Heber Wild Horse Territory

Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination

Black Mesa Ranger District Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests U.S. Forest Service

January 2021

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

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

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Contents Introduction ...... 1 History of Horses in the Area...... 1 Analysis Process ...... 3 Location and Habitat ...... 3 Horse Population Estimates ...... 7 Population Estimates Reported to Congress ...... 7 Aerial Survey Data Obtained During Wildlife Surveys ...... 8 Aerial Survey Data Obtained During Horse-Specific Surveys ...... 9 Summary of Flight Population Data ...... 13 Tier 1 Analysis ...... 13 Water ...... 14 Forage ...... 18 Cover and Space ...... 26 Tier 2 Analysis ...... 32 Other Considerations ...... 34 Tier 3 Analysis ...... 34 Proposed Appropriate Management Level ...... 35 References Cited ...... 37 Appendix A: Letter Establishing the Territory ...... 41 Appendix B: Analysis Process ...... 43 Tier 1 ...... 43 Tier 2 ...... 45 Tier 3 ...... 46 Appendix C: Hydrology Report ...... 47

Tables Table 1. Population estimates for the Heber Wild Horse Territory, reported in the Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act Report to Congress ...... 7 Table 2. Horses observed within the Heber Wild Horse Territory during wildlife surveys ...... 8 Table 3. Horses observed outside the Heber Wild Horse Territory during wildlife surveys ...... 9 Table 4. Horse-specific survey within the Heber Wild Horse Territory, May 2014, February 2015, and April 2017 ...... 12 Table 5. Horse-specific survey outside the Heber Wild Horse Territory, May 2014, February 2015, and April 2017 ...... 12 Table 6. Tier 1 summary: forage, water, cover, and space sufficiency in the Heber Wild Horse Territory ...... 13 Table 7. Average snow depth and snow water equivalent for the Heber SNOTEL cooperative site 519 ...... 15 Table 8. Average snow depth and snow water equivalent for the Heber RAWS cooperative site 023961 ...... 15 Table 9. Water sources inside the Heber Wild Horse Territory ...... 16 Table 10. Total available forage...... 18 Table 11. Forage needs of permitted livestock grazing in the Heber Wild Horse Territory ...... 22 Table 12. Summary of forage utilization (cattle, horse, and wildlife) for the Black Canyon and Heber allotments 2007−2018 ...... 24 Table 13. Elk use (percent) in the Baca subunit, from the Arizona Game and Fish Department ...... 25 Table 14. Calculated horse carrying capacity (available forage) ...... 33

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests i Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figures Figure 1. Map of Heber Wild Horse Territory ...... 4 Figure 2. Rodeo-Chediski Fire perimeter ...... 5 Figure 3. Rodeo-Chediski Fire burn severity ...... 6 Figure 4. Flight pattern and survey coverage, 2014 survey ...... 10 Figure 5. Flight pattern and survey coverage, 2015 survey ...... 11 Figure 6. Flight pattern and survey coverage, 2017 survey ...... 12 Figure 7. Precipitation sites close to the Heber Wild Horse Territory ...... 14 Figure 8. Water sources within the Heber Wild Horse Territory ...... 17 Figure 9. Heber Wild Horse Territory and grazing allotments ...... 21 Figure 10. Broad overview of terrain ...... 28 Figure 11. Lower elevation, southeast-facing slope south of the territory, transitioning to winter range ...... 29 Figure 12. Higher elevation, ponderosa pine, characteristic of summer range ...... 29 Figure 13. Seasonal movement of large ungulates in the project area, in relation to the territory ...... 30 Figure 14. Overview of fences and recorded observations of horses during February 2015 and April 2017 ...... 31 Figure 15. View of Stott Tank, July 30, 2014 ...... 47 Figure 16. View of Wilson Tank, July 30, 2014 ...... 47 Figure 17. View of Hangman’s Tank, July 31, 2014 ...... 48 Figure 18. View of Zag Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 48 Figure 19. View of Zig Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 49 Figure 20. View of Black Canyon Lake, July 29, 2014 ...... 49 Figure 21. View of JJ Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 50 Figure 22. View of Horse Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 50 Figure 23. View of Ridge Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 51 Figure 24. View of Hidden Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 51 Figure 25. View of Mustang Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 52 Figure 26. View of Clay Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 52 Figure 27. View of Hoyle Tank, July 29, 2014 ...... 53 Figure 28. View of Swell Tank, July 31, 2014 ...... 53 Figure 29. Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9567V-1, July 31, 2014 ...... 54 Figure 30. View of Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9567V-2, July 31, 2014 .. 54 Figure 31. View of Upper Sharp Tank taken on July 31, 2014 ...... 55 Figure 32. View of Reds Tank, July 31, 2014...... 55 Figure 33. View of KP Road Tank, July 31, 2014 ...... 56 Figure 34. View of Sharp Hollow Tank, July 31, 2014 ...... 56 Figure 35. View of Fork Tank, July 30, 2014 ...... 57 Figure 36. View of Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9591, July 30, 2014 ...... 57 Figure 37. View of Sharp Hollow Tank, July 31, 2014 ...... 58 Figure 38. View of Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9053D, July 30, 2014 ..... 58 Figure 39. View of Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 86A...... 59

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ii Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Introduction The Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended (16 U.S.C. sections 1331 through 40), requires the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management to manage wild horses in a manner to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship on public lands. To attain such a balance, wild free-roaming horses associated with the Heber Wild Horse Territory on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests should be managed to ensure significant progress is made toward achieving the 2015 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan (land management plan) standards and guidelines for upland vegetation and riparian plant communities, watershed function, and habitat quality for animal populations, as well as other site-specific or landscape- level objectives, including those necessary to protect and manage threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

The 2015 land management plan provides guidance for 12 management areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, including the Heber Wild Horse Territory. The record of decision for the land management plan, signed in 2015, states the Heber Wild Horse Territory Management Plan will describe the appropriate management guidance.

This document describes the process used to determine the proposed appropriate management level. Forest Service Manual 2260 states population levels are established by considering (a) number of animals, (b) suitability of range, (c) range condition and trend, and (d) other associated resources and resource use activities (USDA Forest Service 2003). The Southwestern Region Supplement (R3 2200-91- 1) reiterated that direction by stating range analysis guidelines will be used for determining condition, trend, and capacity estimates in wild horse and burro territories; and these studies, together with other resource and use studies, will serve as the basis for establishment of population levels (USDA Forest Service 1991).

The process detailed in the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook H-4700-1, appendix 3 (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010) meets the direction outlined in the Forest Service manual. The National Academy of Sciences National Research Council committee was tasked with investigating how the Bureau of Land Management personnel could use the best science available to improve management of horses and burros on the range (Committee to Review the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Management Program 2013). They found that how appropriate management levels are established, monitored, and adjusted is not (1) transparent to stakeholders, (2) supported by scientific information, and (3) amenable to adaptation with new information and environmental and social change. They also determined that while the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook provides some degree of consistency in goals, allocation of forage, and general habitat considerations, it lacks the specificity needed to fully establish and adjust appropriate management levels. Despite the flaws identified, this analysis method is considered the best available science. Thus, this document was prepared using the analysis method described in the Bureau of Land Management handbook (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010). We acknowledge the limitations identified and addressed the concerns raised by the committee to the extent possible.

History of Horses in the Area Although it has not been done on public ranges for decades, the practice of keeping free-ranging horses (horses not restricted to a particular area) for potential use by a livestock association or an individual still occurs in parts of the Southwest. This is true of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation that forms the southern boundary of most of the Black Mesa Ranger District (figure 1).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 1 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

According to a letter from then District Ranger Klein (USDA Forest Service 1993a), until the boundary was first fenced, horses moved freely back and forth between ownerships. Historically, as livestock production on National Forest System lands became more regulated, free-ranging horses were steadily removed either by herding them back across the boundary or by removing them to auction.

According to allotment inspection notes, filed correspondence, and general allotment notes (District 2210 files), from the 1980s to the 1990s, horses continued to move back and forth across the boundary fence wherever the fence needed repair or gates were left open. It was common for the boundary fence to fall into disrepair during winter months and require significant maintenance before cattle could be turned on to the allotments the following spring (District 2210 files). The need for fence maintenance has been the subject of at least one memorandum of understanding and other correspondence between the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests personnel and the White Mountain Apache Tribe (USDA Forest Service 2240 files).

Establishment of the Heber Wild Horse Territory With passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended (the act), came a mandate to establish territories for the use and protection of wild horses. Forest Service regulations define wild free-roaming horses and burros as: … all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros and their progeny that have used lands of the National Forest System on or after December 15, 1971, or do hereafter use these lands as all or part of their habitat, but does not include any horse or burro introduced onto the National Forest System on or after December 15, 1971, by accident, negligence, or willful disregard of private ownership. Unbranded, claimed horses and burros for which the claim is found to be erroneous, are also considered as wild and free-roaming if they meet the criteria above [36 CFR section 222.60(b)(13)].

In compliance with the act and its subsequent implementing regulations, a territory of approximately 19,700 acres was established in the Black Canyon area of the then Heber Ranger District. A letter from the forest supervisor to the regional forester, dated 1974, indicated the territorial use of the area, as it was known at the time of the passage of the act (USDA Forest Service 1974). That letter to the regional forester, including the map delineating the territory, is included as appendix A. Developing and implementing the components of a “territory plan” is required under the provisions of the act (see 36 CFR section 222.61).

The letter to the regional forester (USDA Forest Service 1974) included the first recorded census (seven horses), with notations that the stallion may have been sterile because no foals were seen for several years. In 1976, five horses were reported and the number of horses ranged from five to eight until 1993 when the Heber district ranger reported to the forest supervisor that only two mares remained (USDA Forest Service 1993a).

Ethnographic Study To help augment the history of horses in the area, an ethnographic study consisting of conducting and synthesizing oral histories given by people with various associations with the territory was conducted (Kline 2017). The final report of that study states The history of the area horse herd(s) suggests that there are two periods of occupation. The first period dates between the 1930s to circa 1990, followed by a second period that dates from circa 1990 to the present. The first period encompasses the originally designated herd of seven horses, which more than likely descended from the turned-out Army remount horses or other turned-out horses in the 1930s and then dissipated by circa 1990. The current horse

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 2 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

population dating from circa 1990 appears to be a mixture of horses from the Fort Apache Reservation and other unidentified horses with no substantiated link with the originally designated herd. As such, this study concludes that there is no historical precedent for the current population occupying the area. The history of the horse herds does not provide any conclusive, historical basis for how to designate the horses for the future as the originally designated herd does not appear to be extant. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the author that the Forest and interested parties determine future direction and management of the Territory based on the current condition and population of horses” (Kline 2017). Analysis Process This analysis followed the multi-tiered analysis process described in the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook H-4700-1, appendix 3 (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010) to determine the appropriate management level of horses. The details of the analysis process are included in appendix B of this document.

The multi-tiered analysis process includes these three tiers: • Tier 1: Determine whether the four essential habitat components (water, forage, cover, and space) are present in sufficient amounts to sustain healthy horse populations and healthy rangelands over the long term. • Tier 2: Determine the amount of sustainable forage available for horse use. • Tier 3: Determine whether or not the projected horse herd size is sufficient to maintain genetically diverse horse populations (avoid inbreeding depression).

This report deviates slightly from the Bureau of Land Management handbook when calculating the amount of forage available. The National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed the Handbook noted difficulties in using animal unit equivalents when evaluating forage availability and that animal unit equivalents for horses range from 1.0 to 1.5 (Committee to Review the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Management Program 2013). In this document, the amount of forage available for horse use is expressed as pounds of forage (as detailed in tier 2, one horse requires 9,490 pounds of forage per year).

The Bureau of Land Management handbook describes using utilization monitoring and use-pattern mapping for determining forage availability. However, for this particular territory, the district has three years of forage production data available, as well as annual utilization data. A combination of both forage production data and forage utilization data was used, resulting in a more accurate calculation of available forage. Location and Habitat The Heber Wild Horse Territory (territory) is located in the Black Canyon area of the Black Mesa Ranger District and consists of approximately 19,700 acres. The territory boundary was established and delineated in 1974 following an inventory conducted by the former Heber Ranger District (USDA Forest Service 1974) to address the mandates of the Act. The territory is about 2.5 to 3 miles wide by about 7 miles long, centered about 5 miles southwest of Heber, Arizona. The designated boundary runs roughly in a north-easterly direction from its southern boundary on National Forest System Road 300 to the northern boundary, which is private land. The north/northeastern portion of the territory is bounded by the community of Heber, with houses, roads, and fences. The west/northwest flank of the territory is bound by the Highway 260 corridor fence.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 3 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The southeast flank is an irregular boundary comprised of ridgelines, drainages, and section lines. The Mogollon Rim with its steep canyons and ridges lies to the south of the territory. Figure 1 displays the delineated territory, showing the proximity of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, the town of Heber with its associated infrastructure, and the bounding fences.

Figure 1. Map of Heber Wild Horse Territory

Elevation ranges from about 6,700 feet at the northeast boundary to about 7,700 feet at Brookbank Point at the southwest boundary. Vegetation ranges from transitional pinyon/juniper at the lower elevation to mixed conifer on the higher northern aspects. The primary vegetation type is ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) that occurs in both dense and open stands.

In June 2002, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire (see figure 2) burned approximately 15,405 acres (78 percent) of the territory. Of that total, 5,848 acres (38 percent) were moderately to severely burned resulting in significantly altered vegetative conditions (see figure 3). These burned areas, that were predominantly dense stands of trees, are now in a grass and brush vegetation stage with ponderosa pine, juniper (Juniperus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), aspen (Populus tremuloides) and mixed conifer regeneration becoming reestablished. Geographic information system (GIS) vegetation structural stage modeling was completed on representative stands within the territory to estimate what would occur as the trees in this burned area regenerate (modeling data and results are available in the project record).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 4 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The modeling predicts that under natural progression, the canopy cover on ponderosa pine sites that had a moderate to high burn severity could increase from 25 percent in 2007, to 29 percent in 2027, and 42 percent by 2057, if there are no subsequent fires or other events that would remove the canopy cover. It is estimated present forage production levels will decrease as the tree cover increases. This canopy closure is primarily due to the regeneration and growth of trees and to a lesser degree increased brush, with the most rapid response coming from juniper and oak.

Figure 2. Rodeo-Chediski Fire perimeter

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 5 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 3. Rodeo-Chediski Fire burn severity

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 6 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Horse Population Estimates To understand the recent history and current status of horses in the project area, reports to Congress (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service 1980, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995), aerial survey data, and district files (USDA Forest Service 2200 files) were utilized. The aerial survey data includes information obtained during Arizona Game and Fish Department wildlife surveys, as well as information from three aerial surveys commissioned by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests to estimate the current horse population.

Population Estimates Reported to Congress The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act required the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to submit periodic joint reports on their administration of the wild horse and burro program. One of the components included in those reports was an estimate of the population of the designated territories. To meet this reporting requirement, the local district submitted the wild horse population estimates annually within the “Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on Public Lands Report” (Report FS-2200-E, USDA Forest Service 2270 files). This information was compiled at the agency level and included in the joint report to Congress. The requirement for the periodic reports was terminated effective May 15, 2000 (see section 3003 of Public Law 104-66). District files (USDA Forest Service 2260, 2210) indicate from 1993 through 2000 wild horse numbers were reported as zero. It is not known if this is because horses were not present or if inventories were not conducted. As displayed in table 1, the last year any wild horses were reported in the Heber Wild Horse Territory was 1992.

Table 1. Population estimates for the Heber Wild Horse Territory, reported in the Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act Report to Congress Number of wild horses reported Year reported to Congress Year (population estimates) 1980 1974 7 1976 5 1978 5 1980 8 1984 1982 5 1984 7 1988 1986 5 1988 5 1990 1990 5 1992 1992 5 1995 1994 0 1995 0 Source: USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service (1980, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 7 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Aerial Survey Data Obtained During Wildlife Surveys The first post-Rodeo-Chediski-Fire horse survey data were recorded in the winter of 2005. That survey, and most others since, involved part of Game Management Unit 3C and were flown by Arizona Game and Fish personnel as part of their normal wildlife population surveys. Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel normally conduct annual helicopter surveys for elk in September and deer in January (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2007). The portion of Game Management Unit 3C involved in the surveys can most easily be described as the Fort Apache Indian Reservation to the south, Highway 260 to the north, the community of Linden to the east, and the Mogollon Rim to Highway 260 on the west. This area involves most of the National Forest System lands burned by the Rodeo-Chediski Fire and consequently the lands where horses have been sighted. The territory comprises about 12 percent of the Arizona Game and Fish Department aerial survey area. Horses were counted along with wildlife and the double count methodology was used for both to estimate the total populations (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2007). The results of these surveys are shown in table 2 and table 3.

Table 2. Horses observed within the Heber Wild Horse Territory during wildlife surveys Estimated Population Based on Double Count Date of Survey Horses Observed Methodology 1/13−16/2005 See table note See table note 1/16−17/2006 See table note See table note 9/19−20/2006 See table note See table note 1/27−28/2007 See table note See table note 9/5−6/2007 0 0 12/20/2008 0 0 9/1/2009 6 not analyzed 12/18/2009 0 0 8/31−9/1/2010 0 0 12/17−18/2010 0 0 8/28−29/2011 0 0 9/9/2012 0 0 12/13/2012 0 0 9/8−9/2013 0 0 12/17−18/2013 0 0 Note: During these surveys the Arizona Game and Fish Department did not note if the horses were in the territory. Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 8 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Table 3. Horses observed outside the Heber Wild Horse Territory during wildlife surveys Estimated Population Based on Double Count Date of Survey Horses Observed Methodology 1/13−16/2005 26 102 1/16−17/2006 33 128 9/19−20/2006 65 253 1/27−28/2007 37 144 9/5−6/2007 40 156 12/20/2008 5 not analyzed 9/1/2009 5 not analyzed 12/18/2009 20 not analyzed 8/31−9/1/2010 50 not analyzed 12/17−18/2010 19 not analyzed 8/28−29/2011 51 not analyzed 9/9/2012 27 not analyzed 12/13/2012 33 not analyzed 9/8−9/2013 44 not analyzed 12/17−18/2013 61 not analyzed Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Aerial surveys prior to September 2007 did not indicate if horses observed were within the delineated territory. Surveys conducted since September 2007 used GPS data to determine if observed horses were within the territory.

Aerial Survey Data Obtained During Horse-Specific Surveys At the request of the Black Mesa district ranger, a flight was commissioned by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in November 2006 specifically to estimate the horse population within the territory boundaries. The November 8, 2006 survey targeted the territory using one-half mile gridlines flying north and south, and the total survey time was 1 hour 7 minutes, which covered 88 linear miles (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2007). The flight pattern for the 2006 flight is not available. The survey results are as follows. • Horses observed within the Heber Wild Horse Territory = 0 • Estimated population within the territory based on double count methodology = 0 • Horses observed outside the Heber Wild Horse Territory = 10 • Estimated population outside the territory based on double count methodology = 26

As stated earlier, the November 2006 flight targeted the territory. Double count methodology was used. While no horses were observed within the territory, a total of 10 horses in 2 groups were observed within a few miles of the west boundary of the territory. The first “group” was a single stud, and the second group consisted of seven adults and two foals. A formula using observation rate, square miles of habitat flown, total habitat area, and total habitat area surveys was used to estimate the population of 26 horses within the area surveyed (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2007).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 9 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests commissioned flights in 2014, 2015 and 2017 specifically to estimate the horse populations, but unlike the 2006 flight, they included a larger area across the Sitgreaves National Forest extending the survey area east from Linden to Showlow. These latest surveys (2014, 2015, and 2017) were conducted using the same protocols and the data subjected to the same statistical analysis, making the results directly comparable. The flight patterns were altered based on the statistician’s analysis. The flights for the May 2014 survey were conducted on a grid that covered the territory and included areas across the Sitgreaves National Forest where horses had recently been observed (figure 4). GPS waypoints were collected during the flights to show the coverage. Six flights occurred over 2 days (May 12 and 13). GPS waypoints were also collected for every horse observation. The protocols, statistical analysis, and flight pattern were replicated in February 2015 and April 2017, as displayed in figure 5 and figure 6. The results of these three surveys are displayed in table 4 and table 5.

Figure 4. Flight pattern and survey coverage, 2014 survey

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 10 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 5. Flight pattern and survey coverage, 2015 survey

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 11 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 6. Flight pattern and survey coverage, 2017 survey

Table 4. Horse-specific survey within the Heber Wild Horse Territory, May 2014, February 2015, and April 2017 Date of survey Horses observed Estimated Population* 5/12 to 14/2014 18 16 to 21 2/17 to 19/2015 16 9 to 32 4/18 to 19/2017 27 22 to 51 * Based on photo mark-recapture methodology (Lubow and Ransom 2009)

Table 5. Horse-specific survey outside the Heber Wild Horse Territory, May 2014, February 2015, and April 2017 Date of survey Horses observed Estimated Population* 5/12 to 14/2014 184 177 to 258 2/17 to 19/2015 201 204 to 294 4/18 to 19/2017 272 270 to 420 * Based on simultaneous double-count methodology

Data collected included both a simultaneous double count survey across the entire area surveyed and a separate photo mark-recapture survey within the territory.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 12 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Statistical analysis of the 2014 data resulted in an estimate of 0.5 percent of the horses present in the territory not being observed. Two groups of horses were seen within the territory, 14 individual adult horses and 4 foals, resulting in an estimated population of 14 adults for the territory. Outside the territory (across the Sitgreaves National Forest), 184 horses were observed, resulting in an estimated population of 177 to 258 horses outside the territory (Lubow 2014).

The February 2015 and April 2017 flights were conducted utilizing the same methods as the May 2014 flight. For this reason, the 2015 and 2017 survey data can be directly compared to the 2014 survey data. The flight patterns were altered based on the statistician’s analysis, and additional flights across the territory were not needed to reach the same level of accuracy. Statistical analysis of the data resulted in an estimate of 18.0 percent of the horses present in the territory not being observed in 2015 and an average of 27 percent in 2017.

In 2015, four groups of horses were seen within the territory, 15 individual adult horses and 1 foal, resulting in an estimated population of 9 to 32 horses for the territory. Outside the territory (across the Sitgreaves National Forest), 201 horses were observed, resulting in an estimated population of 204 to 294 horses outside the territory (Lubow 2015).

In 2017, five groups of horses were seen within the territory, 24 adult horses and 3 foals, resulting in an estimated population of 22 to 51 horses within the territory. Outside the territory (across the Sitgreaves National Forest), 272 horses were observed, resulting in an estimated population of 270 to 420 horses.

Summary of Flight Population Data The data from the surveys conducted prior to May 2014 cannot be compared directly due to variations in protocols, statistical analyses, and flight patterns. However, it should be noted horses were observed within the territory only in September 2009, May 2014, February 2015, and April 2017. Tier 1 Analysis The purpose of the tier 1 analysis is to determine whether the four essential habitat components (forage, water, cover, and space) are present in sufficient amounts to sustain a healthy horse population as well as healthy rangelands over the long term. The results of the tier 1 analysis are summarized in table 6. The discussion of the analysis follows the table.

Table 6. Tier 1 summary: forage, water, cover, and space sufficiency in the Heber Wild Horse Territory Sufficient Insufficient Sufficient Insufficient Cover and Insufficient Cover Sufficient Water Water Forage Forage Space and Space Yes (except during not applicable Yes (except not applicable not applicable Yes. Observations years of extreme during years of indicate the cover drought) above average and space may be snowpack) insufficient, additional monitoring is needed to better understand how horses are using the territory

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 13 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Water Precipitation and Environmental Setting Average annual precipitation ranges from approximately 18 inches along the northern territory boundary along Arizona State Highway 260, to approximately 26 inches along the southern territory boundary along National Forest System Road 300, with approximately 35 percent of this precipitation occurring as snow (Western Region Climate Center 2015). Average winter temperatures range from approximately 17 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and summer temperatures range from 44 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit (Western Region Climate Center 2015).

The Heber (site 519) SNOTEL site (snow telemetry network) is located within the territory; it is operated by Natural Resources Conservation Service personnel. This site is close to the Gentry Lookout Tower at an elevation of 7,640 feet. It has been monitored since 1979. In addition, there is a cooperative weather station located at the Black Mesa Ranger District in Heber, Arizona; elevation 6,600 feet. This station, identified as Heber Ranger District RAWS (remote automated weather station, site 023961), has been run cooperatively by National Weather Service and Forest Service personnel since 1950. Temperature, precipitation, and snowfall data are collected at the site.

Figure 7. Precipitation sites close to the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 14 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 7 shows the locations of the two weather sites in relation to the Heber Wild Horse Territory. Median snow depth and snow water equivalent for the sites during the months of December through May is shown in table 7 and table 8. During average snow fall years, these months represent the period when snowpack develops and subsequently melts providing moisture for plant growth and surface water accumulation. Snow water equivalent is the amount of water contained within the snowpack. It can be thought of as the depth of water that would theoretically result if the entire snowpack melted instantaneously. Table 7 and table 8 illustrate snowpack generally begins with small accumulations during the month of December, peaks during the months of February and March, and dramatically decreases as spring temperatures increase in April and May.

Directly within the territory, snow data is available for the higher summer range elevations, but not for the lower winter range. The Heber SNOTEL site is more closely related to the summer range within the Heber Territory due to its similar elevation while the Heber Ranger District cooperative station is more closely related to the winter range due to its similar elevation.

Table 7. Average snow depth and snow water equivalent for the Heber SNOTEL cooperative site 519 Month Median snow depth (inches) Median snow water equivalent (inches) December 1.5 0.8 January 12.3 2.3 February 14.1 4.2 March 11.5 4.3 April 1.7 0.9 May 0.0 0.0 Source: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/webmap/index.html and http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?az3961

Table 8. Average snow depth and snow water equivalent for the Heber RAWS cooperative site 023961 Month Median snow depth (inches) Median snow water equivalent (inches) December 1.0 Less than 1.0 January 2.0 Less than 1.0 February 1.0 Less than 1.0 March 0 0 April 0 0 May 0 0 Source: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/webmap/index.html and http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?az3961

Thirty-eight percent of the territory (5,848 acres) burned at a moderate to high severity from the Rodeo- Chediski Fire, affecting vegetation and soil productivity. This continues to affect water yields within territory watersheds. Currently, there is more water available for runoff to local area drainages due to mortality of forest stands in the territory from the fire. As the watersheds affected by the fire continue to recover (meaning the vegetation transitions from grasses to ponderosa pine and mixed conifer), water yields are expected to decrease in the territory over time. This would equate to less water available for wildlife, livestock, and horses in the future.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 15 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

There are no perennial streams within the territory. However, approximately 45 miles of intermittent and 15 miles of ephemeral streams (figure 8) are located within the territory (Apache-Sitgreaves GIS data). Intermittent streams generally respond to spring runoff during the months of March through May as well as monsoonal precipitation that occurs between the months of July through September. The largest intermittent streams in the territory include Black Canyon and West Fork Black Canyon and associated tributaries. These intermittent drainages provide seasonal water to livestock, wildlife, and horses, generally in the spring and summer months and possibly during warmer periods of the winter after periods of snowmelt.

Approximately 23 of 24 inventoried water tanks (as deciphered through Apache-Sitgreaves GIS data), as well as Black Canyon Lake, were visited during field work conducted in 2014 by Forest Service personnel. These water sources are listed in table 9 (and in appendix C) and are shown in figure 8.

Table 9. Water sources inside the Heber Wild Horse Territory Summer or Grazing Infra No. Name winter range Structure Location allotment 022224 Stott Tank Summer Stock tank 110.731, 34.316 Heber 022256 Wilson Tank Summer Stock tank 110.736, 34.314 Heber 022089 Hangman’s Tank Summer Stock tank 110.734, 34.304 Heber 022258 Zag Tank Summer Stock tank 110.729, 34.329 Heber 022258 Zig Tank Summer Stock tank 110.732, 34.329 Heber na Black Canyon Lake Summer Lake 110.701, 34.331 Heber 002104 JJ Tank Summer Stock tank 110.723, 34.335 Heber 022190 Ridge Tank Summer Stock tank 110.695, 34.338 Heber 022094 Horse Tank Summer Stock tank 110.712, 34.338 Heber 022094 Hidden Tank Summer Stock tank 110.695, 34.321 Heber 022130 Mustang Tank Summer Stock tank 110.693, 34.347 Heber 23036 Clay Tank Summer Stock tank 110.682, 34.353 Black Canyon na Hoyle Tank Summer Stock tank 110.685, 34.359 Black Canyon na Swell Tank Summer Stock tank 110.675, 34.368 Black Canyon na Unnamed Road Tank on Winter Stock tank 110.671, 34.382 Black Canyon Forest Service Road 9567V-1 na Unnamed Road Tank on Winter Stock tank 110.661, 34.367 Black Canyon Forest Service Road 9567V-2 na Upper Sharp Tank Winter Stock tank 110.666, 34.385 Black Canyon 23018 Reds Tank Winter Stock tank 110.658, 34.391 Black Canyon na KP Road Tank Winter Stock tank 110.653, 34.394 Black Canyon na Sharp Hollow Tank Winter Stock tank 110.639, 34.396 Black Canyon na Fork Tank Winter Stock tank 110.631, 34.356 Black Canyon na Unnamed Road Tank on Winter Stock tank 110.632, 34.373 Black Canyon Forest Service Road 9591 23021 Sharp Hollow Trick Tank Winter Trick tank 110.626, 34.388 Black Canyon na Unnamed Road Tank on Winter Stock tank 110.621, 34.381 Heber Forest Service Road 9053D na Unnamed Road Tank on Winter Stock tank 110.654, 34.394 Black Canyon Forest Service Road 86A na = not applicable

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 16 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 8. Water sources within the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 17 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 8 illustrates locations of water sources within the territory. During the July 2014 field visits, it was determined adequate sources of water are present to support horses. During the coldest months of the year (December through March), some or all of these sources may freeze over. During the other months, livestock, wildlife, and horses would be able to obtain water during normal years; but most water sources, with exception of Black Canyon Lake, dry up during extreme drought periods as was observed in 2018.

Generally within the territory, reliable water sources are less than 2 miles apart. In the territory, only 443 acres are further than 2 miles from water and only 13 percent of the total area is 1 to 2 miles from a water source (Apache-Sitgreaves GIS data). Thus, the amount of forage not available due to distance from water is very low. A photographic description of developed water sources within the territory is provided in appendix C.

Determination of Water Sufficiency There are generally sufficient water sources within the Heber Wild Horse Territory to keep horses watered year-round. The water sources are reliable (under normal conditions) and well distributed across the territory (figure 8). However, during extreme drought years, most of the water sources may go dry.

The limiting factor appears to be during the winter months (December through March) when, during normal precipitation years, over 1 foot of snowpack could be present in the summer range area of the territory (the western area), and stock tanks freeze over. Although not ideal, studies by Medjell and others (2005) and Salter and Hudson (1979) suggest horses will consume snow in lieu of water for survival. With this information, it is assumed the territory would support animal watering in the winter.

Based on the above discussion of the hydrology report, the amount of water available in the Heber Wild Horse Territory is sufficient, except during years of extreme drought.

Forage Available Forage To determine if the forage within the territory is sufficient, an analysis was completed to determine the capability of the land within the territory to produce forage. The analysis utilized a GIS model along with three years of forage production data to determine the amount of forage available to grazing animals. The model takes into account (1) the annual forage production, (2) topography of the area (slope class), (3) distance from water, and (4) an allowable use factor of 35 percent. The data used for the modeling, as well as the results, are included in the project record as Horse Territory Analysis–Available Forage Production, 2018. Table 10 displays the calculated pounds of forage available based on the three most current years of annual forage production data. Discussion of the data and factors included in the model follows the table.

Table 10. Total available forage Year Calculated Pounds of Total Forage Available 2007 1,498,602 2008 2,310,736 2018 2,125,040 Average 1,978,126

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 18 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The average of three years of annual forage production is included because of the variations in forage production from year to year. The handbook (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010) states a determination of forage availability should not be based on the result of only one year’s monitoring data. A minimum of three to five years of data is preferred. This is because forage production can vary substantially from year to year based on the timing and amount of precipitation received.

The production data were collected using the comparative yield method. This method uses reference quadrats in which the vegetation is harvested, dried, and weighed (Interagency Technical Reference 1734- 4); data from 50 plots were collected along a transect at each sampling site. Sufficient quadrats are harvested on each site to provide calibration of forage production using typical double sampling techniques. The sample sites were randomly selected by soil map unit, burn severity (due to the Rodeo- Chediski fire), and whether the area was seeded following the fire. In 2018, production data were collected on 23 of the original sites, as well as at the six long-term trend monitoring sites within (or close to) the territory. The production data were collected in conjunction with the ground cover, species frequency, and plant composition data discussed in the “Plant Community Composition” section below. A summary of the data collected is available in the project record; original data are on file at the Black Mesa Ranger District.

Slope class is an important consideration when determining forage production and availability because including steep areas (that are not likely to be utilized by grazing animals) would likely result in an overestimation of forage production. The use of steeper slopes differs by class of animal (horses or sheep are known to use steeper areas more readily than cattle); however, all classes generally prefer the flatter areas. In a study of slope use by cattle, feral horses, deer, and bighorn sheep, Ganskoop and Vavra (1987) found all classes had a preference for slopes less than 19 percent (with the bighorn sheep more likely to use the steeper slopes). The GIS model used to determine available forage considers the slopes greater than 60 percent as non-usable and the amount of forage available on slopes between 11 percent and 60 percent available in reduced amounts, as recommended by Holechek (1988). Less than 1 percent of the total area within the territory is steeper than 60 percent, approximately 16 percent is in the 31 to 60 percent slope class, 40 percent is in the 11 to 30 percent slope class, and 43 percent is in the 0 to 10 percent slope class.

Holechek (1988) states the failure to adjust stocking rates for travel distance to water has resulted in considerable range degradation, particularly in the hot, arid rangelands of the southwestern United States. Because of this, the model reduces available forage by 50 percent for areas further than 2 miles from water. Crane and others (1997) found while horses will travel into areas away from water, they have a preference for areas closer to water. That preference results in heavier utilization of forage close to water. This is reflected in the anecdotal observations by district personnel that note the horses are often seen close to the water sources. In the territory, only 443 acres are further than 2 miles from water, thus the reduced availability of forage due to distance from water is very low.

The allowable use factor refers to the amount of use plants can sustain and still maintain vigor, production, and reproductive capability; it is used interchangeably with utilization level here. The land management plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests states the management approach for livestock grazing includes determining the sustainable stocking levels during site-specific environmental analyses completed for livestock management (USDA Forest Service 2016). The determination of sustainable stocking levels includes determining the amount of use the plants can sustain and still achieve desired conditions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 19 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Portions of the Black Canyon and the Heber grazing allotments are within the territory, as detailed below in the “Forage Use” section and displayed in figure 9. The decision notice accompanying the environmental assessment for livestock management on the Black Canyon allotment (USDA Forest Service 1998) set the utilization level at 25 percent for the Black Canyon allotment and was based on the rangeland conditions of that time. When the management of that allotment is reassessed the utilization level is expected to be raised up to 35 percent, based on the improvement in rangeland conditions that has occurred since 1998 (see the “Plant Community Composition” section for discussion of current rangeland conditions). Livestock management on the Heber allotment, portions of which make up the rest of the territory, is currently undergoing site-specific environmental analysis. That analysis recommends a utilization level of up to 35 percent for the Heber allotment (up from 25 percent) (USDA Forest Service 2016). Because the territory overlays these two allotments, it is logical to incorporate a 35 percent utilization guideline for the territory. That determination is based on the current range conditions, and is supported by literature such as Holechek (1988) and Holechek and others (1999).

Using the GIS model to calculate the amount of forage available results in a conservative estimate of the available forage due to the components detailed above. However, as with any natural system, there are many more variables that can affect the amount of forage produced. For instance, periods of prolonged drought will decrease the amount of forage produced, just as periods of above-average precipitation will increase the amount of forage produced.

As discussed in the “Location and Habitat” section, under natural progression, the amount of forage produced in the area will decrease as trees and brush in the area regenerate. Regression curves used to predict forage production on ponderosa pine sites (Jameson 1967) suggest when the canopy cover is from 20 to 40 percent, ponderosa pine sites will produce approximately100 pounds of forage per acre, and forage production on sites with greater than 40 percent will produce less than 50 pounds of forage per acre. Thus, if the canopy cover on the moderate to high burn severity ponderosa pine sites increases to 42 percent by 2057, as the vegetation structural stage modeling predicts, forage production on those sites would decrease to 50 percent of what was produced in 2007.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 20 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 9. Heber Wild Horse Territory and grazing allotments

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 21 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Forage Use Current obligations of the forage resource and utilization monitoring data were reviewed to determine forage sufficiency. The territory overlays portions of the Gentry, Bunger, and Holding pastures of the Heber grazing allotment, and the Sharp Hollow, King Philip, and portions of the Stermer pastures of the Black Canyon grazing allotment (as displayed in figure 9), all of which have permitted livestock grazing. An estimate of the forage needs of the permitted livestock is summarized in table 11.

Table 11. Forage needs of permitted livestock grazing in the Heber Wild Horse Territory Pounds of Forage Permitted Needed to Head Months Support on Allotment Percentage of Permitted Permitted (number of Allotment in Head Livestock Number of Season of head × Territory Months in within Allotment Head Use months) (see figure 9) Territory Territory* Black 60 cow/calf 6/1−10/31 300 60% 180 180,000 Canyon pairs (c/c) Heber 905 c/c 5/1−10/31 5,430 6% 326 326,000 Total not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 506 506,000 * Based on consumption rate of 1,000 pounds of forage for one cow/calf pair per month.

These calculations are considered rough estimates as they are based on the assumption that the capacity of every acre is equal (60 percent of the Black Canyon allotment is within the territory; therefore, 60 percent of the grazing occurs in the territory). But, as discussed previously, there are multiple variables affecting grazing capacity such as slope, canopy cover, soil characteristics, and plant community composition. When coupled with the utilization data discussed below, these numbers show the amount of use authorized by grazing permits is well within the amount of forage the area produces (as discussed in “Available Forage” section above).

District personnel routinely collect utilization data on key areas in the Black Canyon and Heber grazing allotments. A key area is a sampling site deliberately selected to represent a management unit. While the data are collected to help with livestock management, there is no distinction between cattle, horse, or wildlife use. Utilization levels for both allotments, 2007 to 2018, are displayed in table 12. The utilization monitoring data indicate the allowable use guidelines have not been exceeded within the territory over the past several years.

In the Black Canyon allotment, there are nine key areas within the territory where utilization data have been collected since 2001. The predominant method for collecting data is the height/weight method (described in Smith et al. 2012) with grazed class and ocular methods used to a lesser extent. Since 2005, all measurements were taken post livestock removal from the pasture. Utilization levels in the King Phillip, Sharp Hollow, and Stermer pastures have been low since 2007, with utilization of perennial grasses ranging from 0 percent to 36 percent and utilization on the key tree species narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) ranging from 0 percent to 33 percent (the 33 percent occurred in 2018).

For the Gentry and Bunger pastures of the Heber allotment, utilization data have been collected using the landscape appearance method (described in Smith et al. 2012) due to the lack of height/weight chart availability for some of the key species occurring in the allotments. Five of the key areas for the Gentry and Bunger pastures are within the territory. From 2005 through 2017, the utilization in the Gentry and

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 22 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Bunger pastures ranged from none (0 to 5 percent) to moderate (41 to 50 percent), with most of the readings in the none-to-slight (0 to 20 percent) range, and only five readings in the moderate range. Data for 2018 are not yet available for the Heber allotment at the time of writing.

In addition to the utilization data discussed above, Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel collected data through 2013. This monitoring was conducted to determine wildlife herbaceous forage use levels in key areas. Unlike the utilization data discussed above, these data are collected within exclosures used to isolate herbivory effects of elk (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2013). The Baca subunit of game management unit 3C lies along the western boundary of the unit and contains the territory. Data show the utilization was over 13 percent on only three of the ten sites from 2008 through 2013. Summaries from the Baca subunit of game management unit 3C, 2008 to 2013 are displayed in table 13.

These low utilization levels indicate that the use of the territory, by all grazing animals, over the past ten years has been within the forage-producing capability of the area.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 23 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Table 12. Summary of forage utilization (cattle, horse, and wildlife) for the Black Canyon and Heber allotments 2007−2018 Allotment, Pasture, and Metric Utilization* (percent) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Black Canyon Allotment King Key grasses 3 3 to 23 1 to 8 0 to 4 0 to 23 0 to 4 0 to 4 1 to 21 - 1 to 36 0 to 10 0 to 30 Philip Narrowleaf 10 11 1 1 2 15 3 5 - 12 6 33 cottonwood Sharp Key grasses not 2 to 4 0 to 11 0 to 23 0 to 4 0 to 15 5 0 to 5 0 to 5 1 to 12 0 to 6 0 to 15 Hollow grazed Narrowleaf not 4 5 5 3 4 11 2 4 0 1 15 cottonwood grazed Stermer Key grasses 2 3 1 to 4 0 to 3 2 to 9 8 to 20 0 to 2 - 0 to 3 - 5 to 12 3 to 20

Heber Allotment Heber Bunger Landscape N to M N to L N N S N to S N to L N to L S to L S to L N to L no appearance** (45 on one data*** site) Gentry Blue grama - - - - 11 - 6 29 20 24 13 no (height/weight) data*** Landscape N to S S S to L S S S to L N to L S to M S to L N to M S to M no (45 on appearance* (50 on (45 on data*** one site two sites) one site) *Multiple sites, range of utilization levels displayed here. **Codes used in the landscape appearance method protocol: N (None) = 0 to 5 percent, S (Slight) = 6 to 20 percent, L (Light) = 21 to 40 percent, M (Moderate) = 41 to 50 percent. ***2018 data not yet available.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 24 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Table 13. Elk use (percent) in the Baca subunit, from the Arizona Game and Fish Department Average Average Year Early Season Early Use Late Season Late Use Summary Less than 13 percent use 1 of 2 sites 2008 14 7 21 11 More than 13 percent use 1 of 2 sites Less than 13 percent use 0 of 1 sites 2009 0 0 17 17 More than 13 percent use 1 of 1 sites Less than 13 percent use 2 of 2 sites 2010 6 6 22 11 More than 13 percent use 0 of 2 sites Less than 13 percent use 1 of 1 sites 2011 6 3 0 0 More than 13 percent use 0 of 1 sites Less than 13 percent use 1 of 2 sites 2012 41 21 32 16 More than 13 percent use 1 of 2 sites Less than 13 percent use 2 of 2 sites 2013 0 0 4 4 More than 13 percent use 0 of 2 sites

Forage Plant Communities In addition to considering the current and recent past utilization levels, long-term trend data for assessing the health of the plant communities that make up the forage component were also analyzed. Data analyzed were collected from the long-term trend monitoring plots established in both the Black Canyon and Heber allotments in areas that are within or close to the territory. Plant frequency, ground cover, and species composition are monitored using the common nonforested vegetation sampling protocol. In the Black Canyon allotment, all plots have a high amount of ground cover, ranging from 63 percent to 87 percent. Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), and mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana) are the predominant forage species. In the Heber allotment, the ground cover ranged from 70 percent to 77 percent when the plots were read in 2010. Blue grama is the dominant forage species, with Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and threeawn species (Aristida spp.) present as co-dominants. Monitoring indicates the ground cover is as identified for desired conditions and the species composition is static or trending towards an increase in desirable species.

To augment the long-term trend plot data, ground cover, species frequency, and plant composition data were also collected at the forage production sampling sites in 2005, 2008, and 2018. Many of these plots are located in locations dissimilar to the key areas that are regularly monitored for livestock management purposes, so they provide a broader overview of the plant communities across the territory. In general, the data indicate a slight decrease in the species diversity. This decrease is expected as the plant communities continue to recover in areas that were intensely burned—that is, for the first few years an influx of weedy species is expected, which then decreases as the plant community recovers. The amount of bare ground has decreased across the area; however, on some sites, much of that decrease is due to an increase in litter

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 25 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

(much of it large woody debris) as the fire-killed trees continue to deteriorate. On some forested sites (or soil map units that were forested prior to the fire), an increase in shrubs was noted. New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), in particular, increased on sites that burned with a high level of severity, in some areas to the point where forage production decreased and the sites were nearly inaccessible. Overall, the ground cover and species composition across the territory indicate a healthy plant community.

Forage Accessibility The determination of forage sufficiency must also consider the accessibility of the forage. If the forage is under snow and therefore not accessible to the horses, it is not available for consumption. Data from the available weather stations was extrapolated for this analysis, as none of the stations give a complete picture of the territory. The Heber SNOTEL site is on the edge of the territory, yet it sits at an elevation higher than most of the territory. The Heber Ranger District RAWs site is close to the territory yet is at an elevation lower than all but a very small portion of the territory (as discussed in the “Precipitation and Environmental Setting” section). Figure 10 is a graphical illustration of the elevation within the territory and table 7 and table 8 display the median snow depth for each weather station. The data indicate for January, February and March, portions of the territory may be under up to 14 inches of snow, while the lowest elevations could have a median snow depth of at least 1 inch to 2 inches (with most of the territory likely having less than 12 inches). A median snow depth of less than 12 inches is not likely to make the forage unavailable, as horses will paw through the snow to the forage (Salter and Hudson 1979). However, as discussed below in the “Cover and Space” section, in about 1 out of 20 winters, seasonal snow can accumulate to levels of 30 inches or more. In such years, horses would not have access to the forage, thus rendering it unavailable.

Determination of Forage Sufficiency Capability of the land within the territory to produce forage was analyzed to determine forage sufficiency. That analysis indicated the territory is capable of producing an estimated 1,978,126 pounds of available forage in an average year (based on the average of three years of production data collected across the territory).

Current grazing obligations of the area, including forage needs of permitted cattle and the utilization data, were then analyzed and disclosed. That analysis indicates an estimated 506,000 pounds of forage are needed yearly to meet the currently permitted livestock grazing within the territory. When these numbers are coupled with the utilization and land health data (plant composition and ground cover), the amount of grazing occurring (by all grazing species) within the territory is within the amount of forage the area produces, resulting in the determination that the forage component of the habitat is sufficient.

The amount of sustainable forage available is determined in the tier 2 analysis.

Cover and Space As discussed in the “Location and Habitat” section, the elevation in the territory ranges from about 6,700 feet at the northeast boundary to about 7,700 feet at the southwest boundary. The vegetation ranges from transitional pinyon/juniper at the lower elevation to mixed conifer on the higher northern aspects, with ponderosa pine as the primary vegetation type. According to the Western Regional Climate Center (2015), in about 1 out of 20 winters, snowfall accumulates to levels of 30 inches or more, which likely would cause horses to migrate to areas of lower elevation in order to survive.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 26 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

When the territory was established, the northern portion was identified as winter range; this is the lowest (6,700 to 7,000 feet) elevation and consequently the warmest part of the territory. Canopy cover is often used to determine thermal cover for wildlife, but when considering the need of cover for horses, consideration beyond canopy cover must be incorporated. Horses use tall brush to retain heat in the winter and trees to provide shade in the summer; they will also utilize the topography for shelter from wind. Figure 10 shows a broad overview of the terrain of the area. Areas of lower elevation are shaded green while the areas with the highest elevation are whitish.

The Western Regional Climate Center (2014) indicates the prevailing winds in the area are generally out of the southeast in the winter and out of the southwest in the summer. As displayed in figure 10, the flatter terrain to the northeast offers lower elevation (and therefore less snow accumulation), while the canyons to the south of the territory offer more shelter from the wind than the area within the territory.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 27 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 10. Broad overview of terrain

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 28 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The vegetation also differs with changes in the elevation. For example, figure 11 displays the vegetation on a southeast-facing slope off the Mogollon Rim. This brushy vegetation with the southern exposure is preferable to horses for winter protection. Figure 12 is an example of the ponderosa pine vegetation type near the territory, where horses are seen during warmer weather. Horses prefer the higher elevation ponderosa pine for shade during the hot weather.

Figure 11. Lower elevation, southeast-facing slope south of the territory, transitioning to winter range

Figure 12. Higher elevation, ponderosa pine, characteristic of summer range

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 29 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Crane and others (1997) found horses move from lower to higher elevations in the summer and back to lower elevations in the winter where access to feed is less hampered by snow accumulation. Salter and Hudson (1979) found while horses will paw through snow to get to forage, areas which remain snow free or had reduced snow depth throughout the winter were favored and more heavily utilized. Wockner and others (2003) found horses prefer lower elevation and drier habitats during the winter. However, in the summer horses prefer flatter areas with higher elevations, lower canopy cover, and proximity to water. All of these studies corroborate what appears to be happening in this project area. Large ungulates are known to migrate off the Mogollon Rim in the winter to the canyons located to the south, as displayed in figure 13 (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2014, personal communication). The horses in the area may be behaving similarly, but there is a lack of monitoring data to support or dispute this assumption.

Figure 13. Seasonal movement of large ungulates in the project area, in relation to the territory

To further understand how horses are using the area, historic and current district files (USDA Forest Service 2210 files) were examined, as well as incidental observations and the aerial survey results discussed above. District files included range inspection forms, correspondence, allotment management plans, stocking records, production and utilization studies, and general file notes. These all indicate spring-to-fall horse use is currently occurring in the southern (higher elevation) portion of the territory and locations outside of the territory. The general area of horse observations during the latest aerial surveys (winter and spring) are displayed in figure 14.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 30 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 14. Overview of fences and recorded observations of horses during February 2015 and April 2017

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 31 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The fences in the area (see figure 14) are grazing allotment fences that were in place when the territory was delineated and remain in place today. If the areas of known horse use are compared to the existing fences in the area, it appears the fences (other than the boundary fence between the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation) may be restricting the horses to the southern and eastern portions of the analysis area, with most horse use occurring outside the designated territory. There are many fences, houses, and roads associated with the private lands to the northeast and the highway corridor with a well-maintained fence along the western flank. The fence to the south between the Apache-Sitgreaves and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation has periodically been ineffective due to gates being left open, trees falling on the fence line, and fence lines being cut for multiple reasons.

Determination of Cover and Space Sufficiency The above discussion indicates the horses have not been and are not consistently utilizing all the delineated territory. Based on aerial surveys and on-the-ground observation, horses are primarily using the southern portion of the territory during the spring, summer, fall, and mild winters. There is an assumption the horses may move to areas of lower elevation outside the territory or off the Mogollon Rim during severe winters following the behavioral patterns observed with the wildlife, but monitoring data specific to horse use patterns is lacking. As noted in the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Handbook (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010), a recurring pattern of movement out of a territory to access forage, water, or thermal or hiding cover is an indication the territory cannot sustain year-long horse use. However, there appears to be sufficient forage, water, and cover available within the territory. It appears the fences within the territory are likely limiting movement to the lower elevations in the north; while snow accumulation in parts of the territory effectively push large ungulates to lower elevations during severe weather. While these observations indicate the cover and space may be insufficient in the territory, we cannot ascertain with certainty why wild free-roaming horses are moving off the territory. Additional monitoring is needed to better understand how horses are using the territory. Tier 2 Analysis The tier 1 analysis determined the four essential habitat components are sufficient (with some limitations) and the area is capable of supporting free-roaming horses. The tier 2 analysis determines the amount of sustainable forage available for free-roaming horse use, taking into consideration the management objectives of the area. This includes meeting standards and guidelines for upland vegetation and riparian plant communities, watershed function, and habitat quality for animal populations, including objectives necessary to protect and manage threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive species.

As discussed in tier 1, the land management plan states sustainable stocking levels are to be determined during the site-specific environmental analyses completed for livestock management (USDA Forest Service 2016), and, for this project area the established use level (used interchangeably with allowable use) has been set at 35 percent.

One of the desired conditions for the Heber Wild Horse Territory identified in the land management plan (USDA Forest Service 2016) is: Grazing is in balance with available forage (i.e., grazing and browsing by authorized livestock, wild horses and wildlife do not exceed established use levels).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 32 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The tier 1 analysis indicated that the current use of the territory is meeting that direction—that is, the current use of the area by all grazing animals is well within the established use levels, utilization levels are low, and the plant communities are healthy. The Bureau of Land Management handbook (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010) states that if land health standards (or other site-specific vegetation management objectives) are being met for the area, the upper value of the appropriate management level is set by considering the number of horses using the area during the evaluation years. For this territory, the upper level would be 51 horses (the highest population estimate for horses within the territory). However, if this method of setting the upper value of the appropriate management level was used on this particular territory, the result would be an appropriate management level much lower than the territory can realistically support (based on the large number of horses using the area adjacent to the territory and the low overall forage utilization levels). As an alternative, the upper level of the appropriate management level was calculated based on the average available forage production, as follows.

The tier 1 analysis shows the territory will produce about 1,978,126 pounds of available forage in an average year. As detailed in tier 1, available forage is based on a model that takes into account the annual forage production, the topography of the area, the distance from water, and an allowable use factor of 35 percent—that is, 65 percent of the forage that occurs on grazeable slopes within two miles of a water source remains for wildlife, plant and watershed health. The tier 1 analysis also shows that currently, the combination of livestock, wildlife, and free-roaming horse use of the forage within the territory is well within the established use level. It was determined half the available forage should be used to establish the high end of the appropriate management level (that is, 989,063 pounds of available forage). Utilizing one half of the available forage to determine the appropriate management level ensures there is still enough forage for the other grazing animals in the area. There is currently an obligation of 506,000 pounds of forage needed for the permitted livestock in the area. By making half of the total available forage (989,063 pounds) available for the free-roaming horses, there would still be an additional 483,063 pounds of the available forage for wildlife (beyond that currently utilizing the area) or for future adjustments in the livestock grazing level.

In general, horses consume 2.5 to 3 percent of their body weight daily (Holechek et al. 1995; Ensminger 1990). Based on observation of horses on the district, it is estimated the mix of male and female adult horses in the analysis area of the territory weigh 800 to 1,000 pounds. Therefore, an average consumption of 26 pounds of forage per day is assumed. With a daily consumption of 26 pounds, one horse will need approximately 9,490 pounds of forage per year. For this calculation the 9,490 was rounded up to 9,500 pounds of forage per year. Table 14 displays the calculated forage available for horses (50 percent of the available forage), as well as the estimated carrying capacity. Based on this calculation, the forage available to horses in the territory would sustain 104 horses, during an average year, while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance.

Table 14. Calculated horse carrying capacity (available forage) Estimated horse Pounds of carrying capacity Calculated pounds forage needed (# of horses based Calculated pounds of of forage available for 1 horse for 1 on year-long Year total forage available for horses year occupancy) 2007 1,498,602 749,301 9,500 79 2008 2,310,736 1,155,368 9,500 122 2018 2,125,040 1,062,520 9,500 112 Average 1,978,126 989,063 9,500 104

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 33 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

It should be acknowledged that pounds of forage needed was utilized here rather than the routinely used animal unit month as a way to express the amount of forage a grazing animal needs. An animal unit month is defined by the Society for Range Management as the amount of forage required by an animal unit for 1 month, and an animal unit is defined as one mature cow or the equivalent based upon average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry matter per day (Kothmann 1974). Forest Service personnel routinely use an animal unit equivalent of 1.2 for horses, equaling forage consumption of about 31 pounds of forage per day (1 animal unit month or 26 pounds of forage × 1.2 = 31.2 pounds of forage). However, the 1.2 animal unit equivalent Forest Service personnel use for permitted horses is based on a horse weighing about 1,200 pounds, and the horses seen in the area are generally smaller (800 to 1,000 pounds). The National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Handbook noted there are difficulties in using animal unit equivalents when evaluating forage availability and that animal unit equivalents for horses range from 1.0 to 1.5 (Committee to Review the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Management Program 2013). Using pounds of forage needed rather than animal unit months to express the amount of forage needed provides a cleaner, more straightforward method of displaying how many horses the available forage could support.

Other Considerations The tier 2 analysis must also consider other management direction that may constrain the amount of forage considered to be available in the territory. For the Heber Wild Horse Territory, this includes ensuring the proposal considers habitat requirements for the federally listed Mexican spotted owl, which is known to occur within the delineated territory. The Framework for Streamlining Consultation on Livestock Grazing Activities (USDA Forest Service 2015) states: Within protected and restricted habitat as described in the species’ 1995 recovery plan, or within protected and recovery habitat as described within the species’ 2012 recovery plan, first revision, forage utilization is maintained at conservative levels, i.e., light to moderate grazing intensity within owl habitats…

A conservative level of grazing intensity is defined in that document as 31 to 40 percent use. As such, the allowable use guideline set at 35 percent within the project area is consistent with that identified as needed for this federally-listed species. Tier 3 Analysis The analysis in tier 3 determines whether or not the horse herd size identified in tier 2 is sufficient to maintain genetically diverse horse populations. The tier 2 analysis determined there was forage available in the territory for up to 104 horses.

The Bureau of Land Management handbook recommends a minimum herd size of 150 to 200 horses (at least 50 effective breeding animals) to avoid inbreeding depression in wild horse populations and states that interchange of horses between other herd management areas or territories may reduce the need to maintain a herd of that size (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010). However, the 2013 National Academy of Science committee review (Committee to Review the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Management Program 2013) stated that to maintain herd fitness, the minimum herd size could be closer to 5,000. This is based on the following: 1) new genetic variation from mutations is added more slowly than originally thought, 2) the effects of inbreeding depression are likely to be more severe in stressful environments, and 3) slightly deleterious mutations may accumulate in smaller populations and lead to a decline in fitness.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 34 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The committee acknowledged that managing for a minimum of 5,000 animals would not be realistic, that assisted movement of individual horses between herd management areas will be necessary, and that herd management areas will need to be managed as a meta-population for long-term persistence at the herd management area level.

Genetic analysis of the free-roaming horses currently occupying the territory has not been conducted, but based on the known historic influx of horses to the area, there has likely been continual gene flow into the herd. It is recommended that genetic analysis be conducted and that the proposed action for the territory include actions that will be taken to ensure genetic variability, if needed. Per the Bureau of Land Management handbook (2010), possible management actions could include the following: • Maximize the number of breeding age horses in the herd (animals age 6 to 10 years). This could increase the need for removal to keep the herd size below 104 animals. • Introduce one or two young mares from outside the territory every generation (about every 10 years). Introduced animals should come from herds living in similar conditions. Proposed Appropriate Management Level According to handbook direction (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010), an appropriate management level is expressed as a range with an upper and lower limit. The upper limit is the number of animals which results in a thriving natural ecological balance and avoids deterioration of the range (the number calculated through this analysis—104 horses for this territory). The lower limit is set at a number that allows the population to grow to the upper limit over a 4- to 5-year period, without any interim gathers to remove excess animals. Therefore, the recommendation for the appropriate management level is 50 to 104 horses for the Heber Wild Horse Territory.

Tier 1 determined two of the essential habitat components—water and forage—are sufficient most years to support free-roaming horses. There is some question about the cover and space components; horses are using areas outside the territory while not utilizing the entire territory, but it does not appear to be due to a lack of forage, water, or cover. Horse use monitoring is needed to determine the reasons for the lack of use.

Tier 2 determined there is enough forage within the territory to support 104 free-roaming horses on an average year, while still meeting management direction for other resources. The lower limit of the appropriate management level was set at 50 to allow the herd size to grow (assuming an annual increase of approximately 20 percent) over 4 to 5 years without the need for interim gathers.

Tier 3 recommends periodic genetic analysis be conducted and if the data show the herd is not maintaining genetic diversity, management actions should be taken.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 35

Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

References Cited Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2007. Correspondence from Bob Birkeland, wildlife manager supervisor, The State of Arizona Game and Fish Department to Fred Green, Black Mesa Ranger District. July 21.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2013. Arizona statewide elk management plan. Phoenix. December 6.

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2014. Email communication between Rick Langley, Region 1 game specialist, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Janet Moser, wildlife biologist, TEAMS Enterprise Unit and Cynthia Englebert, botanist/rangeland management specialist, TEAMS Enterprise Unit; USDA Forest Service

Arizona State Legislature. 2014. Title 3–Agriculture, chapter 11, article 7, Seizure and sale of stray livestock, 3-1401. Definition of stray animal. Phoenix, AZ. [http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=3; accessed 10/7/2014].

Committee to Review the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Management Program. 2013. Using science to improve the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Program: A way forward. National Research Council. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC.

Crane, K.K., M.A. Smith, and D. Reynolds. 1997. Habitat selection patterns of feral horses in southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 50: 374−380.

Ensminger, M.E. 1998. Horses and horsemanship: (Animal Agriculture Series). Interstate Printers and Publishers. P. 224.

Ganskopp, D. and M. Vavra. 1987 Slope use by cattle, feral horses, deer, and bighorn sheep. Northwest Science 61(2).

Holechek, J.L. 1988. An approach for setting the stocking rate. Rangelands 10(1).

Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing studies: What we’ve learned. Rangelands 21(2).

Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.D. Herbel. 1995. Range management principles and practices. Third Edition. p. 211.

Horse Territory Analysis-Available Forage Production 2018. Horse territory analysis: Available forage production. Unpublished data and results of GIS modeling, Black Mesa Ranger District, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, May 19, 2009, updated with additional data November 2018.

Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4. Sampling vegetation attributes. Cooperative Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Natural Resource Conservation Service, Grazing Land Technology Institute; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996, revised 1997, 1999. BLM/RS/ST-96/002+1730

Jameson, D.A. 1967. The relationship of tree overstory and herbaceous understory vegetation. Journal of Range Management 20: 247−249.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 37 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Kothmann, M.M. 1974. A glossary of terms used in range management. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. p. 2.

Kline, R. 2017. Historic research and ethnographic study. Heber Wild Horse Territory. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.

Lubow, B.C. and J.I. Ransom. 2009, Validating aerial photographic mark—recapture for naturally marked feral horses. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(8): 1420-1429

Lubow, B. 2014. Memorandum to Paul Griffin (USGS), statistical analysis for May 2014 horse survey of Apache-Sitgreaves horse population. IIF Data Solutions. Centreville, VA.

Lubow, B. 2015. Memorandum to Paul Griffin (Bureau of Land Management), statistical analysis for 2015 horse survey of Sitgreaves NF lands, including Heber WHT, and Apache NF lands. IIF Data Solutions. Centreville, VA.

Lubow, B. 2017. Memorandum to Nancy Walls, Steve Best, Wendy Jo Haskins (USFS), statistical analysis for 2017 horse survey of Sitgreaves NF lands, including Heber WHT. IIF Data Solutions. Centreville, VA

Mejdell, C., M.E. Simensen, and K.E. Boe. 2005. Is snow a sufficient source of water for horses kept outdoors in winter? A case report. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 46: 19−22.

Salter, R.E. and R.J. Hudson. 1979. Ecology of feral horses in Western Alberta. Journal of Range Management 32(3): 221−225.

Smith, L., G. Ruyle, and J. Dyess. [and others]. 2012. Guide to rangeland monitoring and assessment: Basic concepts for collecting, interpreting, and use of rangeland data for management planning and decisions. Arizona Grazing Lands Conservation Association. January.

USDA Forest Service. 1963. 2240 files. Memorandum of agreement between Sitgreaves National Forest and Fort Apache Agency. Assignment of responsibility for fence maintenance, October 15.

USDA Forest Service. 1974. 2260 files territorial habitat limits (Heber Territory map). In: Memorandum from Forest Supervisor Stan Tixier to Regional Forester, January 15, 1974. Apache-Seagraves Headquarters, Springerville, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan, as amended. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region (amended July 2006, February 2008, June 2009).

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual 2260 Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros, R3 Supplement 2200-91-1.

USDA Forest Service. 1993a. 2260 files memorandum from District Ranger Klein to Forest Supervisor Bedell, June 21, 1993. Black Mesa Ranger District, Heber, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 1993b. 2260 files memorandum from Forest Supervisor Bedell to District Ranger Klein, July 12, 1993. Apache-Seagraves Headquarters, Springerville, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact. Black Canyon Allotment Management Plan, Navajo County, AZ. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Chevelon-Heber Ranger District. November 20.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 38 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

USDA Forest Service 1998a. Environmental assessment, allotment management plan for Black Canyon and Wildcat allotments. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Chevelon-Heber Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Forest Service Manual 2260 – Wild free-roaming horses and burros. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Framework for streamlining consultation on livestock grazing activities. Southwestern Region, December 2015

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Land management plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo counties, Arizona. MB-R3-01-10, Southwestern Region, Slightly Revised October 2016.

USDA Forest Service. 2018. I-WEB INFRA database.

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Black Mesa Ranger District personnel, reports of horse observations, with photos. Unpublished report, June-August 2014.

USDA Forest Service 2016. Draft Heber allotment management plan, Range/Vegetation specialist report (unpublished)

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Wild horses and burros management handbook H-4700-1. Washington, D.C.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1980. Third report to Congress, Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Washington, D.C.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1984. Fifth report to Congress, Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Washington, D.C.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1986. Sixth report to Congress, Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Washington, D.C.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1988. Seventh report to Congress, Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Washington, D.C.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1990. Eighth report to Congress, Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Washington, D.C.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1992. Ninth report to Congress, Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Washington, D.C.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1995. Tenth and eleventh reports to Congress, Administration of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Washington, D.C.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2014. Prevailing direction and mean speed (M.P.H.) of wind January, June, August. [http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/clinmaps; accessed October 16, 2014].

Western Regional Climate Center. 2015. Monthly climate summary for Heber Ranger Station, Arizona. [http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?az3961; accessed October 7, 2014].

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 39 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Wockner, G., F. Singer, and K. Schoenecker. 2003. Habitat suitability model for bighorn sheep and wild horses in Bighorn Canyon and the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range. Colorado State University and USGS Biological Resource Division, Fort Collins, CO. October 6.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 40 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Appendix A: Letter Establishing the Territory

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 41 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 42 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Appendix B: Analysis Process The appropriate management level determination process described here is copied from the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook H-4700-1, appendix 3 (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010). The text from H-47000-1 has been edited here to make it applicable to the Forest Service.

Appropriate management level decisions determine the number of wild horses to be managed within an established territory. The appropriate management level is expressed as a population range with an upper and lower limit. The appropriate management level upper limit is the number of wild horses which results in a thriving natural ecological balance and avoids a deterioration of the range. The appropriate management level lower limit is normally set at a number allowing the population to grow to the upper limit over a 4- to 5-year period, without any interim gathers to remove excess wild horses.

A multi-tiered analysis process is used to establish and adjust the appropriate management level of wild horses: • Tier 1: Determine whether the four essential habitat components (water, forage, cover, and space) are present in sufficient amounts to sustain healthy wild horse populations and healthy rangelands over the long term. • Tier 2: Determine the amount of sustainable forage available for wild horse use. • Tier 3: Determine whether or not the projected wild horse herd size is sufficient to maintain genetically diverse wild horse populations (that is, avoid inbreeding depression).

Tier 1 Determine if the four essential habitat components (forage, water, cover, and space) are present in sufficient amounts to sustain healthy wild horse populations and healthy rangelands over the long term. In making this determination, the most limiting factor(s) within the territory should be considered. In some territories, the most limiting factor may be: • the water available for wild horse use; • low annual rainfall or extended periods of drought; • the naturally occurring, low productive capability of the dominant ecological sites; • the limited habitat available for wild horse use on either the summer or winter range; or • the low ecological status of key wild horse use areas.

The essential habitat components must be located on public lands within the territory boundary. If forage or water located on private lands within the territory is needed to maintain healthy wild horse populations, a written agreement with the private landowner allowing use by wild horses is required. In the absence of private landowner agreement, the forage and water on private lands is not available for use by wild horses and may not be included when establishing or adjusting appropriate management level.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 43 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Water The amount of water available for wild horse use is generally based on public, natural waters (that is, water occurring on private lands is not considered unless a written agreement with the private landowner is obtained). Water availability during drought conditions is also considered. Sufficient water for wild horses must be available during drought to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple use relationship on the public lands.

In determining the amount of water available for wild horse use, a thorough inventory of the available public, natural water resources is needed. Developed and man-made waters should also be inventoried if they are available for wild horse use (that is, the Forest Service holds the necessary water rights and wild horse access to the water can be depended on over the long term). The water resources inventory should include the name, location, and flow (in gallons per minute or cubic feet per second). Wild horses require a minimum of 10 gallons of available water per animal per day (15 gallons per day is not unusual during the hot, dry summer months). The analysis of available water should also be based on the most limiting season of the year (that is, generally summer when flows are reduced).

Forage In this document, the amount of forage available for wild horse use is expressed as pounds of forage. The Bureau of Land Management handbook describes using utilization monitoring and use pattern mapping for determining forage availability. However, for this territory, we have 3 years of forage production available, as well as yearly utilization data, resulting in a more accurate calculation of forage production. The annual forage production was calculated using the comparative yield method (Despain and Smith 1991), which uses harvested and weighed forage to calibrate a correlation between the sample quadrats and the reference quadrats, providing better documentation than visual estimates alone. This forage production data is then used in a model that takes into account topographical slope, distance to water, and an allowable use factor to calculate the actual forage available.

The flexibility to remove wild horses in below average forage years, or to move the animals to another area, can be constrained by funding, contractor capability, facility space, or animal behavior. To prevent range damage or adverse impacts to animal health, the upper limit of the appropriate management level for wild horses should be established in consideration of the most limiting forage (or water) production years.

Other Considerations 1. Situations in which the forest plan desired conditions, standards, and guidelines are achieved but population inventory indicates more wild free-roaming horses are present than expected. These situations may indicate additional forage is present to support use by higher numbers of horses, wildlife, or livestock, consistent with forest plan guidance. 2. Situations in which deteriorated land health conditions exist but population inventory indicates the number of wild free-roaming horses is the same or lower than expected. These situations may indicate there is less forage available to support the existing use by horses, wildlife, or livestock, and that a reduction in the allowable use may be needed, consistent with forest plan guidance.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 44 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The number of wild free-roaming horses which can be sustained based on the available forage is determined in tier 2. To determine if there is sufficient forage to sustain long-term wild horses: • Analyze utilization data, use pattern mapping, and/or production, ecological site condition (ESI), trend, frequency, precipitation (weather), and indicators of land health. • Determine the actual use by wild free-roaming horses for each of the evaluation years. (Calculate the actual wild free-roaming horse and burro use based on population estimates derived from aerial surveys. You can also project actual use by wild free-roaming horses using previous population estimates together with herd’s average annual population growth rate.) • Identify key wild free-roaming horse use areas (distribution). Calculate carrying capacity on the basis of the key use areas (primary range).

Cover and Space A recurring pattern of wild free-roaming horse movement out of the territory to access forage, water, or thermal or hiding cover is an indication the territory may not be able to sustain yearlong wild free- roaming horse use.

Tier 1 Summary The results of the tier 1 analysis will be summarized in a table. The table will be followed by a detailed description of the analysis and the rationale used in making the determination that a key habitat component either is (or is not) sufficient to support healthy wild free-roaming horse populations and healthy rangelands over the long-term.

Tier 2 Determine the amount of sustainable forage available for wild free-roaming horse use. Based on the desired level of forage utilization, propose an appropriate management level for wild free-roaming horses, expressed as a range with an upper and lower limit.

Forage availability should be determined based on in-depth analysis of rangeland monitoring data. As a first step, monitoring data should be reviewed to determine if forest plan standards or other site-specific vegetation management objectives are being met. If standards and objectives are being met, wild horse population estimates are then examined to determine the range in number of wild horses using the territory during the evaluation years. The upper values are used to establish the appropriate management level when no land health issues occur.

In territories where forest plan standards or other objectives are not being achieved, wild horse use should be examined to determine if this level of use has contributed to or is the causal factor for the standards or objectives not being met (or only partly met). When standards or objectives are not being met and wild horse use is a contributing (or causal) factor, the appropriate management level is proposed based on the estimated number of wild horses present relative to the level of forage utilization that is occurring (that is, the appropriate management level would be established at a number below that which has contributed to the standards or objectives not being met). The need for frequent emergency removals of wild horses due to lack of forage, water, or both or the emigration of wild horses out of the territory due to population size or concentration levels may also be a consideration in proposing appropriate management levels for wild horses.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 45 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

The sustainable forage (carrying capacity) available for wild horses use within a territory is determined pending detailed analysis of utilization data and use pattern mapping for all users. For each evaluation year, determine the following: (1) weighted average utilization, (2) potential carrying capacity, and (3) the proposed carrying capacity.

Tier 3 Determine whether or not the wild horse herd size proposed in tier 2 is sufficient to maintain genetically diverse wild horse populations (that is, avoid inbreeding depression). To avoid inbreeding depression in wild horse populations, a minimum herd size of 50 effective breeding animals (a total population size of about 150 to 200 animals) is recommended.

If the herd size proposed in tier 2 is not sufficient to maintain genetically diverse wild horse populations, determine if there is wild horse interchange between the territory and other adjacent territories and whether this interchange would be sufficient to maintain genetic diversity (avoid inbreeding depression). Genetic diversity baseline or monitoring information can be used to evaluate whether wild horse interchange between territories is occurring.

If the proposed herd size is less than 150 animals and the territory is isolated with limited potential for wild horse egress or ingress, possible management actions which could be considered include: 1. Removing the area’s designation as a territory through amending the forest plan. 2. Maximizing the number of breeding age wild horses in the herd (animals age 6 to 10 years). 3. Adjusting the sex ratio to favor males to encourage formation of additional breeding harems. 4. Introducing 1 to 2 young mares from outside the territory every generation (about every 10 years). Introduced animals should come from herds living in similar environmental conditions.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 46 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Appendix C: Hydrology Report Stott Tank (figure 15) is a stock tank located approximately 0.3 miles east of Wilson Tank on the south side of Stott Canyon and the south side of National Forest System Road 9556Q. Stott Tank was constructed to capture drainage out of a small non-delineated catchment. A site visit on July 30, 2014 documented the tank was dry. There were hoof prints in the bottom of the tank indicating that the tank has held water in the past. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a seasonal water source for the territory.

Figure 15. View of Stott Tank, July 30, 2014

Wilson Tank (figure 16) is a stock tank located in an ephemeral drainage that flows to Stott Canyon in the southwest portion of the territory. The tank is located at the end of National Forest System Road 9556Q. A site visit on July 30, 2014 documented the tank was holding water and cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 16. View of Wilson Tank, July 30, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 47 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Hangman’s Tank (figure 17) is a stock tank located in an ephemeral drainage that flows to Hangman Draw in the southwest portion of the territory. A site visit on July 31, 2014 documented the tank was holding water and cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring. The tank was in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 17. View of Hangman’s Tank, July 31, 2014

Zag Tank (figure 18) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9555Y just east of the Zig Tank in the northwest portion of the territory. The tank sits on the drainage divide between Horse and Jersey Canyons. The tank was constructed to capture water from the road. A site visit by the Forest Service personnel in April 2014, and on July 29, 2014 documented the tank was holding water during the April visit but was not holding water during the July visit. Cattle and wild ungulate use does occur at the tank when water is present. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a seasonal water source for the territory.

Figure 18. View of Zag Tank, July 29, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 48 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Zig Tank (figure 19) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9555Y in the northwest portion of the territory. The tank sits on the drainage divide between Horse and Jersey Canyons. The tank was constructed to capture water from the road. A site visit by the Forest Service personnel in April 2014, and on July 29, 2014 documented the tank was holding a sizable amount of water on both occasions. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the tank. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 19. View of Zig Tank, July 29, 2014

Black Canyon Lake (figure 20) is the most dependable water source in the territory. The lake was constructed in 1964 to provide recreational opportunities to the area. The lake is located approximately 18 miles southwest of Heber on National Forest System Road 300. When full, it is approximately 78 acres in size with a maximum depth of 60 feet.

Figure 20. View of Black Canyon Lake, July 29, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 49 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

JJ Tank (figure 21) is a stock tank also located along National Forest System Road 9555Y in the northwest portion of the territory. The tank sits on the drainage divide between Horse and Jersey Canyons. The tank was constructed to capture water from the road. A site visit by the Forest Service personnel on July 29, 2014 documented the tank was holding a small amount of water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the tank. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable source of water for the territory.

Figure 21. View of JJ Tank, July 29, 2014

Horse Tank (figure 22) is a stock tank located in a non-delineated subwatershed just south of Horse Canyon. The tank was recently cleaned out to allow for better water capture and retention. A site visit on July 29, 2014 documented the tank was dry. There were hoof prints in the bottom of the tank indicating the tank held water in the recent past. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a seasonal water source for the territory.

Figure 22. View of Horse Tank, July 29, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 50 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Ridge Tank (figure 23) is a stock tank located at the end of National Forest System Road 9555Y. The tank was recently cleaned out to allow for better water capture and retention. A site visit on July 29, 2014 documented the tank was holding a small amount of water, and cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 23. View of Ridge Tank, July 29, 2014

Hidden Tank (figure 24) is a stock tank located in an ephemeral drainage that flows to Baca Canyon, a tributary to Black Canyon. The tank is located just upstream of the wildlife enclosure that exists in Baca Canyon. A site visit on July 28, 2014 documented the tank was holding stagnant water covered with duck weed. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 24. View of Hidden Tank, July 29, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 51 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Mustang Tank (figure 25) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9566Q. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit by on July 29, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 25. View of Mustang Tank, July 29, 2014

Clay Tank (figure 26) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9567. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 29, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 26. View of Clay Tank, July 29, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 52 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Hoyle Tank (figure 27) is a stock tank located in the bottom of Hoyle Canyon in the northern part of the territory. A site visit by on July 29, 2014 documented the tank is not functioning and has been breached for a lengthy period. Therefore, the tank is not functioning and a non-dependable source of water for the territory.

Figure 27. View of Hoyle Tank, July 29, 2014

Swell Tank (Figure 28) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9260. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 29, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 28. View of Swell Tank, July 31, 2014

Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9567V-1 (figure 29) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9567V. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 31, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 53 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Figure 29. Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9567V-1, July 31, 2014

Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9567V-2 (figure 30) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9567V. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 31, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 30. View of Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9567V-2, July 31, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 54 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Upper Sharp Tank (figure 31) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9596G. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 31, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank has an exclosure fence around it. However, on the day the tank was visited, the gate was open. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 31. View of Upper Sharp Tank taken on July 31, 2014

Reds Tank (figure 32) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9598E. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 31, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank has an exclosure fence around it. However, on the day that the tank was visited, the gate was open. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 32. View of Reds Tank, July 31, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 55 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

KP Road Tank (figure 33) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9598D. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 31, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 33. View of KP Road Tank, July 31, 2014

Sharp Hollow Tank (figure 34) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9597M. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 31, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 34. View of Sharp Hollow Tank, July 31, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 56 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Fork Tank (figure 35) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 50. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 30, 2014 documented the tank was dry. There were hoof prints in the bottom of the tank indicating the tank held water in the past. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a seasonal water source for the territory.

Figure 35. View of Fork Tank, July 30, 2014

Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9591 (figure 36) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 86A. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 30, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 36. View of Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9591, July 30, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 57 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Sharp Hollow Trick Tank (figure 37) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9597M. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit by Chad Hermandorfer on July 31, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the area.

Figure 37. View of Sharp Hollow Tank, July 31, 2014

Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9053D (figure 38) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 9053D. The tank was originally constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit on July 30, 2014 documented the tank was not holding water, and it appears it has not held water in many years. Because of this, the tank is a non-dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 38. View of Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 9053D, July 30, 2014

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 58 Proposed Appropriate Management Level Determination for the Heber Wild Horse Territory

Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 86A (figure 39) is a stock tank located along National Forest System Road 86A. The tank was constructed specifically to collect water from the road. A site visit by on July 30, 2014 documented the tank was holding water. Cattle and wild ungulate use has been occurring at the site. The tank appeared to be in satisfactory condition and a dependable water source for the territory.

Figure 39. View of Unnamed Road Tank on National Forest System Road 86A

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 59