 2011 that burned over 540,000 acres, may not result in the landscape heterogeneity required to support robust mule deer populations in the short-term, natural succession combined with active forest restoration designed to create a mosaic of uneven-aged stands would ultimately benefit the local mule deer population. Additional treatments such as selective harvest, chemical treatment, and mechanical disturbance could also be implemented to achieve mule deer management goals although not all treatments are appropriate for all habitat types (Watkins et al 2007). The Heber Allotment contains about 53,725 acres of early successional habitat for the mule deer. Mule deer are an indicator species for early-successional habitat (USDA 1987). The Heber Allotment contains approximately 53,725 acres of suitable habitat for mule deer. Currently, much of the area supports hiding and thermal cover habitat elements for this species, while foraging habitat falls short of the recommended amounts. Alternative 1 – No Action Habitat Effects – The proposed action would not occur under this alternative, so that piñon-juniper woodlands would remain overstocked and encroaching into grasslands. Population Effects – A reduction in habitat associated with overstocked woodlands would limit forage necessary for mule deer. This lack of foraging habitat would either reduce mule deer reproductive output or force populations off the Forests. Neither of these would aid in increasing mule deer population objectives Forest-wide. Forest Plan Consistency – Based on scientific research, historical information, anecdotal evidence, and data collected on the ASNFs, the actions proposed in the No Action Alternative are not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for mule deer Forest-wide; however, this alternative is not expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for mule deer.
96 Environmental Assessment Effects Determination: The proposed action would result in a small loss of habitat quantity and quality for mule deer. This decrease in habitat quality is not expected to affect Forest-wide population and habitat trends.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Habitat Effects: The proposed action would result in about 2-3,000 acres of piñon-juniper woodland being treated annually. This represents an increase in habitat quantity and quality for mule deer of about 0.17 percent per year of forest-level habitat (1,769,299 acres forest-wide). This increase in habitat is not expected to contribute significantly to Forest-wide habitat and population trends. Project level habitat quantity and quality increase about 5.6 percent per year under the action alternative.
Population Effects: The ASNFs encompasses seven Game Management Units (GMUs) managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has provided aerial survey data for mule deer collected between 2001 and 2011for four GMUs. In unit 27, for example, the mule deer population appears to be high with annual population estimates averaging 6,562 deer during this time period and a range of 6,108 to 7,169. In contrast, the combined population estimates for units 3A and 3C (partially within the Heber Allotment) suggest that while relative low, the mule deer population is increasing and has been increasing over the past decade (Figure 6). Population estimates for unit 1 show considerable fluctuation ranging from to 1,053 to 1,278 over the past decade. Consistency with Forest Plan: Based on scientific research, historical information, anecdotal evidence, and data collected on the ASNFs, the actions proposed in the action alternative are not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for mule deer Forest-wide. This alternative is expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for mule deer. Effects Determination: The proposed action would result in a small increase in habitat quantity and quality for mule deer. This increase in habitat is not expected to contribute to Forest-wide habitat and population trends.
Figure 6. Modeled population estimates for mule deer in GMUs 3A and 3C based on aerial surveys conducted between 2001 and 2011. Rocky Mountain Elk In the ASNFs, elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) are used as an indicator species for early-succession forested habitats (AGFD 2012). Elk are widely distributed migratory generalists in Arizona that use a broad range of habitat types on a seasonal basis. Elk tend to stay on summer range as long as possible arriving early and remaining until forced down by deep snow. This summer range includes mountain meadows, ponderosa pine woodlands, spruce-fir forests, and other high-elevation habitats (Edge et al 97
Heber Allotment 1987, Collins and Urness 1983, Boyce et al 2003). Their winter range, generally pinyon-juniper habitat between 5,500 and 6,500 feet elevation, is more limited in extent and may only comprise 10% of the animal’s total habitat use. Males have a larger home range (639 km2±465 km2) than females (386 km2±313 km2) and the sexes use habitats differentially (Wallace and Krausman 1997). In the warm season males utilize spruce forests and clearcuts, while females are found primarily in mixed conifer habitat types (Wallace and Krausman 1997). During the cold season males are associated with juniper dominated and juniper removal sites. Females are associated with also use juniper and cleared juniper sites but also utilize mixed conifer habitat. Rocky Mountain elk were selected as a management indicator species for their association with early- successional forest types. Elk primarily forage on grasses, sedges, aster, goosefoot, bear grass, erigonums, lupines, and other montane plants (Hoffmeister 1986; Boyce et al 2003). Browse items such as serviceberry, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, rabbitbrush, acorns, and leaves of oaks, snowberry, and willows may be favored by elk at some times of the year (Korfhage et al 1980, Collins and Urness 1983). The Forest Plan EIS did not define or describe early succession habitat with regard to MIS. Early succession generally refers to forested habitats in the non-stocked or seedling/sapling stages of regeneration. But several of the Forest’s MIS also use mountain grasslands in similar ways as early-successional forests. Both grasslands and early-succession forests are affected in like ways by forest management activities. For the purposes of this discussion, both of these habitat types would be considered early-succession habitat. The Forest Plan EIS shows a total of 145,428 acres of timber in age class 1-40 years old (USDA Forest Service 1987). This age group represents non-stocked stands (VSS1) and seedling/sapling stands (VSS2). In addition, there were 252,660 acres of mountain and prairie grasslands. Combined, these habitat types totaled 19.8% of the ASNFs. In 1996, based on Forest Inventory Assessment (FIA) data there were about 244,781 acres of grasslands and 138,786 acres of non-stocked and seedling/sapling stands, totaling 383,567 acres or about 19% of the Forest. Fire serves as the main disturbance regime influencing the age structure and successional stage of the forests within the ASNFs. Since 2005, approximately 650,000 acres have burned with the most recent Wallow Fire affecting 540,979 acres. In contrast, forest treatments that favor early successional development (salvage operations, group selection, seed cuts, etc.) have decreased since 1985. Compared with forest management prescriptions, wildfire has much greater potential to create early- succession habitat although catastrophic fires do not appear to result in immediate improvements for Rocky Mountain elk habitat. For example, the Rodeo-Chediski fire of 2002 burned over 173,000 acres on the Sitgreaves NF and converted approximately 55% of the burn to early-succession habitat (USDA 2003). However, forage and security cover for big game species such as Rocky Mountain elk declined after the fire. As a result, the forage capacity for elk declined in the short-term relative to pre-fire conditions (USDA 2003). In contrast, areas that experienced a moderate- or low-intensity burn resulted in grass and forb enhancement and created a juxtaposition of food and cover that benefited Rocky Mountain elk habitat. In summary, low intensity wildfires provide a more immediate improvement than high intensity wildfires. Overall habitat condition and trend for Rocky Mountain elk is considered fair and stable. Creating temporary openings in timbered stands adjacent to high use grazing areas could increase forage in transitory habitat and decrease grazing impacts to high use areas. Aspen regeneration through patch cutting and prescribed burning would also increase forage. Private land development and winter range encroachment as well as harvest would continue to influence population trends. The ASNFs encompasses seven Game Management Units (GMUs) managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has provided aerial survey data for Rocky Mountain elk collected between 2001 and 2011 for four GMUs. In unit 27 the Rocky mountain elk annual population estimates averaged 3,370 and varied from a low of 2,988 in 2003 to a high of 3,730 in 2010. In contrast, the combined population estimates for units 3A and 3C suggest that the
98 Environmental Assessment Rocky Mountain elk populations in this unit are in decline. Population estimates for unit 1 are fairly stable, averaging 5,870 and varying from a low of 5,411 in 2006 to a high of 6,953 in 2001. The Heber Allotment contains about 73,913 acres of early successional habitat for Rocky Mountain elk. Elk are an indicator species for early-successional habitat (USDA 1987). The Heber Allotment contains approximately 73,913 acres of suitable habitat for Rocky Mountain elk. Currently, much of the area supports hiding and thermal cover habitat elements for this species, while foraging habitat falls short of the recommended amounts. Alternative 1 – No Action Habitat Effects: The proposed action would not occur under this alternative, so that piñon-juniper woodlands would remain overstocked in woodlands and encroaching into grasslands. Population Effects: A reduction in habitat associated with overstocked woodlands would limit forage necessary for elk. This lack of foraging habitat would either reduce Rocky Mountain elk reproductive output or force populations off the Forests. Neither of these outcomes would aid in reaching Rocky Mountain elk population objectives Forest-wide. Consistency with Forest Plan: Based on scientific research, historical information, anecdotal evidence, and data collected on the ASNFs, the actions proposed in the No Action Alternative are not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for elk Forest-wide. However, this alternative is not expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for elk. Effects Determination: The No Action Alternative would result in a small loss of habitat quantity and quality for mule deer. This decrease in habitat quality is not expected to affect Forest-wide population trends; however, the No Action Alternative is expected to contribute to the current downward habitat trend.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Habitat Effects: The proposed action would result in about 2-3,000 acres of piñon-juniper woodlands and grasslands being treated annually. This represents an increase in habitat quantity and quality for Rocky Mountain elk of about 0.18 percent per year of forest-level habitat (1,690,439 acres forest- wide). This increase in habitat is not expected to contribute significantly to Forest-wide habitat and population trends. Project level habitat quantity and quality increase about 4.0 percent per year under the action alternative. This alternative is expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for Rocky Mountain elk at the project level.
Population Effects: The ASNFs encompasses seven Game Management Units (GMUs) managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has provided aerial survey data for Rocky Mountain elk collected between 2001 and 2011 for four GMUs. In unit 27 the Rocky mountain elk annual population estimates averaged 3,370 and varied from a low of 2,988 in 2003 to a high of 3,730 in 2010. In contrast, the combined population estimates for units 3A and 3C (partially within the Heber Allotment) suggest that the Rocky Mountain elk populations in this unit are in decline. Population estimates for unit 1 are fairly stable, averaging 5,870 and varying from a low of 5,411 in 2006 to a high of 6,953 in 2001. Consistency with Forest Plan: Based on scientific research, historical information, anecdotal evidence, and data collected on the ASNFs, the actions proposed in the action alternative are not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for Rocky Mountain elk Forest-wide. This alternative is expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for mule deer.
99
Heber Allotment Effects Determination: The proposed action would result in a small increase in habitat quantity and quality for Rocky Mountain elk. This increase in habitat is not expected to contribute to Forest-wide habitat and population trends. Juniper Titmouse In the ASNFs, the plain titmouse is an indicator species for snags (USDA 1987, p.134). Sauer et al (2010) report between 1968 and 2010 there was no significant population trend (0.17, CI -2.29, 2.79) for the juniper titmouse in Arizona. These trend estimates are summaries of the population change over the last 44 years, and do not provide information on other patterns of population change. The ASNFs currently supports 784,532 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland. In order to stimulate trees to grow larger and improve understory forage, thinning and prescribed burning would be a priority over the next ten years. Existing habitat for the plain titmouse on the ASNFs is in good condition with a stable to upward trend. The removal of pinyon and juniper trees in large blocks has contributed to a decrease in plain titmouse populations. Breeding bird surveys show that a significant decline of the plain titmouse in New Mexico occurred between 1966 and 1979. This was likely due to the large areas of pinyon- juniper that were type converted to grasslands throughout the southwestern U.S. during that period. More recent surveys show that from 1980 through 1999 the population on a regional scale has become more stable. As pinyon and juniper return to areas where these trees were cleared, habitat for the plain titmouse should concordantly increase. Bird surveys conducted within ASNFs by USFS personnel since 2007 have detected this species on forest treatments exclusively within pinyon-juniper plots. These surveys determined that this species is well distributed across the Forest within the pinyon-juniper vegetation association. Survey totals for juniper titmouse pooled across the entire Forest show a relatively stable number of birds detected and a high fluctuation in the percent of survey plots where birds were detected. This fluctuation in detections is most likely an artifact of the low number of survey visits. Taking into account the continuing occurrence of the juniper titmouse across the Forest in suitable habitat, the abundance and wide distribution of pinyon-juniper and juniper woodlands across the Forest, stable trends for snag habitat and pinyon-juniper habitat on the Forest, and the overall population trend across Arizona, it appears that the Forest supports a well distributed reproducing population of this species. Currently, juniper titmouse populations on the ASNFs are considered to be stable, and likely near potential. The Heber Allotment contains about 51,406 acres of late seral/snag component of piñon-juniper woodland for the juniper titmouse. In the ASNFs, the plain titmouse is an indicator species for snags (USDA 1987). Sauer et al (2010) report between 1968 and 2010 there was no significant population trend (0.17, CI -2.29, 2.79) for the juniper titmouse in Arizona. These trend estimates are summaries of the population change over the last 44 years, and do not provide information on other patterns of population change. Twenty-two survey routes were used in this analysis, and the relative abundance of juniper titmice observed per route was 0.85. These results corroborate the stable trend seen in the nationwide data above. MIS monitoring efforts on the Black Mesa Ranger District (unpublished data) conducted from 2001-2005 support the status of the juniper titmouse as a relatively common species on the Forest. Juniper titmice were one of the more common species (n=48, 7, 8, 9, 9) and were seen where pinyon-juniper was present. Alternative 1 – No Action Habitat Effects: The proposed action would not occur under this alternative, so that piñon-juniper woodlands would remain overstocked and encroaching into grasslands. This would result in a decrease in habitat quantity and quality for the plain titmouse. Population Effects: A reduction in habitat associated with overstocked woodlands would limit foraging habitat for plain titmouse. This lack of foraging habitat would either reduce plain titmouse
100 Environmental Assessment reproductive output or force populations off the Forests. Neither of these outcomes would aid in reaching plain titmouse population objectives Forest-wide.
Consistency with Forest Plan: Based on scientific research, historical information, anecdotal evidence, and data collected on the ASNFs, the actions proposed in the No Action Alternative are not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for plain titmouse Forest- wide. However, this alternative is not expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for plain titmouse. Effects Determination: The No Action Alternative would result in a small loss of habitat quantity and quality for plain titmouse. This decrease in habitat quality is not expected to affect Forest-wide population trends; however, the No Action Alternative is expected to contribute to the current downward habitat trend.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Habitat Effects: The proposed action would result in about 2-3,000 acres of woodlands being treated annually. This represents an increase in habitat quantity and quality for juniper titmouse of about 0.38 percent per year of forest-level habitat (784,532 acres forest-wide). This increase in habitat is not expected to contribute significantly to Forest-wide habitat and population trends. Project level habitat quantity and quality increase about 5.8 percent per year under the action alternative. This alternative is expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for juniper titmouse at the project level.
Population Effects: The proposed action would improve piñon-juniper habitat for the juniper titmouse. Taking into account the continuing occurrence of the juniper titmouse across the Forest in suitable habitat, the abundance and wide distribution of pinyon-juniper and juniper woodlands across the Forest, stable trends for snag habitat and pinyon-juniper habitat on the Forest, and the overall population trend across Arizona, it appears that the Forests support a well distributed reproducing population of this species. Currently, juniper titmouse populations on the ASNFs are considered to be stable, and likely near potential. Consistency with Forest Plan: Based on scientific research, historical information, anecdotal evidence, and data collected on the ASNFs, the actions proposed in the Action Alternative are not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for plain titmouse Forest- wide. This alternative is expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for plain titmouse. Effects Determination: The Action Alternative would result in a small loss of habitat quantity and quality for plain titmouse. This decrease in habitat quality is not expected to affect Forest-wide population trends; however, the No Action Alternative is expected to contribute to the current downward habitat trend. Pronghorn Antelope (Pronghorn) Pronghorn are a common and persistent species on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, although limited in number (AGFD 2012). While they occur at densities less than habitat capacity, they are well distributed across suitable habitat. Most pronghorn on the forests are found in the Great Basin grassland PNVT (185,523 acres). This cover type has substantial acreage where invaded tree densities are currently high. In addition, pronghorn are known to travel between grassland habitats through forest and piñon-juniper woodland areas with lower tree densities. This woodland is represented on the Heber Allotment at 20,188 acres. Because most pronghorn spend the greatest majority of their time yearlong in the Great Basin grassland, this cover type is considered the “indicator habitat” for this MIS. Under existing 101
Heber Allotment conditions, pronghorn habitat in the Great Basin grassland is highly departed from desired conditions. Quality of habitat has been reduced by loss of extensive stands of desirable perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and by encroachment by trees (primarily piñon and juniper). In addition, about two-thirds of the Great Basin grassland has been converted to a woodland type. Given that pronghorn use some open wooded areas, it is estimated that, overall, about half of the Great Basin grassland acreage is unsuitable pronghorn habitat, leaving about 92,762 acres as currently suitable “indicator habitat” for this management indicator species. Wildfire activity over the past decade would likely improve habitat conditions by creating early successional habitats that benefit grazing production. The large scale high intensity fires, such as the Wallow Fire in 2011 that burned over 540,000 acres, would likely provide an exponential increase in early successional habitats that would favor pronghorn population growth. However, juniper encroachment continues to be a leading cause of habitat loss throughout the ASNFs. The pronghorn (Antilocapra amernicana) is a wide-ranging species in North America (Natureserve 2014). Throughout its range, the species is considered secure (Heritage Global Status: G5; National Status Rank: N5; Arizona Status Rank: S5). Pronghorn populations in Arizona are apparent stable or increasing in relation to the large scale wildfires that have converted large tracts of habitat from late to early-successional habitats that favor pronghorn population growth. The Heber Allotment contains about 71,594 acres of early successional woodlands for pronghorn antelope. Alternative 1 – No Action Habitat Effects: The draft Arizona Statewide Management Plan (AGFD 2011) states that ponderosa pine encroachment has substantially altered and fragmented areas of the formerly more contiguous grassland habitat that occurred in the region. They attribute this mainly to fire suppression, which has resulted in a loss of historic grassland components such as the presence of cool season grass species and forbs and historic fine fuel components that allowed for the return of appropriate wildfire. Under Alternative 1, conifer encroachment would continue into meadows and grasslands, reducing habitat available to pronghorn antelope. Population Effects: A reduction in habitat associated with conifer encroachment would limit forage necessary for antelope. This lack of foraging habitat would either reduce antelope reproductive output or force populations off the Forests. Neither of these would aid in increasing pronghorn antelope population objectives Forest-wide. Consistency with Forest Plan: Based on scientific research, historical information, anecdotal evidence, and data collected on the ASNFs, the No Action Alternative is not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for pronghorn antelope Forest-wide. However, this alternative is not expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for pronghorn antelope.
Effects Determination: No Action Alternative would result in a small loss of habitat quantity and quality for pronghorn antelope. This decrease in habitat is not expected to affect Forest-wide habitat and population trends.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Habitat Effects: The proposed action would result in about 2-3,000 acres of piñon-juniper woodlands being treated annually. This represents an increase in habitat quantity and quality for pronghorn antelope of about 0.38 percent per year of forest-level habitat (784,532 acres forest-wide). This increase in habitat is not expected to contribute significantly to Forest-wide habitat and population trends. Project level habitat quantity and quality increase about 5.8 percent per year under the action alternative. This alternative is expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for juniper titmouse at the project level.
102 Environmental Assessment Short-term disturbance to antelope by treatment activities would temporarily displace and alter foraging, resting, and traditionally used areas. Approximately 2,000-3,000 acres would be treated annually; therefore, effects would be short-term and minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. Antelope would only experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the project area at one time. Maintenance low severity broadcast burning would occur every two to ten years, so impacts associated with the initial broadcast burn treatments would reoccur. Benefits from maintenance treatments would include increased herbaceous understory vegetation for quality pronghorn antelope foraging. Population Effects: The small populations of pronghorn within the GMU 4B have increased only slightly in the past few years. Thinning treatments and prescribed fire are imperative in maintaining some of the open forest structures necessary for pronghorn antelope to increase numbers within this GMU.
Consistency with Forest Plan: Based on scientific research, historical information, anecdotal evidence, and data collected on the ASNFs, the actions proposed in the action alternative are not expected to result in a reduction in habitat suitability or a loss of viability for pronghorn antelope Forest-wide. This alternative is expected to achieve Forest Plan objectives for habitat and population trends for pronghorn antelope. Effects Determination: The proposed action would result in a small increase in habitat quantity and quality for pronghorn antelope. This increase in habitat is expected to contribute to Forest-wide habitat and population trends.
Migratory Bird Effects Analysis Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 would have short term effects to all bird species that breed within the project area during prescribed burns or mechanical treatments. Unintentional take may occur with implementing project related activities from Alternative 2 if activities occur during the breeding season. Vegetative recovery is not anticipated to occur until after the monsoon season in late July or August. Nest success for those species breeding within the project area would be greatly reduced. This is a short- term (one breeding season) impact, and vegetation would recover given average rainfall with the monsoon and winter moisture to allow for breeding of most species the next spring. Additionally, activities would only treat approximately 2,000-3,000 acres annually; therefore, effects would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. Benefits from vegetative treatments and prescribed burning would include management towards desired conditions and increased herbaceous understory vegetation. No effects would occur to range-wide populations of migratory bird species dependent on mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper woodland, and grasslands because the proposed action would not affect the suitability of migratory bird habitat.
Take Statement No intentional take would result from the proposed action of the Heber Allotment. Unintentional take of individual migratory birds may occur, but will not result in changes to the range-wide populations of these species.
103
Heber Allotment Fire and Fuels Affected Environment Approximately 76,000 acres of Pinon-Juniper woodlands are being analyzed for fire and fuels management opportunities as part of the Heber Allotment Environmental Analysis (EA). Of those 76,000 acres prescribed fire is being proposed on approximately 39,000 acres. The acres that would be treated with fire are located within the proposed grassland acres and acres that would have 10-20% canopy cover.
Fire Regime Condition Class Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a metric that quantifies how departed a system is from historical conditions in relation to fire and the role fire historically played in that system (Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al. 2001, Hann et al. 2004). Ecosystem attributes analyzed to determine FRCC include vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern. There are three condition classes: Condition Class 1: Fire regimes are within an historical range and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and functioning within their historical range. Condition Class 2: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased), resulting in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historic range. Condition Class 3: Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical range. Table 21. FRCC Desired conditions and Alternative Comparison. Alternatives Compared to Desired Conditions (expressed as a percentage) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Desired Conditions FRCC 1 17% 52% 100% FRCC 2 5% 0% 0% FRCC 3 78% 48% 0%
The analyses would compare Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) by the percent of the area in FRCC 1, 2, and 3 between the two alternatives and air quality Impacts of alternative 2.
FRCC Results A fire regime I has a frequent fire interval with low to mixed severity. Fires typically maintained open areas and replaced or opened up areas that exhibited a more closed canopy. Forests in a fire regime I are maintained in that state by understory vegetation. Much of the forest structure was open canopy which resulted in healthy and vigorous understory plants that served as fuel to carry surface fire through these stands. Stands in FRCC 1 would demonstrate little potential for active crown fire and would experience relatively little overstory mortality post wildfire. Areas where some canopy openings can be created and some sunlight can penetrate and invigorate understory forbs and grasses would have decreased threat of crown fire and would have a re-established understory that could
104 Environmental Assessment support surface fire. If these areas do not contain a well balanced mix of strata with reproducing fire resilient species they are still considered departed but not as departed as stands with closed canopy. These areas are classified as FRCC 2. Fire Regime Condition Class 3 are continuous areas in an even aged condition with closed canopy are considered very departed from historical conditions. These areas would not be able to support understory vegetation and have potential for continuous crown fire. With Alternative 1 approximately 17% of the acres would remain in FRCC class 1, five percent in FRCC class 2, and 78% would remain in FRCC class 3. With Alternative 2 approximately 52% of the acres would be in FRCC class 1, with the remaining 48% in the FRCC class 3. Alternative 2 moves toward the desired conditions while Alternative 1 moves away from the desired conditions.
Smoke Five Class 1 airsheds were identified within an 80 mile radius of the project area. Seven communities were identified as smoke sensitive areas near Heber Allotment project area. No current nonattainment areas exist within an 80 mile radius. Smoke impacts to the communities of Heber / Overgaard and Snowflake are almost inevitable therefore consideration for smoke duration and wind direction should be included in burn plans. Actual results can be found in the fire fuels report.
The Mogollon Rim area is heavily used as a recreation area for many people. This area represents clear and clean air for many visitors and is important to the continued health of surrounding communities both economically and physically. Smoke, in general is a nuisance and can be adverse to health, but is also part of the natural disturbance associated with these types of ecosystems. Two criterion pollutants, carbon monoxide and particulate matter, are produced in wood smoke and are regulated by the Clean Air Act. The Arizona State Smoke Management Rule implements the Clean Air Act and contains regulations that all State and Federal natural resource agencies must follow before a prescribed burn is ignited.
Both prescribed fire and wildfire would create smoke, however the amount and timing of these smoke events can be mitigated with prescribed fire. Any prescribed burning would be conducted only with approved site specific burn plans with standard smoke management mitigation and approvals. Burning would be conducted in favorable atmospheric conditions so as to minimize effects from smoke to nearby communities, class 1 airsheds and recreationists. All burning would be conducted according to the Arizona State Smoke Management rule to mitigate smoke impacts. These regulations ensure that effects from all burning within the area are mitigated and that Clean Air Act requirements are met. The three scenarios used in the SASEM analysis of smoke impacts can be used as a benchmark of the types of conditions and fuel loading burns should be conducted in. In general south southwest winds are preferable so as to avoid impacting Class 1 airsheds, as are days with good transport winds and ventilation categories. The communities of Heber / Overgaard and Snowflake would have the most smoke impacts due to their proximity to the project area and lie line with prevailing winds, therefore measures to mitigate long durations of smoke should be implemented. Prescribed fires are initiated under conditions that allow managers control and favorable effects. Prescribed fires would be conducted when conditions are such that overstory tree mortality would be low, which leaves much of the live-tree carbon pool intact. This results in less biomass being combusted than if the area were to burn under higher severity wildfire, therefore less carbon emissions are expected in controlled situations (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010).
Smoke impacts from wildfires are less easily mitigated. Wildfires primarily occur during summer months when the Heber Allotment area is most used by recreationists and therefore would most likely have more of an impact on recreation values. The amount of biomass consumed during a wildfire is also not easily mitigated, the more biomass is consumed by fire the more smoke would be produced. When comparing alternatives, alternative 2 proposes prescribed burning which would have an impact on surrounding communities but in a controllable manner. The outcome of this alternative would also reduce the amount of biomass available to fire during wildfire which would reduce the impact of 105
Heber Allotment smoke from such a wildfire. Alternative 1 does not propose any prescribed burning; however, it would continue to maintain large amounts of biomass available for consumption in the event of a wildfire which would have direct and most likely uncontrollable impacts on recreation, the 5 class 1 airsheds within 80 miles of the project area and surrounding communities.
Cumulative Effects Vegetation treatments around the communities of Heber/Overgaard have contributed to the current conditions. Over the past 25 years management near the Heber Allotment project area has included prescribed burning, wildfires, pile burning, mechanical thinning and various harvests as well as grazing and wildlife focused projects. The Rodeo-Chediski Fire Prescribed Burn Project overlaps the Heber Allotment project area. This project is utilizing prescribed fire to move the project area towards a FRCC 1, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristically intense fire behavior. The combined effects of these two projects and many foreseeable projects around or near the communities of Heber/Overgaard, surrounding private land north of the forest boundary and the KV power lines would provide restoration and fuels reduction and create mosaic stand conditions, allowing for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity. This same mosaic would allow for a diversity of fire effects thereby increasing opportunities for the maintenance of forest structure and function using wildfire and prescribed fire in the long-term future.
Cultural Resources
Affected Environment The Heber Allotment contains cultural resources representing a human presence which began in the Late Paleoindian period and continues into the present day. Specific Paleoindian sites have not been recorded on the Heber Allotment, but diagnostic projectile point types such as Folsom and Clovis have been documented as isolated surface artifacts on portions of the forests adjacent to the Heber Allotment (ASNFs inventory and site files). The Archaic period sites on the Heber Allotment are represented by dispersed artifact scatters, bedrock mortars, rock shelters, and a variety of dart point types such as Pinto, Jay, Elko, and Gypsum. In general, sites dating to this period are located in all vegetation zones. Basketmaker II-III period sites are sparser on the Allotment. Most of the sites with pithouses are found within the pinyon-juniper woodland. Pueblo I period sites include pithouse villages, above ground habitation structures, and artifact scatters. These sites are generally located within the pinyon-juniper woodland and within the pine-oak forest.
Habitation of the Heber Allotment dramatically increases during the Pueblo II-early Pueblo III period. Approximately 70% of all documented sites on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, including the Heber Allotment, date to this period and are associated with the archaeological cultures identified as the Mogollon and Anasazi. Some of these sites consist of multiple room blocks of between 30 and 40 rooms with associated features and artifacts. Several of these large sites include great kivas. The most numerous sites that date to this period are typically one-two room masonry structures, small room blocks of between 4 to 6 rooms, water control features, and artifact scatters without any surface features.
During the Pueblo III period there is steep decline in the number of sites on the forests, including the Heber Allotment, but an increase in the number of rooms per site (Donaldson n.d.). Water and soil- control features are widespread and far more common than in previous times. Shortly after the beginning of the Pueblo IV period, Bailey Ruin, a large 200 to 250 room pueblo, located less than 2 miles east of the Allotment, appears to have been inhabited no later than A.D. 1325 (Mills et al. 1999:240). Nearby sites, such as Four mile Ruin, continue to be occupied at least into the mid-1300s.
106 Environmental Assessment By the mid1400s the Heber Allotment was no longer used for permanent habitation but continued to be used on a temporary basis by the Zuni, Hopi and Acoma, descendants of the Mogollon and Anasazi.
The earliest dates for arrival of the Western Apache in the area suggests that they arrived in the 16th Century, just prior to the Coronado Expedition in A.D. 1540 to 1542. Three archaeological sites recognized as Apache or Yavapai are found within the Heber Allotment. These locations include flaked glass artifacts for cutting tools and projectile points along with metal cut from barrel bands used to make knives and projectile points. Archaeologists disagree on exactly when they arrived and by what route (Perry 1991:145-152; Towner 1999;4-9; Wilcox 1981), few place the Apache in Arizona before the Historic period (Gunnerson 1956; Schroeder 1952). However, the Apache themselves believe that they have always been in what is now Arizona. Apache use generally appears to have been seasonal and evidence of their presence includes artifact assemblages, temporary brush structures, and limited activity areas for processing and collecting resources.
Historic Euro-American use of the area begins in the 1860’s and continues to the present. General George Crook established a supply and transportation route along the Mogollon Rim between Camp Verde and Fort Apache. This route became known as General Crook’s Road and was used into the early 1900s and is now a designated National Recreation Trail. A large portion of the General Crook Trail lies with the Heber Allotment. In 1871, reservations were established at Fort Apache for the Cibecue and White Mountain Apache, Camp Grant for the San Carlos Apache and White Mountain Apache and Camp Verde for the Yavapai and Tonto Apache (Corbusier 1969;60-61; Schroeder 1959).
More Euro-American settlers came to the area after the establishment of the reservations. Sheep and cattle herders set up homesteads within the area. At around the same time Mormon settlers from Utah led by Jacob Hamblin moved into the area in 1877. Mormons established logging camps at Pinedale and Taylor and farming communities were established at Clay Springs and Pinedale (Plog 1981b).
The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad reached Holbrook in 1880 and resulted in an economic boom for the region (Lightfoot 1978). After the arrival of the railroad, sheep and cattle grazing became widespread throughout the Mogollon Plateau. Lightfoot (1978) notes that populations near the settlements of Pinedale, Heber and Taylor continued to grow until 1900, along with increased tensions between the cowboy and Mormon factions. Remains of homesteads, cabins and improvements for ranching and farming dating to this period are found across the forests, primarily near communities and within the Heber Allotment. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 This alternative is a “No Action” alternative, wherein livestock are removed from the allotment within a one-year period and no range improvements would take place. Therefore, the potential for heritage resources to be either directly or indirectly affected by livestock grazing would be eliminated. Because of a lack of grazing, ground cover should increase, minimizing the impacts of erosion on cultural resource sites. Because no new range improvements would be constructed, no ground disturbing activity with the potential to affect heritage resources would take place.
The maintenance of existing structural improvements (e.g. cattle guards, gates, fences, signs, stock tanks) that do not involve additional ground disturbance are exempt from further review and consultation (Region 3 Programmatic Agreement, Appendix A, Exemption E).
107
Heber Allotment Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is the “Proposed Acton” alternative. Under the proposed action alternative, livestock grazing would be permitted in such a manner that ground cover is expected to generally increase, reducing the threats of erosion upon cultural resources. Any ground-disturbing activity associated with the proposed improvements of the allotment will be surveyed prior to implementation and an archeologist will be consulted to ensure that the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are met. All historic properties will be avoided during the implementation of the proposed range improvements, thereby ensuring that there is no detrimental effect upon cultural resources. If maintenance of existing facilities (fences, roads, tanks, etc.) are found to be in areas that have not been previously surveyed, archaeological survey will be completed prior to any maintenance or other project actions within that area. All eligible and unevaluated sites located during new survey will be flagged and avoided so that no damage is done to historic properties in the project area. All of the proposed improvements specified in the proposed action will have a heritage resource survey completed prior to implementation. Completion of such inventories will ensure a determination of No Effect or No Adverse Effect upon heritage resources.
New construction proposed under the EA will be phased to coincide with the completion of archaeology inventory. As long as archaeological sites are flagged and avoided by project actions and the boundaries/proposed treatments covered under the EA do not change, no additional archaeological inventory and/or consultation is needed. If unidentified sites are encountered during new construction, all work in that locale shall be halted and the District, Zone or Forest Archaeologist shall be notified immediately. Cumulative Effects Since site condition assessments for heritage resources are not available for any time prior to the introduction of European livestock species to the Southwest, some level of effect is assumed to have contributed to the current condition of all sites on the Heber allotment. Given the non-renewable nature of heritage resources – particularly archaeological and historic sites - any portion of them that has been damaged or removed diminishes their cultural and scientific value permanently. The missing parts cannot be replaced. Therefore, all effects to heritage resources are considered cumulative.
The cumulative effects on Heritage resources should take into account all surface-altering actions that have occurred or are likely to occur within the Heber Allotment Project Area, including damages from previous firefighting, which includes dozer lines and other suppression measures. Current and previous Forest Service management activities, public resource procurement and recreational use and natural processes have impacted Heritage resources. However, the use of standard mitigation measures (all surface-altering actions will be surveyed prior to undertaking and all Heritage resources will be identified and flagged for avoidance before any actions take place) will ensure that impacts will be substantially diminished.
Economics and Social The majority of the Heber Allotment is located within Navajo County with a small amount in Coconino County, in eastern Arizona. On the Heber Allotment, livestock grazing contributes to the livelihood of the permittees and employees. This allotment is an important portion of the permittee’s ranch operation, in that livestock are moved onto the Forest in spring, then the livestock are taken to other lands at a lower elevation to winter.
108 Environmental Assessment Social Livestock grazing has been part of the Southwest culture for about 400 years, since the entry of the Spanish explorers, missionaries and settlers, though livestock in the area of the Apache-Sitgreaves N.F. stayed at very low levels until the arrival of the railroad and the Aztec Land and Cattle Company during the 1880’s (Abruzzi, 1995). A 1998 survey of permittees, who graze livestock on National Forests in Arizona, indicates that this group has pursued public and private land ranching for up to 40 years and that some have operated ranches for up to 77 years (Cosgrove C. R., 1998). Recent years have seen the arrival of some new permittees, a few with no previous ranching background. In a three county survey (Apache, Navajo, Greenlee), respondents rated the importance of the surrounding natural environment to the quality of life as a 6 on a scale of 1 to 7 (Cosgrove C., 1998). Recent growth has resulted in diversification of values brought by newcomers. Retirement and second homes are increasingly a part of the residential makeup of the counties.
Economics The allotment borders the community of Heber-Overgaard, which is not incorporated. In the earlier part of the century, the economic base for the community was based around timber harvesting, forest products, and ranching. In recent years there has been a change in the percentages that each of the industries comprise, which would be much lower today then the past. The allotment is basically on the southwestern portion of the county. The county receives a portion of the Forest Service receipts which include grazing fees.
An analysis of the effects of the alternatives on social and economic values is shown here. The direct and indirect effects, as well as cumulative effects are described. While values appear very precise in measurement, they are based on certain assumptions, thus they serve best as an indicator and general magnitude of change rather than a precise measurement. Although the costs of these projects appear to be straight forward, there are “values” that are qualitative in nature for other resource areas such as watershed improvement, vegetative conditions and wildlife. The following factors are compared to determine impacts on the economy for each alternative: 1) annual grazing fee receipts, 2) costs that may be incurred from construction of structural range improvements, 3) costs that may be incurred for non-structural improvements (grassland maintenance and woodland savanna treatments), 4) cost to the Forest Service for maintenance of existing structural range improvements. Summary of Effects Table 22. Summary of Cost per Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Annual Grazing Fee Receipts 0 +$6,542 to $10,260 Cost from new structural 0 -$523,956 Improvements (Total Cost) Cost of non-structural 0 -$3,702,304 improvements (Total Cost) Cost of Boundary fence -$240,000 0 maintenance to Forest Service (Annually)
Environmental Consequences Alternative 1- No Action This alternative would have the greatest amount of negative impacts on the permittee and the discontinuation of grazing would result in a loss of income from the use of Forest Lands. The permittee could either continue to graze livestock off Forest Service Lands, in which their numbers
109
Heber Allotment would probably have to decrease and/or they would have to find more land or they might sell their private lands and get out of ranching in this local area.
With the reduction in employment from no grazing, there would be less income to the supporting businesses in the community. Although the economic soundness of the Heber-Overgaard community would remain in tack with this alternative, the potential reduction of employment to a small community could be felt.
With this alternative the fence maintenance responsibly that is assigned to the Heber Allotment would be changed to the adjacent permittees, the Forest Service or would not occur. Allotments with common boundaries with fences include the Wildcat, Black Canyon, Pierce Wash, Park Day, and Willow Wash. This would increase the workloads for the permittees on those allotments. The Forest Boundary fence maintenance would be Forest Service responsibility to maintain. The length of these fences totals approximately 48 miles and could cost $240,000 annually (based on past contracts). The interior fences would not be maintained, become unusable, and might eventually need to be rolled up. This would also be a cost of the Forest Service. In addition to the cost of the fence rollup, there would be the loss of the initial investment/value of the improvement. This alternative over a 10 to 20 year period could be most expensive alternative for the Forest Service, with no financial returns (grazing fee receipts) and no recognized “values” that are qualitative, such as improved watershed and vegetative condition and increased waters.
The no action alternative would result in the loss of fees to the U.S. Treasury and annual federal payments to Navajo County for livestock grazing. This loss, by itself, is not substantial; however, the county would also not benefit from tax receipts from potential range improvements and the state would lose tax revenues based on the permittees’ use of federal lands. This alternative would generate no economic contribution to the local economy from a livestock operation, would not directly or indirectly provide jobs associated with a livestock operation and would generate no grazing receipts for the federal treasury, in relationship to the to the Heber Allotment. There would be no economic benefit to the local economy from wood fiber within this alternative or jobs created from any treatments within this alternative. Although there would be no benefit to the local economy from livestock grazing or wood fiber, there would be a benefit from the fence maintenance.
Lifestyle changes of ranch employees in response to loss of income or increased debt could include decreasing spending, investing more time in other operations as means of alternate income opportunities and further diversifying operations to make them less dependent upon public land ranching. With this alternative the possible sale of the ranch/private land would increase, which could lead to increased housing development/loss of “open space” in that area.
This alternative would have the biggest negative economic impact to the Permittee and their employees, the community, and county. This alternative moves away from the desired condition and does not comply with Forest Service Manual direction.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The implementation of the proposed action would help to ensure the economic viability of the ranch associated with the Heber Allotment. As long as the permittees are able to function economically, the likelihood of selling their private land for developments is greatly diminished. Thus, this alternative helps to maintain “open spaces” on the ranch associated with the allotment.
It could be expected that livestock numbers would either stay similar to what they have been grazing or increase with this alternative, in turn means that grazing fees collected and number of jobs either directly related to the ranch operation or indirectly in the community would stay the same or increase. Portions of these fees would continue to be returned to the County/Forest for improvements. A local
110 Environmental Assessment power plant uses forest products to generate electricity. Products proposed in this alternative could be used for this purpose, which would benefit the local economy. Jobs related to the wood fiber industry would continue to be provided to the local industry and to service contractors.
The costs of the non-structural improvements such as grassland maintenance and savanna treatments could be approximately $3.7 million and the costs of the water developments could be approximately $418,000. Projects such as these have the potential to be multi-financed between several partners, such as AZGFD, wildlife groups, permittee, and the Forest Service. Cost associated with the structural improvements that would assist with livestock management, such as corrals and holding pastures would be funded by the permittee with possibly some assistance, in the form of materials from the Forest Service. These costs are estimated to be approximately $94,000. Cattleguards would be funded in large part by the Forest Service, with an estimated cost around $13,000.
This alternative would have the biggest positive impact to the permittee, their employees, the community and the county. This alternative meets the desired condition and also complies with Forest Service Manual direction.
Cumulative Effects Decision Notices for Allotment Management Plans signed within the last 10 years on the Black Mesa Ranger District were reviewed for cumulative effects. The results of this review indicate that these effects would be minor to either alternative.
Environmental Justice Under Executive Order No. 12898, Environmental Justice strives to ensure that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high or adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. One goal of Environmental Justice is to provide the opportunity for the minority and low-income populations to participate in planning, analysis, and decision making that affects their health or environment, including identification of program needs and designs. The alternatives considered in this analysis would not have a disproportionate impact on any minority or low income population in the immediate area or within surrounding counties.
Noxious Weeds Affected Environment Noxious and invasive weeds can reduce forage for wildlife and livestock, create fire hazards, and can out compete the native vegetation, because in some cases they have no natural enemies. On the Heber Allotment there is approximately 300 acres of known noxious weed populations, which amounts to less than 1% of the Allotment. The densities of these weed species are low and with population trends downward, thru treatments. In addition to the treatments of these weeds species (which is not proposed in this project because this has been analyzed under a separate analysis completed in 2008), preventing the spread of weed, and the early detections of weeds are important to the weed program and are discussed.
111
Heber Allotment Effects
Alternative 1 No actions would occur with this alternative so the risk of spread from any activities is basically non- existent. Although the risk of spread of weeds is non-existent, the ability to identify and locate new populations is reduced, because there would be no monitoring associated with this alternative.
Alternative 2 There is a low risk of spread of noxious weed from livestock grazing, because grazing use is proposed at a conservative level that would sustain the current plant population and ground cover. The risk of spread of noxious weeds from the structural and nonstructural improvements is also low because these treatments are not within or near any known weed populations. The potential of detecting any new populations would increase, since monitoring of the actions would occur.
112 Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination The following Forest Service employees served on the interdisciplinary team to complete the analysis for this project. Interdisciplinary Team Members Name Title Chris James District Ranger, Deciding Official Dawnee Burson NEPA Coordinator Andy Habgood Rangeland Management Specialist David Seery Wildlife Biologist Paul Brown Hydrologist Rachael Vaughn Wildlife Biologist (transferred) Gayle Richardson Silviculturist Eric Roberson Soils John Manthei Fuels Specialist Joseph Martin Sitgreaves Zone Archaeologist Kendell Hughes Rangeland Management Specialist Geographic Information Systems Steven Richardson Coordinator Grace Hancock Pre-sale Forester
The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, state and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: Federal and State Officials and Agencies Natural Resources Conservation Service US Fish and Wildlife Service US House of Representatives – Office of Ann Kirkpatrick US Senate – Office of Jeff Flake US Senate – Office of John McCain Arizona House of Representatives - Office of Bob Thorpe Arizona House of Representatives – Office of Brenda Barton Arizona Senate – Office of Chester Crandell (past) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Land Department Arizona State Historical Preservation Office Coconino County Navajo County Tribes White Mountain Apache Tribe Ft. McDowell Yavapai Indian Nation San Carlos Apache Tribe Hopi Tribe Tonto Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Yavapai-Apache Nation Pueblo of Zuni Yavapai-Prescott Tribe Others Scoping list available upon request. 113
Environmental Assessment
All Documents Cited in the EA
Abruzzi, William S. 1995. The Social and Ecological Consequences of Early Cattle Ranching in the Little Colorado River Basin. Human Ecology, Vol. 23, No. 1, (pp. 75-98). ADEQ. 2011. Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) to Maintain and Improve Air Quality. Phoenix, AZ. ADEQ. 2014. 2012 Status of ambient surface water quality in Arizona (Draft). Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/assess.html Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2001a. Catostomus sp. 3. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2001b. Idionycteris phyllotis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2002a. Falco peregrinus anatum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2002b. Gila robusta. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2002c. Lithobates pipiens. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2002d. Rumex orthoneurus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2003a. Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2003b. Euderma maculatum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 9 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2005a. Helenium arizonicum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2005b. Heuchera eastwoodiae. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2005c. Phlox amabilis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.
115
Heber Allotment
Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2011. Arizona statewide pronghorn management plan: draft. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2012. Assessment of Management Indicator Species, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, from 2005 to 2011. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 117pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD]. 2013. Buteogallus anthracinus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 7 pp. Arnold, Joseph F., Donald A. Jameson, and Elbert H. Reid 1964. Effects of Grazing, Fire, and Tree Control. Fort Collins, CO. Augustine, D. J., J. F. Cully, Jr., and T. L. Johnson. 2007. Influence of fire on blacktailed prairie dog colony expansion in shortgrass steppe. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:538–542. Baumann, R.W. and G.Z. Jacobi. 2002. Capnia caryi, an interesting new species of winter stonefly from the American southwest (Plecoptera: Capniidae). Western North American Naturalist 62(4):484-486. Baker, M. B., Jr. 1990. Hydrologic and water quality effects of fire. Pages 31-42 in J. S. Krammes, tech. coord. Effects of fire management of southwestern natural resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-191. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Boyce, M.S., J.S. Mao, E.H. Merrill, D. Fortin, M.G. Turner, J. Fryxell and P. Turchin. 2003. Scale and heterogeneity in habitat selection by elk in Yellowstone National Park. Ecoscience. 10(4):421-431. Brockway, D.G., Gatewood, R.G., and Paris, R.B. 2001. Restoring grassland savannahs from degraded pinyon-juniper woodlands: effects of mechanical overstory reduction and slash treatment alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management (2002) Vol. 64, pages 179- 197. Retrieved 31 October 2014 from www.sciencedirect.com. Buehler, David A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506doi:10.2173/bna.506 Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Produced for the Environmental Protection Agency by Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc., Eagle, ID. Clary, Warren P., and Donald A. Jameson 1981. Herbage Production Following Tree and Shrub Removal in the Pinyon-Juniper Type of Arizona. Provo, UT. Clary, Warren P. 1986. Herbage Production and Livestock Grazing. Proceedings from the Pinyon-Juniper Conference. Reno, NV. Collins, W.B. and P.J. Urness. 1983. Feeding behavior and habitat selection of mule deer and elk on northern Utah summer range. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(3):646- 663. Converse, S.J., W.M. Block, and G.C. White. 2006. Small mammal population and habitat responses to forest thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management 228(263–273).
116 Environmental Assessment
Cosgrove, C. (1998). Public Land Use in Apache, Greenlee and Navajo Counties: Results of a survey of community interests and values. St. Johns, AZ: Partial funding provided by Apache County Economic Security Corporation, Greenlee County and Navajo County. Cosgrove, C. R. (1998). Economic Impacts of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Public land Ranching. St. Johns, AZ: Funded by Apache County Economic Security Corporation, Greenlee County Board of Supervisors, Navajo County Board of Supervisors, with support from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Covington, W. and S. Sackett. 1990. Fire effects on ponderosa pine soils and management implications. In J.S. Crammes (ed.), Effects of fire management of southwestern natural resources. USDA Tech. Rept. No. RM-191. Crowley, Ervin, R., Timothy Burton, and Steven J Smith. 2006. Monitoring Streambanks and Riparian Vegetation-Multiple Indicators. U.S. Department of Interior. BLM Technical Bulletin No. 2005-02 Version 2. 134 pp. Debano L.F. and Schmidt, L.J. 1989. Improving southwestern riparian areas through watershed management. Gen. Tch. Rep. RM-182. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 33. P. Deboodt, T.L., M.P. Fisher, J.C. Buckhouse, and John Swanson. 2008. Monitoring Hydrological Changes Related to Western Juniper Removal: A Paired Watershed Approach. Third Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, 8-11 September 2008, Estes Park CO. p 227-232. Driscoll, J.T., 2005. Bald Eagle: Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Pages 126-127 in Corman, T.E. and C. Wise-Gervais. 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. The University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM. 641 pp. Edge, D.W., C.L. Marcum, and S.L. Olson-Edge. 1987. Summer habitat selection by elk in western Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 51(4):844-851. Fletcher, R. 1978. Helenium arizonicum. USDA Forest Service, Region 3. Gottfried, G.J. and L.F. DeBano, 1990. Streamflow and water quality responses to preharvest prescribed burning in an undisturbed ponderosa pine watershed. In: Krammes, J.S. (Ed.), Effects of fire management of southwestern natural resources. General Technical Report RM-191. USDA Forest Service, pp. 222– 228. Granfelt, C. 2001. Salix bebbiana Sarg. on the A-S NFS. Report prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, AZ. Hann, W.J. D.L. Bunnell. 2001 Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 10:389-403. Hann, W.J., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. Hamilton, J. Jones, M. Levesque, and C. Frame. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Last update June 2008: Version 1.3.0 Available: www.frcc.gov. Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.M., Samson, N.R. 2001. Spatial Data for National Fire Planning and Fuel Management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:353-372
117
Heber Allotment
Heffelfinger, J. R., and T. A. Messmer. 2003. Introduction. Pages 1-11 in J. C. deVos, Jr., M. R. Conover, and N. E. Headrick, editors. Mule deer conservation: issues and management strategies. Beryman Institute Press, Utah State University, Logan UT. Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Holechek, Jerry L. Rex D. Pieper and Carlton H. Herbel 1998. Range Management Principles and Practices, 3RD Edition. Las Cruces, NM. Holechek, Jerry L., Hilton Gomez, Francisco Molinar, and Dee Galt 1999. Grazing Studies: What we’ve Learned. Las Cruces, NM. Holycross, A.T., W.P. Burger, E.J. Negro, and T.C. Brennan. 2006. Surveys for Thamnophis eques and Thamnophis rufipunctatus in the Gila River Watershed of Arizona and New Mexico. A report submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department. Houghton, D. C. 2001. Two new species of Lepidostoma rambur (Trichoptera: Lepidostomatidae) from the western United States. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 103(3):541-545. Johnson, W. M. 1953. Effect of Grazing Intensity Upon Vegetation and Cattle Gains on Ponderosa Pine Bunchgrass Ranges of the Front Range of Colorado. Washington, D.C. Kalies, E.L., C.L. Chambers, and W.W. Covington. 2009. Wildlife responses to thinning and burning treatments in southwestern conifer forests: a meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.024. Kolb, Peter F. 1999. Forestland Grazing: Understory Forage Management. Missoula, MT. Korfhage, R.C., J.R. Nelson and J.M. Skovlin. 1980. Summer diets of Rocky Mountain elk in Northeastern Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(3):746-750. Krueper, D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. Pp. 321-330 in Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds, D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (eds); Gen. Tech. Rep;. RM-229, Fort Collins, CO: U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station:422 pp. Krueper, D.J. 1996. Effects of livestock management on Southwestern riparian ecosystems. Pp. 281-301 in D.W. Shaw and D.M. Finch (eds.), Desired future conditions for southwestern riparian ecosystems: bringing interests and concerns together. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, RM-272, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Loeser, Mathew R., Thomas D. Sisk, and Timothy E. Crews 2007. Impact of Grazing Intensity During Drought in an Arizona Grassland. Flagstaff, AZ. Lopez, M.A., R.J. Dreyer, and G.R. Gonzales. 1998b. Chevelon Creek fish management report. Statewide Fisheries Investigations, Federal Aid Project F-7-M-40. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. McKell, M. 2005. Region 1 Roundtail Chub Surveys of Chevelon Creek, August 2005. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Region 1. Minckley, W.L 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. pp.158-159.
118 Environmental Assessment
NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: March 17, 2014). New Mexico Rare Plants [NMRP]. 1999. http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/rarelist_single.php?SpeciesID=94. Accessed: March 5, 2014. Petryszyn, Y. and R. Sidner. 1994. Bat survey of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Chevelon, Heber, Alpine, and Clifton Districts. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, AZ. 92 pp. Pilliod, D.S, R.B. Bury, E.J. Hyde, C.A. Pearl, and P.S. Corn. 2003. Fire and amphibians in North America. Forest and Ecology Management. 178: 163-181. Pilliod, D.S., E. L. Bull, J.L. Hayes, and B.C. Wales. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests in the western United States: a synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-173: 1-25. Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. pp. 389-423 in WRr. Meehan (ed.). Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. 751 pp. Pope, T.L. and W.M. Block. 2010. Effects of prescribed fire on winter assemblages of birds in ponderosa pine forests of northern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 55(1): 22-28. Potter, Loren D. and John C. Krenetsky 1967. Plant Succession with Released Grazing on New Mexico Range Lands. Albuquerque, NM. Rieman, B.E., D. Lee, D. Burns, R. Gresswell, M. Young, R. Stowell, P. Howell. 2003. Status of native fishes in western United States and issues for fire and fuels management. Forest Ecology and Management. 178(1-2): 197-211. Rodeo-Chediski Reforestation NEPA Analysis. 2012. Project Record. Rosen, P.C. and C.R. Schwalbe. 1988. Status of the Mexican and narrow-headed garter snakes (Thamnophis eques megalops and Thamnophis rufipunctatus rufipunctatus) in Arizona. Unpubl. report from Arizona Game and Fish Dept. (Phoenix, Arizona) to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. iv + 50 pp + appendices. Ruiter, D.E. 2007. Description of the Limnephilus granti (Nimmo) female with a redescription of the male (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 109(1):86-89. Saab, V., W. Block, R. Russell, J. Lehmkuhl, L. Bate, and R. White. 2007. Birds and burns of the interior west: descriptions, habitats, and management in western forests. Birds and Burns Network. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-712: 1-23. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2010. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Schuster, Joseph L. 1964. Root Development of Native Plants Under Three Grazing Intensities. Nacogdoches, TX. Semlitsch, R.D., Todd, B.D., Blomquist, S.M., Calhoun, A.J.K., Gibbons, J.W., Gibbs, J.P., Graeter, G.J., Harper, E.B., Hocking, D.J., Hunter, M.L. Jr., Patrick, D.A., Rittenhouse, T.A. Green, Rothermel, B.B. 2009. Effects of Timber Harvest on Amphibian
119
Heber Allotment
Populations: Understanding mechanisms from Forest Experiments. BioScience 59: 853– 862. 12pp. Servoss, J.M. 2014. Current population status of northern Mexican and narrow-headed gartersnakes in the United States. Arizona Ecological Services Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Phoenix, AZ. Southwest Endangered Species Act Team [SESA]. 2008. Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis): considerations for making effects determinations and recommendations for reducing and avoiding adverse effects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 75 pp. Smith, J.K. (ed.). 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-42-vol. 1. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 83 p. Szaro, R.C. and R.P. Balda. 1979. Bird community dynamics in a ponderosa pine forest. Studies in Avian Biology No. 3. Cooper Ornith. Soc. 66 pp. Taylor, D.A.R. 2006. Forest Management and Bats. Bat Conservation International. 16 pp. Thorne, M.S., P.J. Meiman, Q.D. Skinner, M.A. Smith, and J.L. Dodd. 2005. Clipping frequency affects canopy volume and biomass production in planeleaf willow (Salix planifolia var. planifolia Prush). Rangeland Ecology and Management 58(1):41–50. Uresk, D. W., J. G. MacCracken, and A. J. Bjugstad. 1982. Prairie dog density and cattle grazing relationships. Pages 199-201 in Fifth Great Plains wildlife damage control workshop proceedings, 13-15 October 1982, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. United States Department of Agriculture 1964. The Pinyon-Juniper Type of Arizona: Effects of Grazing, Fire, and Tree Control. Fort Collins, Co. USDA Forest Service. 1987 (amended 2009). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. USDA 1989. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Albuquerque, NM. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rodeo-Chediski Fire Salvage Project. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves NF, Springerville, AZ. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Framework for streamlining informal consultation for livestock grazing activities. 116 pp. USDA-Forest Service. 2011. Regional Riparian Mapping Project-DRAFT Mapping Protocols. U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Region. 11pp. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Management indicator species assessment. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service and University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center (NRCS and UA). 2007. Carrizo creek watershed – Arizona: rapid watershed assessment. 38 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 103 pp.
120 Environmental Assessment
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened species; bald eagle reclassification; final rule. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register. 60(133): 36000- 36010. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). Vol. I. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and wildlife and plants; final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States; final rule. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register. 64(164): 46542-46558. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Final designation of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl; final rule. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register. 69(168): 53182- 53298. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Final Rule, Federal Register. 72 (130):37346-37372. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at
121
Heber Allotment
Van Auken, O.W. 2009. Causes and consequences of woody plant encroachment into westernNorth American grasslands. Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 90, Issue 10. July 2009. [15 December 2014]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709001522 Voeltz, J.B. 2002. Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) status survey of the lower Colorado River basin. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Wai-Ping, V and MB Fenton. 1989. Ecology of spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) roosting and foraging behavior. Journal of Mammalogy 70:617-622. Wallace, M.C. and P.R. Krausman. 1997. Movements and home-ranges of elk in eastern Arizona. Proceedings-1997 Deer/Elk Workshop-Arizona. P.184-195. Watkins, B. E., C. J. Bishop, E. J. Bergman, A. Bronson, B. Hale, B. F. Wakeling, L. H. Carpenter, D. W. Lutz. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: Colorado Plateau Shrubland and Forest Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Wiedinmyer C. and Hurteau M. D., 2010. Prescribed Fire as a means of reducing forest carbon emissions in the western United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44. 1926-1932. Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-46. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49pp. Zwartjes, P.W., J.E. Cartron, P.L. Stoleson, W.C. Haussamen, and T.E. Crane. 2005. Assessment of native species and ungulate grazing in the Southwest: terrestrial wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-142. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 74 pp.
122 Environmental Assessment
Appendix A- Project Design and Best Management Practices
Project Design and Best Management Practices The following project design and best management practices are project specific. All laws, policies, regulations, manual direction, Forest Plan standards and guidelines will also be followed along with the following requirements listed below. Additionally contract provisions or clauses that are designed to protect resources will be incorporated to fit on-the ground conditions (i.e. timber sales, stewardship contracts, service contracts, and construction contracts).
Streams, Springs, and Seeps Stream management zones (SMZs), referred to in the National Core BMP Technical Guide as Aquatic Management Zones, shall be designated along stream courses. Unless otherwise designated, SMZ widths for the various stream types (as defined in the Forest’s stream arc geodatabase) will be the following: 150 feet for perennial, 75 feet for intermittent, and 50 feet for ephemeral. SMZs will be delineated on the project area and contract maps. Preferred method for harvesting and extraction by mechanical equipment within a SMZ is to approach the material with the contour of the slope, cut or grapple the material, then back out following the same entry path. This BMP allows for a reduction in ground disturbance by limiting turning of equipment near the drainage and aims to retain as much of a filtering effect of the undisturbed ground cover as possible. Additionally, slash can be placed on travel courses to be driven over which will reduce soil disturbance and lessen rutting impacts. SMZs shall be crossed at designated crossings only and shall be approved by the authorized FS Officer or a watershed resource specialist. Travel courses used for removal of material will not be longitudinally within the SMZs. There shall be no decking of material within SMZs. The number of travel courses and crossings within SMZs should be minimized. Temporary road construction is prohibited within the SMZ. Adequate size and spacing of drainage control features (including but not limited to water- bars, lead-out ditches, etc.) shall be constructed to remove water from primary travel courses and roads. Drainage control features shall not be constructed in such a manner as to divert run-off into stream channels. Debris generated from treatment activities will be removed from stream channels unless instructed otherwise by a resource specialist or authorized FS Officer. Trees in or on banks of stream courses that are providing bank and stream channel stability shall not be removed. The authorized FS Officer will identify exceptions where restoration or additional thinning is needed for resource concerns. The authorized FS Officer will use their authority for travel courses, temporary roads, and landing locations to protect stream courses that were not designated on the project contract map. Roads and travel courses should be outsloped when closer than 50 feet to the channel to minimize concentration of water/sediment. Water control features shall be constructed so there is adequate filter distance between structure outlets and the drainage (minimum 50 feet and width can increase as slope steepness increases). An undisturbed filter strip of vegetation and litter shall be maintained between primary travel courses, decks, and roads. The strip should be wide enough to adequately prevent sediment from entering the drainage.
123
Heber Allotment
Springs and seeps will be protected from heavy equipment treatment activities and will include a 50 foot limited access buffer that excludes mechanized equipment use.
Operating Season Limitations Ground disturbance activities shall be limited to completely dry, solidly frozen soil conditions, or follows the forest’s guidelines for excessive rutting (available in project record).
Mechanized Equipment Travel / Ground Disturbance Mechanized equipment usage for harvesting or extracting biomass shall be restricted to slope gradients of less than 40 percent. Preferred method for harvesting or extracting biomass using mechanized equipment in upland areas will be to approach the material longitudinally at a 45 degree angle to the slope direction, cut or grapple the material, and then back the equipment out. Turning should be performed when moving in the upslope direction. Maintaining this 45 degree angle travel pattern (herringbone pattern) when moving across the slope is most desirable. This BMP allows for a reduction in ground disturbance by limiting turning of equipment and aims to retain as much of a filtering effect of the undisturbed ground cover as possible. Slash can be placed on travel courses to be driven over which will reduce soil disturbance, lessen rutting impacts, and add ground cover. Single passes consisting of travel to cut and to grapple material and backing out are encouraged. Single passes will lessen soil disturbance and rutting impacts. Excessive ground disturbance that displaces topsoil and inverts subsoil to the surface should be minimized. The heavy clay content at the subsurface present in soil types within the project area, if brought to the surface, may hinder revegetation efforts.
Travel Courses for Product Removal Use existing travel courses where properly located. Travel courses should follow the contour of the slope as much as possible. Primary travel courses are to be water-barred, scarified, and seeded with primarily native species as needed. All berms or depressions created along travel courses, such as ruts, will be filled in or removed, restoring the travel courses to the natural grade of the slope as much as possible. Excess slash generated from the project should be spread in addition to water-barring where conditions allow.
Decking Where material is being decked, minimize disturbance to existing ground cover, surface soil and rock material, and any existing surface organic material (i.e. surface litter and duff or old semi-decomposed branches/logs).
Servicing and Refueling Equipment During servicing and refueling of equipment, pollutants shall not be allowed to enter any waterway, riparian area, or stream course. Select service and refueling areas well away from wet areas and surface water. Construct berms around such sites to contain spills. Spill prevention, containment, and counter measure plans are required if the fuel exceeds 660 gallons in a single container or if total storage at a site exceeds 1,320 gallons.
124 Environmental Assessment
Project contract administrator shall designate the locations, size, and allowable uses of service and fuel areas. The authorized FS Officer shall be aware of actions to be taken in case of a hazardous substance spill. Equipment operators shall maximize the recovery and proper disposal of all fuels, fluids, lubricants, empty containers, and replacement parts.
Prescribed Burning For the retention of long term soil productivity, to maintain the sediment filtering capacity of uplands and streamside management zones, and to reduce erosion, prescribed burning should be managed at low to moderate burn intensities. Machine constructed control lines shall not be constructed on slopes greater than 40 percent in all areas or within SMZ’s. Exceptions will be identified by the authorized FS Officer in consultation with a FS watershed specialist and specific mitigations will be determined at that time. No new prescribed fire containment line construction paralleling wash/stream courses built with mechanized equipment. Containment lines, new or old, shall receive watershed work (drainage, waterbars, seeding, etc), if needed. Limit burning so that less than 5% of total acres within a 6th code watershed, receive treatments resulting in high soil burn severity. Site specific determinations will be used for seeding of high soil burn severity areas. Seed mix will include an annual cover crop and a native perennial mix of grasses. Limit burning so that less than 15% of the total acres within a 6th code watershed, receive moderate soil burn severity. Limit burning so that less than 50% of the total acres within a 6th code watershed, receive any level of burning. (Applicable to 6th watersheds that contain acreages over 150 acres within the analysis area) The burn plan developed by the FMO will include mitigation measures and BMPs addressing water and air quality. Riparian areas previously burned in Rodeo-Chediski Wildfire will be excluded from prescribed fire. Ignition shall be above slope breaks of active floodplain. Fire will be managed such that burning into streamside management zones where riparian vegetation is present is limited to 15% or less of the area of the SMZ when adjacent upland zones have not recovered hydrologically from project entries. Prescribed burning should be coordinated with livestock grazing. Livestock use may be deferred, if necessary in order to establish grasses in sufficient quantity to carry fire, prior to burning, or to protect new growth after burning.
Roads Maintenance of Roads (see project record for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest BMPs for Road Maintenance) Existing and temporary roads are maintained throughout the life of the project to ensure that drainage structures are functioning properly and that concentrated run-off does not occur. Drainage control structures will receive maintenance prior to winter shutdown of project operations. Once no longer needed Maintenance Level1 roads will be closed and temporary roads will be decommissioned in a timely manner with closure structures, drainage control, and erosion protection. Remove berms that may impede surface drainage on closed roads.
125
Heber Allotment
Infrastructure Obtain surface water and groundwater under appropriate Federal and State legal and regulatory authorities to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to stream processes, aquatic and riparian habitats and communities, groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and recreation and aesthetic values Construct and complete wells consistent with applicable Federal and State regulations, use licensed well drilling contractors, use suitable measures to avoid or minimize well contamination, inter-aquifer exchange of water, floodwaters from contaminating the aquifer, and infiltration of surface water. Operate wells only for purposes of livestock use. Locate, operate, and maintain water conveyance structures in such a manner as to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.
Coarse Woody Debris / Vegetative Ground Cover To maintain or improve soil productivity as well provide soil protection, manage towards providing or retaining the following amounts of coarse woody debris (3 inches plus diameter size class) by vegetation type as follows: ♦ 2 – 5 tons/acre in pinyon-juniper woodland types ♦ Vegetative ground cover, in addition to residual coarse woody debris left after treatment should aim to produce amounts that are within a reasonable range of variability aligned with the natural productivity of the site.
Soils Site Specific Determinations Site specific determinations for proper BMP implementation may be required for but not limited to the following site conditions: Treatment areas that include locations of existing unsatisfactory soil conditions where soil loss tolerance rates are near or at their threshold value. Broadcast seeding of native species may be used as a restoration treatment to foster regeneration of more desirable vegetation diversity and composition.
Noxious Weeds Prior to moving any equipment onto the project area, the equipment needs to be cleaned and free of weeds/seeds. The Forest Service will be notified prior to each piece of equipment enters the Project. Movement of equipment within treatment units within the project area can occur without cleaning, unless noxious weeds are found. If noxious weed populations are identified prior to implementation avoid the area until a District weed coordinator can evaluate. Any seeding that occurs on the project shall be certified weed free.
Cultural Resources Any ground-disturbing activity associated with the proposed improvements of the allotment will be surveyed prior to implementation and an archeologist will be consulted to ensure that the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are met. All historic properties will be avoided during the implementation of the proposed range improvements, thereby ensuring that there is no detrimental effect upon cultural resources. If maintenance of existing facilities (fences, roads, tanks, etc.) are found to be in areas that have not been previously surveyed, archaeological survey will be completed prior to any maintenance or other project actions within that area. All eligible and unevaluated sites located during new survey will be flagged and avoided so
126 Environmental Assessment that no damage is done to historic properties in the project area. If unidentified sites are encountered during new construction, all work in that locale shall be halted and the District, Zone or Forest Archaeologist shall be notified immediately.
127
Heber Allotment
Appendix B – Cumulative Effects The table below represents past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities used in the cumulative effects analysis. Past projects were identified that have occurred in the last 25 years and bounded by the project area (Heber Allotment). Watershed analyzed cumulative effects on a different spatial scale. Watershed cumulative effects analysis can be found in Chapter 3 in the Watershed and Soils section of this EA.
Project Name Activity
Aspen-St. Joe, Brookbank, Bruno Fire piles, Decker Salvage, Heber-Overgaard WUI, Hilltop WUI, Jersey Horse II, Misc. piles, R-C Broadcast Burning, Pile Burning Fire piles, R-C Fire Rehab, Rodeo Chediski Prescribed Burning, Larson EA Aspen-St. Joe, Buckskin Salvage, Decker Salvage, Forest Lakes WUI, Ross Draw, Timber Cuts Walker Salvage, Yarrow EIS Area, Jersey Horse, Larson EA Rodeo-Chediski area Compacting/Crushing of Fuels Jersey Horse II, R-C Fire Rehab Fuel Break Aspen-St Joe, Brookbank, Bruno Fire piles, Buckskin Salvage, Decker Salvage, Heber- Piling, Chipping, Rearrangement of Overgaard WUI, Hilltop WUI, Jersey Horse Fuels II, Legacy Salvage, OW Salvage, Misc. piles Smith, Walnut, miscellaneous Wildfire (not including R-C)
Reforestation Tree Planting
Powerline Maintenance Tree Encroachment Control
Non-Structural Watershed R-C Fire Rehab, miscellaneous Improvements
R-C Fire Rehab, Aspen-St. Joe Wildlife Habitat Improvement Noxious Weed Treatments, Range Heber Allotment Forage Improvement, Grazing Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Plan -----
Heber Wild Horse Territory -----
Travel Management Rule Recreation, OHV use
128