Travel Management Tonto National Forest Water Resources Report

P

Introduction ______5

Affected Environment ______5 Watershed ...... 5

Water Quality ...... 5

Riparian Areas and Streams ...... 8

Watershed Condition...... 9

Environmental Effects ______11

Legal and Regulatory Compliance ...... 11

Statute and Regulation ______11

Forest Service Manual Direction ______13

Forest Plan Direction ______15

Memorandum of Understanding with ADEQ ______16

Assumptions and Methodology ...... 16

General Road Effects ______19

Water Quality ______20

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 21

Motorized Routes ______21

Motorized Cross-country Travel ______25

OHV Permit Zones ______28

Motorized Big Game Retrieval ______28

Motorized Dispersed Camping ______29

Personal Use Fuelwood Gathering ______29

Alternative B - Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 29

Page 2 of 199 Motorized Routes ______30

Motorized Cross-country Travel ______34

OHV Permit Zones ______34

Motorized Big Game Retrieval ______35

Motorized Dispersed Camping ______35

Personal Use Fuelwood Gathering ______35

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects ______36

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 37

Motorized Routes ______37

Motorized Cross-country Travel ______41

OHV Permit Zones ______43

Motorized Big Game Retrieval ______43

Motorized Dispersed Camping ______43

Personal Use Fuelwood Gathering ______44

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects ______44

Alternative D ...... 45

Motorized Routes ______45

Motorized Cross-country Travel ______48

OHV Permit Zones ______49

Motorized Big Game Retrieval ______50

Motorized Dispersed Camping ______50

Person Use Fuelwood Gathering ______51

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects ______51

All Alternatives: Summary Effects ...... 52

Page 3 of 199 All Alternatives: Cumulative Effects ...... 54

Reference ______55

Appendix A: Hydrology and Watershed Tables ______56

Watershed Area (sq mi) ...... 56

Watershed Area Within TNF (sq mi) ...... 56

Watershed Area Within TNF ...... 56

Appendix B: Proximity to Water ______184

Appendix C: BMPs ______185

Page 4 of 199 Introduction Protection of water quantity and quality is an element of the Forest Service mission (Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2007 to 2012, 2007). Management activities on National Forest lands should be planned and implemented to protect hydrologic functions of forest watersheds, including volume, timing, and quality of stream flow. Use of roads, trails, and other areas on national forests by motor vehicles has potential to affect these hydrologic functions by intercepting runoff, compacting soils, damaging vegetation and stream channels, and detaching sediment. Management decisions to eliminate cross-county motorized travel, add new routes and areas to national forest system (NFS) roads and trails, and make changes to existing NFS roads and trails should consider effects on watershed functions.

Affected Environment Watershed The Tonto National Forest lies wholly or partly within seven 4th HUC Watersheds. Within these watersheds there are thirty-six 5th HUC watersheds and 197 6th HUC watersheds that lie wholly or partly within the boundaries of the Tonto NF. The percent of watershed area of each 6th HUC watershed within the boundaries of the Forest is displayed in Appendix A, Table 1. Greater than 50 percent of the watershed area of 150 6th HUC watersheds lies within the Forest boundaries.

Water Quality Improvements to the nation’s waters over the past three decades are largely due to the control of traditional point sources of water pollution; however, a large number of water bodies remain impaired and the goal of eliminating pollutant discharge and attaining fishable and swimmable waters is still unrealized. Nonpoint sources of pollution such as agriculture, construction, forestry, and mining are responsible for much of the nation’s remaining water quality impairment (BLM, 2011). Three of these activities: agriculture (livestock grazing), forestry, and mining currently occur on NFS lands administered by the Tonto National Forest. In addition to these activities other sources of nonpoint source pollution on the Tonto National Forest include roads, prescribed fire and wildfire, and recreational uses.1

Water quality in the state is assessed by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).Water quality has been assessed in major perennial stream reaches and lakes on the Forest. Categories used by ADEQ for describing the status of water quality in the states’ rivers, streams and lakes are identified in Table 1 below.

1 This paragraph comes from an EPA report to Congress that states: In 2000, 40 percent of the rivers and streams, 45 percent of the lakes, and 50 percent of the estuaries were impaired. See National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (305(b) report), 2000, available at http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/. The paragraph is an introductory discussion of the progress of the Clean Water Act on a nationwide basis with a brief discussion of the types of disturbance occurring on the Tonto NF that can contribute to nonpoint sources of pollution.

Page 5 of 199 Table 1: Water Quality Categories Category Definition 1 Attaining all designated uses 2 Attaining some designated uses, and no use is threatened or impaired 3 Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated use is attained Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but a Total Maximum Daily 4 Load (TMDL) analysis is not necessary because: 4A A TMDL has already been completed Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in attainment 4B of the water quality standard 4C The impairment is caused by pollution but not a pollutant, or 4N The impairment is solely by natural conditions (an Arizona list only) Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant, and a TMDL 5 needs to be developed or revised

Streams and water bodies within the Tonto National Forest that are listed on the State of Arizona’s draft impaired waters (303d) list for 2012/14 are identified in Appendix A, Table 2, and displayed in Figure 1 below. Roosevelt Lake is identified as an impaired water body due to mercury found in fish tissue. A fish consumption advisory has been issued for Roosevelt Lake. Mercury found in fish tissue in Tonto Creek has also resulted in a fish consumption advisory for Tonto Creek from Bear Flat to Roosevelt Lake.

Page 6 of 199 Figure 1: Impaired Streams and Water Bodies within Tonto National Forest

Page 7 of 199 The impaired waters map displays designated impaired water bodies within the Tonto National Forest. Macroinvertebrate data collected by ADEQ identifies a number of additional streams that have aquatic habitat issues that are not formally designated as impaired.

The primary pollutant generated by roads is sediment/turbidity. The Salt River from the confluence with Pinal Creek to Roosevelt Lake is the only water body within the Tonto National Forest that is identified as impaired for suspended sediment. It is also identified as impaired for nitrogen, phosphorous and E.Coli. bacteria. ADEQ proposes to initiate a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis for this water body in 2015. A completed TMDL means that ADEQ has devised a plan to bring the impaired water body into compliance with the states’ water quality standards and that it is taking steps to implement the plan. Other impaired waters within the Forest are primarily impaired by pollutants such as copper, selenium, low dissolved oxygen, phosphorous, nitrogen, E. Coli, mercury in fish tissue, arsenic, and boron. Primary sources of these pollutants include; natural sources, septic systems and poor human waste disposal practices, historic mining, and unknown sources. Roads are not a primary source of these pollutants.

Riparian Areas and Streams Riparian areas occupy approximately one percent of the Area managed by the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service (roughly 22.5 million acres in 11 National Forests and Grasslands in Arizona, New Mexico, and western Oklahoma and Texas) (Lafayette et al. 1996). They have importance disproportionate to their limited extent, especially in the arid Southwest. This importance is a function of their diverse and productive vegetative composition and structure, their linkage between upland and aquatic ecosystems, and their linkage between upper and lower watershed areas. Some of their most important functions include: 1) providing fish and wildlife habitat, 2) improving water quality by filtering and retaining sediment and nutrients transported by runoff from terrestrial uplands, 3) stabilizing stream banks and floodplain surfaces, 4) increasing the volume and duration of base flows by replenishing local alluvial aquifers, and 5) reducing flood flow velocities and filtering sediments and nutrients transported by flood flows during over bank flow events. Brinson et al. (1981) estimates that the percentage of riparian areas that have been altered in the United States range from 70 to 90 percent.

Riparian areas on the Tonto National Forest were mapped during a project completed for the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service in 2011(USDA Forest Service, 2013) known as the Regional Riparian Mapping Project (RMAP). This project mapped riparian areas at a 1:12,000 scale and used valley bottom models, photo interpretation, Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory, and other ancillary references to develop the mapping. The project resulted in 24 different riparian mapping units, thirteen of which are found on the Tonto NF. This project provides the most current and accurate inventory of riparian areas on the forest. Approximately 75,000 acres of riparian vegetation were mapped, representing approximately 2.5 percent of the land base of the Forest. Table 2 below displays riparian vegetation types and acreage found within the Tonto National Forest.

Page 8 of 199 Table 2: Riparian Vegetation on Tonto National Forest

RMAP Unit Code and Vegetation Type Acres 110 - Arizona Alder - Willow 222 130 - Desert Willow 8,937 150 - Fremont Cottonwood - Conifer 12,699 170 - Fremont Cottonwood / Oak 483 180 - Fremont Cottonwood / Shrub 28,963 190 - Herbaceous Riparian 310 230 - Narrowleaf Cottonwood / Shrub 1,823 270 - Sycamore - Fremont Cottonwood 15,704 300 - Arizona Walnut 11 340 - Sparsely Vegetated 40 350 - Ponderosa Pine / Willow 6,022 400 - Historic Riparian - Agriculture 6 410 - Historic Riparian - Residential/Urban 6,560 Total* 75,213 *Excludes Historic Riparian which is on private land or submerged

The Tonto National Forest stream arc Geographic Information System (GIS) layer identifies approximately 13,250 miles of streams within the boundaries of the Tonto National Forest. Approximately 640 miles (5 percent) are perennial and an estimated 1,530 miles (12 percent) are intermittent (based on miles of streams supporting riparian vegetation after subtracting miles of perennial streams).

The Tonto National Forest has conducted a number of channel stability assessments across the forest to better understand the condition of its streams and to implement measures to improve the condition of degraded stream reaches. Approximately one percent of the miles of perennial and intermittent streams on the forest have been assessed. Based on assessments completed to date, 19 percent of assessed streams are stable, 49 percent are impaired, and 32 percent are unstable. A summary of stream channel assessments within HUC102 watersheds is displayed in Appendix A, Table 3.

Watershed Condition The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Strategic Plan for FY2010-2015 targets restoration of watershed and forest health as a core management objective of the national forests and grasslands. To help achieve this goal, the Forest Service developed the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) which is intended to provide a consistent way to evaluate watershed condition at both the National and forest levels (USDA Forest Service, 2011a). Nested within the WCF is the Watershed Condition Classification (WCC) system that establishes a reconnaissance-level approach for classifying watershed condition. The WCC uses a set of 12 indicators composed of variable numbers of attributes to assess watershed condition. The indicators and their attributes are surrogate variables representing the underlying ecological functions and processes that affect soil and hydrologic function (USDA Forest Service, 2011b).

2 In the original draft of this report, this watershed was identified as a “HUC5” watershed. It is actually a HUC10. All watershed HUCs have been changed in this document to reflect proper terminology.

Page 9 of 199 The indicators are grouped according to four major process categories that include: aquatic physical, aquatic biological, terrestrial physical, and terrestrial biological. These major process categories along with their associated indicators and attributes are displayed in Figure 2 (Source: USDA Forest Service, 2011b).

Figure 2: Watershed Condition Indicators and Attributes

The WCF assessment process involves classification of all 6th -level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds on National Forest lands into one of three watershed condition classes: Class 1— Functioning Properly; Class 2—Functioning at Risk; Class 3—Impaired Function. Each indicator attribute such as Open Road Density under the Roads and Trails indicator is assigned a numerical score from 1 to 3 with 1 equating to good condition and 3 to poor condition. Attribute scores for each indicator are averaged to give an overall indicator score and indicator scores under each indicator category (e.g., aquatic terrestrial, aquatic biological, etc.) are averaged to give an overall indicator category score. The final averaging of indicator category scores to arrive at an overall watershed score takes into consideration that not all categories are weighted equally with terrestrial biological making up only 10 percent of the total watershed score and the remaining categories making up 30 percent each of the total score.

Page 10 of 199 One of the indicators for the watershed condition classification process is “roads and trails.” This indicator represents 15 percent of the overall watershed condition assessment. Four attributes are used to assess the contribution of roads and trails to overall watershed condition. These include: Open road density, Road and trail maintenance, Proximity to water, and Mass wasting. The Mass Wasting attribute is generally not applicable to watersheds on the Tonto National Forest and was rated N/A (not applicable) in the WCC process completed for the forest in 2011 (mass wasting was not rated in the WCC process because the majority of the landforms and geology on the forest are not prone to mass wasting processes). The proposed action and alternatives have the potential to impact the Open Road Density and Proximity to Water attributes. The impact of the alternatives on these attributes is assessed for all HUC12 watersheds included in the Forests’ Watershed Condition Classification process. Watersheds with less than five percent watershed area within the boundaries of the forest and watersheds where the majority of the watershed area lies within an adjacent forest were not included in the WCC completed on the Tonto National Forest.

Road density by 6th HUC watershed is provided in Appendix A, Tables 4-7. The road density attribute is rated good, fair, or poor depending on road density per square mile within a watershed. The road density rating is good if road density is less than 1 mile per square mile, fair if road density ranges from 1 to 2.4 miles per square mile, and poor if road density is greater than 2.4 miles per square mile. This attribute was rated good on 72 watersheds, fair on 91 watersheds, and poor on 15 watersheds in the Tonto National Forest WCC project.

The Proximity to Water attribute rating is rated good, fair or poor depending on the percent of stream miles within 300 feet of motorized routes (see Appendix B for a discussion of this attribute). The attribute is rated good if less than 10 percent of streams and water bodies are affected by motorized routes within 300 feet, fair if between 10 to 25 percent of streams are located within 300 feet of motorized routes, and poor if more than 25 percent of streams are within 300 feet of motorized routes. This attribute was rated good on 61 watersheds, fair on 78 watersheds, and poor on 39 watersheds in the Tonto National Forest WCC project.

The Vegetation Condition attribute in the Riparian/Wetland Vegetation Indicator is also affected by roads but assessment of this attribute was based more heavily by grazing impacts than road impacts in the Tonto National Forest WCC project. The impacts of the alternatives on riparian areas are assessed in terms of miles of roads in these areas but the attribute rating would not be expected to change.

Environmental Effects Legal and Regulatory Compliance

Statute and Regulation The Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 473-475). Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to govern the occupancy and use of National Forests and “…to improve and protect

Page 11 of 199 the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”

Bankhead-Jones Act of 1937. The Secretary is authorized and directed to develop a program of land conservation and land utilization, in order thereby to correct maladjustments in land use, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion (reforestation), preserving natural resources, (protecting fish and wildlife, developing and protecting recreational facilities), mitigating floods, (preventing impairment of dams and reservoirs, developing energy resources), conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the watersheds of navigable streams, and protecting the public lands, health, safety, and welfare.

The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531). States that the National Forests are to be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. This Act directs the Secretary to manage these resources in the combination that would best meet the needs of the American people; providing for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; and harmonious and coordinated management of the resources without impairment of the productivity of the land. Sustained yield means achieving and maintaining into perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of renewable resources without impairment of the productivity of the land.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) (as amended by National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a). This Act States that the development and administration of the renewable resources of the National Forest System are to be in full accord with the concepts for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services as set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. The Act requires the maintenance of productivity of the land and the protection and, where appropriate, improvement of the quality of the soil and water resources. The Act specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of productivity must be avoided and has far-reaching implications for watershed management in the National Forest System.

The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977 and 1982. The primary objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters. This objective translates into two fundamental national goals: 1. Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters, and 2. Achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable. This Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. All proposed alternatives have been evaluated for consistency with the Clean Water Act and associated State of Arizona Anti-degradation policy and determined to be fully consistent.

Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977. This order requires that each agency shall provide leadership and take action to: a. Minimize adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood plains and reduce risks of flood loss, b. Minimize impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and c. Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains

Page 12 of 199 Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977. This order requires each agency to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.

Executive Orders (EO) 11644 and 11989. These orders provide direction for Federal agencies to establish policies and provide for procedures to control and direct the use of OHVs on public lands so as to: (1) protect the resources of those lands; (2) promote the safety of all users of those lands; and (3) minimize conflicts among the various users on those lands. Section 3 (1) establishes that “Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands.” Section 9 (a) allows the agency head to close trails to use if the use is causing effects to the soil, vegetation, and other resources until the adverse effects have been eliminated and measures are implemented to prevent future recurrence.

The Forest Service developed regulations in response to the EOs (36 CFR, 219, 261 and 295). Under those regulations, OHV use can be restricted or prohibited to minimize: (1) damage to the soil, vegetation, watershed, and impacts to water quality, or other resources of public lands; (2) harm to wildlife or wildlife habitats; and (3) conflict between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation.

Forest Service Manual Direction Watershed and Air Management Objectives (2502): 1. To protect and, where appropriate, enhance soil productivity, water quality and quantity, and timing of water flows. 2. To maintain favorable conditions of streamflow and a continuous production of resources from National Forest System watersheds.

Watershed and Air Management Policy (FSM 2503): 1. Implement watershed management activities on the National Forests in accordance with the general objectives of multiple-use and the specific objectives in the Forest land management plan for the area involved. 2. Design all management activities of other resources to minimize short-term impacts on the soil and water resources and to maintain or enhance long term productivity, water quantity, and water quality.

Watershed Protection and Management Objectives (FSM 2520.2): To protect National Forest System watersheds by implementing practices designed to maintain or improve watershed condition, which is the foundation for sustaining ecosystems and the production of renewable natural resources, values, and benefits.

Watershed Condition Assessment Objectives (FSM 2521.02): 1. To assess long-term trends of watershed conditions as influenced by integrated land use practices. 2. To assess the changes in watershed capability to produce resource outputs that result from changes in watershed condition.

Page 13 of 199 3. To use a consistent and scientific approach to land management and to assess, protect, and restore watershed condition.

Riparian Area3 Management Objectives (FSM 2526.02): 1. To protect, manage, and improve riparian areas while implementing land and resource management activities. 2. To manage riparian areas in the context of the environment in which they are located, recognizing their unique values.

Riparian Area Management Policy (FSM 2526.03): 1. Manage riparian areas in relation to various legal mandates, including, but not limited to, those associated with floodplains, wetlands, water quality, dredged and fill material, endangered species, wild and scenic rivers, and cultural resources. 2. Manage riparian areas under the principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield, while emphasizing protection and improvement of soil, water, and vegetation, particularly because of their effects upon aquatic and wildlife resources. Give preferential consideration to riparian- dependent resources when conflicts among land use activities occur. 3. Delineate and evaluate riparian areas prior to implementing any project activity. Determine geographic boundaries of riparian areas by onsite characteristics of water, soil, and vegetation. 4. Give attention to land along all stream channels capable of supporting riparian vegetation (36 CFR 219.27e). 5. Give special attention to land and vegetation for approximately 100 feet from the edges of all perennial streams, lakes, and other bodies of water. This distance shall correspond to at least the recognizable area dominated by the riparian vegetation (36 CFR 219.27e). Give special attention to adjacent terrestrial areas to ensure adequate protection for the riparian-dependent resources.

Floodplain Management and Wetland Protection Objectives4 (FSM 2527.02): 1. To reduce risk of flood loss. 2. To minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. 3. To minimize destruction, loss, and degradation of wetlands. 4. To preserve and restore the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands.

Water Quality Management Objective (FSM 2532.02): To protect and, where needed, improve the physical, chemical, biological, and aesthetic quality of the water resource consistent with the purposes of the National Forests and National Water quality goals.

3 Riparian areas consist of riparian ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, and wetlands. 4 Responds to direction provided in Executive Orders 11514, 11988, and 11990.

Page 14 of 199 Water Quality Management Policy (FSM 2532.03): Promote and apply approved best management practices to all management activities as the method for control of non-point sources of water pollution, and for compliance with established state or national water quality goals.

Forest Plan Direction The 1985 Tonto National Forest Plan (USDA, 1985) identifies the following goals for managing Soil and Water Resources: • Provide direction and support to all resource management activities to o Meet minimum air and water quality standards, o Emphasize improvement of soil productivity, air and water quality o Enhance riparian ecosystems, by improved management o Management activities within the desert zone must fully recognize the limitations this unique ecosystem has to the impacts of man’s uses and activities • Specific watershed standards and guides identified in the Forest Plan that apply to roads include: o Where possible, locate roads on natural benches, ridges, flat slopes near ridges or valley bottoms, and away from stream channels. o Roads should be located on well-drained and stable ground, avoiding seeps and other unstable areas. o Stream crossing approaches should avoid steep pitches and grades in order to prevent sedimentation. o Where channel crossings are necessary, select an area where the channel is straight and cross the channel at right angles. o In streams inhabited by fish, structures need to provide for fish passage. In addition, structures containing natural stream bottoms are preferred over culverts. o Reduce road dimensions to that which will adequately fulfill anticipated needs and avoid large road cuts and fills. o An interdisciplinary (ID) team will evaluate the need for buffer strips between proposed roads and adjacent water bodies. Where a buffer strip is deemed necessary, the ID team will recommend the width of strip needed to achieve adequate protection of aquatic and riparian resources. o Avoid channel changes or disturbance of steam channels and minimize impacts to riparian vegetation. o Provide necessary water drainage structures as road construction proceeds. o Road runoff should not be discharged directly into streams, but should be diverted over stable vegetated areas or riprap. o Minimize excavation with a balanced earth work design; the area of cut slopes should be minimized in order to reduce erosion and slope instability. o Construction should take place only when soil conditions are not too wet. o Large cut and fill slopes should be stabilized. o Bridges and culverts should be installed in a way that prevents steam sedimentation and channel changes and provides for fish migration.

Page 15 of 199 o Minimize impacts on soil and water resources from all ground disturbing activities. o Mitigate the adverse effects of planned activities on the soil and water resources through the use of Best Management Practices.

Memorandum of Understanding with ADEQ A Memorandum of Understanding between the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (MOU 13-MU-11031600-012 dated 05-21-2013) identifies the Forest Service as the designated planning and management agency for NFS lands within the context of the Arizona Water Quality Management Program.. It also requires the Forest Service to provide ADEQ with an annual general assessment of water quality accomplishments, monitoring results, problems and priorities.

Non-point source pollution on the Tonto National Forest is managed through the Regional Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 1990), and through national best management practices recently issued by the Forest Service for water quality management on National Forest System Lands (USDA Forest Service, 2012). The Regional Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook includes one BMP for OHV use (23.16) and 22 BMP’s related to access and transportation systems and facilities (41.1 to 41.5) (See Appendix C). All National Forest System roads and trails open to OHV use are required to comply with these BMP’s. The BMP’s are listed in the appendix at the end of this document.

Of particular relevance for motorized travel management, BMP 23.16 identifies corrective actions that may be implemented where monitoring of ORV use identifies areas contributing or likely to contribute to water quality degradation. Corrective actions may include signing or barriers to redistribute use, placing restrictions on areas, rotation of use on areas, closure to vehicles that are causing problems, or total closure. Structural measures to minimize contact with stream courses, such as bridges or culverts, and the closure and obliteration of parallel or redundant trails may also be considered. Preventive actions include development, construction and maintenance of ORV trails and trailheads that limit soil erosion, public information designed to encourage use on ORV trails and discourage use in areas that are susceptible to erosion.

Assumptions and Methodology Water resources and their existing conditions are analyzed on a sixth Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC12) basis in terms of road density and proximity of roads to stream channels and other water bodies (watersheds are divided and subdivided into successively smaller units. HUC12 watersheds are the sixth subdivision of a major watershed such as the Lower Colorado River Basin and are known as subwatersheds). HUC12 watersheds typically range in size from 10,000 to 40,000 acres. Other units of measure to analyze effects of roads on water resources are analyzed by ranger district. These include: numbers of stream crossings, proximity to impaired water bodies, and miles of roads within riparian areas.

GIS information was used for the majority of the analysis. GIS data considered in the analysis includes:

Page 16 of 199 • National Forest system and non-system roads • Perennial, and intermittent and ephemeral stream systems • Impaired water bodies • Riparian areas • Lakes

Water quality/sediment load: The potential for roads to affect water quality and aquatic habitats is assessed by identifying the number of miles of roads hydrologically connected to streams and water bodies. Hydrologic connectivity occurs where there is a continuous flow path from roads to streams and water bodies. Examples include ditches that convey road derived or intercepted runoff to stream channels, cross drain features such as waterbars or dips, that discharge sufficient water to create a gully, sediment plume, or both that extends to a stream channel, and fillslopes that encroach on stream channels. Proximity of roads to streams and water bodies and the number of road stream crossings can be used to indicate connectivity (Wemple, 1994 in Gucinsky, 2000; USFS, 1999). Roads within 300 feet of a stream channel are considered to be hydrologically connected to the adjacent stream or water body. The 300-foot distance is based on guidance provided in the Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (USFS, 2010) that is used to assess the condition of HUC12 watersheds on National Forests throughout the country. Units of measure are: a. Number of crossings of perennial streams, and ephemeral and intermittent streams by ranger district. Stream crossings provide a direct route for sediments and other contaminants to be delivered to channels and are themselves a source of disturbance to channels. b. Miles of roads within 300-feet of perennial streams and water bodies, and ephemeral and intermittent streams by ranger district (proximity). Miles of roads within 300 feet of all streams would also be assessed by HUC12 watershed. The rating process used for proximity to water in the Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (USFS, 2011) would be used to identify the number of HUC12 watersheds falling within the condition class ratings used in the Technical Guide for each alternative. Tables 8-11 in Appendix A display percent of stream miles affected by motorized routes within the 300 buffer zone by HUC12 watershed c. Miles of roads within 300 feet of impaired streams and water bodies (proximity) by ranger district.

Some duplication of road mileages will occur by including miles of roads within the 300-foot buffer distance of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and impaired streams and water bodies, but helps to display impacts by various categories of resource sensitivity.

Riparian areas: Units of measure are miles of roads within riparian areas by ranger district.

Density: Road density is known to play a dominant role in human-induced augmentation of sediment supply by erosion and mass wasting in the Pacific Northwest and it is reasonable to assume that similar relationships exist elsewhere (USDA Forest Service, 2011). Road density will be displayed by ranger district and assessed using the criteria in the Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service, 2011) by HUC12 watershed. The number of HUC12 watersheds falling within the condition class ratings identified in the Technical Guide will be identified for each alternative. Tables 4 through 7 of the condition assessment of HUC12 watersheds will be provided in Appendix A.

Types of roads included or excluded from analysis are identified below:

Page 17 of 199 1. Roads in the watershed assessment process include roads that are within the Forest Proclamation Boundary, but are not administered by the Forest Service. These include federal, state, county, and private roads as well as roads administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). These roads are included in the analysis, because although they are not managed by the TNF they contribute to overall watershed condition.

2. Road types considered in the environmental analysis include: • Maintenance Level 1(closed roads). These roads are included because although technically closed they are available for reopening when needed and the road prism remains on the ground. In addition many of these roads are currently being used by motor vehicles. • Decommissioned Roads. These roads were identified for decommissioning in the Forests’ RATM plan but most have not been physically decommissioned and many are currently being used by motor vehicles. • Maintenance Level 2 (high clearance vehicle roads) • Maintenance Level 3 (roads suitable for passenger cars) • Maintenance Level 4 (roads providing a moderate degree of user comfort) • Maintenance Level 5 (roads providing a high degree of user comfort) • Roads for administrative use only • Motorized trails. Motorcycle and ATV trails have a smaller footprint on the landscape but have impacts similar to other motor vehicles; disturb vegetation, disrupt drainage patterns, and compact soils (although compaction may be less than other motor vehicles). Differences in impacts are considered small and the effects of motorized trails are added to those for other motorized routes for summarizing impacts of alternatives. • Unauthorized motorized routes that have been inventoried. 672 miles of unauthorized routes have been inventoried. Many hundreds of miles of uninventoried unauthorized motorized routes also exist but are not included in the analysis.

The mileages of the various categories of roads have been summed for the impact analysis. Differences in impacts are not considered sufficiently different to warrant separate analyses for each category of road.

3. Changes in administrative use of roads and restrictions on season of use are expected to have a negligible effect on watershed conditions. The setting of roads has a much larger impact on watersheds than the type of use. Therefore, changes in allowable access (i.e., from a closed or open road to an administrative use road or season of use) were not considered in assessing effects. However, it is acknowledged that seasonal restrictions on motorized routes in the Pleasant Valley Ranger District during winter months when the ground is wet would mitigate some effects of roads on watersheds.

4. Roads proposed for decommissioning are not included in this analysis, because these routes would not be included on the map of authorized travel routes. Some decommissioned routes are expected to revegetate naturally. Other routes may need to be physically decommissioned to eliminate watershed impacts. Physical decommissioning would not occur until future site specific environmental analysis is completed.

5. Features not considered motorized routes in the assessment process also include roads that are proposed to convert from maintenance level 1 to non-motorized trails.

Page 18 of 199 6. Arizona Game and Fish Department issued 81 CHAMP permits to persons who have a permanent disability or combination of disabilities in 2012. These permits authorize the holder to take wildlife from a motor vehicle off of designated motorized routes. Due to the small number of permits issued and the negligible impact of this off road use on watershed conditions this impact will not be considered further in the assessment.

7. Sixty-four miles of motorized routes (primarily single track routes) were recently inventoried by the Tonto Recreation Alliance (TRAL) and provided to the Tonto National Forest. These routes lie within the proposed Desert Vista Permit Zone. This area includes numerous inventoried and uninventoried unauthorized routes in addition to those inventoried by TRAL. The only routes provided by TRAL that are assessed in the alternatives are those that would be added to the forest motorized route or trail system in Alternative C. The routes inventoried by TRAL would not affect existing watershed condition ratings of HUC12 watersheds and would have negligible effect on other forest wide watershed assessment criterion. They will not be further analyzed except in Alternative C where they are being added to the designated system.

General Road Effects Roads directly affect natural sediment and hydrologic regimes by altering stream flow, sediment loading, sediment transport and deposition, channel morphology, channel stability, substrate composition, stream temperatures, water quality, and riparian conditions in a watershed (Gucinsky et al., 2000).

The hydrologic effect of roads depends on several factors, including location of roads on sideslopes, characteristics of the soil profile, subsurface water flow and groundwater interception, design of drainage structures (ditches, culverts) that affect the routing of flow through watersheds, and the proportion of the watershed occupied by roads (Gucinsky et al., 2000).

Roads have three primary effects on hydrologic processes. They intercept rainfall directly on the road surface and road cut and fill slopes, and intercept subsurface water moving down the hillslope; they concentrate flow either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and they divert or reroute water from natural flow paths (Gucinsky et al., 2000; USFS, 1999).

By intercepting road runoff as well as natural surface runoff and subsurface flow, and concentrating and diverting it into ditches, gullies, and channels, road systems effectively increase the density of streams in the landscape, thereby altering timing of peak flows and hydrograph shape (Gucinsky et al., 2000). Small increases in peak flows may also result from roads in watersheds. Based on studies of small watersheds, effect of roads on peak flows is detectable but relatively modest for most storms (Gucinsky et al., 2000).

Roads contribute more sediment to streams than any other land management activity (Gucinsky et al., 2000). Large increases in the amount of sediment delivered to the stream channel can greatly impair or even eliminate fish and aquatic invertebrate habitat and alter the structure and width of stream banks and adjacent riparian zone (Macdonald, 1991). The amount of sediment can affect channel shape, sinuosity, and relative balance between pools and riffles. Indirect effects of increased sediment loads may include increased stream temperatures and decreased intergravel dissolved oxygen (DO) (Macdonald, 1991).

Fine sediments tend to fill interstices between coarser particles, which reduce habitat space for small fish, invertebrates, and other organisms. Intrusion of fine particles into bed material also reduces the permeability of bed material, which often results in a decline in concentration of intergravel DO. Some invertebrate species are very sensitive to even small declines in DO (Macdonald, 1991).

Page 19 of 199 Excess sediments can cause widening of the stream channel, filling in of the channel thalweg (the deepest portion of the channel), increasing bed elevation (channel aggradation), and declining cross sectional area. Net deposition of sediment usually results in more extreme stream temperatures, a decrease in the amount and quality of fish cover. Other changes may include changes in the quality of spawning habitat, a possible reduction in habitat space for algae and macroinvertebrates, increased bank erosion, and an increased likelihood of flooding (Macdonald, 1991).

Road derived sediments originate from a number of sources. These include: • Surface erosion of the road surface, and cut and fill slopes, • Erosion of roadside ditches from concentrated runoff, • Excess runoff from roads can overload ephemeral channels, resulting in significant channel downcutting. • Surface flow paths can be altered so water is concentrated and diverted onto unchanneled upland areas resulting in incision (gullying) of these areas. • Capacity of undersized culverts may be exceeded or entrances may become blocked and water can be diverted from one sub-watershed to another also resulting in channel erosion or severe ditch erosion. • Road-stream crossings can be a major source of sediment to streams, resulting from channel fill around culverts and subsequent road-crossing failures.

Roads can alter the physical dynamics of stream channels. Stream channels migrate across their historic floodplains, eroding the bed and banks in one location, while aggrading the bed and building new banks in other locations. They also transport the water, sediment, and debris of their attendant watershed. Large pieces of woody debris and fine organic matter transported by streams provide physical structure and diverse aquatic habitat. When roads encroach directly on stream channels, these processes can be modified. Wood and sediment can be trapped behind stream crossings, reducing downstream sediment transport and increasing risk of crossing failure. Unnatural channel widths, slope, and stream-bed form are found upstream and downstream of stream crossings. Road alignment and road fills can isolate floodplains, constrict the channel, constrain channel migration, and simplify riparian and aquatic habitat (USFS, 1999).

Water Quality The effects of roads and motorized trails on water quality can include sedimentation (deposited solids), turbidity (suspended solids), and pollutants within affected watersheds. Turbidity reduces in-stream photosynthesis and results in reduced food supply and aquatic habitat. Roads increase nutrient delivery to streams by removing vegetation, re-routing water flow paths, and increasing sediment delivery. Nutrients discharged into aquatic systems can cause algal blooms, which reduce water clarity and deplete oxygen (ADOT, 1995). Pollutants associated with leaks and spills of petroleum products may be adsorbed to sediments, absorbed by plant material, or dissolved in runoff; once mobilized, these contaminants may enter aquatic systems (Ouren et al., 2007). Roads can lead to water temperature changes by removal of streamside vegetation where roads encroach on channels, and alter streamflow regimes through processes described earlier. Water quality can also be adversely affected when fugitive dust and contaminants enter aquatic systems. Airborne dust and contaminants adsorbed to dust particles raised by OHV traffic may eventually settle directly onto wetlands.

Effects of Cross-country Travel The primary effects of OHV activity on soils and overall watershed function include altered soil structure (soil compaction in particular), destruction of soil crusts (biotic and abiotic) and erosion pavements (gravel surfaces) that would otherwise stabilize soils, and soil erosion. As soil compaction increases, the soil’s ability to support vegetation diminishes, because resulting increases in soil strength and changes in

Page 20 of 199 soil structure (loss of porosity) inhibit growth of root systems and reduce infiltration of water. As vegetative cover, water infiltration, and soil stabilizing crusts are diminished or disrupted, precipitation runoff rates increase, and soil erosion accelerates, leading to formation of rills, gullies, and other surface changes (Ouren et al., 2007).

Effects of OHV activities on water quality can include sedimentation (deposited solids), turbidity (suspended solids), and pollutants within affected watersheds. Sedimentation increases because compacted soils, disrupted soil crusts, and reduced vegetation cover can lead to increased amounts and velocities of runoff; in turn, this accelerates the rates at which sediments and other debris are eroded from OHV-use areas and flushed to down slope aquatic systems. Pollutants associated with deposition of OHV emissions and spills of petroleum products may be adsorbed to sediments, absorbed by plant material, or dissolved in runoff; once mobilized, these contaminants may enter aquatic systems (Ouren et al., 2007).

Where slope is a factor, extensive networks of OHV routes can proliferate across landscapes and serve as conduits that intercept and alter direction of natural surface flow pathways. These conduits may be eroded to form gullies that channel dislodged sediments and contaminants into stream systems. Where OHV activity occurs, networks of OHV routes proliferate. The generally impervious nature of soils compacted by OHV traffic enhances gully formation in these conduits, thus promoting additional flows of sediments and suspended solids into stream systems, effectively extending the drainage network of a given watershed, and potentially changing the timing of peak runoff flows (Ouren et al., 2007).

Riparian Effects Roads and motorized trails in riparian areas have many of the same effects as those in upland sites; however they compound these effects by disrupting many of the natural beneficial functions provided by riparian areas. Healthy riparian areas stabilize stream channels, provide storage for sediment, serve as nutrient sinks for surrounding watersheds, improve the quality of water, control water temperature through shading, reduce flood peaks, and serve as recharge areas for alluvial and deeper aquifers (DeBano and Schmidt,1989). Roads directly remove the riparian vegetation and replace it with an impermeable surface (Lafayette et al., 1996). Roads in riparian areas compact soils, which reduces infiltration, are often in close proximity to stream channels thereby contributing disproportionate amounts of sediments and other pollutants to stream channels. Riparian areas are popular recreation sites because of the cool and shady environment they provide in an otherwise hot and arid area. Recreational use of riparian areas disturbs many of the same functions of these areas that are also disturbed by roads. Roads in riparian areas facilitate recreational access to these areas which compounds the effects of the roads themselves.

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, current management of motorized travel on the Tonto National Forest would continue.

Motorized Routes Table 3 displays density of motorized routes by ranger district. On a forest wide basis route density would be classified as fair in the WCC Technical Guide (USFS, 2011). Road density would be characterized as fair on all ranger districts. The Cave Creek Ranger District has the lowest road density but has many miles of uninventoried unauthorized routes that if inventoried would likely result in a higher road density rating.

Page 21 of 199 Table 3: Road Density by Ranger District Ranger District Road Density Ranger District Road Miles Area (Sq Miles) (Mi/Sq Mi) Cave Creek 975.7 955.0 1.02 Globe 1029.7 736.1 1.40 Mesa 775.0 694.5 1.12 Payson 1022.1 723.1 1.41 Pleasant Valley 1183.6 682.6 1.73 Tonto Basin 1058.1 841.0 1.26 Total 6044.2 4632.3 1.30

Existing locations of motorized routes in relation to selected water resources features are displayed in tables below. Table 4 displays the number of miles of motorized routes within a 300-foot buffer on each side of perennial streams, lakes, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and impaired water bodies. It also displays the percent of stream channels that are in close proximity to roads.

Table 4: Miles of Motorized Routes in Close Proximity to Selected Water Resources Features - Existing Conditions - No Action Alternative

Route Miles in close proximity to Selected water resource features

Stream Stream miles Ranger District Perennial Intermittent Impaired miles Affected by Lakes Streams & Ephemeral Water Roads (mi) (mi) Streams (mi) Bodies (mi) (%) Cave Creek 2,877 24.1 422.2 15.5 7.5 2.1 Globe 1,873 7.7 379.9 20.7 N/A 20.6 Mesa 2,169 15.4 386.6 18.5 6.9 11.4 Payson 1,867 26.8 338.7 19.6 N/A 10.9 Pleasant Valley 1,486 34.6 275.7 20.9 N/A N/A Tonto Basin 2,980 11.6 403.4 13.9 14.9 34.5 Total 13,252 120.2 2206.5 17.6 29.3 79.5

Motorized routes within the 300-foot buffer distance have a greater potential to be hydrologically connected to streams than those beyond the 300-foot buffer distance. Motorized routes hydrologically connected to stream channels and water bodies can provide greater quantities of sediments and other pollutants directly to these features. Hydrologic connectivity is dependent on a number of factors including slope, soil erodibility, vegetative ground cover, and climatic conditions. A 300-foot buffer provides a reasonable distance for identifying the majority of motorized routes that would have direct pathways for delivering road derived pollutants to water bodies.

Page 22 of 199 Table 5 displays miles of roads within riparian areas, and number of crossings of, perennial streams, and intermittent and ephemeral streams.

Table 5: Existing conditions – No Action Alternative Roads in Riparian Number of Stream Crossings Ranger District Areas Perennial Intermittent and Ephemeral (miles) Streams Streams Cave Creek 88.7 96 1360 Globe 65.5 39 1110 Mesa 59.5 96 1221 Payson 72.2 123 952 Pleasant Valley 41.1 172 754 Tonto Basin 96.1 53 1439 Total 423.1 579 6836

Motorized routes considered in the previous tables include roads in the existing Forest road system (including those identified as closed or decommissioned in the Forests RATM plan) roads operated by other government jurisdictions such as the state or counties, and inventoried but unauthorized motorized routes. A total of 6,046 miles of motorized routes were included within the analysis. A total of 672 miles of unauthorized motorized routes have been inventoried on the Forest. Many miles of additional unauthorized routes also occur on the Forest, but have not been inventoried. Inventoried unauthorized routes contribute to effects on watershed, stream channel, and riparian conditions in the same manner as existing system roads and roads managed by other jurisdictions. In some instances the impacts of unauthorized routes are greater than those of maintained routes due to lack of roadway design and failure to include Best Management Practices (BMPs). One of the benefits of implementing the Travel Management Rule should be to reduce the proliferation of unauthorized routes.

Proximity of motorized routes to water when considered on a district and forest wide basis would be classified as fair based on the WCC Technical Guide (USFS, 2011). The proximity to water attribute is rated fair when between 10 and 25 percent of streams are in close proximity to roads. All ranger districts and the Forest as a whole would fall within this rating category.

There are approximately 640 miles of perennial streams within the Tonto National Forest. Based on Table 4, up to nineteen percent of perennial stream miles could be affected by roads within 300 feet of the stream channel (total affected mileage of perennial streams is less than the miles of roads identified in the second column of Table 4, because more than one road or segments of the same road may exist within the 300-foot buffer along a reach of perennial stream). Tables 12 through 15 in Appendix A identify by alternative the percent of individual perennial streams affected by roads within the 300-foot buffer distance used for stream assessment. There is also an estimated 12,610 miles of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels within the Forest. Based on Table 4, up to seventeen percent of these channels could be affected by roads within 300 feet of the channel.

Page 23 of 199 Impaired water bodies on the Forest are primarily impaired by pollutants (copper, selenium, low dissolved oxygen, phosphorous, nitrogen, E. Coli, mercury in fish tissue, arsenic, and boron) that would be only minimally affected by roads. The only water body impaired for sediment/turbidity is the Salt River from the confluence with Pinal Creek to Roosevelt Lake. This river reach has approximately 3.2 miles of motorized routes within the 300-foot buffer distance of the river. 2.1 miles of these routes are inventoried unauthorized routes and 0.6 miles is State Route 288 (which is a paved road) where it approaches and crosses the Salt River. The remaining 0.5 miles consist of various forest system roads including a rafter takeout ramp for rafters floating the upper Salt River. The impact of these roads on water quality in the Salt River is small in comparison to the watershed area contributing to the impaired reach (4,306 square miles at the US Geological Survey gauge at the Hwy 288 crossing). Small localized impacts to water quality occur from the roads considered in the Travel Management process during periods of rainfall runoff.

The Verde River from West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek was assessed as impaired for sediment/turbidity in the 2006/2008 water quality assessment report, but has a completed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) assessment that is currently being implemented. It is not identified as an impaired water body in the 2012/14 assessment report. Less than 0.1 mile of roads within the Tonto National Forest are within the 300-foot buffer distance of this previously impaired reach of the Verde River. The impact of this road on water quality in the Verde River is negligible due to the short length of the road segment. Small localized impacts to sediment and turbidity occur during rainfall runoff and during cross country vehicle crossings of the Verde River.

Approximately 75,000 acres of riparian vegetation have been mapped on the Tonto National Forest. 423 miles of motorized routes have been mapped within riparian areas and result in a road density in riparian areas of 3.6 miles per square mile. The number of perennial stream crossings results in a crossing density of one crossing for every 1.1 miles. Crossing density of intermittent and ephemeral streams would be one crossing every 1.8 miles. Stream crossings are a source of direct connectivity between roads and streams that can add sediments and other pollutants to stream channels. Vehicles on routes in or across stream channels, particularly perennial streams, can increase turbidity, break down stream banks, and have direct effects on aquatic habitat. Vehicle crossings can also disturb the armor layer of gravels, cobbles, and boulders that develop on the bed and banks of many stream channels that help to resist the erosive effects of stream flows. Disturbances to this armor layer make the channel vulnerable to increased erosion and down cutting.

Road density in HUC12 watersheds is rated good, fair, or poor based on whether road density is less than 1 mile per square mile (good), from 1 to 2.4 miles per square mile (fair) or more than 2.4 miles per square mile (poor) (USFS, 2010). Under existing conditions 67 HUC12 watersheds would receive a good rating for the road density attribute, 92 HUC12 watersheds would receive a fair rating, and 19 watersheds a poor rating (the difference between these numbers and those in the affected environment is due to differences in the miles of road included in the WCC and TM analyses). Table 6 displays these summary ratings as well as the number of HUC12 watersheds in each of the density rating classes when

Page 24 of 199 inventoried unauthorized routes are included in the total road mileage. Tables 4 through 7 (Appendix A) display road density ratings by HUC12 watershed.

Table 6: Watershed Ratings for Road Density and Proximity to Streams Attributes Existing Condition for Motorized Routes HUC12 Condition Road Proximity to Rating Density Streams Good 67 57 Fair 92 81 Poor 19 40

Road proximity (within 300 feet) to streams is also assessed by HUC12 watershed. HUC12 watershed ratings for proximity to streams are good if no more than 10 percent of stream length within a watershed is affected by roads within 300 feet of streams, fair if stream length affected by roads ranges from 10 to 25 percent of stream miles within a watershed, and poor if stream length affected by roads is greater than 25 percent of stream mileage. Based on these criteria 57 HUC12 watersheds would receive a good rating for this attribute, 81 watersheds a fair rating, and 40 watersheds a poor rating (the difference between these numbers and those in the affected environment is due to differences in the miles of road included in the WCC and TM analyses). Table 6 displays these summary ratings. Tables 8- 11 (Appendix A) display proximity to water ratings by HUC12 watershed.

The primary impact of roads on watershed conditions on the Tonto National Forest is disruption of natural drainage patterns, delivery of abnormal amounts of sediment to stream channels, and displacement of riparian vegetation. These impacts can be high in areas of high road density, areas of heavy OHV use and areas where there is high connectivity between roads and streams. Guidance provided in the Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (USFS, 2010) identifies road density, road proximity to water, and road and trail maintenance as responsible for 15 percent of the overall watershed condition rating. On this basis the ratings for road density and proximity to water discussed above would have a small (10 percent) impact on overall watershed condition on the Forest.

Motorized Cross-country Travel Motorized cross-country travel is permitted on 700,004 acres in the Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts. Although motorized cross-country travel is not an authorized activity in the four southern ranger districts, this activity occurs in a number of areas in close proximity to the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Areas of particularly heavy OHV use occur in the lower Sycamore Creek area on Mesa Ranger District and the lower Camp Creek area on Cave Creek Ranger District. The streams most affected by heavy OHV use include Lower Camp Creek in the Cave Creek Ranger District, and Lower Sycamore Creek and Cottonwood Creek in the Mesa Ranger District. These streams support riparian vegetation and Sycamore Creek has reaches of perennial flow. Other ephemeral and intermittent stream channels also occur in the areas of heavy use.

Page 25 of 199 Impacts to water resources are occurring in these areas from disturbance to vegetation, exposure and compaction of soils, rutting and gullying of routes, disruption of natural drainage patterns, and disturbance to riparian areas and stream channels (see figures below). These effects result in increased runoff, erosion, and sedimentation, as well as direct disturbance to sensitive riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Increasing impacts are anticipated into the future due to growing population in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area and increasing OHV sales. Heavy cross-country travel in close proximity to stream channels and within stream channels would affect channels and water quality more than the same level of use at a greater distance from these areas. Similar affects would occur where cross-country travel occurs in riparian areas. Areas with only incidental OHV use have minimal watershed effects. Impacts to natural drainage patterns, riparian areas, and stream channels and increases in erosion are occurring in these areas and are described under general roads effects.

Figure 3: Example of OHV impacts in Lower Sycamore Creek Area5

5 Photo taken by author

Page 26 of 199 Figure 4: Images of the Sycamore Creek Area on the Mesa Ranger District (1992 & 2010)6

6 Effects of OHV use on the Mesa Ranger District By Joseph J Patton, Administrative Assistant, Mesa Ranger District

Page 27 of 199 OHV Permit Zones The only currently permitted OHV Zone is the Bulldog Canyon OHV Permit Zone on the Mesa Ranger District. This zone was created to control heavy OHV use that was damaging soil and vegetation resources. Vehicle use is restricted to existing roads and requires motorized users to obtain written authorization (a free special use permit from the ranger district) to enter the area. Presence of the Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone under this alternative should continue to prevent proliferation of unauthorized routes that occurred prior to designation and that is occurring in other heavily-used areas. Routes open prior to designation continue to be used consequently vegetative recovery that would improve watershed conditions has not occurred.

The Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone is a 54 square mile area that lies within parts of six HUC12 watersheds. Approximately 90 percent of two HUC12 watersheds lie within the permit zone. Table 7 below displays the HUC12 watersheds, the percent of each watershed in the permit zone, and the miles of motorized routes in each watershed within the permit zone. Forty-six miles of motorized routes occur in the permit zone which results in a road density of .85 miles per square mile. This density would be rated “good” in the Watershed Condition Classification if it occurred within a single watershed.

Table 7: Alternative A - Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone Watershed Characteristics and Motorized Route Miles Watershed Motorized area within Percent of HUC12 No. HUC12 Name Routes Permit Zone Watershed (mi) (mi2) 150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 23.8 39 23 150601060301 Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa FRS 5.5 89 6 150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 0.1 0 1 150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 6.5 34 4 150501000802 Weekes Wash 3.1 40 10 150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 15.3 93 11 Total 54.3 55

Continued designation as a Permit Zone in this alternative should prevent an increase in adverse watershed effects (accelerated runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and disturbance to channels and riparian areas) associated with OHV uses off of designated roads.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Under the No Action Alternative, continued unrestricted motorized big game retrieval would occur on 700,004 acres open to cross-country travel in the Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts. Cross- country motorized travel is prohibited in remaining ranger districts except in limited areas that are posted open. It is likely that some motorized big game retrieval occurs in these ranger districts outside of posted open areas. Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts lie within Game Management Units (GMU’s) 22 and 23. These Game Management Units also include portions of the Cave Creek, Mesa, and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts. Motorized big game retrieval estimates for these game management units

Page 28 of 199 would overestimate the total number of motorized big game retrievals. The majority of the Cave Creek District in Game Management Unit 22 lies within the Mazatzal Wilderness and wilderness areas have been excluded from the estimates for motorized big game retrieval. Five year average estimates of motorized big game retrieval in GMU’s 22 and 23 are 391 retrievals per year. Most motorized game retrieval involves a single trip with a vehicle (typically an ATV) within 200 yards of a road. Webb (1983) found that after a single pass, annual plants on an OHV route remained intact, but most were destroyed after ten passes. We expect perennial plants to be more robust, and therefore perennial plants are likely to also sustain one to two passes. Minimal impacts on vegetative ground cover and soil compaction are expected from motorized retrieval of big game. Based on the low number of trips required for big game retrieval, short distance needed for retrieval, and low number of OHV crossings of a site, motorized big game retrieval has minimal effects on water resource conditions.

Motorized Dispersed Camping Under the No Action Alternative unrestricted motorized dispersed camping would continue on 700,004 acres open to cross-country motorized use on the Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts and on limited areas posted open in the other four ranger districts. Dispersed motorized camping off existing system roads is prohibited in other areas of the four southern ranger districts. Dispersed motorized camping would have its greatest impacts at popular dispersed camping sites where short unauthorized routes provide access to the camping site. Impacts would be similar to those described for roads. Riparian areas are often popular dispersed campsites due to shade and access to water. Motorized dispersed camping in these sites impacts riparian areas both through the disturbance created by the route accessing the site and disturbance that occurs onsite from camping. Camping results in disturbance to vegetation, compaction of soils, and accelerated runoff and erosion. Proximity of riparian areas to stream channels means a greater likelihood that impacts within the riparian area would be expressed in the channel as well. Improper disposal of human waste can also affect water quality.

Although motorized dispersed camping can have moderate impacts to watershed conditions at popular dispersed campsites; the limited extent of dispersed camping on a forest wide basis results in only minor impacts overall.

Personal Use Fuelwood Gathering Currently there are approximately 1,346,000 acres on the Globe, Payson, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto Basin ranger districts open to personal use fuelwood gathering as well as other forest products to forest users who have received permits for gathering these products. Motorized travel would cause localized impacts to soils, and some riparian areas and be most pronounced where motorized traffic occurred on wet soils. Most wood harvesting occurs on upland soils. Impacts to riparian areas would be minimal. Localized soil degradation particularly when soils are wet could include localized soil compaction, rutting, loss of vegetation cover, accelerated soil loss and loss of soil productivity from cross-country travel. The extent of soil disturbance Forest-wide would be minimal.

Alternative B - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative B provides the least motorized access than the other alternatives.

Page 29 of 199 Motorized Routes Table 8 displays number of miles of motorized routes in alternative B within a 300-foot buffer of intermittent and ephemeral streams, perennial streams, lakes, and impaired water bodies. This table also displays change in route mileage within various buffer categories between alternative B and existing conditions.

Table 8: Motorized Routes within buffer zones of selected water features Perennial Intermittent and Impaired Water Lakes Streams Ephemeral Streams Bodies Ranger District Change Change change (mi) (mi) (mi) change (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) Cave Creek 9.8 -14.3 1.7 -5.8 195.6 -226.6 0.5 -1.6 Globe 5.4 -2.3 N/A N/A 274.7 -105.2 15.4 -5.2 Mesa 8.6 -6.8 5 -1.9 184.9 -201.7 8.4 -3 Payson 19.0 -7.8 N/A N/A 224.0 -114.7 8.2 -2.7 Pleasant Valley 16.1 -18.5 N/A N/A 134.5 -141.2 N/A N/A Tonto Basin 6.0 -5.6 11.3 -3.6 272.5 -130.9 20.3 -14.2 Total 64.9 -55.3 17.9 -11.4 1286.1 -920.4 52.8 -26.7

The net effect of this alternative on a forest wide basis is a substantial decrease in miles of roads within buffer distances of selected water resources features. Changes from existing conditions include a forty- six percent decrease in miles of roads within the 300-foot buffer distance of perennial streams, a forty- two percent decrease in miles of roads within the 300-foot buffer of intermittent and ephemeral channels, and a thirty-four percent decrease in road mileage within 300 feet of impaired water bodies.

Table 9 displays miles of roads within riparian areas, and number of stream crossings of perennial, and intermittent and ephemeral streams. It also displays change in road miles in riparian areas and road crossings of streams in this alternative from existing conditions.

Page 30 of 199 Table 9: Alternative B - Routes within riparian areas and numbers of stream crossing Number of Stream Crossings Roads In Riparian Ranger District Areas (miles) Perennial Streams Intermittent and Ephemeral (no. of crossings) Streams (no. of crossings) Alt B Change Alt B Change Alt B Change Cave Creek 35.6 -53.1 38 -58 600 -760 Globe 46.2 -19.3 22 -17 784 -326 Mesa 27.7 -31.8 42 -54 544 -677 Payson 52.7 -19.5 95 -28 616 -336 Pleasant Valley 24.8 -16.3 78 -94 368 -386 Tonto Basin 55.0 -41.1 30 -23 1,061 -378 Total 242.1 -181.0 305 -274 3,973 -2,863

The effect of this alternative on a forest wide basis is a substantial decrease in miles of roads within riparian areas, in the number of crossings of perennial streams, and in the number of crossings of intermittent and ephemeral channels. On an overall basis these changes represent almost a forty-three percent decrease in road mileage within riparian areas, a forty-seven percent decrease in road crossings of perennial streams, and a forty-two percent decrease in number of crossings of intermittent and ephemeral channels. Road density in riparian areas declines from 3.6 miles per square mile under existing conditions to 2.1 miles per square mile under Alternative B. In terms of the WCC attribute rating for road density the difference in density would improve the rating from poor to fair.

Table 10 and Table 11 display road density by ranger district and the percent of streams affected by roads within the 300 foot buffer distances of stream channels by ranger district. Changes from existing conditions are also displayed.

Page 31 of 199 Table 10: Alternative B - Route Density by Ranger District Change Density Road Change from Ranger District From (Miles/Sq Miles Existing Existing Miles) Cave Creek 449.8 -526.0 0.47 -0.55 Globe 736.3 -293.3 1.00 -0.40 Mesa 386.6 -388.5 0.56 -0.56 Payson 701.9 -320.2 0.97 -0.44 Pleasant Valley 618.5 -565.1 0.91 -0.83 Tonto Basin 711.9 -346.2 0.85 -0.41 Total 3,605.0 -2439.2 0.78 -0.53

Table 11: Alternative B - Proximity of Routes to Stream Channels by Ranger District Routes Change near from Streams District Stream streams existing near routes Miles (mi) (mi) (%) Cave Creek 2,877 205.4 -241.0 7.1 Globe 1,873 280.1 -107.5 15.0 Mesa 2,169 193.5 -208.5 8.9 Payson 1,867 242.9 -122.5 13.0 Pleasant Valley 1,486 150.6 -159.7 10.1 Tonto Basin 2,980 278.5 -136.5 9.3 Total 13,252 1,351.0 -975.7 10.2

Road density decreases to less than one mile per square mile on all districts except Globe. On a forest wide basis road density also decreases to less than one mile per square mile. A density of less than one mile would result in a road density attribute rating of good when the WCC Technical guide criteria are applied. Route density in the Globe District remains in the fair category although density nearly achieves a good rating.

Proximity of routes to water is reduced by nearly forty-two percent from existing conditions in this alternative. On a forest wide basis the proximity to water attribute rating would remain in the fair category. To achieve a good rating for this attribute the percent of streams in close proximity to motorized routes would have to drop below 10 percent. Attribute ratings of good would be achieved in the Cave Creek, Mesa, and Tonto Basin Districts. These ratings would not apply until decommissioning of routes identified for this activity has been completed. In some instances site specific environmental analysis will be required before decommissioning can occur.

Table 12 displays the number of HUC12 watersheds rated good, fair, or poor for road density and road proximity to streams, and the change in number ofHUC12 watershed ratings from existing conditions.

Page 32 of 199 Table 12: Alternative B - Watershed condition ratings for route density and proximity to streams attributes Route Density Proximity to Streams HUC12 Condition Rating Alternative Change from Existing Alternative Change from Existing B Conditions B Conditions Good 113 46 101 44 Fair 62 -30 67 -14 Poor 3 -16 10 -30

This alternative results in reduced road density in 167 of 178 rated HUC12 watersheds. Road density declines sufficiently to improve the road density attribute rating from the Watershed Condition Class assessment to good in 46 HUC12 watersheds and reduces the number of watersheds rated fair or poor for this attribute by the numbers displayed in the table above. Thirty-four percent of HUC12 watersheds would have an improved road density attribute rating under this alternative once decommissioning of identified routes is completed. This alternative also results in reduced percent of streams with roads in close proximity to motorized routes in 162of 178 rated watersheds. Percent of streams with roads in close proximity is reduced sufficiently to improve the Proximity to Streams attribute rating from existing conditions in 44 watersheds. The number of watersheds rated fair or poor for this attribute is reduced by the numbers displayed in the table above. Thirty-nine percent of HUC12 watersheds would have an improved proximity to water attribute rating in this alternative. Improvement in these attributes ratings would result in improvement in the overall watershed condition rating for six watersheds on the Tonto NF once decommissioning of roads identified for this action is physically completed. Watersheds experiencing improvement in overall watershed condition are identified in the Table 13 and Figure 5.

Table 13: Alternative B - HUC12 Watersheds improved by reduced road density and proximity to streams from Existing Conditions Watershed Condition HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Rating 150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon Functioning 150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek Functioning at Risk 150601030803 Upper Salome Creek Functioning 150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek Functioning at Risk 150601050103 Upper Spring Creek Functioning 150601030311 Willow Creek Functioning

Page 33 of 199 Figure 5: Watersheds that would improve a condition class under Alternative B

Motorized Cross-country Travel Motorized cross-country travel would not be permitted in this alternative. Eliminating motorized cross- country travel in areas where heavy OHV use occurs on the 700,000 acres currently open to cross country travel on the Payson and Pleasant Valley ranger districts would allow disturbed areas to recover over time. Enforcement of restrictions on motorized cross-country travel in other ranger districts that are currently closed but where unauthorized OHV use is occurring should also permit recovery of watershed conditions over time. Recovery in particularly fragile areas (areas with sensitive or erodible soils, or slow vegetative recovery such as the Sonoran Desert) may not return watershed conditions to pre-disturbance levels if changes in drainage features, such as gullies, have developed. In some areas active restoration efforts may be needed to reduce watershed impacts. Eliminating motorized cross country travel would result in reduced impacts to watershed conditions from those under existing conditions.

OHV Permit Zones Five permit zones including, the existing Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone, encompass about 236 square miles and require users to obtain a special use permit to access about 317 miles of roads and motorized

Page 34 of 199 trails in these zones7. Vehicles would be required to stay on designated roads and motorized trails. Twenty one HUC12 watersheds lay partly within these permit zones

The effects of designated roads and motorized trails authorized in these areas have been included in the tables displaying the watershed effects of this alternative. Unauthorized use of designated roads and trails is currently occurring in these areas. One effect of designating the Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone has been improved compliance with requirements to operate motor vehicles on designated roads only. Improved compliance reduces the proliferation of unauthorized routes that is occurring in nearby non permit areas. Designating additional permit zones should also reduce or eliminate the proliferation of new unauthorized routes. Restricting use to designated roads and trails should reduce effects of cross- country travel and use of unauthorized routes and provide for some recovery of watershed conditions through improved vegetative ground cover and reduced soil compaction. Vegetative recovery in Sonoran Desert areas occurs slowly however. A permit system also allows for user education and filters out most irresponsible users. It provides a first impression that the area is under management.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Motorized cross-country travel for big game retrieval would not be permitted in this alternative. The 700,004 acres open to cross-country travel in Payson and Pleasant Valley ranger districts in the No Action Alternative would be closed in this alternative. Based on the small number of trips required for big game retrieval, short distance needed for retrieval, and low number of OHV crossings of a site, motorized big game retrieval would have minimal effects on water resource conditions and there would be a negligible improvement from the No Action Alternative.

Motorized Dispersed Camping Motorized dispersed camping would be limited to designated dispersed sites that are accessible by a designated road or motorized trail. Approximately 65 acres of these sites have been inventoried within the forest. Additional sites exist but have not been documented. Motorized dispersed camping would have its greatest impacts at popular dispersed camping sites. Impacts would be similar to those described for roads. Riparian areas are often popular dispersed campsites due to shade and access to water. Motorized dispersed camping would result in disturbance to vegetation, compaction of soils, and accelerated runoff and erosion. Proximity of riparian areas to stream channels increases the connectivity of these sites to stream channels and results in a greater likelihood that sediments eroded from disturbed areas will enter stream channels. The small overall area (65 acres) affected by this activity results in negligible impact on watersheds and the net effect would be a negligible reduction in impacts compared to the No Action Alternative.

Personal Use Fuelwood Gathering Fuelwood gathering for personal use would be permitted within 300 feet of a designated road or motorized trail within a woodcutting permit area. Fuelwood gathering would be permitted on 132,568

7 A map showing these permit zones can be found in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS, description of Alternative B.

Page 35 of 199 acres in this alternative. The area open to fuel wood gathering is reduced substantially from the 1,346,000 acres open to fuelwood gathering under the No Action Alternative. Conditions applied to fuelwood gathering permits include: • Do not damage other vegetation in route to product location. • Cover your route with slash or other available debris. • Do not go off road when soils are wet or rutting may occur.

These conditions limit the potential for watershed impacts. However fuelwood gathering is concentrated in a smaller area than in Alternative A. Watershed impacts such as loss of vegetative ground cover and compaction would be greater in the smaller area of concentrated use than in the widespread area open to fuelwood gathering in Alternative A. The net effect would likely be little difference in watershed impacts between the alternatives.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Table 14 provides a summary of water resource effects associated with this alternative.

Table 14: Alternative B - Forest wide changes from existing conditions Effects from Change in Effects from Existing Water Resource Feature Alternative B Conditions Road Density (mi/sq. mi) 0.78 --0.52 Route Proximity to Water 10.2% -7.4% Watershed Condition Attribute Ratings – Road Density Good 113 46 Fair 62 --30 Poor 3 -16 Watershed Condition Attribute Ratings – Proximity to Water Good 101 4044 Fair 67 -15-14 Poor 10 -25-30 Miles of motorized routes within buffer distance (300 ft) of water resource feature Perennial Streams 64.9 -55.3 Lakes 17.9 -11.4 Intermittent & Ephemeral Streams 1,286.1 -920.4 Impaired Water Bodies 53 -26.7 Riparian Areas 242.1 -181 Number of Stream Crossings Perennial Streams 305 -274 Intermittent & Ephemeral Streams 3973 -2863 Other Water Resource Impacts Open to Motorized Cross Country Travel 0 -700,004 (acres) Number and Area (acres) of Permit Zones 5 +4 (+116,797) Area open to Motorized Big Game Retrieval 0 -700,004 (acres)

Page 36 of 199 Effects from Change in Effects from Existing Water Resource Feature Alternative B Conditions Area open to Motorized Dispersed Camping 65 -699,939 (acres) Area open to Motorized Fuelwood Gathering 132,568 -1,213,432 (acres)

In summary this alternative would have a significant beneficial impact on watershed conditions once routes identified for decommissioning are decommissioned. Significance is based on the percent of HUC12 watersheds where attribute ratings for road density and proximity to water improve. The road density attribute rating is improved in thirty-four percent of HUC12 watersheds and the proximity to water attribute rating is improved in thirty-nine percent of these watersheds. Road density declines to 0.78 miles per square mile on a forest wide basis. This density would be rated good if the road density criteria from the WCC Technical Guide (U.S. Forest Service, 2011) are applied on a forest wide basis. Percent of streams in close proximity to motorized routes is 10.2 percent on a forest wide basis which approaches a “good” rating for proximity to streams if the WCC Technical Guide Criteria for proximity to water are applied on a forest wide basis as well. In addition to the attribute rating criteria for road density and proximity to water the miles of roads in riparian areas and the number of stream crossings of perennial, and intermittent and ephemeral streams all decline by more than 40 percent.

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative C is a modified version of the proposed action. It reflects the changes that resulted from a review of the minimum road system described in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS. This information was further reviewed on a district level, involving district rangers, Forest Service personnel familiar with the existing road and resource conditions, and Arizona Game and Fish Department enforcement officers whose game retrieval units overlap with the corresponding district boundaries.

Motorized Routes Table 15 displays the number of miles of motorized routes in alternative 3 within a 300-foot buffer of perennial streams, ephemeral and intermittent streams, lakes, and impaired water bodies. The table also displays the change in road mileage within the various buffer categories between alternative C and existing conditions.

Table 15: Alternative C - Motorized Routes within buffer zones of selected water resource features Intermittent & Perennial Impaired Water Ephemeral Lakes Streams Bodies Ranger District Streams Change change change change (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) Cave Creek 12.2 -11.9 288.7 -133.5 2.50 -5 0.7 -1.4 Globe 7.0 -0.7 312.5 -67.4 N/A N/A 17.4 -3.2 Mesa 10.9 -4.5 274.6 -112.0 6.2 -.7 11 -0.4

Page 37 of 199 Intermittent & Perennial Impaired Water Ephemeral Lakes Streams Bodies Ranger District Streams Change change change change (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) Payson 22.8 -4.0 285.4 -53.2 N/A N/A 9.6 -1.3 Pleasant Valley 25.7 -8.9 192.2 -83.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tonto Basin 10.2 -1.4 354.2 -49.2 13.9 -1 21.9 -12.6 Total 88.6 -31.6 1707.7 -498.9 22.6 -6.7 65.9 -13.6

This alternative reduces miles of roads within buffer distances for all categories of water resource features assessed. Changes from existing conditions include a twenty-six percent decrease in miles of roads within the 300-foot buffer distance of perennial streams, a twenty-three percent decrease in miles of roads within the 300-foot buffer of intermittent and ephemeral channels, a twenty-three percent decrease in miles of roads within a 300 foot buffer of the six lakes on the forest, and a seventeen percent decrease in road mileage within 300 feet of impaired water bodies.

Table 16 identifies miles of roads within riparian areas, and number of stream crossings of perennial, and intermittent and ephemeral streams. It also displays the change in road miles and road crossings in this alternative from existing conditions.

Table 16: Alternative C- Motorized Routes within riparian areas and numbers of stream crossings Number of Stream Crossings In Riparian Ranger Perennial Streams Intermittent & Ephemeral Streams Areas (miles) District (no. of crossings) (no. of crossings) Alt C change Alt C Change Alt C Change Cave Creek 49.5 -39.3 51 -45 891 -469 Globe 50.5 -15.1 30 -9 884 -226 Mesa 34.0 -25.5 56 -40 842 -379 Payson 64.5 -7.8 102 -21 816 -136 Pleasant Valley 31.9 -9.2 116 -56 544 -210 Tonto Basin 86.4 -9.6 44 -9 1300 -139 Total 316.8 -106.4 399 -180 5277 -1559

This alternative reduces miles of roads within riparian areas, and the number of road stream crossings. On an overall basis these changes represent a twenty-five percent decrease in road mileage within riparian areas, a thirty-one percent decrease in road crossings of perennial streams, and a twenty-three percent decrease in the number of crossings of intermittent and ephemeral channels. The decrease in miles of roads in riparian areas reduces road density in these areas to 2.7 miles per square mile. If the

Page 38 of 199 criteria for the road density attribute from the WCC Technical Guide are applied to road density in riparian areas this density would remain in the poor category.

Table 17 and Table 18 display road density by ranger district and the percent of streams affected by roads within the 300 foot buffer distances of stream channels by ranger district. Changes from existing conditions are also displayed.

Table 17: Alternative C - Route Density by Ranger District Change Density Change from Ranger District Road Miles From (Miles/Sq. Existing Existing Mile) Cave Creek 694 -282.2 0.73 -0.30 Globe 827 -202.6 1.12 -0.28 Mesa 569 -206.5 0.82 -0.30 Payson 862 -159.9 1.19 -0.22 Pleasant Valley 862 -321.7 1.26 -0.47 Tonto Basin 911 -147.5 1.08 -0.18 Total 4724 -1320.2 1.02 -0.28

Table 18: Alternative C - Proximity of routes to stream channels by Ranger District Routes Change Streams Stream near from District near routes Miles streams existing (%) (mi) (mi) Cave Creek 2,877 301 -145.5 10.5% Globe 1,873 319 -68.1 17.1% Mesa 2,169 286 -116.5 13.2% Payson 1,867 308 -57.3 16.5% Pleasant Valley 1,486 218 -92.4 14.7% Tonto Basin 2,980 364 -50.6 12.2% Total 13,252 1796 -530.4 13.6%

This alternative reduces route density on all ranger districts and reduces route density on a forest wide basis by more than one quarter mile per square mile (22 percent). Route density decreases to less than one mile per square mile on the Cave Creek and Mesa ranger districts in this alternative. Forest wide, road density decreases to slightly more than one mile per square mile. Road densities between 1 to 2.4 miles per square mile result in a rating of fair when the WCC Technical guide criteria for this attribute are applied. Route densities in the Cave Creek and Mesa districts would achieve a good rating for this attribute.

Proximity of routes to water is reduced from 17.6 percent of stream miles affected by motorized routes under existing conditions to 13.6 percent of stream miles in this alternative. Forest wide, the proximity

Page 39 of 199 to water attribute rating from the WCC Technical Guide (U.S Forest Service, 2011) would remain in the fair category because the percent of streams affected by roads is more than 10 percent but not greater than 25 percent. These ratings assume that decommissioning has been accomplished on routes identified for this action. Site specific environmental analysis will be required before decommissioning can occur.

Table 19 displays the number of HUC12 watersheds rated good, fair, or poor for the road density and road proximity to streams attributes, and the change in number ofHUC12 watershed ratings from existing conditions.

Table 19: Alternative C - Route density and proximity to stream ratings for HUC12 watersheds Motorized Routes Route Density Proximity to Stream Channels HUC12 Condition Alternative C Change from Existing Alternative C Change from Existing Rating conditions conditions Good 82 15 74 17 Fair 91 -1 83 2 Poor 5 -14 21 -19

Motorized route density decreases on 148 of 178 HUC12 watersheds from existing condtions, increases on 11 watersheds and remains unchanged on 19 watersheds in this alternative. The number of HUC12 watersheds rated good for the route density attribute increases by 15 (8 percent) from existing conditions under this alternative. The number of watersheds where the route density attribute is rated fair or poor declines. This alternative also reduces the number of miles of motorized routes within close proximity to stream channels. Route miles in close proximity to stream channels declines in 135 HUC12 watersheds increases in 11 watersheds, and remains unchanged in 32 watersheds. The proximity to stream channels attribute rating improves under this alternative with an increase of 17watersheds (9 percent) rated good for this attribute and a decrease of 19 watersheds rated poor for this attribute.

Improvement in road density and proximity to stream channel attribute ratings in this alternative from the existing conditions would result in an improvement in the overall watershed rating of two HUC12 watersheds. The improvement is dependent on completing route decommissioning work identified in this alternative. Route decommissioning would require separate environmental analyses. These watersheds are shown in Table 20 and Figure 6.

Table 20: Alternative C – Overall Watershed Condition Ratings Improved Due to improved Road Density and/or Proximity to stream channels attribute ratings. Watershed Condition HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Rating 150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon Functioning 150601030311 Willow Creek Functioning

Page 40 of 199 Figure 6: Watersheds that would improve a condition class under Alternative C

Motorized Cross-country Travel Motorized cross-country travel would be permitted in four areas totaling 2,089 acres. These areas include the area below the high water marks of Bartlett (177 acres) and Roosevelt (554 acres) Lakes, The Golf Course (17 acres) south of Superior in the Globe Ranger District, the Sycamore (1329 acres) area in the Mesa Ranger District and four tot lots (approximately 11 acres).

The Bartlett and Roosevelt Lake OHV areas would permit motorized cross country travel between portions of the variable water surface and the high water mark of these lakes. These areas are primarily unvegetated or vegetated with annual species that pioneer these areas when water levels drop. The potential for small amounts of contamination from spills of fuels and other vehicle fluids exist due to proximity to these lakes. Disturbance to annual vegetation and compaction of soils would reduce ground cover and increase runoff and erosion. Disturbance to armor layers that protect soil surfaces would make disturbed areas more susceptible to erosion from rainfall and wave action. Although motor vehicle use could cause rutting of the surface, concentrating some runoff and increasing erosion minimally, the overall effect is likely negligible.

Page 41 of 199 The Sycamore OHV Area includes an ephemeral wash that is tributary to Lower Sycamore Creek. Forest Road 403 lies within the wash bottom until it joins Sycamore Creek. Approximately 4.5 miles of the channel of Sycamore Creek, extending upstream from the boundary with Fort McDowell Indian Reservation, are included in the area. This OHV area includes uplands adjacent to the ephemeral wash that is tributary to Sycamore Creek and uplands adjacent to Sycamore Creek. The ephemeral wash is characterized by a multiple channel bed (braided channel) consisting of unconsolidated sand and gravel, and xeric riparian vegetation consisting primarily of mesquite that occupies terrace and floodplain features. Travel in wash bottoms has a small potential to introduce contaminants to ground and surface waters from spills and leaks of fuels and oils. Travel in wash bottoms can also damage riparian vegetation, particularly younger age classes. Sycamore Creek is characterized as an intermittent system that flows following significant winter precipitation. Much of the stream flow that reaches the alluvial basin, which begins near the upper end of the OHV area, infiltrates into the bed of the creek (Thomsen and Schumann, 1968). The channel through the alluvial basin is dry most of the year. OHV impacts in the area include a small potential to introduce contaminants to ground and surface waters from spill of fuels and oils. OHV impacts can also disturb armor layers of channel bottom material that form during periods of high flow making the channel more susceptible to erosion. OHV travel in uplands can remove vegetative ground cover, and cause compaction and rutting of soils. Increased runoff from denuded and compacted soils can increase erosion and sediment delivery to stream channels and wash bottoms.

Golf Course OHV Area is a relatively small flat upland area of 17 acres just south of Superior. Watershed impacts at this site would be small and would consist primarily of increased runoff and erosion from compaction and rutting of soils and reduced vegetative ground cover.

Four tot lots are proposed. One is located in the Rolls Permit Zone (six acres) one in the Sycamore OHV area (three acres) and two small sites (total of less than three acres) in the Desert Vista area of the Cave Creek Ranger District. Due to their small size these areas would have minimal watershed impacts other than local increases in runoff and erosion from compaction of soils and removal of vegetative ground cover at the sites themselves.

Eliminating motorized cross-country travel in areas where heavy OHV use occurs on the 700,000 acres currently open to cross country travel on the Payson and Pleasant Valley ranger districts would allow disturbed areas to recover over time. Enforcement of restrictions on motorized cross-country travel in other ranger districts that are currently closed but where unauthorized OHV use is occurring should also permit recovery of watershed conditions over time. Recovery in particularly fragile areas (areas with sensitive or erodible soils, or slow vegetative recovery such as the Sonoran Desert) may not return watershed conditions to pre-disturbance levels. In some areas active restoration efforts may be needed to reduce watershed impacts. Eliminating motorized cross country travel would result in reduced impacts to watershed conditions from those occurring under existing conditions.

Page 42 of 199 OHV Permit Zones Three permit zones in addition to the existing Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone would be created in this alternative. These would include the Desert Vista, Rolls, and St Claire permit zones8. They would encompass about 117,000 acres. Vehicles would be required to stay on designated roads and trails and would require a permit to enter the area. 326 miles of motorized routes are designated in permit zones under this alternative. Impacts of these routes are described in terms of the HUC12 watersheds included within the permit zones. Portions of 18 HUC12 watersheds exist within these zones.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval This alternative permits motorized retrieval of elk and bear for up to one mile from both sides of designated roads and motorized trails. Approximately 1,575,400 acres would be open for motorized retrieval of these game species. Data provided by Arizona Game and Fish Department suggests there are approximately 210 motorized retrievals of elk and bear per year on the Tonto NF. Most motorized game retrieval also involves a single trip with a vehicle (typically an ATV). Webb (1983) found that after a single pass, annual plants on an OHV route remained intact, but most were destroyed after ten passes. We expect perennial plants to be more robust, and therefore perennial plants are likely to also sustain one to two passes. Minimal impacts on vegetative ground cover and soil compaction are expected from motorized retrieval of big game. The effect of motorized retrieval of elk and bear is small due to the small number of animals retrieved using a vehicle and the generally short distance of retrievals. There would be a negligible change in impacts compared to the No Action Alternative.

Motorized Dispersed Camping This alternative would designate approximately 94 miles of motorized routes to provide access to 2,864 inventoried existing dispersed camping sites on the forest. These routes currently exist and their average length is 137 feet. Impacts from access routes would be similar to those described for roads. Riparian areas are often popular dispersed campsites due to shade and access to water. Motorized dispersed camping in these sites impacts riparian areas both through the disturbance created by the route accessing the site and disturbance that occurs onsite from camping. Proximity of riparian areas to stream channels increases the connectivity of these sites to stream channels and results in a greater likelihood that sediments eroded from disturbed areas will enter stream channels. Approximately 445 camping sites are located within riparian areas. On the basis of an average access route length of 137 feet per site approximately 11.5 miles of motorized routes exist to access these sites. Approximately 180 sites are located within 300 feet of perennial streams and 1100 sites are located within 300 feet of ephemeral and intermittent streams.

Although motorized dispersed camping can have moderate impacts to watershed conditions at popular dispersed campsites; the limited extent of dispersed camping on a forest wide basis results in only minor impacts overall.

8 A map showing these permit zones can be found in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS, description of Alternative C.

Page 43 of 199 Personal Use Fuelwood Gathering This alternative would permit motorized fuelwood gathering within 300 feet of either side of a designated road or motorized trail within woodcutting permit areas. Approximately 165,000 acres would be open for motorized fuelwood gathering. This area is substantially less than the approximately 1,346,000 open under existing conditions but more than the 132,000 acres open under Alternative B. Conditions applied to fuelwood gathering permits include: • Do not damage other vegetation in route to product location. • Cover your route with slash or other available debris. • Do not go off road when soils are wet or rutting may occur.

These conditions limit the potential for watershed impacts. However fuelwood gathering is concentrated in a smaller area than in Alternative A. Watershed impacts such as loss of vegetative ground cover and compaction would be greater in the smaller area of concentrated use than in the widespread area open to fuelwood gathering in Alternative A. The net effect would likely be little difference in watershed impacts between the alternatives.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Table 21 provides a summary of water resource effects associated with this alternative.

Table 21: Alternative C - Forest Wide Changes from Existing Conditions Change in Effects from Existing Water Resource Feature Effects from Alternative C Conditions Road Density (mi/sq. mi) 1.02 -0.28 Route Proximity to Water (%) 13.6 -4.0 Watershed Condition Attribute Ratings – Road Density Good 82 15 Fair 91 -1 Poor 5 -14 Watershed Condition Attribute Ratings – Proximity to Water Good 74 17 Fair 83 2 Poor 21 -19 Miles of motorized routes within buffer distance (300 ft) of water resource feature Perennial Streams 88.6 -31.6 Lakes 22.6 -6.7 Intermittent & Ephemeral 1708 -499 Streams Impaired Water Bodies 65.9 -13.6 Riparian Areas 316.8 -106.4 Number of Stream Crossings Perennial Streams 399 -180 Intermittent & Ephemeral 5,277 -1559 Streams

Page 44 of 199 Change in Effects from Existing Water Resource Feature Effects from Alternative C Conditions Other Water Resource Impacts Number and area (acres) Open to 4 + 4 tot lots (2,089) +4 +4 tot lots(-697,911) Motorized Cross Country Travel Number and Area (acres) of 4 (116,798) +3 (+82,078) Permit Zones Area open to Motorized Big 1,575,382 +871,674 Game Retrieval (acres) Sites open to Motorized 2,864 N/A Dispersed Camping Area open to Motorized 165,138 -1,180,860 Fuelwood Gathering (acres)

In summary although this alternative reduces the number of miles of motorized routes and results in improvement in watershed conditions it would not have a significant impact on watershed conditions on a forest wide basis. Significance is based on the percent of HUC12 watersheds where attribute ratings for road density and proximity to water improve. Both the road density and proximity to water attribute ratings improved in less than twenty percent of HUC12 watersheds. On an overall basis road density is reduced to 1.02 miles per square mile which would be close to achieving a “good” rating if the WCC Technical Guide criteria for road density are applied on a forest wide basis. The percent of streams in close proximity to water would remain well within the “fair” category if the WCC technical Guide criteria for proximity to water are applied on a forest wide basis. Although miles of motorized routes in riparian areas is reduced by 25 percent from existing condition the road density in riparian areas (2.7 mile per square mile) remains in the poor category if the road density attribute from the WCC Technical Guide (U.S. Forest Service, 2011) is applied to road density in riparian areas. Although not significant, the reduction in impacts contributes to the objective of designating roads and trails that minimize damage to watershed resources. Alternative D Alternative D provides the most motorized access than the other alternatives.

Motorized Routes Table 22 displays the number of miles of roads in alternative D within a 300-foot buffer of perennial streams, ephemeral and intermittent streams, lakes, and impaired water bodies. The table also displays change in road mileage within the buffer distance of these features between Alternative D and existing conditions.

Table 22: Alternate D - Motorized Route miles within buffer zones of selected water features Perennial Intermittent and Impaired Water Lakes Streams Ephemeral Streams Bodies Ranger District Change change change change (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) Cave Creek 19.0 -5.1 377.0 -45.2 7.5 0 1.8 -0.3 Globe 7.7 0.0 378.6 -1.3 7 N/A 20.6 0.0

Page 45 of 199 Perennial Intermittent and Impaired Water Lakes Streams Ephemeral Streams Bodies Ranger District Change change change change (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) Mesa 15.2 -0.2 343.2 -43.4 6.7 -0.20 11.2 -0.2 Payson 25.5 -1.3 335.4 -3.3 9 N/A 10.8 -0.1 Pleasant Valley 30.8 -3.8 269.0 -6.7 32 N/A N/A N/A Tonto Basin 11.6 0.0 397.7 -5.7 14.8 -0.1 33.3 -1.2 Total 109.7 -10.5 2,100.8 -105.7 29 -0.3 77.7 -1.8

This alternative results in small decreases in motorized routes from existing conditions within buffer distances of perennial streams (9 percent), intermittent and ephemeral streams (5 percent), lakes (1 percent) and impaired water bodies (2 percent).

Table 23 displays miles of roads within riparian areas, and number of stream crossings of perennial, and intermittent and ephemeral streams. It also displays change in road miles and road crossings between this alternative and the existing condition.

Table 23: Alternative D Motorized routes within riparian areas and numbers of crossings of stream channels Number of Stream Crossings In Riparian Areas Intermittent and Perennial Streams Ranger District (miles) Ephemeral Streams (no. of crossings) (no of crossings) Alt D change Alt D Change Alt D Change Cave Creek 76.5 -12.2 67 -29 1,202 -158 Globe 65.5 0.0 39 0 1,105 -5 Mesa 47.2 -12.3 96 0 1,047 -174 Payson 71.5 -0.7 119 -4 941 -11 Pleasant Valley 39.1 -2.0 155 -17 737 -17 Tonto Basin 95.3 -0.8 53 0 1,425 -14 Total 395.1 -28.0 529 -50 6,457 -379

The effect of this alternative in comparison with existing conditions on a forest wide basis is a seven percent decrease in miles of motorized routes within riparian areas, a nine percent decrease in number of perennial stream crossings and a six percent decrease in the number of crossings of intermittent and ephemeral streams.

Page 46 of 199 Table 24 and Table 25 display road density by ranger district and the percent of streams affected by roads within the 300 foot buffer distances of stream channels by ranger district. Changes from existing conditions are also displayed.

Table 24: Alternative D - Route Density by Ranger District Change Density Route Change from Ranger District From (Miles/Sq. Miles Existing Existing Mile) Cave Creek 856.4 -119.3 0.90 -0.12 Globe 1,024.9 -4.7 1.39 -0.01 Mesa 698.8 -76.3 1.01 -0.11 Payson 1,002.8 -19.3 1.39 -0.03 Pleasant Valley 1,140.5 -43.1 1.67 -0.06 Tonto Basin 1,035.2 -22.9 1.23 -0.03 Total 5,758.7 -285.5 1.24 -0.06

Table 25: Alternative D - Proximity of routes to stream channels by Ranger District Routes Change Streams Stream near from District near routes Miles streams existing (%) (mi) (mi) Cave Creek 2,877 395.9 -50.4 13.8 Globe 1,873 386.3 -1.3 20.6 Mesa 2,169 358.5 -43.6 16.5 Payson 1,867 360.8 -4.6 19.3 Pleasant Valley 1,486 299.7 -10.5 20.2 Tonto Basin 2,980 409.3 -5.7 13.7 Total 13,252 2,210.5 -116.2 16.7

Little change in road density occurs in this alternative from existing conditions. Forest wide, road density decreases from 1.25 to 1.24 miles per square mile. Applying the road density attribute rating criteria from the WCC Technical Guide (U.S. Forest Service, 2011) results in a rating of fair which would be unchanged from existing conditions. Small decreases in route density would occur in all districts. The road density attribute rating would improve to good in the Cave Creek district (density is less than 1 mile per square mile) but would remain unchanged from existing conditions in the other districts.

Proximity of routes to water would be reduced by five percent from existing conditions in this alternative. On a forest wide basis the proximity to water attribute rating from the WCC Technical Guide (U.S. Forest Service, 2011) would remain in the fair category and be unchanged from existing conditions. Attribute ratings of fair would remain unchanged for all districts.

Page 47 of 199 Table 26 displays the number of HUC12 watersheds rated good, fair, or poor for the road density and road proximity to streams attributes, and the change in number of HUC12 watershed ratings from existing conditions.

Table 26: Alternative D - Road density and proximity to streams ratings for HUC12 watersheds Motorized Routes HUC12 Road Density Proximity to Streams Condition Change from Existing Change from Existing Alternative D Alternative D Rating conditions conditions Good 70 3 59 2 Fair 91 -1 80 -1 Poor 17 -2 39 -1

Density of motorized routes decreases in seventy-six HUC12 watersheds but increases in seven watersheds. Although the density of motorized routes declines in 76 watersheds the change in density is sufficient to improve the attribute rating for road density in only five watersheds.

Motorized route mileage in close proximity to water decreases in 65 HUC12 watersheds but increases in 6 watersheds. Although proximity of roads to streams is reduced from existing conditions in 65 watersheds the change is sufficient to improve the proximity to streams attribute rating in only four watersheds.

Motorized Cross-country Travel Impacts would be the same as Alternative C. Motorized cross-country travel would be permitted in four areas totaling 6,787 acres. These areas include the area below the high water marks of Bartlett (922 acres) and Roosevelt (4,507 acres) Lakes, The Golf Course (17 acres) south of Superior in the Globe Ranger District, the Sycamore (1332 acres) area in the Mesa Ranger District and four tot lots (approximately 12 acres).

The Bartlett and Roosevelt Lake OHV areas would permit motorized cross country travel between the variable water surface and the high water mark of these lakes. These areas are primarily unvegetated or vegetated with annual species that pioneer these areas when water levels drop. The potential for small amounts of contamination from spills of fuels and other vehicle fluids exist due to proximity to these lakes. Disturbance to annual vegetation and compaction of soils would reduce ground cover and increase runoff and erosion. Disturbance to armor layers that protect soil surfaces would make disturbed areas more susceptible to erosion from rainfall and wave action. Although motor vehicle use could cause rutting of the surface, concentrating some runoff and increasing erosion minimally, the overall effect is likely negligible.

The Sycamore OHV Area includes an ephemeral wash that is tributary to Lower Sycamore Creek. Forest Road 403 lies within the wash bottom until it joins Sycamore Creek. Approximately 4.5 miles of the channel of Sycamore Creek, extending upstream from the boundary with Fort McDowell Indian

Page 48 of 199 Reservation, are included in the area. This OHV area includes uplands adjacent to the ephemeral wash that is tributary to Sycamore Creek and uplands adjacent to Sycamore Creek. The ephemeral wash is characterized by a multiple channel bed (braided channel) consisting of unconsolidated sand and gravel, and xeric riparian vegetation consisting primarily of mesquite that occupies terrace and floodplain features. Travel in wash bottoms has a small potential to introduce contaminants to ground and surface waters from spills and leaks of fuels and oils. Travel in wash bottoms can also damage riparian vegetation, particularly younger age classes. Sycamore Creek is characterized as an intermittent system that flows following significant winter precipitation. Much of the stream flow that reaches the alluvial basin, which begins near the upper end of the OHV area, infiltrates into the bed of the creek (Thomsen and Schumann, 1968). The channel through the alluvial basin is dry most of the year. OHV impacts in the area include a small potential to introduce contaminants to ground and surface waters from spill of fuels and oils. OHV impacts can also disturb armor layers of channel bottom material that form during periods of high flow making the channel more susceptible to erosion. OHV travel in uplands can remove vegetative ground cover, and cause compaction and rutting of soils. Increased runoff from bared and compacted soils can increase erosion and sediment delivery to stream channels and wash bottoms.

Golf Course OHV Area is a relatively small flat upland area of 17 acres just south of Superior. Watershed impacts at this site would be small and would consist primarily of increased runoff and erosion from compaction and rutting of soils and reduced vegetative ground cover.

Four tot lots are proposed. One is located in the Rolls Permit Zone (six acres) one in the Sycamore OHV area (three acres) and two small sites (total of less than three acres) in the Desert Vista area of the Cave Creek Ranger District. Due to their small size these areas would have minimal watershed impacts other than local increases in runoff and erosion from compaction of soils and removal of vegetative ground cover at the sites themselves.

Eliminating motorized cross-country travel in areas where heavy OHV use occurs on the 700,000 acres currently open to cross country travel on the Payson and Pleasant Valley ranger districts would allow disturbed areas to recover over time. Enforcement of restrictions on motorized cross-country travel in other ranger districts that are currently closed but where unauthorized OHV use is occurring should also permit recovery of watershed conditions over time. Recovery in particularly fragile areas (areas with sensitive or erodible soils, or slow vegetative recovery such as the Sonoran Desert) may not return watershed conditions to pre-disturbance levels. In some areas active restoration efforts may be needed to reduce watershed impacts. Eliminating motorized cross country travel would result in reduced impacts to watershed conditions from those under existing conditions.

OHV Permit Zones Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. The only permitted OHV Zone would be the Bulldog Canyon OHV Permit Zone on the Mesa Ranger District. This zone currently exists and was created to control heavy OHV use that was damaging soil and vegetation resources. Vehicle use is restricted to existing roads and requires motorized users to obtain written authorization (a free special use permit from the ranger district) to enter the area. Presence of the Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone under this alternative should continue to prevent proliferation of unauthorized routes that occurred prior to designation and

Page 49 of 199 that is occurring in other heavily-used areas. Routes open prior to designation continue to be used consequently vegetative recovery that would improve watershed conditions has not occurred.

The Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone is a 54 square mile area that lies within parts of six HUC12 watersheds. Approximately 90 percent of two HUC12 watersheds lie within the permit zone. Table 27 displays the HUC12 watersheds, the percent of each watershed in the permit zone, the miles of motorized routes in each watershed within the permit zone and the change in miles of motorized routes from the existing conditions. Miles of motorized routes within the Permit Zone are reduced by nine miles from those currently existing. The forty-six miles of motorized routes within the permit zone result in a road density of .85 miles per square mile. This density would be rated good in the Watershed Condition Classification if it occurred within a single watershed.

Table 27: Alternative D - Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone Watershed Characteristics and Motorized Route Miles Watershed Change from Motorized area within Percent of Existing HUC12 No. HUC12 Name Routes Permit Zone Watershed Conditions (mi) (mi2) 150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 23.8 39 19 -4 150601060301 Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa FRS 5.5 89 3 -3 150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 0.1 0 1 0 150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 6.5 34 4 0 150501000802 Weekes Wash 3.1 40 8 -2 150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 15.3 93 11 0 Total 54.3 46 -9

Continued designation as a Permit Zone in this alternative should prevent an increase in adverse watershed effects (accelerated runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and disturbance to channels and riparian areas) associated with OHV uses off of designated roads.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Motorized retrieval of elk, mule deer, white tail deer, and bear would be limited to areas within one mile of either side of designated motorized routes under this alternative. Approximately 2,068,200 acres would be open for motorized big game retrieval. This area is much greater than the 700,000 acres currently open for retrieval. Data provided by Arizona Game and Fish Department suggests approximately 550 motorized retrievals could be expected for these game species under this alternative. Negligible impacts to watershed conditions would be expected due to the small number of motorized retrievals and the large area available for these retrievals.

Motorized Dispersed Camping This alternative would allow motorized dispersed camping up to 300 feet on both sides of designated roads and motorized trails. Approximately 336,000 acres would be available for this activity. This area is slightly less than half the area open to dispersed camping under existing conditions but greater than the areas open under Alternatives B and C. Dispersed motorized camping would have its greatest impacts at

Page 50 of 199 popular dispersed camping sites where short unauthorized routes provide access to the camping site. Impacts would be similar to those described for roads. Riparian areas are often popular dispersed campsites due to shade and access to water. Motorized dispersed camping in these sites impacts riparian areas both through the disturbance created by the route accessing the site and disturbance that occurs onsite from camping. Camping results in disturbance to vegetation, compaction of soils, and accelerated runoff and erosion. Proximity of riparian areas to stream channels increases the connectivity of areas disturbed by motorized camping within riparian areas to stream channels and results in a greater likelihood that sediments eroded from disturbed areas will enter stream channels. Improper disposal of human waste can also affect water quality.

Although motorized dispersed camping can have moderate effects to watershed conditions at popular dispersed campsites; the limited extent of dispersed camping on a forest wide basis results in only minor effects overall.

Person Use Fuelwood Gathering Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. Currently there are approximately 1,346,000 acres on the Globe, Payson, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto Basin ranger districts open to personal use fuelwood gathering as well as other forest products to forest users who have received permits for gathering these products. Motorized travel would cause localized impacts to soils, and some riparian areas and be most pronounced where motorized traffic occurred on wet soils. Most wood harvesting occurs on upland soils. Impacts to riparian areas would be minimal. Localized soil degradation particularly when soils are wet could include localized soil compaction, rutting, loss of vegetation cover, accelerated soil loss and loss of soil productivity from cross-country travel. The extent of soil disturbance Forest-wide would be minimal.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Table 28 displays a summary of water resources effects associated with this alternative.

Table 28: Alternative D - Forest wide changes from existing conditions Change in Effects from Existing Water Resource Feature Effects from Alternative D Conditions Road Density (mi/sq. mi) 1.24 -0.06 Route Proximity to Water (%) 16.7 -0.9 Watershed Condition Attribute Ratings – Road Density Good 70 3 Fair 91 -1 Poor 17 -2 Watershed Condition Attribute Ratings – Proximity to Water Good 70 2 Fair 91 -1 Poor 17 -1 Miles of motorized routes within buffer distance (300 ft) of water resource feature Perennial Streams 109.7 -10.5 Lakes 29 -0.3

Page 51 of 199 Change in Effects from Existing Water Resource Feature Effects from Alternative D Conditions Intermittent & Ephemeral 2,100.8 -105.7 Streams Impaired Water Bodies 77.7 -1.8 Riparian Areas 395.1 -28 Number of Stream Crossings Perennial Streams 529 -50 Intermittent & Ephemeral 6,457 -379 Streams Other Water Resource Impacts Number and Area (acres) Open to 4 areas +4 tot lots(6,790) +4+ 4 tot lots (-693,225) Motorized Cross Country Travel Number and Area (acres) of 1 (34,720) 0 Permit Zones Area open to Motorized Big 2,248,300 +1,548,296 Game Retrieval (acres) Area open to Motorized 336,000 -364,004 Dispersed Camping (acres) Area open to Motorized 1,346,000 0 Fuelwood Gathering (acres)

In summary this alternative results in minimal changes in watershed conditions from those under the existing conditions. Enforcement of use to designated motorized routes should prevent continued growth of unauthorized routes.

All Alternatives: Summary Effects In summary, Alternative B would result in significant beneficial effects to watershed conditions based on reduced road density, and reduced percent of stream miles in close proximity to roads. Although the attribute rating criteria from the WCC Technical Guide apply to watersheds rather than ranger districts or forests as a whole, the road density rating for the forest in this alternative would improve to a good rating if the criteria are applied on a forestwide basis. The rating for the proximity to water attribute in this alternative also comes close to receiving a good rating on a forestwide basis. The proximity to water rating does improve to good in three ranger districts. Although Alternative C would have beneficial effects on watershed conditions, these effects would not be significant due to the smaller scale of reduction in motorized route miles. Effects from Alternative D would be little changed from those under existing conditions and would not be significant. Table 29 provides a summary of the total miles and percent change in road and motorized trail mileage for selected water features for each alternative.

Table 29: Summary of roads within buffer zones or corridors of selected water features, road crossings, and HUC 6 condition assessments Category Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Selected Water Feature Miles Miles % Miles % Miles % change change change

Page 52 of 199 Category Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Miles of motorized routes within buffer distance (300 ft) of water resource feature Perennial Streams 120.2 64.9 -46.0% 88.6 -26.3% 109.7 -8.7%

Lakes 29.3 17.9 -38.9% 22.6 -23% 29 -1.0%

Intermittent & Ephemeral 2206.5 1286.1 -41.7 1708 -22.6% 2100.8 -4.8 Streams

Impaired Water Bodies 79.5 52.8 -33.6 65.9 -17.1% 77.7 -2.3

Riparian Areas 423.1 242.1 -42.8 316.8 -25.1% 395.1 -6.6

Number of Stream Crossings Perennial streams 579 305 -47.3% 399 -31.1% 529 -8.6%

Intermittent & Ephemeral 6836 3973 -41.9% 5277 -22.8% 6457 -5.5% Streams

Other Features

Road Density 1.3 0.78 -40.0% 1.02 -21.8% 1.24 -4.6% (mi/sq mi)

Proximity to Water (%) 17.6 10.2 -42.0% 13.6 -22.8% 16.7 -5.1%

HUC12 Road Alt A Alt B Change Alt C Change Alt D Change Density Number of Number of Number of Number of Assessment watersheds watersheds watersheds watersheds Good 67 113 +46 82 +15 70 +3 Fair 92 62 -30 91 -1 91 -1 Poor 19 3 -16 5 -14 17 -2 HUC12 Alt A Alt B Change Alt C Change Alt D Change Proximity to Number of Number of Number of Number of Water watersheds watersheds watersheds watersheds Assessment Good 57 101 44 74 17 59 2 Fair 81 67 -14 83 2 80 -1 Poor 40 10 -30 21 -19 39 -1

Page 53 of 199 All Alternatives: Cumulative Effects Vegetation and fuels management are planned to have a net, long-term improvement to soil and water conditions although there may be short-term negative impacts during implementation. Mitigation measures and Best Management Practices are designed to mitigate any short-term impacts that may occur from project implementation. Livestock grazing activities (past and ongoing) have impacted riparian and water resource conditions but re-authorizations of grazing permits are designed to minimize impacts to these resources.

Route realignment, reconstruction, or decommissioning may occur with future projects and access through or required by other land jurisdictions may impact the Forest. The extent of these changes cannot be predicted or quantified. Future changes to routes would be planned and mitigated to reduce impacts.

Urban development and interface growth would continue on private lands. These would not directly affect National Forest land, but runoff from urban development can cause an increase in erosion and affect water quality on downstream NFS lands.

Future mineral exploration and development, land exchanges, and utility construction are either planned or likely to occur. Disturbance can be relatively minor in some cases such as small utility constructions, but in mineral exploration and development disturbance can be extensive.

Visitor access to The Rolls, St. Claire, and Sycamore sites may be restricted in the future. Restrictions may prevent continued proliferation of unauthorized routes and prevent additional impacts to soil and watershed conditions.

In response to air quality concerns, city/town, county, and state restrictions are in place for use of recreational vehicles on unpaved roads and vacant lots in regions of Maricopa and Pinal counties that are failing to attain Federal Air Quality Health Standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Measures implemented on NFS lands to reduce air quality impacts such as road paving, hardening of OHV parking areas, enforcing speed limits on unsurfaced roads, and placing limits on user numbers may also reduce watershed impacts.

A number of major road construction projects are planned by other government entities well into the future. Road construction can have short term impacts on water quality, but impacts are minimized through implementation of BMPs. Over the long term, additional paved surfaces can increase runoff, erosion, and introduction of contaminants into waterways. Construction of the Tonto Creek Bridge may result in reduced watershed impacts, if one or more of the current low water crossings are closed and the site is allowed to revegetate.

Page 54 of 199 Reference Arizona Department of Transportation. (1995). ADOT Erosion and pollution control manual for highway design and construction. 100 pp.

BLM. (2011). National Science and Technology Center website at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/Chap5.html#Anchor-41648

Cowardin, Lewis M., Carter, Virginia, Golet, Francis C., and Laroe, Edward T. (1979), Classification of Welands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131p.

DeBano, Leonard F.; Schmidt, Larry J. 1989. Improving southwester riparian areas through watershed management. Gen. tech. Rep. RM-182. Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33p

Gucinsky, H., Furniss M. J., Ziemer, R. R., and Brookes, M. H. (2000). Forest roads: A synthesis of scientific information, U.S. Forest Service, 117 pp. LaFayette RA, Pruitt JR, Zeedyk WD. 1996; Riparian area enhancement through road design and maintenance. In Neary D, Ross KC & Coleman S (eds.) National Hydrology Workshop 85-95. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-279. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. MacDonald, L. H., Smart, A. W., and Wissmar, R. C. (1991). Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. (EPA/910/9-91-001) Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, in cooperation with the Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 176 pp. Ouren, D. S., Haas, C., Melcher, C. P., Stewart, S. C., Ponds, P. D., Sexton, N. R., Burris, L., Fancher, T., and Bowen, S. H. (2007). Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353, 225 pp.

Thomsen, B. W., and Schumann, H. H. (1968). Water resources of Sycamore Creek Watershed, Maricopa County, AZ. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1861, 53 pp.

Triepke, F.J., M.M. Wahlberg, D.C. Cress, and R. Benton. 2013. RMAP – Regional Riparian Mapping Project. USDA Forest Service forestry report FR-R3-XX-XX. Southwestern Region, Regional Office, Albuquerque, NM.(in press)

U.S. Forest Service. (1999). Roads analysis: Informing decision about the National Forest Transportation System. Miscellaneous Report FS-643. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Service. 222 pp.

U.S. Forest Service, (2011). Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. FS-978, 41 p.

U.S. Forest Service 2012, National Best Management Practices for Water Qality Management on National Forest system Lands, Volume1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. 165p.

Page 55 of 199 Appendix A: Hydrology and Watershed Tables Table 1. Percent of HUC12 watersheds within Boundary of Tonto NF

Watershed Area HUC12 Watershed Area Within TNF Watershed Area HUC12 Name Number (sq mi) (sq mi) Within TNF Alamo Canyon-Queen 150501000405 30.6 30.2 99% Creek Alder Creek 150602030508 16.8 16.8 100% American Gulch 150602030204 14.8 14.8 100% Apache Land Tank 150501000806 54.3 4.7 9% Armer Gulch 150601030908 16.0 16.0 100% Arnett Creek 150501000401 31.1 30.8 99% Ash Creek 150601030503 30.3 30.3 100% Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 150601050409 21.7 21.7 100% Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 150601050207 19.3 19.3 100% Bishop Creek 150701020406 45.8 30.0 66% Bladder Canyon-Cherry 150601030409 55.6 43.8 79% Creek Bloody Tanks Wash 150601030602 20.6 11.4 55% Box Canyon-Gila River 150501000309 36.2 1.9 5% Buck Basin-Verde River 150602030507 44.4 44.4 100% Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 150601060102 28.7 28.7 100% Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto 150601050206 34.5 34.5 100% Creek Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 150601060302 65.4 61.6 94% Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn 150601060301 32.3 6.1 19% Mesa FRS Bumblebee Creek-Tonto 150601050503 28.1 28.1 100% Creek Butte Creek-Salt River 150601030506 32.2 19.4 60% Buzzard Roost Canyon 150601050101 21.9 21.9 100% C K Canyon 150400070305 20.1 0.3 2% Camp Creek 150602030701 52.0 51.3 99% Campaign Creek 150601030705 33.4 33.4 100% Cane Spring Canyon 150601060109 12.7 12.7 100% Canyon Creek Headwaters 150601030302 42.6 14.7 34% Canyon Creek-Verde River 150602030404 40.3 42.6 106%

Page 56 of 199 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Watershed Area HUC12 Watershed Area Within TNF Watershed Area HUC12 Name Number (sq mi) (sq mi) Within TNF Chalk Creek 150601030902 21.8 21.8 100% Champion Creek 150400070205 26.2 2.1 8% Cholla Mountain 150501000709 59.8 0.5 1% Christopher Creek 150601050203 29.4 26.2 89% Cienega Creek-Salt River 150601030208 42.7 12.9 30% Cline Creek 150701020802 15.9 9.9 62% Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 150601050310 32.5 32.5 100% Creek Coon Creek 150601030901 14.6 14.6 100% Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 150601030408 38.9 38.8 100% Corral Creek 150400070201 17.1 12.9 76% Cottonwood Basin-Verde 150602030703 34.3 29.9 87% River Cottonwood Canyon 150501000703 21.7 1.1 5% Cottonwood Creek 150601050404 16.6 16.6 100% Cottonwood Creek 150601060110 51.0 51.0 100% Cottonwood Creek-Salt 150601030910 23.1 23.1 100% River Cottonwood Wash 150601030907 23.8 23.8 100% Crouch Creek 150601030403 16.8 16.8 100% Cutter Tank 150400070302 25.0 12.4 50% Davenport Wash 150602030504 34.0 34.0 100% Deadman Creek 150602030501 40.5 40.5 100% Deer Creek 150601050308 25.2 25.2 100% Devils Canyon 150501000205 35.7 21.5 60% Dinasaur Mountain- 150501000808 55.0 2.4 4% Roosevelt Canal Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto 150601050305 19.4 19.4 100% Creek Dry Wash-Verde River 150602030409 18.0 18.0 100% East Verde River 150602030202 29.4 28.6 97% Headwaters Ellison Creek 150601030306 18.7 9.9 53% Ellison Creek 150602030201 42.4 41.8 99% Fish Creek 150601060105 40.1 40.1 100%

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 57 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Watershed Area HUC12 Watershed Area Within TNF Watershed Area HUC12 Name Number (sq mi) (sq mi) Within TNF Fort McDowell-Verde 150602030708 19.3 0.2 1% River Galloway Wash-Cave 150701020602 61.3 32.8 54% Creek Gap Creek-Verde River 150602030308 61.4 11.5 19% Gentry Canyon 150601030305 12.2 9.5 78% Gibson Creek 150601050303 15.1 15.1 100% Gordon Canyon 150601050202 28.1 25.3 90% Grapevine Canyon-New 150701020801 64.2 64.2 100% River Green Valley Creek 150601050301 28.4 28.4 100% Greenback Creek 150601050408 34.2 34.2 100% Griffin Wash 150601030906 13.3 13.3 100% Gruwell Canyon-Cherry 150601030404 37.5 37.5 100% Creek Gun Creek 150601050401 57.3 57.3 100% Haigler Creek 150601050205 51.8 51.2 99% Hardscrabble Creek 150602030306 39.4 35.7 91% Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 150601050311 27.2 27.2 100% Haunted Canyon 150601030701 17.9 17.9 100% Hess Canyon 150601030505 42.9 42.9 100% Hewitt Canyon 150501000404 30.9 30.9 100% Horse Creek 150602030408 15.3 15.3 100% Horseshoe Bend Wash 150601030605 14.1 14.1 100% Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 150601050204 27.0 23.5 87% Houston Creek 150601050304 41.1 41.1 100% Houston Creek 150602030401 23.1 23.1 100% Indian Creek 150701020404 27.7 0.1 0% Indian Spring Wash-Verde 150602030702 29.3 29.3 100% River Jones Canyon 150601060112 18.8 18.8 100% La Barge Creek 150601060107 42.8 42.8 100% Lambing Creek-Tonto 150601050406 52.2 52.2 100% Creek Lewis and Pranty Creek 150601060104 16.1 16.1 100%

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 58 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Watershed Area HUC12 Watershed Area Within TNF Watershed Area HUC12 Name Number (sq mi) (sq mi) Within TNF Lime Creek 150602030502 44.2 44.2 100% Little Squaw Creek 150701020501 19.2 7.5 39% Lousely Hill-Verde River 150602030706 32.5 3.9 12% Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria 150701020410 46.0 6.2 13% River Lower East Verde River 150602030210 35.3 35.3 100% Lower Fossil Creek 150602030307 46.6 15.0 32% Lower Mineral Creek 150501000207 32.8 0.1 0% Lower Pinal Creek 150601030607 29.4 29.4 100% Lower Pinto Creek 150601030706 35.8 35.8 100% Lower Ranch Creek 150400070303 32.7 6.1 18% Lower Rye Creek 150601050309 36.6 36.6 100% Lower Salome Creek 150601030805 25.7 25.7 100% Lower Spring Creek 150601050106 24.6 24.6 100% Lower Sycamore Creek 150602030605 44.3 41.7 94% Lower Verde River-Bartlett 150602030509 53.8 53.8 100% Reservoir Lower Verde River- 150602030503 31.7 31.7 100% Horseshoe Reservoir Lyons Fork 150501000204 19.3 16.1 83% Malpais Canyon-Verde 150602030704 41.4 31.1 75% River Marsh Creek 150601050201 34.0 34.0 100% McDowell Pass-Verde 150602030709 28.2 4.4 16% River Meddler Wash-Salt River 150601030905 38.1 38.1 100% Mesquite Wash 150602030603 19.8 19.8 100% Methodist Creek 150601050502 10.0 10.0 100% Miami Wash 150601030603 21.8 9.2 42% Middle Canyon Creek 150601030310 35.1 1.6 4% Middle East Verde River 150602030207 29.0 29.0 100% Middle Pinal Creek 150601030606 47.6 47.6 100% Middle Pinto Creek 150601030704 36.0 36.0 100% Middle Queen Creek (Local 150501000809 71.0 1.2 2% Drainage)

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 59 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Watershed Area HUC12 Watershed Area Within TNF Watershed Area HUC12 Name Number (sq mi) (sq mi) Within TNF Middle Red Creek 150602030402 26.2 26.2 100% Middle Salome Creek 150601030804 27.4 27.4 100% Middle Spring Creek 150601050105 26.0 26.0 100% Middle Sycamore Creek 150602030604 51.4 51.4 100% Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 150601050504 33.4 33.4 100% Moore Gulch 150701020502 14.7 3.9 26% Oak Creek 150601050405 16.6 16.6 100% P B Creek-Cherry Creek 150601030407 54.5 54.5 100% Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 150601050403 37.1 37.1 100% Paradise Valley 150601060201 102.7 1.0 1% Parallel Canyon-Cherry 150601030401 22.9 21.6 94% Creek Peralta Canyon 150501000805 26.1 2.4 9% Pine Creek 150601060101 35.9 35.9 100% Pine Creek 150602030206 48.0 40.8 85% Pleasant Valley 150601030402 12.9 12.9 100% Potts Canyon 150501000403 18.1 18.1 100% Ramboz Wash 150400070304 40.5 15.9 39% Red Creek 150602030403 25.4 25.4 100% Reynolds Creek 150601030801 15.7 15.7 100% Rock Canyon-Salt River 150601030502 22.7 11.1 49% Rock Creek 150601050102 25.5 25.5 100% Rock Creek 150601050501 21.7 21.7 100% Rock Creek 150602030208 20.0 20.0 100% Rock Creek 150602030602 15.4 15.4 100% Rock House Canyon 150601030308 18.5 9.6 52% Rock Tank-Cave Creek 150701020604 51.5 4.2 8% Russell Gulch 150601030601 21.5 15.8 74% Saint Johns Creek 150601050306 18.2 18.2 100% Salt River-Apache Lake 150601060103 46.0 46.0 100% Salt River-Canyon Lake 150601060108 28.4 28.4 100% Salt River-Saguaro Lake 150601060113 19.3 19.3 100%

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 60 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Watershed Area HUC12 Watershed Area Within TNF Watershed Area HUC12 Name Number (sq mi) (sq mi) Within TNF Salt River-Tempe Town 150601060304 70.1 0.1 0% Lake Schell Gulch-Salt River 150601030909 45.7 45.7 100% Seven Springs Wash-Cave 150701020601 51.5 51.5 100% Creek Sheep Creek 150602030506 20.2 20.2 100% Shute Springs Creek-Salt 150601030904 24.5 24.5 100% River Silver Creek 150501000105 27.0 4.4 16% Silver Creek 150701020405 19.8 9.5 48% Silver King Wash-Queen 150501000402 32.6 32.6 100% Creek Siphon Draw 150501000803 43.1 9.8 23% Slate Creek 150601050402 28.7 28.7 100% Sloan Creek 150601030307 14.6 7.0 48% Soldier Camp Creek 150601050302 14.6 14.6 100% South Fork Sheep Creek 150602030505 14.5 14.5 100% Squaw Creek 150701020409 56.4 52.8 94% Superior Tank 150501000901 45.4 2.0 4% Sweat Canyon-New River 150701020805 58.0 1.3 2% Sycamore Canyon-Salt 150601030903 38.3 38.3 100% River Sycamore Creek 150601050407 18.6 18.6 100% Sycamore Creek 150602030407 30.4 30.4 100% Sycamore Creek 150701020402 49.4 0.0 0% Tangle Creek 150602030406 58.8 58.8 100% Tank Creek 150701020407 14.5 6.2 42% Tanks Canyon 150601030205 24.9 3.6 15% The Gorge 150602030209 23.8 23.8 100% Tortilla Creek 150601060106 32.3 32.3 100% Upper Canyon Creek 150601030304 22.5 2.3 10% Upper Dripping Spring 150501000106 51.1 0.5 1% Wash Upper East Verde River 150602030205 53.4 53.4 100% Upper Mineral Creek 150501000206 35.4 17.4 49%

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 61 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Watershed Area HUC12 Watershed Area Within TNF Watershed Area HUC12 Name Number (sq mi) (sq mi) Within TNF Upper Pinal Creek 150601030604 44.7 27.2 61% Upper Pinto Creek 150601030703 34.5 34.5 100% Upper Ranch Creek 150400070301 41.9 5.0 12% Upper Rye Creek 150601050307 42.6 42.6 100% Upper Salome Creek 150601030803 29.8 29.8 100% Upper Sevenmile Wash 150400070202 42.3 33.7 80% Upper Skunk Creek 150701020803 16.6 6.4 38% Upper Spring Creek 150601050103 33.2 33.2 100% Upper Sycamore Creek 150400070204 53.0 9.8 19% Upper Sycamore Creek 150602030601 61.7 61.7 100% Walnut Canyon 150501000302 18.6 2.5 14% Walnut Creek 150601050104 15.5 15.5 100% Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 150601030406 26.6 26.6 100% Webber Creek 150602030203 35.1 29.6 84% Weekes Wash 150501000802 12.5 7.8 62% West Fork Pinto Creek 150601030702 28.3 28.3 100% Wet Bottom Creek 150602030405 37.7 37.7 100% Whitlow Canyon 150501000801 37.0 21.0 57% Willow Creek 150601030311 31.3 11.1 35% Willow Springs Canyon 150601060111 16.4 16.4 100% Wilson Creek 150601030405 12.4 12.4 100% Workman Creek 150601030802 20.1 20.1 100% Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt 150601030507 31.4 28.2 90% River

Table 2. Impaired Streams and Water Bodies within the boundaries of the Tonto NF Listed on the State of Arizona’s impaired waters (303d) list for 2012/14. Size Cause(s) of Location (acres/miles) impairment Status of TMDL Development Arnett Creek Copper (dissolved) Initiated in 2004 as part of Headwaters to Queen Creek 11.1 mi (2010) Queen Creek copper TMDL. 15050100-1818 Copper (dissolved) Queen Creek Headwaters to Superior (2002), lead (total) Copper TMDL Initiated in 8.8 mi WWTP discharge 15050100-014A (2010), Selenium 2004. (2012/14)

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 62 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Size Cause(s) of Location (acres/miles) impairment Status of TMDL Development Queen Creek Superior WWTP discharge Copper (dissolved) Initiated in 2004 as part of 5.9 mi to Potts Canyon 15050100-014B (2004) Queen Creek copper TMDL. Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) Initiated in 2004 as part of Potts Canyon to Whitlow Canyon 8.0 mi (2010) Queen Creek copper TMDL . 15050100-014C Tributary to Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) Initiated in 2004 as part of Headwaters to Queen Creek 2.0 mi (2010) Queen Creek copper TMDL. 15050100-991 Unnamed Tributary to Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) Initiated in 2004 as part of Headwaters to Queen Creek 1.7 mi (2010) Queen Creek copper TMDL. 15050100-1843 Unnamed Tributary to Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) Initiated in 2004 as part of Headwaters to Queen Creek 0.5 mi (2010) Queen Creek copper TMDL. 15050100-1000 Low dissolved oxygen Apache Lake 2,190 acres (2006/8) Low Priority. 15060106A-0070

Low dissolved oxygen Canyon Lake 450 acres (2004) Low Priority.. 15060106A-0250

Christopher Creek Headwaters to Tonto Creek 15060105-353 8 mi Phosphorus (2006) Low Priority. *Also on Not Attaining (4A) List Initiated in 2004. Five Point Mountain Tributary Copper (dissolved) Adoption of Site Specific Headwaters to Pinto Creek 15060103- 2.9 mi (2006/8) Dissolved Copper Standard 885 necessary to complete TMDL Pinto Creek - West Fork Pinto Creek to Roosevelt Lake 15060103-018C 17.8 mi Selenium (total) (2004) Low Priority. *Also on Not Attaining (4A) List Roosevelt Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue 18345 a Medium Priority. 15060103-1240 (2006/8- EPA) Salt River – Canyon Creek – Cherry 19.6 mi Selenium (2012/14) Low Priority Creek. 15060103-007 Suspended sediment Salt River Pinal Creek to Roosevelt (2006/8), nitrogen, 7.5 mi Medium Priority Lake 15060103-004 phosphorus and E. coli (2010) Low dissolved oxygen Salt River 10.1 mi Stewart Mountain Dam to Verde River (2004) Low Priority 15060106A-003 Tonto Creek Greenback Creek – Mercury in fish Tissue Roosevelt lake 2.6 mi Low Priority (EPA 2010) 15060105-004

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 63 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Size Cause(s) of Location (acres/miles) impairment Status of TMDL Development

Tonto Creek Haigler Creek – Spring Mercury in fish Tissue Creek 7.8 mi Low Priority (EPA 2010) 15060105-011

Tonto Creek Gun Creek – Greenback Mercury in fish Tissue Creek 18.6 mi Low Priority (EPA 2010) 15060105-006 Mercury in fish Tissue Tonto Creek Rye Creek – Gun Creek 18.6 mi Low Priority (EPA 2010) Tonto Creek Headwaters to Tributary at 341810/1110414 Low dissolved oxygen 8.1 mi Low Priority 15060105-013A (2006) *Also on Not Attaining (4A) List Tonto Creek Spring Creek – Rye Creek Mercury in fish Tissue 19.5 mi Low Priority 15060105-009 (EPA 2010) Tonto Creek Tributary at 341810/1110414 – Haigler Creek Mercury in fish Tissue 8.5 mi Low Priority 15060105-013B (EPA 2010) Also on Not Attaining (4A) List East Verde River American Gulch to Arsenic (total) 25.8 mi Initiated in 2010. Verde River 15060203-022C (2006/8) East Verde River 20.3 mi Ellison Creek to American Gulch Selenium(total) (2004) Initiated in 2010. 15060203-022B Verde River Bartlett Dam to Camp Creek 6.6 mi Arsenic (total) (2010) Low Priority 15060203-004

Table 3. Stream Condition Assessments by 5th Level HUC Watershed Number of stream HUC10 Watershed Name reaches assessed Stable Impaired Unstable 1504000702 Sevenmile Wash-Sycamore Ck 7 2 3 2

1504000703 Gilson Wash 1 0 1 0

Dripping Springs Wash-Middle Gila 1505010001 0 0 0 0 River

1505010002 Mineral Creek-Middle Gila River 1 0 0 1

1505010003 Box O Wash-Middle Gila River 0 0 0 0

1505010004 Upper Queen Creek 9 4 3 2

1505010007 Paisano Wash-Middle Gila River 0 0 0 0

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 64 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Number of stream HUC10 Watershed Name reaches assessed Stable Impaired Unstable 1505010008 Middle Queen Creek 2 0 0 2

1505010009 Lower Queen Creek 0 0 0 0

1506010302 Sawmill Creek-Upper Salt River 1 0 0 1

1506010303 Canyon Creek 6 2 1 3

1506010304 Cherry Creek 20 2 13 5

1506010305 Salt River Draw-Upper Salt River 19 4 9 6

1506010306 Pinal Creek 15 2 10 3

1506010307 Pinto Creek 17 2 8 7

1506010308 Salome Creek 12 2 5 5

Upper Salt River-Theodore Roosevelt 1506010309 14 4 7 3 Lake

1506010501 Spring Creek 25 3 17 5

1506010502 Haigler Creek-Tonto Creek 13 0 8 5

1506010503 Rye Creek-Tonto Creek 23 3 12 8

1506010504 Gun Creek-Tonto Creek 15 4 7 4

1506010505 Tonto Creek-Theodore Roosevelt Lake 3 1 1 1

Lower Salt River-Apache, Canyon, and 1506010601 15 2 3 10 Saguaro lakes

1506010602 Indian Bend Wash 0 0 0 0

1506010603 Lower Salt River below Saguaro Lake 0 0 0 0

1506020302 East Verde River 19 4 11 4

1506020303 Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River 1 0 0 1

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 65 of 13 Attachment A to the Hydrology/Watershed Report

Number of stream HUC10 Watershed Name reaches assessed Stable Impaired Unstable 1506020304 Tangle Creek-Lower Verde River 14 3 5 6

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe & Bartlett 1506020305 6 3 2 1 Reservoir

1506020306 Mesquite Wash-Sycamore Creek 11 2 6 3

1506020307 Camp Creek-Lower Verde River 8 3 3 2

1507010204 Bishop Creek 10 3 5 2

1507010205 Agua Fria River-Lake Pleasant 0 0 0 0

Cave Creek-Arizona Canal Diversion 1507010206 11 1 7 3 Channel

1507010208 New River 1 0 1 0

Total 299 56 148 95

Tonto National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Assessment Page 66 of 13 Road Density Tables9

Table 4. Existing Condition – HUC12 Road Density Assessment HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000405 Alamo Canyon-Queen Creek 30.2 60.29 2.00 2

150602030508 Alder Creek 16.8 15.77 0.94 1

150602030204 American Gulch 14.8 24.93 1.68 2

150501000806 Apache Land Tank 4.7 0.00 0.00 1

150601030908 Armer Gulch 16.0 19.19 1.20 2

150501000401 Arnett Creek 30.8 43.13 1.40 2

150601030503 Ash Creek 30.3 44.15 1.46 2

150601050409 Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 21.7 28.61 1.32 2

150601050207 Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 19.3 5.04 0.26 1

150701020406 Bishop Creek 30.0 38.31 1.28 2

150601030409 Bladder Canyon-Cherry Creek 43.8 50.86 1.16 2

150601030602 Bloody Tanks Wash 11.4 20.72 1.82 2

9 In the tables in this section, watersheds with a superscript “1” identify watersheds not rated in the watershed condition classification because less than five percent of the watershed was within the forest boundary. Watersheds with a superscript of “2” identify watersheds that were rated by another forest because a majority of the watershed was on the other forest.

Page 67 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000309 Box Canyon-Gila River 1.9 0.44 0.24 1

150602030507 Buck Basin-Verde River 44.4 69.73 1.57 2

150601060102 Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 28.7 22.47 0.78 1

150601050206 Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto Creek 34.5 40.92 1.18 2

150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 61.6 89.86 1.46 2

Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa 150601060301 FRS 6.1 7.09 1.15 2

150601050503 Bumblebee Creek-Tonto Creek 28.1 47.64 1.70 2

150601030506 Butte Creek-Salt River 19.4 19.09 0.99 1

150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon 21.9 55.92 2.55 3

150400070305 C K Canyon1 0.3 0.02 0.07

150602030701 Camp Creek 51.3 225.21 4.39 3

150601030705 Campaign Creek 33.4 24.23 0.73 1

150601060109 Cane Spring Canyon 12.7 3.19 0.25 1

150602030404 Canyon Creek-Verde River 14.7 0.00 0.00 1

150601030302 Canyon Creek Headwaters2 42.6 53.29 1.25

150601030902 Chalk Creek 21.8 39.57 1.82 2

150400070205 Champion Creek 2.1 4.32 2.11 2

Page 68 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000709 Cholla Mountain1 0.5 0.63 1.25

150601050203 Christopher Creek 26.2 75.66 2.89 3

150601030208 Cienega Creek-Salt River 12.9 22.98 1.78 2

150701020802 Cline Creek 9.9 5.96 0.61 1

Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 150601050310 Creek 32.5 53.17 1.64 2

150601030901 Coon Creek 14.6 12.11 0.83 1

150601030408 Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 38.8 43.53 1.12 2

150400070201 Corral Creek 12.9 16.70 1.29 2

150602030703 Cottonwood Basin-Verde River 29.9 83.74 2.80 3

150501000703 Cottonwood Canyon 1.1 1.24 1.09 2

150601050404 Cottonwood Creek 16.6 31.99 1.92 2

150601060110 Cottonwood Creek 51.0 37.01 0.73 1

150601030910 Cottonwood Creek-Salt River 21.3 32.96 1.55 2

150601030907 Cottonwood Wash 23.8 36.06 1.51 2

150601030403 Crouch Creek 16.8 14.28 0.85 1

150400070302 Cutter Tank 12.4 35.95 2.89 3

150602030504 Davenport Wash 34.0 6.54 0.19 1

Page 69 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150602030501 Deadman Creek 40.5 1.95 0.05 1

150601050308 Deer Creek 25.2 8.78 0.35 1

150501000205 Devils Canyon 21.5 33.66 1.57 2

Dinosaur Mountain-Roosevelt 150501000808 Canal1 2.4 0.00

150601050305 Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto Creek 19.4 9.05 0.47 1

150602030409 Dry Wash-Verde River 18.0 1.89 0.10 1

150602030202 East Verde River Headwaters 28.6 70.15 2.45 3

150601030306 Ellison Creek 9.9 20.33 2.06 2

150602030201 Ellison Creek 41.8 107.81 2.58 3

150601060105 Fish Creek 40.1 9.05 0.23 1

150602030708 Fort McDowell-Verde River1

150701020602 Galloway Wash-Cave Creek 32.8 8.65 0.26 1

150602030308 Gap Creek-Verde River2 11.5 6.75 0.59

150601030305 Gentry Canyon 9.5 24.54 2.58 3

150601050303 Gibson Creek 15.1 36.08 2.40 2

150601050202 Gordon Canyon 25.3 48.71 1.93 2

150701020801 Grapevine Canyon-New River 64.2 49.52 0.77 1

Page 70 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050301 Green Valley Creek 28.4 58.36 2.06 2

150601050408 Greenback Creek 34.2 43.92 1.29 2

150601030906 Griffin Wash 13.3 31.34 2.36 2

150601030404 Gruwell Canyon-Cherry Creek 37.5 71.36 1.90 2

150601050401 Gun Creek 57.3 36.63 0.64 1

150601050205 Haigler Creek 51.2 110.73 2.16 2

150602030306 Hardscrabble Creek 35.7 31.90 0.89 1

150601050311 Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 27.2 39.57 1.45 2

150601030701 Haunted Canyon 17.9 21.27 1.19 2

150601030505 Hess Canyon 42.9 45.99 1.07 2

150501000404 Hewitt Canyon 30.9 43.30 1.40 2

150602030408 Horse Creek 15.3 0.57 0.04 1

150601030605 Horseshoe Bend Wash 14.1 21.75 1.54 2

150601050204 Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 23.5 80.81 3.44 3

150601050304 Houston Creek 41.1 76.61 1.86 2

150602030401 Houston Creek 23.1 21.05 0.91 1

150701020404 Indian Creek1

Page 71 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating Indian Spring Wash-Verde 150602030702 River 29.3 69.30 2.36 2

150601060112 Jones Canyon 18.8 63.32 3.38 3

150601060107 La Barge Creek 42.8 1.67 0.04 1

150601050406 Lambing Creek-Tonto Creek 52.2 68.13 1.31 2

150601060104 Lewis and Pranty Creek 16.1 5.53 0.34 1

150602030502 Lime Creek 44.2 18.33 0.41 1

150701020501 Little Squaw Creek 7.5 4.25 0.56 1

150602030706 Lousely Hill-Verde River 3.9 4.89 1.26 2

150701020410 Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria River 6.2 7.30 1.18 2

150602030210 Lower East Verde River 35.3 2.53 0.07 1

150602030307 Lower Fossil Creek2 15.0 12.99 0.87

150501000207 Lower Mineral Creek1

150601030607 Lower Pinal Creek 29.4 27.57 0.94 1

150601030706 Lower Pinto Creek 35.8 56.82 1.59 2

150400070303 Lower Ranch Creek 6.1 13.32 2.20 2

150601050309 Lower Rye Creek 36.6 79.61 2.17 2

150601030805 Lower Salome Creek 25.7 27.40 1.07 2

Page 72 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050106 Lower Spring Creek 24.6 10.88 0.44 1

150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek 41.7 176.97 4.24 3

Lower Verde River-Bartlett 150602030509 Reservoir 53.8 46.82 0.87 1

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe 150602030503 Reservoir 31.7 17.26 0.55 1

150501000204 Lyons Fork 16.1 23.26 1.44 2

150602030704 Malpais Canyon-Verde River 31.1 59.33 1.91 2

150601050201 Marsh Creek 34.0 73.42 2.16 2

150602030709 McDowell Pass-Verde River1 4.4 2.34 0.53

150601030905 Meddler Wash-Salt River 38.1 63.98 1.68 2

150602030603 Mesquite Wash 19.8 25.27 1.28 2

150601050502 Methodist Creek 10.0 6.93 0.70 1

150601030603 Miami Wash 9.2 15.46 1.68 2

150601030310 Middle Canyon Creek1 1.6 5.89 3.75

150602030207 Middle East Verde River 29.0 33.32 1.15 2

150601030606 Middle Pinal Creek 47.6 62.58 1.31 2

150601030704 Middle Pinto Creek 36.0 28.86 0.80 1

Page 73 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating Middle Queen Creek (Local 150501000809 Drainage) 1 1.2 1.19 1.03

150602030402 Middle Red Creek 26.2 15.79 0.60 1

150601030804 Middle Salome Creek 27.4 11.56 0.42 1

150601050105 Middle Spring Creek 26.0 33.82 1.30 2

150602030604 Middle Sycamore Creek 51.4 75.22 1.46 2

150601050504 Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 33.4 41.26 1.24 2

150701020502 Moore Gulch 3.9 1.59 0.41 1

150601050405 Oak Creek 16.6 22.02 1.33 2

150601030407 P B Creek-Cherry Creek 54.5 62.88 1.15 2

150601050403 Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 37.1 58.19 1.57 2

150601060201 Paradise Valley1 1.0 5.47 5.65

150601030401 Parallel Canyon-Cherry Creek 21.6 98.32 4.55 3

150501000805 Peralta Canyon 2.4 0.59 0.25 1

150601060101 Pine Creek 35.9 3.84 0.11 1

150602030206 Pine Creek 40.8 35.57 0.87 1

150601030402 Pleasant Valley 12.9 26.26 2.03 2

150501000403 Potts Canyon 18.1 26.34 1.46 2

Page 74 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150400070304 Ramboz Wash 15.9 34.53 2.18 2

150602030403 Red Creek 25.4 29.52 1.16 2

150601030801 Reynolds Creek 15.7 26.07 1.66 2

150601030502 Rock Canyon-Salt River 11.1 9.52 0.86 1

150601050102 Rock Creek 25.5 38.60 1.51 2

150601050501 Rock Creek 21.7 12.27 0.57 1

150602030208 Rock Creek 20.0 9.66 0.48 1

150602030602 Rock Creek 15.4 6.66 0.43 1

150601030308 Rock House Canyon 9.6 20.05 2.10 2

150701020604 Rock Tank-Cave Creek1 4.2 4.62 1.09

150601030601 Russell Gulch 15.8 38.93 2.46 3

150601050306 Saint Johns Creek 18.2 46.53 2.56 3

150601060103 Salt River-Apache Lake 46.0 13.29 0.29 1

150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 28.4 12.45 0.44 1

150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 19.3 29.55 1.53 2

150601060304 Salt River-Tempe Town Lake1

150601030909 Schell Gulch-Salt River 45.7 109.64 2.40 2

Page 75 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating Seven Springs Wash-Cave 150701020601 Creek 51.5 65.86 1.28 2

150602030506 Sheep Creek 20.2 0.00 0.00 1

150601030904 Shute Springs Creek-Salt River 24.5 10.29 0.42 1

150501000105 Silver Creek 4.4 9.97 2.25 2

150701020405 Silver Creek 9.5 9.40 0.99 1

150501000402 Silver King Wash-Queen Creek 32.6 80.40 2.47 3

150501000803 Siphon Draw 9.8 0.00 0.00 1

150601050402 Slate Creek 28.7 49.57 1.73 2

150601030307 Sloan Creek 7.0 18.39 2.62 3

150601050302 Soldier Camp Creek 14.6 17.15 1.17 2

150602030505 South Fork Sheep Creek 14.5 0.00 0.00 1

150701020409 Squaw Creek 52.8 23.03 0.44 1

150501000901 Superior Tank1 2.0 4.68 2.32

150701020805 Sweat Canyon-New River1 1.3 1.62 1.28

150601030903 Sycamore Canyon-Salt River 38.3 18.18 0.47 1

150601050407 Sycamore Creek 18.6 15.14 0.82 1

150602030407 Sycamore Creek 30.4 0.00 0.00 1

Page 76 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150701020402 Sycamore Creek1

150602030406 Tangle Creek 58.8 55.70 0.95 1

150701020407 Tank Creek 6.2 7.96 1.29 2

150601030205 Tanks Canyon 3.6 9.43 2.62 3

150602030209 The Gorge 23.8 3.68 0.15 1

150601060106 Tortilla Creek 32.3 20.24 0.63 1

150601030304 Upper Canyon Creek 2.3 11.69 5.08 3

150501000106 Upper Dripping Spring Wash1 0.5 1.90 3.80

150602030205 Upper East Verde River 53.4 97.18 1.82 2

150501000206 Upper Mineral Creek 17.4 61.79 3.56 3

150601030604 Upper Pinal Creek 27.2 51.48 1.89 2

150601030703 Upper Pinto Creek 34.5 55.76 1.61 2

150400070301 Upper Ranch Creek 5.0 8.64 1.72 2

150601050307 Upper Rye Creek 42.6 52.97 1.24 2

150601030803 Upper Salome Creek 29.8 49.53 1.66 2

150400070202 Upper Sevenmile Wash 33.7 37.86 1.12 2

150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek 6.4 6.96 1.09 2

Page 77 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050103 Upper Spring Creek 33.2 56.54 1.70 2

150400070204 Upper Sycamore Creek 9.8 9.35 0.95 1

150602030601 Upper Sycamore Creek 61.7 85.27 1.38 2

150501000302 Walnut Canyon 2.5 0.58 0.23 1

150601050104 Walnut Creek 15.5 31.73 2.04 2

150601030406 Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 26.6 36.81 1.38 2

150602030203 Webber Creek 29.6 48.11 1.63 2

150501000802 Weekes Wash 7.8 16.05 2.05 2

150601030702 West Fork Pinto Creek 28.3 6.81 0.24 1

150602030405 Wet Bottom Creek 37.7 0.00 0.00 1

150501000801 Whitlow Canyon 21.0 3.01 0.14 1

150601030311 Willow Creek 11.1 13.66 1.24 2

150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 16.4 11.97 0.73 1

150601030405 Wilson Creek 12.4 21.69 1.75 2

150601030802 Workman Creek 20.1 43.22 2.15 2

150601030507 Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt River 28.2 19.04 0.68 1

Total 4632 6074

Page 78 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating

Good- Density < 1.0 Good 67

Fair- Density > 1.0 and < 2.4 Fair 92

Poor - Density > 2.4 Poor 19

Not Rated 19

Table 5. Alternative B - HUC12 Road Density Assessment

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000405 Alamo Canyon-Queen Creek 30.2 47.27 1.56 2

150602030508 Alder Creek 16.8 6.87 0.41 1

150602030204 American Gulch 14.8 23.23 1.57 2

150501000806 Apache Land Tank 4.7 0.00 0.00 1

150601030908 Armer Gulch 16.0 13.71 0.86 1

150501000401 Arnett Creek 30.8 36.50 1.19 2

150601030503 Ash Creek 30.3 26.36 0.87 1

150601050409 Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 21.7 15.52 0.71 1

150601050207 Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 19.3 3.37 0.17 1

150701020406 Bishop Creek 30.0 20.16 0.67 1

Page 79 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030409 Bladder Canyon-Cherry Creek 43.8 35.81 0.82 1

150601030602 Bloody Tanks Wash 11.4 12.52 1.10 2

150501000309 Box Canyon-Gila River 1.9 0.44 0.24 1

150602030507 Buck Basin-Verde River 44.4 14.79 0.33 1

150601060102 Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 28.7 16.42 0.57 1

150601050206 Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto Creek 34.5 28.04 0.81 1

150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 61.6 62.33 1.01 2

Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa 6.1 3.20 0.52 1 150601060301 FRS

150601050503 Bumblebee Creek-Tonto Creek 28.1 27.57 0.98 1

150601030506 Butte Creek-Salt River 19.4 10.48 0.54 1

150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon 21.9 6.80 0.31 1

150400070305 C K Canyon1 0.3 0.02 0.07

150602030701 Camp Creek 51.3 78.17 1.52 2

150601030705 Campaign Creek 33.4 13.90 0.42 1

150601060109 Cane Spring Canyon 12.7 0.00 0.00 1

150602030404 Canyon Creek-Verde River 14.7 0.00 0.00 1

Page 80 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030302 Canyon Creek Headwaters2 42.6 11.70 0.27

150601030902 Chalk Creek 21.8 25.05 1.15 2

150400070205 Champion Creek 2.1 3.74 1.82 2

150501000709 Cholla Mountain1 0.5 0.63 1.25

150601050203 Christopher Creek 26.2 44.08 1.68 2

150601030208 Cienega Creek-Salt River 12.9 13.60 1.05 2

150701020802 Cline Creek 9.9 4.66 0.47 1

Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 32.5 36.93 1.14 2 150601050310 Creek

150601030901 Coon Creek 14.6 7.73 0.53 1

150601030408 Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 38.8 28.86 0.74 1

150400070201 Corral Creek 12.9 12.52 0.97 1

150602030703 Cottonwood Basin-Verde River 29.9 17.66 0.59 1

150501000703 Cottonwood Canyon 1.1 1.24 1.09 2

150601050404 Cottonwood Creek 16.6 17.10 1.03 2

150601060110 Cottonwood Creek 51.0 9.98 0.20 1

150601030910 Cottonwood Creek-Salt River 21.3 26.18 1.23 2

Page 81 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030907 Cottonwood Wash 23.8 30.31 1.27 2

150601030403 Crouch Creek 16.8 11.80 0.70 1

150400070302 Cutter Tank 12.4 30.75 2.47 3

150602030504 Davenport Wash 34.0 0.23 0.01 1

150602030501 Deadman Creek 40.5 0.00 0.00 1

150601050308 Deer Creek 25.2 7.15 0.28 1

150501000205 Devils Canyon 21.5 32.31 1.50 2

Dinosaur Mountain-Roosevelt 2.4 150501000808 Canal1

150601050305 Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto Creek 19.4 5.98 0.31 1

150602030409 Dry Wash-Verde River 18.0 0.46 0.03 1

150602030202 East Verde River Headwaters 28.6 41.79 1.46 2

150601030306 Ellison Creek 9.9 13.93 1.41 2

150602030201 Ellison Creek 41.8 66.70 1.60 2

150601060105 Fish Creek 40.1 4.80 0.12 1

150602030708 Fort McDowell-Verde River1

150701020602 Galloway Wash-Cave Creek 32.8 4.22 0.13 1

Page 82 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150602030308 Gap Creek-Verde River2 11.5 6.51 0.57

150601030305 Gentry Canyon 9.5 15.67 1.65 2

150601050303 Gibson Creek 15.1 26.80 1.78 2

150601050202 Gordon Canyon 25.3 28.43 1.12 2

150701020801 Grapevine Canyon-New River 64.2 40.15 0.63 1

150601050301 Green Valley Creek 28.4 37.29 1.31 2

150601050408 Greenback Creek 34.2 34.93 1.02 2

150601030906 Griffin Wash 13.3 18.81 1.42 2

150601030404 Gruwell Canyon-Cherry Creek 37.5 54.79 1.46 2

150601050401 Gun Creek 57.3 25.22 0.44 1

150601050205 Haigler Creek 51.2 73.52 1.43 2

150602030306 Hardscrabble Creek 35.7 17.78 0.50 1

150601050311 Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 27.2 26.55 0.98 1

150601030701 Haunted Canyon 17.9 17.52 0.98 1

150601030505 Hess Canyon 42.9 35.68 0.83 1

150501000404 Hewitt Canyon 30.9 16.88 0.55 1

150602030408 Horse Creek 15.3 0.01 0.00 1

Page 83 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030605 Horseshoe Bend Wash 14.1 20.03 1.42 2

150601050204 Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 23.5 35.33 1.51 2

150601050304 Houston Creek 41.1 56.51 1.37 2

150602030401 Houston Creek 23.1 12.75 0.55 1

150701020404 Indian Creek1

Indian Spring Wash-Verde 29.3 24.06 0.82 1 150602030702 River

150601060112 Jones Canyon 18.8 42.60 2.27 2

150601060107 La Barge Creek 42.8 1.44 0.03 1

150601050406 Lambing Creek-Tonto Creek 52.2 35.88 0.69 1

150601060104 Lewis and Pranty Creek 16.1 3.61 0.22 1

150602030502 Lime Creek 44.2 14.19 0.32 1

150701020501 Little Squaw Creek 7.5 3.97 0.53 1

150602030706 Lousely Hill-Verde River 3.9 1.74 0.45 1

150701020410 Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria River 6.2 1.64 0.27 1

150602030210 Lower East Verde River 35.3 2.53 0.07 1

150602030307 Lower Fossil Creek2 15.0 1.10 0.07

Page 84 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000207 Lower Mineral Creek1

150601030607 Lower Pinal Creek 29.4 21.62 0.73 1

150601030706 Lower Pinto Creek 35.8 42.93 1.20 2

150400070303 Lower Ranch Creek 6.1 9.87 1.63 2

150601050309 Lower Rye Creek 36.6 52.58 1.44 2

150601030805 Lower Salome Creek 25.7 20.44 0.80 1

150601050106 Lower Spring Creek 24.6 7.96 0.32 1

150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek 41.7 48.90 1.17 2

Lower Verde River-Bartlett 53.8 24.92 0.46 1 150602030509 Reservoir

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe 31.7 0.81 0.03 1 150602030503 Reservoir

150501000204 Lyons Fork 16.1 16.92 1.05 2

150602030704 Malpais Canyon-Verde River 31.1 26.42 0.85 1

150601050201 Marsh Creek 34.0 40.88 1.20 2

150602030709 McDowell Pass-Verde River1 4.4 1.86 0.42

150601030905 Meddler Wash-Salt River 38.1 41.35 1.08 2

150602030603 Mesquite Wash 19.8 5.89 0.30 1

Page 85 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050502 Methodist Creek 10.0 6.44 0.65 1

150601030603 Miami Wash 9.2 12.63 1.38 2

150601030310 Middle Canyon Creek1 1.6 3.97 2.53

150602030207 Middle East Verde River 29.0 21.35 0.74 1

150601030606 Middle Pinal Creek 47.6 52.60 1.11 2

150601030704 Middle Pinto Creek 36.0 16.32 0.45 1

Middle Queen Creek (Local 1.2 0.00 150501000809 Drainage) 1

150602030402 Middle Red Creek 26.2 13.37 0.51 1

150601030804 Middle Salome Creek 27.4 10.52 0.38 1

150601050105 Middle Spring Creek 26.0 19.22 0.74 1

150602030604 Middle Sycamore Creek 51.4 36.82 0.72 1

150601050504 Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 33.4 36.28 1.09 2

150701020502 Moore Gulch 3.9 1.53 0.40 1

150601050405 Oak Creek 16.6 11.53 0.70 1

150601030407 P B Creek-Cherry Creek 54.5 15.90 0.29 1

150601050403 Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 37.1 49.96 1.35 2

Page 86 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601060201 Paradise Valley1 1.0 2.27 2.34

150601030401 Parallel Canyon-Cherry Creek 21.6 65.13 3.01 3

150501000805 Peralta Canyon 2.4 0.52 0.22 1

150601060101 Pine Creek 35.9 3.20 0.09 1

150602030206 Pine Creek 40.8 28.43 0.70 1

150601030402 Pleasant Valley 12.9 17.38 1.34 2

150501000403 Potts Canyon 18.1 12.39 0.69 1

150400070304 Ramboz Wash 15.9 27.47 1.73 2

150602030403 Red Creek 25.4 21.40 0.84 1

150601030801 Reynolds Creek 15.7 8.62 0.55 1

150601030502 Rock Canyon-Salt River 11.1 1.95 0.18 1

150601050102 Rock Creek 25.5 22.39 0.88 1

150601050501 Rock Creek 21.7 6.11 0.28 1

150602030208 Rock Creek 20.0 2.57 0.13 1

150602030602 Rock Creek 15.4 4.04 0.26 1

150601030308 Rock House Canyon 9.6 9.28 0.97 1

150701020604 Rock Tank-Cave Creek1 4.2 3.68 0.87

Page 87 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030601 Russell Gulch 15.8 23.02 1.45 2

150601050306 Saint Johns Creek 18.2 36.83 2.03 2

150601060103 Salt River-Apache Lake 46.0 9.77 0.21 1

150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 28.4 6.25 0.22 1

150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 19.3 18.34 0.95 1

150601060304 Salt River-Tempe Town Lake1

150601030909 Schell Gulch-Salt River 45.7 67.30 1.47 2

Seven Springs Wash-Cave 51.5 54.29 1.05 2 150701020601 Creek

150602030506 Sheep Creek 20.2 0.00 0.00 1

150601030904 Shute Springs Creek-Salt River 24.5 4.94 0.20 1

150501000105 Silver Creek 4.4 4.91 1.11 2

150701020405 Silver Creek 9.5 9.40 0.99 1

150501000402 Silver King Wash-Queen Creek 32.6 62.39 1.92 2

150501000803 Siphon Draw 9.8 0.00 0.00 1

150601050402 Slate Creek 28.7 35.35 1.23 2

150601030307 Sloan Creek 7.0 9.63 1.37 2

Page 88 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050302 Soldier Camp Creek 14.6 13.08 0.89 1

150602030505 South Fork Sheep Creek 14.5 0.00 0.00 1

150701020409 Squaw Creek 52.8 6.11 0.12 1

150501000901 Superior Tank1 2.0 4.04 2.01

150701020805 Sweat Canyon-New River1 1.3 1.35 1.06

150601030903 Sycamore Canyon-Salt River 38.3 8.09 0.21 1

150601050407 Sycamore Creek 18.6 3.18 0.17 1

150602030407 Sycamore Creek 30.4 0.00 0.00 1

150701020402 Sycamore Creek1

150602030406 Tangle Creek 58.8 31.74 0.54 1

150701020407 Tank Creek 6.2 5.70 0.93 1

150601030205 Tanks Canyon 3.6 6.64 1.84 2

150602030209 The Gorge 23.8 0.00 0.00 1

150601060106 Tortilla Creek 32.3 10.97 0.34 1

150601030304 Upper Canyon Creek 2.3 6.28 2.73 3

150501000106 Upper Dripping Spring Wash1 0.5 0.93 1.86

150602030205 Upper East Verde River 53.4 79.33 1.48 2

Page 89 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000206 Upper Mineral Creek 17.4 35.26 2.03 2

150601030604 Upper Pinal Creek 27.2 35.39 1.30 2

150601030703 Upper Pinto Creek 34.5 41.53 1.20 2

150400070301 Upper Ranch Creek 5.0 7.23 1.44 2

150601050307 Upper Rye Creek 42.6 42.68 1.00 2

150601030803 Upper Salome Creek 29.8 15.69 0.53 1

150400070202 Upper Sevenmile Wash 33.7 27.91 0.83 1

150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek 6.4 3.32 0.52 1

150601050103 Upper Spring Creek 33.2 23.03 0.69 1

150400070204 Upper Sycamore Creek 9.8 6.21 0.63 1

150602030601 Upper Sycamore Creek 61.7 54.53 0.88 1

150501000302 Walnut Canyon 2.5 0.00 0.00 1

150601050104 Walnut Creek 15.5 20.75 1.34 2

150601030406 Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 26.6 16.80 0.63 1

150602030203 Webber Creek 29.6 25.43 0.86 1

150501000802 Weekes Wash 7.8 7.82 1.00 1

150601030702 West Fork Pinto Creek 28.3 1.08 0.04 1

Page 90 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150602030405 Wet Bottom Creek 37.7 0.00 0.00 1

150501000801 Whitlow Canyon 21.0 2.94 0.14 1

150601030311 Willow Creek 11.1 12.28 1.11 2

150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 16.4 3.67 0.22 1

150601030405 Wilson Creek 12.4 16.16 1.31 2

150601030802 Workman Creek 20.1 11.59 0.58 1

150601030507 Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt River 28.2 15.72 0.56 1

Total 4632 3605

Good- Density < 1.0 Good 113

Fair- Density > 1.0 and < 2.4 Fair 62

Poor - Density > 2.4 Poor 3

Not Rated 19

Table 6. Alternative C - HUC12 Road Density Assessment

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000405 Alamo Canyon-Queen Creek 30.2 49.9 1.65 2

150602030508 Alder Creek 16.8 14.6 0.82 1

Page 91 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150602030204 American Gulch 14.8 24.6 1.66 2

150501000806 Apache Land Tank 4.7 0.0 0.00 1

150601030908 Armer Gulch 16.0 15.6 0.97 1

150501000401 Arnett Creek 30.8 36.5 1.19 2

150601030503 Ash Creek 30.3 27.2 0.90 1

150601050409 Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 21.7 24.5 1.16 2

150601050207 Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 19.3 4.6 0.24 1

150701020406 Bishop Creek 30.0 33.8 1.10 2

150601030409 Bladder Canyon-Cherry Creek 43.8 45.9 1.08 2

150601030602 Bloody Tanks Wash 11.4 12.9 1.19 2

150501000309 Box Canyon-Gila River 1.9 0.4 0.24 1

150602030507 Buck Basin-Verde River 44.4 45.1 1.02 2

150601060102 Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 28.7 20.1 0.70 1

150601050206 Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto Creek 34.5 39.2 1.13 2

150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 61.6 64.2 1.04 2

Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa 6.1 3.9 0.63 1 150601060301 FRS

Page 92 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050503 Bumblebee Creek-Tonto Creek 28.1 36.3 1.29 2

150601030506 Butte Creek-Salt River 19.4 14.6 0.76 1

150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon 21.9 26.0 1.19 2

150400070305 C K Canyon1 0.3 0.0 0.07

150602030701 Camp Creek 51.3 147.2 2.87 3

150601030705 Campaign Creek 33.4 23.0 0.69 1

150601060109 Cane Spring Canyon 12.7 3.2 0.25 1

150602030404 Canyon Creek-Verde River 14.7 0.0 0.00 1

150601030302 Canyon Creek Headwaters2 42.6 27.8 0.65

150601030902 Chalk Creek 21.8 31.2 1.43 2

150400070205 Champion Creek 2.1 3.7 1.82 2

150501000709 Cholla Mountain1 0.5 0.6 1.25

150601050203 Christopher Creek 26.2 62.6 2.39 2

150601030208 Cienega Creek-Salt River 12.9 17.2 1.33 2

150701020802 Cline Creek 9.9 4.7 0.47 1

Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 32.5 45.8 1.41 2 150601050310 Creek

Page 93 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030901 Coon Creek 14.6 11.8 0.81 1

150601030408 Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 38.8 32.5 0.84 1

150400070201 Corral Creek 12.9 12.5 0.97 1

150602030703 Cottonwood Basin-Verde River 29.9 35.2 1.18 2

150501000703 Cottonwood Canyon 1.1 1.2 1.09 2

150601050404 Cottonwood Creek 16.6 27.4 1.65 2

150601060110 Cottonwood Creek 51.0 21.5 0.42 1

150601030910 Cottonwood Creek-Salt River 21.3 30.9 1.45 2

150601030907 Cottonwood Wash 23.8 30.5 1.28 2

150601030403 Crouch Creek 16.8 13.3 0.79 1

150400070302 Cutter Tank 12.4 31.1 2.50 3

150602030504 Davenport Wash 34.0 3.7 0.11 1

150602030501 Deadman Creek 40.5 1.4 0.03 1

150601050308 Deer Creek 25.2 7.2 0.28 1

150501000205 Devils Canyon 21.5 32.7 1.52 2

Dinosaur Mountain-Roosevelt 2.4 0.00 150501000808 Canal1

Page 94 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050305 Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto Creek 19.4 7.9 0.41 1

150602030409 Dry Wash-Verde River 18.0 1.9 0.10 1

150602030202 East Verde River Headwaters 28.6 53.9 1.88 2

150601030306 Ellison Creek 9.9 18.4 1.86 2

150602030201 Ellison Creek 41.8 91.3 2.18 2

150601060105 Fish Creek 40.1 8.9 0.22 1

150602030708 Fort McDowell-Verde River1

150701020602 Galloway Wash-Cave Creek 32.8 4.2 0.13 1

150602030308 Gap Creek-Verde River2 11.5 6.8 0.59

150601030305 Gentry Canyon 9.5 18.9 1.99 2

150601050303 Gibson Creek 15.1 27.2 1.81 2

150601050202 Gordon Canyon 25.3 48.2 1.90 2

150701020801 Grapevine Canyon-New River 64.2 48.1 0.75 1

150601050301 Green Valley Creek 28.4 47.4 1.67 2

150601050408 Greenback Creek 34.2 37.7 1.10 2

150601030906 Griffin Wash 13.3 21.0 1.58 2

150601030404 Gruwell Canyon-Cherry Creek 37.5 61.9 1.65 2

Page 95 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050401 Gun Creek 57.3 27.3 0.48 1

150601050205 Haigler Creek 51.2 94.0 1.83 2

150602030306 Hardscrabble Creek 35.7 23.0 0.64 1

150601050311 Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 27.2 32.6 1.20 2

150601030701 Haunted Canyon 17.9 17.5 0.98 1

150601030505 Hess Canyon 42.9 39.0 0.91 1

150501000404 Hewitt Canyon 30.0 29.6 0.97 1

150602030408 Horse Creek 15.3 0.6 0.04 1

150601030605 Horseshoe Bend Wash 14.1 20.0 1.42 2

150601050204 Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 23.5 39.2 1.67 2

150601050304 Houston Creek 41.1 64.8 1.58 2

150602030401 Houston Creek 23.1 20.6 0.89 1

150701020404 Indian Creek1

Indian Spring Wash-Verde 29.3 30.7 1.05 2 150602030702 River

150601060112 Jones Canyon 18.8 45.0 2.40 2

150601060107 La Barge Creek 42.8 1.7 0.04 1

Page 96 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601050406 Lambing Creek-Tonto Creek 52.2 57.0 1.09 2

150601060104 Lewis and Pranty Creek 16.1 5.5 0.34 1

150602030502 Lime Creek 44.2 16.4 0.37 1

150701020501 Little Squaw Creek 7.5 4.0 0.53 1

150602030706 Lousely Hill-Verde River 3.9 1.7 0.45 1

150701020410 Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria River 6.2 6.9 1.12 2

150602030210 Lower East Verde River 35.3 2.5 0.07 1

150602030307 Lower Fossil Creek2 15.0 13.0 0.87

150501000207 Lower Mineral Creek1

150601030607 Lower Pinal Creek 29.4 25.8 0.88 1

150601030706 Lower Pinto Creek 35.8 52.2 1.46 2

150400070303 Lower Ranch Creek 6.1 9.9 1.63 2

150601050309 Lower Rye Creek 36.6 67.4 1.84 2

150601030805 Lower Salome Creek 25.7 22.6 0.88 1

150601050106 Lower Spring Creek 24.6 8.8 0.36 1

150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek 41.7 100.9 2.42 3

150602030509 53.8 32.1 0..60 1 Lower Verde River-Bartlett

Page 97 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating Reservoir

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe 31.7 14.4 0.45 1 150602030503 Reservoir

150501000204 Lyons Fork 16.1 20.5 1.27 2

150602030704 Malpais Canyon-Verde River 31.1 29.7 0.95 1

150601050201 Marsh Creek 34.0 63.1 1.86 2

150602030709 McDowell Pass-Verde River1 4.4 1.9 0.42

150601030905 Meddler Wash-Salt River 38.1 54.6 1.43 2

150602030603 Mesquite Wash 19.8 21.4 1.08 2

150601050502 Methodist Creek 10.0 6.4 0.65 1

150601030603 Miami Wash 9.2 12.6 1.38 2

150601030310 Middle Canyon Creek1 1.6 4.4 2.83

150602030207 Middle East Verde River 29.0 27.9 0.96 1

150601030606 Middle Pinal Creek 47.6 52.6 1.11 2

150601030704 Middle Pinto Creek 36.0 20.7 0.58 1

Middle Queen Creek (Local 1.2 1.2 1.03 150501000809 Drainage) 1

150602030402 Middle Red Creek 26.2 13.5 0.51 1

Page 98 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030804 Middle Salome Creek 27.4 10.5 0.38 1

150601050105 Middle Spring Creek 26.0 28.8 1.11 2

150602030604 Middle Sycamore Creek 51.4 61.2 1.19 2

150601050504 Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 33.4 37.5 1.12 2

150701020502 Moore Gulch 3.9 1.5 0.40 1

150601050405 Oak Creek 16.6 17.7 1.07 2

150601030407 P B Creek-Cherry Creek 54.5 31.7 0.58 1

150601050403 Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 37.1 51.4 1.39 2

150601060201 Paradise Valley1 1.0 4.5 4.70

150601030401 Parallel Canyon-Cherry Creek 21.6 71.7 3.32 3

150501000805 Peralta Canyon 2.4 0.5 0.22 1

150601060101 Pine Creek 35.9 3.3 0.09 1

150602030206 Pine Creek 40.8 31.5 0.77 1

150601030402 Pleasant Valley 12.9 21.4 1.66 2

150501000403 Potts Canyon 18.1 20.9 1.15 2

150400070304 Ramboz Wash 15.9 29.6 1.87 2

150602030403 Red Creek 25.4 23.6 0.93 1

Page 99 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030801 Reynolds Creek 15.7 18.9 1.20 2

150601030502 Rock Canyon-Salt River 11.1 5.8 0.52 1

150601050102 Rock Creek 25.5 26.9 1.06 2

150601050501 Rock Creek 21.7 9.0 0.41 1

150602030208 Rock Creek 20.0 4.1 0.21 1

150602030602 Rock Creek 15.4 6.3 0.41 1

150601030308 Rock House Canyon 9.6 12.4 1.30 2

150701020604 Rock Tank-Cave Creek1 4.2 3.7 0.87

150601030601 Russell Gulch 15.8 28.1 1.77 2

150601050306 Saint Johns Creek 18.2 38.3 2.10 2

150601060103 Salt River-Apache Lake 46.0 12.6 0.27 1

150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 28.4 11.8 0.42 1

150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 19.3 23.3 1.21 2

150601060304 Salt River-Tempe Town Lake1

150601030909 Schell Gulch-Salt River 45.7 88.0 1.93 2

Seven Springs Wash-Cave 51.5 60.3 1.17 2 150701020601 Creek

Page 100 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150602030506 Sheep Creek 20.2 0.0 0.00 1

150601030904 Shute Springs Creek-Salt River 24.5 9.0 0.37 1

150501000105 Silver Creek 4.4 6.8 1.54 2

150701020405 Silver Creek 9.5 9.4 0.99 1

150501000402 Silver King Wash-Queen Creek 32.6 73.7 2.26 2

150501000803 Siphon Draw 9.8 0.0 0.00 1

150601050402 Slate Creek 28.7 44.6 1.55 2

150601030307 Sloan Creek 7.0 13.2 1.88 2

150601050302 Soldier Camp Creek 14.6 15.1 1.03 2

150602030505 South Fork Sheep Creek 14.5 0.0 0.00 1

150701020409 Squaw Creek 52.8 19.9 0.38 1

150501000901 Superior Tank1 2.0 4.0 2.01

150701020805 Sweat Canyon-New River1 1.3 1.3 1.06

150601030903 Sycamore Canyon-Salt River 38.3 10.4 0.27 1

150601050407 Sycamore Creek 18.6 14.8 0.80 1

150602030407 Sycamore Creek 30.4 0.0 0.00 1

150701020402 Sycamore Creek1

Page 101 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150602030406 Tangle Creek 58.8 52.1 0.89 1

150701020407 Tank Creek 6.2 6.7 1.08 2

150601030205 Tanks Canyon 3.6 6.8 1.88 2

150602030209 The Gorge 23.8 2.6 0.11 1

150601060106 Tortilla Creek 32.3 18.7 0.58 1

150601030304 Upper Canyon Creek 2.3 6.3 2.73 3

150501000106 Upper Dripping Spring Wash1 0.5 0.9 1.86

150602030205 Upper East Verde River 53.4 86.1 1.61 2

150501000206 Upper Mineral Creek 17.4 35.5 2.04 2

150601030604 Upper Pinal Creek 27.2 47.3 1.74 2

150601030703 Upper Pinto Creek 34.5 48.5 1.40 2

150400070301 Upper Ranch Creek 5.0 7.2 1.44 2

150601050307 Upper Rye Creek 42.6 44.8 1.05 2

150601030803 Upper Salome Creek 29.8 32.0 1.07 2

150400070202 Upper Sevenmile Wash 33.7 27.9 0.83 1

150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek 7.7 5.8 1.21 2

150601050103 Upper Spring Creek 33.2 43.2 1.30 2

Page 102 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150400070204 Upper Sycamore Creek 9.8 8.8 0.90 1

150602030601 Upper Sycamore Creek 61.7 68.7 1.11 2

150501000302 Walnut Canyon 2.5 0.00 1

150601050104 Walnut Creek 15.5 26.8 1.73 2

150601030406 Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 26.6 30.2 1.13 2

150602030203 Webber Creek 29.6 36.2 1.22 2

150501000802 Weekes Wash 7.8 12.0 1.54 2

150601030702 West Fork Pinto Creek 28.3 6.5 0.23 1

150602030405 Wet Bottom Creek 37.7 0.00 1

150501000801 Whitlow Canyon 21.0 3.0 0.14 1

150601030311 Willow Creek 11.1 12.6 1.14 2

150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 16.4 11.0 0.67 1

150601030405 Wilson Creek 12.4 18.4 1.49 2

150601030802 Workman Creek 20.1 20.9 1.04 2

150601030507 Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt River 28.2 15.7 0.56 1

Total 4631.7 4726.6 1.02

Page 103 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating Good- Density < 1.0 Good 82

Fair- Density > 1.0 and < 2.4 Fair 91

Poor - Density > 2.4 Poor 5

Not Rated 19

Table 7. Alternative D– HUC12 Road Density Assessment HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000405 Alamo Canyon-Queen Creek 30.2 59.6 1.97 2

150602030508 Alder Creek 16.8 15.5 0.92 1

150602030204 American Gulch 14.8 24.9 1.68 2

150501000806 Apache Land Tank 4.7 0.0 0.00 1

150601030908 Armer Gulch 16.0 19.2 1.20 2

150501000401 Arnett Creek 30.8 43.1 1.40 2

150601030503 Ash Creek 30.3 43.0 1.42 2

150601050409 Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 21.7 27.3 1.26 2

150601050207 Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 19.3 5.0 0.26 1

150701020406 Bishop Creek 30.0 38.3 1.28 2

150601030409 Bladder Canyon-Cherry Creek 43.8 47.2 1.08 2

Page 104 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030602 Bloody Tanks Wash 11.4 20.7 1.82 2

150501000309 Box Canyon-Gila River 1.9 0.4 0.24 1

150602030507 Buck Basin-Verde River 44.4 65.2 1.47 2

150601060102 Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 28.7 22.5 0.78 1

150601050206 Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto Creek 34.5 43.1 1.25 2

150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 61.6 74.7 1.21 2

Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa 6.1 3.6 0.59 1 150601060301 FRS

150601050503 Bumblebee Creek-Tonto Creek 28.1 45.8 1.63 2

150601030506 Butte Creek-Salt River 19.4 19.1 0.99 1

150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon 21.9 55.9 2.55 3

150400070305 C K Canyon1 0.3 0.0 0.07

150602030701 Camp Creek 51.3 191.1 3.73 3

150601030705 Campaign Creek 33.4 24.2 0.73 1

150601060109 Cane Spring Canyon 12.7 3.2 0.25 1

150602030404 Canyon Creek-Verde River 14.7 0.0 0.00 1

150601030302 Canyon Creek Headwaters2 42.6 52.2 1.23

150601030902 Chalk Creek 21.8 39.6 1.82 2

Page 105 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150400070205 Champion Creek 2.1 4.3 2.11 2

150501000709 Cholla Mountain1 0.5 0.6 1.25

150601050203 Christopher Creek 26.2 72.9 2.79 3

150601030208 Cienega Creek-Salt River 12.9 23.0 1.78 2

150701020802 Cline Creek 9.9 5.7 0.58 1

Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 32.5 53.1 1.64 2 150601050310 Creek

150601030901 Coon Creek 14.6 12.1 0.83 1

150601030408 Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 38.8 41.2 1.06 2

150400070201 Corral Creek 12.9 16.7 1.29 2

150602030703 Cottonwood Basin-Verde River 29.9 46.9 1.57 2

150501000703 Cottonwood Canyon 1.1 1.2 1.09 2

150601050404 Cottonwood Creek 16.6 31.7 1.90 2

150601060110 Cottonwood Creek 51.0 33.5 0.66 1

150601030910 Cottonwood Creek-Salt River 21.3 31.7 1.49 2

150601030907 Cottonwood Wash 23.8 35.9 1.51 2

150601030403 Crouch Creek 16.8 14.3 0.85 1

150400070302 Cutter Tank 12.4 36.0 2.89 3

Page 106 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150602030504 Davenport Wash 34.0 3.8 0.11 1

150602030501 Deadman Creek 40.5 2.0 0.05 1

150601050308 Deer Creek 25.2 8.8 0.35 1

150501000205 Devils Canyon 21.5 33.7 1.57 2

Dinosaur Mountain-Roosevelt 2.4 0.00 150501000808 Canal1

150601050305 Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto Creek 19.4 9.0 0.47 1

150602030409 Dry Wash-Verde River 18.0 1.9 0.10 1

150602030202 East Verde River Headwaters 28.6 70.1 2.45 3

150601030306 Ellison Creek 9.9 20.3 2.06 2

150602030201 Ellison Creek 41.8 104.1 2.49 3

150601060105 Fish Creek 40.1 9.0 0.23 1

150602030708 Fort McDowell-Verde River1

150701020602 Galloway Wash-Cave Creek 32.8 8.5 0.26 1

150602030308 Gap Creek-Verde River2 11.5 6.8 0.59

150601030305 Gentry Canyon 9.5 24.5 2.58 3

150601050303 Gibson Creek 15.1 32.3 2.14 2

150601050202 Gordon Canyon 25.3 55.4 2.19 2

Page 107 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150701020801 Grapevine Canyon-New River 64.2 48.2 0.75 1

150601050301 Green Valley Creek 28.4 56.9 2.01 2

150601050408 Greenback Creek 34.2 43.9 1.29 2

150601030906 Griffin Wash 13.3 30.8 2.32 2

150601030404 Gruwell Canyon-Cherry Creek 37.5 71.4 1.90 2

150601050401 Gun Creek 57.3 36.6 0.64 1

150601050205 Haigler Creek 51.2 106.7 2.08 2

150602030306 Hardscrabble Creek 35.7 27.5 0.77 1

150601050311 Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 27.2 39.3 1.44 2

150601030701 Haunted Canyon 17.9 21.3 1.19 2

150601030505 Hess Canyon 42.9 46.0 1.07 2

150501000404 Hewitt Canyon 30.9 43.3 1.40 2

150602030408 Horse Creek 15.3 0.6 0.04 1

150601030605 Horseshoe Bend Wash 14.1 21.7 1.54 2

150601050204 Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 23.5 49.3 2.10 2

150601050304 Houston Creek 41.1 75.2 1.83 2

150602030401 Houston Creek 23.1 21.1 0.91 1

Page 108 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150701020404 Indian Creek1

Indian Spring Wash-Verde 29.3 57.9 1.98 2 150602030702 River

150601060112 Jones Canyon 18.8 56.2 3.00 3

150601060107 La Barge Creek 42.8 1.4 0.03 1

150601050406 Lambing Creek-Tonto Creek 52.2 68.1 1.31 2

150601060104 Lewis and Pranty Creek 16.1 5.5 0.34 1

150602030502 Lime Creek 44.2 18.3 0.41 1

150701020501 Little Squaw Creek 7.5 4.3 0.56 1

150602030706 Lousely Hill-Verde River 3.9 2.6 0.66 1

150701020410 Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria River 6.2 7.3 1.18 2

150602030210 Lower East Verde River 35.3 2.5 0.07 1

150602030307 Lower Fossil Creek2 15.0 13.0 0.87

150501000207 Lower Mineral Creek1

150601030607 Lower Pinal Creek 29.4 25.7 0.87 1

150601030706 Lower Pinto Creek 35.8 56.8 1.59 2

150400070303 Lower Ranch Creek 6.1 13.3 2.20 2

150601050309 Lower Rye Creek 36.6 78.9 2.15 2

Page 109 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030805 Lower Salome Creek 25.7 27.4 1.07 2

150601050106 Lower Spring Creek 24.6 10.9 0.44 1

150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek 41.7 140.0 3.36 3

Lower Verde River-Bartlett 53.8 45.1 0.84 1 150602030509 Reservoir

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe 31.7 17.3 0.55 1 150602030503 Reservoir

150501000204 Lyons Fork 16.1 23.3 1.44 2

150602030704 Malpais Canyon-Verde River 31.1 38.4 1.24 2

150601050201 Marsh Creek 34.0 73.4 2.16 2

150602030709 McDowell Pass-Verde River1 4.4 2.2 0.50

150601030905 Meddler Wash-Salt River 38.1 61.6 1.61 2

150602030603 Mesquite Wash 19.8 24.8 1.25 2

150601050502 Methodist Creek 10.0 6.9 0.70 1

150601030603 Miami Wash 9.2 15.5 1.68 2

150601030310 Middle Canyon Creek1 1.6 5.9 3.73

150602030207 Middle East Verde River 29.0 32.6 1.12 2

150601030606 Middle Pinal Creek 47.6 62.6 1.31 2

Page 110 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030704 Middle Pinto Creek 36.0 28.9 0.80 1

Middle Queen Creek (Local 1.2 1.2 1.03 150501000809 Drainage) 1

150602030402 Middle Red Creek 26.2 15.8 0.60 1

150601030804 Middle Salome Creek 27.4 11.0 0.40 1

150601050105 Middle Spring Creek 26.0 32.5 1.25 2

150602030604 Middle Sycamore Creek 51.4 74.3 1.45 2

150601050504 Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 33.4 41.3 1.24 2

150701020502 Moore Gulch 3.9 1.6 0.41 1

150601050405 Oak Creek 16.6 22.0 1.33 2

150601030407 P B Creek-Cherry Creek 54.5 54.0 0.99 1

150601050403 Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 37.1 58.2 1.57 2

150601060201 Paradise Valley1 1.0 5.1 5.26

150601030401 Parallel Canyon-Cherry Creek 21.6 100.6 4.65 3

150501000805 Peralta Canyon 2.4 0.6 0.25 1

150601060101 Pine Creek 35.9 3.8 0.11 1

150602030206 Pine Creek 40.8 34.9 0.85 1

150601030402 Pleasant Valley 12.9 26.3 2.03 2

Page 111 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150501000403 Potts Canyon 18.1 26.3 1.46 2

150400070304 Ramboz Wash 15.9 34.5 2.18 2

150602030403 Red Creek 25.4 29.5 1.16 2

150601030801 Reynolds Creek 15.7 22.3 1.42 2

150601030502 Rock Canyon-Salt River 11.1 9.5 0.86 1

150601050102 Rock Creek 25.5 38.4 1.50 2

150601050501 Rock Creek 21.7 12.3 0.57 1

150602030208 Rock Creek 20.0 4.0 0.20 1

150602030602 Rock Creek 15.4 6.7 0.43 1

150601030308 Rock House Canyon 9.6 19.5 2.05 2

150701020604 Rock Tank-Cave Creek1 4.2 2.9 0.69

150601030601 Russell Gulch 15.8 38.9 2.46 3

150601050306 Saint Johns Creek 18.2 44.0 2.42 3

150601060103 Salt River-Apache Lake 46.0 13.3 0.29 1

150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 28.4 12.2 0.43 1

150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 19.3 29.3 1.52 2

150601060304 Salt River-Tempe Town Lake1

Page 112 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150601030909 Schell Gulch-Salt River 45.7 98.3 2.15 2

Seven Springs Wash-Cave 51.5 65.1 1.26 2 150701020601 Creek

150602030506 Sheep Creek 20.2 0.0 0.00 1

150601030904 Shute Springs Creek-Salt River 24.5 10.3 0.42 1

150501000105 Silver Creek 4.4 10.0 2.25 2

150701020405 Silver Creek 9.5 9.4 0.99 1

150501000402 Silver King Wash-Queen Creek 32.6 80.4 2.47 3

150501000803 Siphon Draw 9.8 0.0 0.00 1

150601050402 Slate Creek 28.7 49.6 1.73 2

150601030307 Sloan Creek 7.0 18.0 2.57 3

150601050302 Soldier Camp Creek 14.6 15.5 1.06 2

150602030505 South Fork Sheep Creek 14.5 0.0 0.00 1

150701020409 Squaw Creek 52.8 23.0 0.44 1

150501000901 Superior Tank1 2.0 4.7 2.32

150701020805 Sweat Canyon-New River1 1.3 1.3 1.06

150601030903 Sycamore Canyon-Salt River 38.3 18.2 0.47 1

150601050407 Sycamore Creek 18.6 15.1 0.82 1

Page 113 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150602030407 Sycamore Creek 30.4 0.0 0.00 1

150701020402 Sycamore Creek1

150602030406 Tangle Creek 58.8 55.7 0.95 1

150701020407 Tank Creek 6.2 8.0 1.29 2

150601030205 Tanks Canyon 3.6 9.4 2.62 3

150602030209 The Gorge 23.8 3.7 0.15 1

150601060106 Tortilla Creek 32.3 20.2 0.63 1

150601030304 Upper Canyon Creek 2.3 11.7 5.08 3

150501000106 Upper Dripping Spring Wash1 0.5 1.9 3.80

150602030205 Upper East Verde River 53.4 94.9 1.78 2

150501000206 Upper Mineral Creek 17.4 61.8 3.56 3

150601030604 Upper Pinal Creek 27.2 51.0 1.87 2

150601030703 Upper Pinto Creek 34.5 55.8 1.61 2

150400070301 Upper Ranch Creek 5.0 8.6 1.72 2

150601050307 Upper Rye Creek 42.6 53.0 1.24 2

150601030803 Upper Salome Creek 29.8 49.9 1.67 2

150400070202 Upper Sevenmile Wash 33.7 37.9 1.12 2

Page 114 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating 150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek 6.4 7.0 1.09 2

150601050103 Upper Spring Creek 33.2 56.5 1.70 2

150400070204 Upper Sycamore Creek 9.8 8.8 0.89 1

150602030601 Upper Sycamore Creek 61.7 81.7 1.32 2

150501000302 Walnut Canyon 2.5 0.6 0.23 1

150601050104 Walnut Creek 15.5 31.7 2.04 2

150601030406 Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 26.6 36.8 1.38 2

150602030203 Webber Creek 29.6 46.9 1.59 2

150501000802 Weekes Wash 7.8 12.2 1.56 2

150601030702 West Fork Pinto Creek 28.3 6.8 0.24 1

150602030405 Wet Bottom Creek 37.7 0.0 0.00 1

150501000801 Whitlow Canyon 21.0 3.0 0.14 1

150601030311 Willow Creek 11.1 12.4 1.12 2

150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 16.4 12.0 0.73 1

150601030405 Wilson Creek 12.4 21.2 1.71 2

150601030802 Workman Creek 20.1 28.9 1.44 2

150601030507 Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt River 28.2 19.0 0.68 1

Page 115 of 199

HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Watershed Area (sq mi) Motorized Route (mi) Road Density (mi/sq mi) WCC Rating Total 4632 3605

Good- Density < 1.0 Good 70

Fair- Density > 1.0 and < 2.4 Fair 91

Poor - Density > 2.4 Poor 17

Not Rated 19

Proximity to Water Tables10

Table 8. Existing Condition - Percent of Streams within 300 ft of Motorized Routes Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000405 Alamo Canyon-Queen Creek 85.4 24.1 28.2% 3

150602030508 Alder Creek 68.9 7.0 10.1% 2

150602030204 American Gulch 27.5 6.7 24.4% 2

150501000806 Apache Land Tank 14.5 0.0 0.0% 1

150601030908 Armer Gulch 56.2 3.5 6.3% 1

10 10 In the tables in this section, watersheds with a superscript “1” identify watersheds not rated in the watershed condition classification because less than five percent of the watershed was within the forest boundary. Watersheds with a superscript of “2” identify watersheds that were rated by another forest because a majority of the watershed was on the other forest.

Page 116 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000401 Arnett Creek 74.9 17.3 23.0% 2

150601030503 Ash Creek 66.8 10.9 16.3% 2

150601050409 Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 73.4 9.9 13.5% 2

150601050207 Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 49.3 0.9 1.8% 1

150701020406 Bishop Creek 72.4 17.8 24.6% 2

150601030409 Bladder Canyon-Cherry Creek 190.4 27.4 14.4% 2

150601030602 Bloody Tanks Wash 21.5 6.6 30.9% 3

150501000309 Box Canyon-Gila River 7.0 0.1 0.9% 1

150602030507 Buck Basin-Verde River 158.2 29.2 18.4% 2

150601060102 Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 101.4 10.5 10.3% 2

150601050206 Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto Creek 87.4 8.9 10.2% 2

150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 253.1 48.1 19.0% 2

Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa 150601060301 FRS 12.2 2.3 18.9% 2

150601050503 Bumblebee Creek-Tonto Creek 106.3 14.1 13.2% 2

150601030506 Butte Creek-Salt River 56.6 5.2 9.3% 1

150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon 68.1 25.7 37.7% 3

Page 117 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150400070305 C K Canyon1 2.2 0.0%

150602030701 Camp Creek 204.7 122.1 59.7% 3

150601030705 Campaign Creek 110.9 13.9 12.5% 2

150601060109 Cane Spring Canyon 41.3 1.1 2.6% 1

150602030404 Canyon Creek-Verde River 113.0 0.0% 1

150601030302 Canyon Creek Headwaters2 38.4 12.9 33.6%

150601030902 Chalk Creek 76.0 13.3 17.5% 2

150400070205 Champion Creek 5.4 2.0 36.3% 3

150501000709 Cholla Mountain1 2.3 0.2 10.4%

150601050203 Christopher Creek 88.4 23.8 27.0% 3

150601030208 Cienega Creek-Salt River 31.7 5.5 17.3% 2

150701020802 Cline Creek 40.9 3.9 9.5% 1

Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 150601050310 Creek 109.6 22.4 20.4% 2

150601030901 Coon Creek 41.6 3.7 8.8% 1

150601030408 Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 93.0 9.6 10.3% 2

150400070201 Corral Creek 37.1 6.3 16.9% 2

Page 118 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030703 Cottonwood Basin-Verde River 147.8 49.3 33.4% 3

150501000703 Cottonwood Canyon 4.0 1.0 24.0% 2

150601050404 Cottonwood Creek 57.2 12.4 21.7% 2

150601060110 Cottonwood Creek 163.7 16.2 9.9% 1

150601030910 Cottonwood Creek-Salt River 72.2 12.2 16.9% 2

150601030907 Cottonwood Wash 71.4 13.0 18.2% 2

150601030403 Crouch Creek 25.4 2.5 9.8% 1

150400070302 Cutter Tank 48.8 12.5 25.6% 3

150602030504 Davenport Wash 93.3 2.3 2.4% 1

150602030501 Deadman Creek 87.6 0.6 0.6% 1

150601050308 Deer Creek 50.2 1.2 2.3% 1

150501000205 Devils Canyon 52.0 11.5 22.1% 2

Dinosaur Mountain-Roosevelt 150501000808 Canal1 3.8 0.0%

150601050305 Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto Creek 48.2 1.6 3.3% 1

150602030409 Dry Wash-Verde River 47.9 0.3 0.7% 1

150602030202 East Verde River Headwaters 79.4 33.2 41.9% 3

Page 119 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601030306 Ellison Creek 15.7 6.1 38.6% 3

150602030201 Ellison Creek 120.2 50.5 42.0% 3

150601060105 Fish Creek 87.7 4.3 4.9% 1

150602030708 Fort McDowell-Verde River1 1.5 0.0%

150701020602 Galloway Wash-Cave Creek 112.5 4.8 4.3% 1

150602030308 Gap Creek-Verde River2 30.0 2.0 6.6%

150601030305 Gentry Canyon 15.0 6.4 43.0% 3

150601050303 Gibson Creek 37.4 11.3 30.3% 3

150601050202 Gordon Canyon 82.8 18.6 22.5% 2

150701020801 Grapevine Canyon-New River 173.0 17.6 10.2% 2

150601050301 Green Valley Creek 67.7 20.3 29.9% 3

150601050408 Greenback Creek 126.6 16.8 13.3% 2

150601030906 Griffin Wash 57.5 12.0 20.9% 2

150601030404 Gruwell Canyon-Cherry Creek 67.5 16.4 24.3% 2

150601050401 Gun Creek 146.4 9.8 6.7% 1

150601050205 Haigler Creek 120.3 27.4 22.8% 2

150602030306 Hardscrabble Creek 73.2 7.2 9.9% 1

Page 120 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050311 Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 90.0 13.9 15.4% 2

150601030701 Haunted Canyon 29.7 2.9 9.9% 1

150601030505 Hess Canyon 120.4 12.9 10.8% 2

150501000404 Hewitt Canyon 58.7 19.2 32.7% 3

150602030408 Horse Creek 38.5 0.0 0.1% 1

150601030605 Horseshoe Bend Wash 44.1 15.3 34.7% 3

150601050204 Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 58.9 14.7 25.0% 2

150601050304 Houston Creek 100.3 28.5 28.4% 3

150602030401 Houston Creek 52.5 5.2 9.8% 1

150701020404 Indian Creek1

Indian Spring Wash-Verde 150602030702 River 101.6 32.9 32.4% 3

150601060112 Jones Canyon 91.1 36.8 40.4% 3

150601060107 La Barge Creek 107.1 0.7 0.7% 1

150601050406 Lambing Creek-Tonto Creek 204.9 27.3 13.3% 2

150601060104 Lewis and Pranty Creek 45.6 2.8 6.2% 1

150602030502 Lime Creek 125.1 4.0 3.2% 1

Page 121 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150701020501 Little Squaw Creek 20.6 1.2 6.0% 1

150602030706 Lousely Hill-Verde River 22.0 1.5 7.0% 1

150701020410 Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria River 10.7 0.5 4.4% 1

150602030210 Lower East Verde River 95.0 0.7 0.7% 1

150602030307 Lower Fossil Creek2 45.4 3.9 8.7%

150501000207 Lower Mineral Creek1 0.9 0.0%

150601030607 Lower Pinal Creek 91.5 17.2 18.8% 2

150601030706 Lower Pinto Creek 141.4 29.0 20.5% 2

150400070303 Lower Ranch Creek 20.6 6.7 32.6% 3

150601050309 Lower Rye Creek 134.1 28.6 21.3% 2

150601030805 Lower Salome Creek 82.4 10.2 12.3% 2

150601050106 Lower Spring Creek 52.7 1.0 1.8% 1

150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek 202.2 115.7 57.2% 3

Lower Verde River-Bartlett 150602030509 Reservoir 183.1 23.3 12.7% 2

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe 150602030503 Reservoir 82.2 4.7 5.8% 1

150501000204 Lyons Fork 32.6 3.5 10.8% 2

Page 122 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030704 Malpais Canyon-Verde River 133.4 34.2 25.6% 3

150601050201 Marsh Creek 71.4 16.1 22.5% 2

150602030709 McDowell Pass-Verde River1 21.4 1.6 7.4%

150601030905 Meddler Wash-Salt River 164.6 33.6 20.4% 2

150602030603 Mesquite Wash 65.8 10.9 16.5% 2

150601050502 Methodist Creek 32.9 2.9 8.7% 1

150601030603 Miami Wash 16.8 7.0 41.4% 3

150601030310 Middle Canyon Creek1 2.0 0.7 32.2%

150602030207 Middle East Verde River 81.9 10.9 13.3% 2

150601030606 Middle Pinal Creek 137.3 26.3 19.1% 2

150601030704 Middle Pinto Creek 82.1 17.3 21.0% 2

Middle Queen Creek (Local 150501000809 Drainage) 1 4.7 1.1 23.6%

150602030402 Middle Red Creek 69.9 5.5 7.8% 1

150601030804 Middle Salome Creek 84.3 3.3 4.0% 1

150601050105 Middle Spring Creek 52.3 11.4 21.8% 2

150602030604 Middle Sycamore Creek 172.2 40.1 23.3% 2

Page 123 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050504 Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 118.9 13.8 11.6% 2

150701020502 Moore Gulch 8.6 0.3 3.5% 1

150601050405 Oak Creek 54.0 9.1 16.9% 2

150601030407 P B Creek-Cherry Creek 118.6 18.0 15.2% 2

150601050403 Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 140.2 18.1 12.9% 2

150601060201 Paradise Valley1 5.3 2.7 50.1%

150601030401 Parallel Canyon-Cherry Creek 37.5 14.7 39.1% 3

150501000805 Peralta Canyon 5.6 0.4 7.5% 1

150601060101 Pine Creek 99.8 1.2 1.2% 1

150602030206 Pine Creek 97.0 10.3 10.6% 2

150601030402 Pleasant Valley 25.7 4.4 17.1% 2

150501000403 Potts Canyon 30.0 6.8 22.7% 2

150400070304 Ramboz Wash 44.3 15.0 33.7% 3

150602030403 Red Creek 78.7 16.1 20.4% 2

150601030801 Reynolds Creek 33.3 10.6 31.7% 3

150601030502 Rock Canyon-Salt River 27.4 3.0 10.8% 2

150601050102 Rock Creek 63.5 7.2 11.3% 2

Page 124 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050501 Rock Creek 65.7 4.8 7.3% 1

150602030208 Rock Creek 42.7 0.3 0.7% 1

150602030602 Rock Creek 44.4 2.9 6.6% 1

150601030308 Rock House Canyon 25.7 7.9 30.8% 3

150701020604 Rock Tank-Cave Creek1 15.8 1.1 7.3%

150601030601 Russell Gulch 47.2 12.7 26.9% 3

150601050306 Saint Johns Creek 51.1 15.9 31.1% 3

150601060103 Salt River-Apache Lake 150.3 7.3 4.9% 1

150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 74.6 4.1 5.5% 1

150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 63.3 16.0 25.2% 3

150601060304 Salt River-Tempe Town Lake1 1.1 0.0%

150601030909 Schell Gulch-Salt River 160.6 36.2 22.5% 2

Seven Springs Wash-Cave 150701020601 Creek 155.6 26.6 17.1% 2

150602030506 Sheep Creek 70.9 0.0 0.0% 1

150601030904 Shute Springs Creek-Salt River 86.5 5.7 6.5% 1

150501000105 Silver Creek 12.3 3.2 25.6% 3

Page 125 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150701020405 Silver Creek 23.8 4.1 17.3% 2

150501000402 Silver King Wash-Queen Creek 71.3 28.8 40.5% 3

150501000803 Siphon Draw 21.4 0.0 0.0% 1

150601050402 Slate Creek 110.6 21.5 19.4% 2

150601030307 Sloan Creek 13.2 2.7 20.5% 2

150601050302 Soldier Camp Creek 35.5 4.4 12.4% 2

150602030505 South Fork Sheep Creek 50.9 0.0 0.0% 1

150701020409 Squaw Creek 123.6 5.4 4.4% 1

150501000901 Superior Tank1 4.8 2.4 49.2%

150701020805 Sweat Canyon-New River1 7.5 0.8 10.7%

150601030903 Sycamore Canyon-Salt River 122.4 13.9 11.3% 2

150601050407 Sycamore Creek 71.8 5.4 7.5% 1

150602030407 Sycamore Creek 61.6 0.0 0.0% 1

150701020402 Sycamore Creek1

150602030406 Tangle Creek 175.0 19.4 11.1% 2

150701020407 Tank Creek 12.4 2.7 21.6% 2

150601030205 Tanks Canyon 6.0 2.5 41.5% 3

Page 126 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030209 The Gorge 53.7 0.3 0.5% 1

150601060106 Tortilla Creek 93.0 9.0 9.7% 1

150601030304 Upper Canyon Creek 3.7 1.3 35.3% 3

150501000106 Upper Dripping Spring Wash1 1.3 1.1 84.2%

150602030205 Upper East Verde River 130.0 32.0 24.6% 2

150501000206 Upper Mineral Creek 45.0 15.1 33.6% 3

150601030604 Upper Pinal Creek 85.3 24.6 28.8% 3

150601030703 Upper Pinto Creek 70.1 17.0 24.2% 2

150400070301 Upper Ranch Creek 15.0 3.2 21.5% 2

150601050307 Upper Rye Creek 125.5 21.8 17.3% 2

150601030803 Upper Salome Creek 80.5 16.2 20.1% 2

150400070202 Upper Sevenmile Wash 103.7 20.4 19.7% 2

150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek 24.0 3.1 12.9% 2

150601050103 Upper Spring Creek 74.7 17.1 22.8% 2

150400070204 Upper Sycamore Creek 24.2 3.6 14.7% 2

150602030601 Upper Sycamore Creek 209.9 37.5 17.9% 2

150501000302 Walnut Canyon 6.6 0.3 5.2% 1

Page 127 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050104 Walnut Creek 33.4 10.1 30.2% 3

150601030406 Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 46.9 9.6 20.5% 2

150602030203 Webber Creek 84.1 21.5 25.5% 3

150501000802 Weekes Wash 15.1 6.9 45.5% 3

150601030702 West Fork Pinto Creek 46.0 1.3 2.9% 1

150602030405 Wet Bottom Creek 79.9 0.0 0.0% 1

150501000801 Whitlow Canyon 45.6 1.3 2.9% 1

150601030311 Willow Creek 24.3 2.5 10.3% 2

150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 48.1 5.8 12.1% 2

150601030405 Wilson Creek 24.9 3.1 12.3% 2

150601030802 Workman Creek 41.4 17.6 42.6% 3

150601030507 Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt River 84.7 8.3 9.7% 1

Total 13443 2327

Good - Proximity < 10% Good 57

Fair - Proximity > 10% and < Fair 25% 81

Page 128 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating Poor - Proximity > 25% Poor 40

Not Rated 19

Table 9. Alternative B – Percent of Streams within 300 ft of Motorized Routes Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000405 Alamo Canyon-Queen Creek 85.4 19.77 23.2% 2

150602030508 Alder Creek 68.9 2.47 3.6% 1

150602030204 American Gulch 27.5 5.89 21.4% 2

150501000806 Apache Land Tank 14.5 0.0% 1

150601030908 Armer Gulch 56.2 3.20 5.7% 1

150501000401 Arnett Creek 74.9 14.89 19.9% 2

150601030503 Ash Creek 66.8 7.18 10.7% 2

150601050409 Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 73.4 7.31 10.0% 1

150601050207 Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 49.3 0.88 1.8% 1

150701020406 Bishop Creek 72.4 9.23 12.7% 2

150601030409 Bladder Canyon-Cherry Creek 190.4 18.89 9.9% 1

150601030602 Bloody Tanks Wash 21.5 5.44 25.3% 3

150501000309 Box Canyon-Gila River 7.0 0.06 0.9% 1

Page 129 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030507 Buck Basin-Verde River 158.2 7.88 5.0% 1

150601060102 Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 101.4 8.13 8.0% 1

150601050206 Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto Creek 87.4 6.19 7.1% 1

150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 253.1 32.17 12.7% 2

Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa 12.2 0.65 5.3% 1 150601060301 FRS

150601050503 Bumblebee Creek-Tonto Creek 106.3 10.00 9.4% 1

150601030506 Butte Creek-Salt River 56.6 3.76 6.6% 1

150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon 68.1 4.17 6.1% 1

150400070305 C K Canyon1 2.2 0.0%

150602030701 Camp Creek 204.7 45.73 22.3% 2

150601030705 Campaign Creek 110.9 6.27 5.7% 1

150601060109 Cane Spring Canyon 41.3 0.00 0.0% 1

150602030404 Canyon Creek-Verde River 113.0 0.00 0.0% 1

150601030302 Canyon Creek Headwaters2 38.4 4.20 10.9%

150601030902 Chalk Creek 76.0 8.63 11.4% 2

150400070205 Champion Creek 5.4 1.65 30.6% 3

Page 130 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000709 Cholla Mountain1 2.3 0.24 10.4%

150601050203 Christopher Creek 88.4 13.93 15.8% 2

150601030208 Cienega Creek-Salt River 31.7 2.90 9.2% 1

150701020802 Cline Creek 40.9 3.13 7.6% 1

Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 109.6 14.25 13.0% 2 150601050310 Creek

150601030901 Coon Creek 41.6 2.91 7.0% 1

150601030408 Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 93.0 6.13 6.6% 1

150400070201 Corral Creek 37.1 5.19 14.0% 2

150602030703 Cottonwood Basin-Verde River 147.8 9.07 6.1% 1

150501000703 Cottonwood Canyon 4.0 0.97 24.0% 2

150601050404 Cottonwood Creek 57.2 6.73 11.8% 2

150601060110 Cottonwood Creek 163.7 4.69 2.9% 1

150601030910 Cottonwood Creek-Salt River 72.2 9.99 13.8% 2

150601030907 Cottonwood Wash 71.4 12.19 17.1% 2

150601030403 Crouch Creek 25.4 2.35 9.3% 1

150400070302 Cutter Tank 48.8 11.29 23.2% 2

Page 131 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030504 Davenport Wash 93.3 0.08 0.1% 1

150602030501 Deadman Creek 87.6 0.00 0.0% 1

150601050308 Deer Creek 50.2 1.07 2.1% 1

150501000205 Devils Canyon 52.0 10.66 20.5% 2

Dinosaur Mountain-Roosevelt 3.8 0.0% 150501000808 Canal1

150601050305 Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto Creek 48.2 1.29 2.7% 1

150602030409 Dry Wash-Verde River 47.9 0.18 0.4% 1

150602030202 East Verde River Headwaters 79.4 18.18 22.9% 2

150601030306 Ellison Creek 15.7 3.60 22.9% 2

150602030201 Ellison Creek 120.2 28.04 23.3% 2

150601060105 Fish Creek 87.7 1.89 2.1% 1

150602030708 Fort McDowell-Verde River1 1.5 0.0%

150701020602 Galloway Wash-Cave Creek 112.5 1.31 1.2% 1

150602030308 Gap Creek-Verde River2 30.0 1.97 6.6%

150601030305 Gentry Canyon 15.0 5.37 35.9% 3

150601050303 Gibson Creek 37.4 8.68 23.2% 2

Page 132 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050202 Gordon Canyon 82.8 8.95 10.8% 2

150701020801 Grapevine Canyon-New River 173.0 15.78 9.1% 1

150601050301 Green Valley Creek 67.7 12.99 19.2% 2

150601050408 Greenback Creek 126.6 12.40 9.8% 1

150601030906 Griffin Wash 57.5 7.71 13.4% 2

150601030404 Gruwell Canyon-Cherry Creek 67.5 12.38 18.3% 2

150601050401 Gun Creek 146.4 6.10 4.2% 1

150601050205 Haigler Creek 120.3 18.16 15.1% 2

150602030306 Hardscrabble Creek 73.2 5.45 7.4% 1

150601050311 Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 90.0 8.27 9.2% 1

150601030701 Haunted Canyon 29.7 2.81 9.5% 1

150601030505 Hess Canyon 120.4 10.36 8.6% 1

150501000404 Hewitt Canyon 58.7 5.74 9.8% 1

150602030408 Horse Creek 38.5 0.01 0.0% 1

150601030605 Horseshoe Bend Wash 44.1 14.00 31.7% 3

150601050204 Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 58.9 10.32 17.5% 2

150601050304 Houston Creek 100.3 20.46 20.4% 2

Page 133 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030401 Houston Creek 52.5 3.43 6.5% 1

150701020404 Indian Creek1

Indian Spring Wash-Verde 101.6 11.81 11.6% 2 150602030702 River

150601060112 Jones Canyon 91.1 26.19 28.8% 3

150601060107 La Barge Creek 107.1 0.70 0.7% 1

150601050406 Lambing Creek-Tonto Creek 204.9 13.67 6.7% 1

150601060104 Lewis and Pranty Creek 45.6 2.77 6.1% 1

150602030502 Lime Creek 125.1 2.63 2.1% 1

150701020501 Little Squaw Creek 20.6 1.24 6.0% 1

150602030706 Lousely Hill-Verde River 22.0 0.62 2.8% 1

150701020410 Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria River 10.7 0.03 0.3% 1

150602030210 Lower East Verde River 95.0 0.70 0.7% 1

150602030307 Lower Fossil Creek2 45.4 0.36 0.8%

150501000207 Lower Mineral Creek1 0.9 0.0%

150601030607 Lower Pinal Creek 91.5 14.38 15.7% 2

150601030706 Lower Pinto Creek 141.4 22.31 15.8% 2

Page 134 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150400070303 Lower Ranch Creek 20.6 4.98 24.2% 2

150601050309 Lower Rye Creek 134.1 17.20 12.8% 2

150601030805 Lower Salome Creek 82.4 7.75 9.4% 1

150601050106 Lower Spring Creek 52.7 0.73 1.4% 1

150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek 202.2 33.61 16.6% 2

Lower Verde River-Bartlett 183.1 12.26 6.7% 1 150602030509 Reservoir

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe 82.2 0.0% 1 150602030503 Reservoir

150501000204 Lyons Fork 32.6 2.69 8.3% 1

150602030704 Malpais Canyon-Verde River 133.4 15.95 12.0% 2

150601050201 Marsh Creek 71.4 10.49 14.7% 2

150602030709 McDowell Pass-Verde River1 21.4 1.44 6.7%

150601030905 Meddler Wash-Salt River 164.6 24.59 14.9% 2

150602030603 Mesquite Wash 65.8 1.16 1.8% 1

150601050502 Methodist Creek 32.9 2.80 8.5% 1

150601030603 Miami Wash 16.8 6.13 36.5% 3

150601030310 Middle Canyon Creek1 2.0 0.44 21.6%

Page 135 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030207 Middle East Verde River 81.9 6.76 8.3% 1

150601030606 Middle Pinal Creek 137.3 22.97 16.7% 2

150601030704 Middle Pinto Creek 82.1 9.91 12.1% 2

Middle Queen Creek (Local 4.7 0.0% 150501000809 Drainage) 1

150602030402 Middle Red Creek 69.9 4.64 6.6% 1

150601030804 Middle Salome Creek 84.3 3.12 3.7% 1

150601050105 Middle Spring Creek 52.3 4.97 9.5% 1

150602030604 Middle Sycamore Creek 172.2 18.84 10.9% 2

150601050504 Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 118.9 12.52 10.5% 2

150701020502 Moore Gulch 8.6 0.30 3.5% 1

150601050405 Oak Creek 54.0 4.50 8.3% 1

150601030407 P B Creek-Cherry Creek 118.6 3.60 3.0% 1

150601050403 Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 140.2 15.74 11.2% 2

150601060201 Paradise Valley1 5.3 1.73 32.6%

150601030401 Parallel Canyon-Cherry Creek 37.5 7.60 20.3% 2

150501000805 Peralta Canyon 5.6 0.42 7.5% 1

Page 136 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601060101 Pine Creek 99.8 1.05 1.0% 1

150602030206 Pine Creek 97.0 8.41 8.7% 1

150601030402 Pleasant Valley 25.7 2.53 9.8% 1

150501000403 Potts Canyon 30.0 1.68 5.6% 1

150400070304 Ramboz Wash 44.3 12.17 27.4% 3

150602030403 Red Creek 78.7 10.64 13.5% 2

150601030801 Reynolds Creek 33.3 2.57 7.7% 1

150601030502 Rock Canyon-Salt River 27.4 0.20 0.7% 1

150601050102 Rock Creek 63.5 3.65 5.7% 1

150601050501 Rock Creek 65.7 1.76 2.7% 1

150602030208 Rock Creek 42.7 0.0% 1

150602030602 Rock Creek 44.4 1.73 3.9% 1

150601030308 Rock House Canyon 25.7 3.45 13.4% 2

150701020604 Rock Tank-Cave Creek1 15.8 0.94 5.9%

150601030601 Russell Gulch 47.2 6.66 14.1% 2

150601050306 Saint Johns Creek 51.1 13.77 27.0% 3

150601060103 Salt River-Apache Lake 150.3 5.46 3.6% 1

Page 137 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 74.6 1.46 2.0% 1

150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 63.3 9.73 15.4% 2

150601060304 Salt River-Tempe Town Lake1 1.1 0.0%

150601030909 Schell Gulch-Salt River 160.6 19.07 11.9% 2

Seven Springs Wash-Cave 155.6 21.88 14.1% 2 150701020601 Creek

150602030506 Sheep Creek 70.9 0.0% 1

150601030904 Shute Springs Creek-Salt River 86.5 2.13 2.5% 1

150501000105 Silver Creek 12.3 1.98 16.1% 2

150701020405 Silver Creek 23.8 4.11 17.3% 2

150501000402 Silver King Wash-Queen Creek 71.3 21.95 30.8% 3

150501000803 Siphon Draw 21.4 0.0% 1

150601050402 Slate Creek 110.6 14.45 13.1% 2

150601030307 Sloan Creek 13.2 1.02 7.7% 1

150601050302 Soldier Camp Creek 35.5 3.74 10.5% 2

150602030505 South Fork Sheep Creek 50.9 0.0% 1

150701020409 Squaw Creek 123.6 1.98 1.6% 1

Page 138 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000901 Superior Tank1 4.8 1.91 39.5%

150701020805 Sweat Canyon-New River1 7.5 0.63 8.4%

150601030903 Sycamore Canyon-Salt River 122.4 4.90 4.0% 1

150601050407 Sycamore Creek 71.8 1.06 1.5% 1

150602030407 Sycamore Creek 61.6 0.0% 1

150701020402 Sycamore Creek1

150602030406 Tangle Creek 175.0 13.24 7.6% 1

150701020407 Tank Creek 12.4 2.10 16.9% 2

150601030205 Tanks Canyon 6.0 2.18 36.3% 3

150602030209 The Gorge 53.7 0.0% 1

150601060106 Tortilla Creek 93.0 5.25 5.6% 1

150601030304 Upper Canyon Creek 3.7 0.05 1.5% 1

150501000106 Upper Dripping Spring Wash1 1.3 0.49 38.5%

150602030205 Upper East Verde River 130.0 26.48 20.4% 2

150501000206 Upper Mineral Creek 45.0 8.81 19.6% 2

150601030604 Upper Pinal Creek 85.3 16.25 19.1% 2

150601030703 Upper Pinto Creek 70.1 10.31 14.7% 2

Page 139 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150400070301 Upper Ranch Creek 15.0 2.80 18.7% 2

150601050307 Upper Rye Creek 125.5 17.75 14.1% 2

150601030803 Upper Salome Creek 80.5 4.24 5.3% 1

150400070202 Upper Sevenmile Wash 103.7 15.31 14.8% 2

150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek 24.0 1.11 4.6% 1

150601050103 Upper Spring Creek 74.7 8.57 11.5% 2

150400070204 Upper Sycamore Creek 24.2 1.84 7.6% 1

150602030601 Upper Sycamore Creek 209.9 24.69 11.8% 2

150501000302 Walnut Canyon 6.6 0.0% 1

150601050104 Walnut Creek 33.4 7.66 22.9% 2

150601030406 Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 46.9 3.36 7.2% 1

150602030203 Webber Creek 84.1 9.36 11.1% 2

150501000802 Weekes Wash 15.1 3.72 24.7% 2

150601030702 West Fork Pinto Creek 46.0 0.20 0.4% 1

150602030405 Wet Bottom Creek 79.9 0.0% 1

150501000801 Whitlow Canyon 45.6 1.31 2.9% 1

150601030311 Willow Creek 24.3 2.26 9.3% 1

Page 140 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 48.1 1.01 2.1% 1

150601030405 Wilson Creek 24.9 2.05 8.2% 1

150601030802 Workman Creek 41.4 7.71 18.6% 2

150601030507 Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt River 84.7 6.81 8.0% 1

Total 13443 1351

Good - Proximity < 10% Good 101

Fair - Proximity > 10% and < Fair 25% 67

Poor - Proximity > 25% Poor 10

Not Rated 19

Table 10. Alternative C– Percent of Streams within 300 ft of Motorized Routes Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000405 Alamo Canyon-Queen Creek 85.4 21.2 24.8% 2

150602030508 Alder Creek 68.9 6.2 9.0% 1

150602030204 American Gulch 27.5 6.6 24.0% 2

150501000806 Apache Land Tank 14.5 0.0% 1

150601030908 Armer Gulch 56.2 3.3 5.9% 1

Page 141 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000401 Arnett Creek 74.9 14.9 19.9% 2

150601030503 Ash Creek 66.8 7.2 10.7% 2

150601050409 Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 73.4 9.6 13.0% 2

150601050207 Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 49.3 0.9 1.8% 1

150701020406 Bishop Creek 72.4 14.7 20.3% 2

150601030409 Bladder Canyon-Cherry Creek 190.4 25.4 13.4% 2

150601030602 Bloody Tanks Wash 21.5 5.4 25.3% 3

150501000309 Box Canyon-Gila River 7.0 0.1 0.9% 1

150602030507 Buck Basin-Verde River 158.2 20.6 13.1% 2

150601060102 Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 101.4 9.1 9.0% 1

150601050206 Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto Creek 87.4 9.0 10.3% 2

150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 253.1 33.2 13.1% 2

Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa 150601060301 FRS 12.2 1.2 9.6% 1

150601050503 Bumblebee Creek-Tonto Creek 106.3 11.4 10.7% 2

150601030506 Butte Creek-Salt River 56.6 4.0 7.0% 1

150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon 68.1 11.0 16.2% 2

Page 142 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150400070305 C K Canyon1 2.2 0.0%

150602030701 Camp Creek 204.7 79.0 38.6% 3

150601030705 Campaign Creek 110.9 12.7 11.4% 2

150601060109 Cane Spring Canyon 41.3 1.1 2.6% 1

150602030404 Canyon Creek-Verde River 113.0 0.0% 1

150601030302 Canyon Creek Headwaters2 38.4 9.6 24.9%

150601030902 Chalk Creek 76.0 11.4 15.1% 2

150400070205 Champion Creek 5.4 1.6 30.6% 3

150501000709 Cholla Mountain1 2.3 0.2 10.4%

150601050203 Christopher Creek 88.4 18.1 20.5% 2

150601030208 Cienega Creek-Salt River 31.7 4.6 14.6% 2

150701020802 Cline Creek 40.9 3.1 7.6% 1

Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 150601050310 Creek 109.6 18.0 16.4% 2

150601030901 Coon Creek 41.6 3.7 8.8% 1

150601030408 Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 93.0 6.4 6.9% 1

150400070201 Corral Creek 37.1 5.2 14.0% 2

Page 143 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030703 Cottonwood Basin-Verde River 147.8 17.9 12.1% 2

150501000703 Cottonwood Canyon 4.0 1.0 24.0% 2

150601050404 Cottonwood Creek 57.2 12.0 21.0% 2

150601060110 Cottonwood Creek 163.7 7.3 4.5% 1

150601030910 Cottonwood Creek-Salt River 72.2 11.7 16.2% 2

150601030907 Cottonwood Wash 71.4 12.3 17.3% 2

150601030403 Crouch Creek 25.4 2.4 9.3% 1

150400070302 Cutter Tank 48.8 11.3 23.2% 2

150602030504 Davenport Wash 93.3 1.8 1.9% 1

150602030501 Deadman Creek 87.6 0.6 0.6% 1

150601050308 Deer Creek 50.2 1.1 2.1% 1

150501000205 Devils Canyon 52.0 11.0 21.2% 2

Dinosaur Mountain-Roosevelt 150501000808 Canal1 3.8 0.0%

150601050305 Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto Creek 48.2 1.6 3.3% 1

150602030409 Dry Wash-Verde River 47.9 0.3 0.7% 1

150602030202 East Verde River Headwaters 79.4 26.0 32.8% 3

Page 144 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601030306 Ellison Creek 15.7 5.0 31.8% 3

150602030201 Ellison Creek 120.2 41.2 34.3% 3

150601060105 Fish Creek 87.7 4.3 4.9% 1

150602030708 Fort McDowell-Verde River1 1.5 0.0%

150701020602 Galloway Wash-Cave Creek 112.5 1.3 1.2% 1

150602030308 Gap Creek-Verde River2 30.0 2.0 6.6%

150601030305 Gentry Canyon 15.0 6.2 41.3% 3

150601050303 Gibson Creek 37.4 8.7 23.2% 2

150601050202 Gordon Canyon 82.8 17.6 21.3% 2

150701020801 Grapevine Canyon-New River 173.0 17.1 9.9% 1

150601050301 Green Valley Creek 67.7 17.2 25.5% 3

150601050408 Greenback Creek 126.6 13.3 10.5% 2

150601030906 Griffin Wash 57.5 9.2 15.9% 2

150601030404 Gruwell Canyon-Cherry Creek 67.5 14.9 22.1% 2

150601050401 Gun Creek 146.4 6.4 4.4% 1

150601050205 Haigler Creek 120.3 22.6 18.8% 2

150602030306 Hardscrabble Creek 73.2 5.8 8.0% 1

Page 145 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050311 Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 90.0 10.7 11.9% 2

150601030701 Haunted Canyon 29.7 2.8 9.5% 1

150601030505 Hess Canyon 120.4 10.7 8.9% 1

150501000404 Hewitt Canyon 58.7 12.6 21.5% 2

150602030408 Horse Creek 38.5 0.0 0.1% 1

150601030605 Horseshoe Bend Wash 44.1 14.0 31.7% 3

150601050204 Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 58.9 11.0 18.7% 2

150601050304 Houston Creek 100.3 24.3 24.2% 2

150602030401 Houston Creek 52.5 5.2 9.8% 1

150701020404 Indian Creek1

Indian Spring Wash-Verde 150602030702 River 101.6 13.8 13.6% 2

150601060112 Jones Canyon 91.1 27.4 30.1% 3

150601060107 La Barge Creek 107.1 0.7 0.7% 1

150601050406 Lambing Creek-Tonto Creek 204.9 22.3 10.9% 2

150601060104 Lewis and Pranty Creek 45.6 2.8 6.1% 1

150602030502 Lime Creek 125.1 3.3 2.6% 1

Page 146 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150701020501 Little Squaw Creek 20.6 1.2 6.0% 1

150602030706 Lousely Hill-Verde River 22.0 0.6 2.8% 1

150701020410 Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria River 10.7 0.3 3.1% 1

150602030210 Lower East Verde River 95.0 0.7 0.7% 1

150602030307 Lower Fossil Creek2 45.4 3.9 8.7%

150501000207 Lower Mineral Creek1 0.9 0.0%

150601030607 Lower Pinal Creek 91.5 16.7 18.3% 2

150601030706 Lower Pinto Creek 141.4 27.9 19.7% 2

150400070303 Lower Ranch Creek 20.6 5.0 24.2% 2

150601050309 Lower Rye Creek 134.1 22.7 16.9% 2

150601030805 Lower Salome Creek 82.4 7.9 9.6% 1

150601050106 Lower Spring Creek 52.7 0.7 1.4% 1

150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek 202.2 63.5 31.4% 3

Lower Verde River-Bartlett 150602030509 Reservoir 183.1 17.6 9.6% 1

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe 150602030503 Reservoir 82.2 4.2 5.1% 1

150501000204 Lyons Fork 32.6 3.0 9.3% 1

Page 147 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030704 Malpais Canyon-Verde River 133.4 17.5 13.1% 2

150601050201 Marsh Creek 71.4 14.1 19.7% 2

150602030709 McDowell Pass-Verde River1 21.4 1.4 6.7%

150601030905 Meddler Wash-Salt River 164.6 30.7 18.7% 2

150602030603 Mesquite Wash 65.8 9.5 14.4% 2

150601050502 Methodist Creek 32.9 2.8 8.5% 1

150601030603 Miami Wash 16.8 6.1 36.5% 3

150601030310 Middle Canyon Creek1 2.0 0.5 26.5%

150602030207 Middle East Verde River 81.9 8.9 10.9% 2

150601030606 Middle Pinal Creek 137.3 23.0 16.7% 2

150601030704 Middle Pinto Creek 82.1 12.5 15.2% 2

Middle Queen Creek (Local 150501000809 Drainage) 1 4.7 1.1 23.6%

150602030402 Middle Red Creek 69.9 4.7 6.7% 1

150601030804 Middle Salome Creek 84.3 3.1 3.7% 1

150601050105 Middle Spring Creek 52.3 8.9 17.1% 2

150602030604 Middle Sycamore Creek 172.2 32.4 18.8% 2

Page 148 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050504 Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 118.9 13.0 11.0% 2

150701020502 Moore Gulch 8.6 0.3 3.5% 1

150601050405 Oak Creek 54.0 7.3 13.5% 2

150601030407 P B Creek-Cherry Creek 118.6 8.0 6.8% 1

150601050403 Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 140.2 16.3 11.6% 2

150601060201 Paradise Valley1 5.3 2.2 41.3%

150601030401 Parallel Canyon-Cherry Creek 37.5 8.4 22.5% 2

150501000805 Peralta Canyon 5.6 0.4 7.5% 1

150601060101 Pine Creek 99.8 1.0 1.0% 1

150602030206 Pine Creek 97.0 9.7 10.0% 1

150601030402 Pleasant Valley 25.7 3.6 13.8% 2

150501000403 Potts Canyon 30.0 4.8 15.8% 2

150400070304 Ramboz Wash 44.3 13.0 29.4% 3

150602030403 Red Creek 78.7 11.6 14.7% 2

150601030801 Reynolds Creek 33.3 9.5 28.6% 3

150601030502 Rock Canyon-Salt River 27.4 1.4 5.1% 1

150601050102 Rock Creek 63.5 4.9 7.8% 1

Page 149 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050501 Rock Creek 65.7 3.4 5.2% 1

150602030208 Rock Creek 42.7 0.2 0.5% 1

150602030602 Rock Creek 44.4 2.7 6.2% 1

150601030308 Rock House Canyon 25.7 5.7 22.1% 2

150701020604 Rock Tank-Cave Creek1 15.8 0.9 5.9%

150601030601 Russell Gulch 47.2 8.8 18.6% 2

150601050306 Saint Johns Creek 51.1 14.6 28.6% 3

150601060103 Salt River-Apache Lake 150.3 6.9 4.6% 1

150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 74.6 4.1 5.5% 1

150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 63.3 13.2 20.9% 2

150601060304 Salt River-Tempe Town Lake1 1.1 0.0%

150601030909 Schell Gulch-Salt River 160.6 29.7 18.5% 2

Seven Springs Wash-Cave 150701020601 Creek 155.6 23.9 15.4% 2

150602030506 Sheep Creek 70.9 0.0% 1

150601030904 Shute Springs Creek-Salt River 86.5 4.8 5.5% 1

150501000105 Silver Creek 12.3 2.0 16.1% 2

Page 150 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150701020405 Silver Creek 23.8 4.1 17.3% 2

150501000402 Silver King Wash-Queen Creek 71.3 26.9 37.7% 3

150501000803 Siphon Draw 21.4 0.0% 1

150601050402 Slate Creek 110.6 18.9 17.1% 2

150601030307 Sloan Creek 13.2 2.4 17.9% 2

150601050302 Soldier Camp Creek 35.5 4.2 11.8% 2

150602030505 South Fork Sheep Creek 50.9 0.0% 1

150701020409 Squaw Creek 123.6 3.7 3.0% 1

150501000901 Superior Tank1 4.8 1.9 39.5%

150701020805 Sweat Canyon-New River1 7.5 0.6 8.4%

150601030903 Sycamore Canyon-Salt River 122.4 6.9 5.6% 1

150601050407 Sycamore Creek 71.8 5.4 7.5% 1

150602030407 Sycamore Creek 61.6 0.0% 1

150701020402 Sycamore Creek1

150602030406 Tangle Creek 175.0 18.4 10.5% 2

150701020407 Tank Creek 12.4 2.1 16.9% 2

150601030205 Tanks Canyon 6.0 2.3 38.4% 3

Page 151 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030209 The Gorge 53.7 0.3 0.5% 1

150601060106 Tortilla Creek 93.0 8.4 9.0% 1

150601030304 Upper Canyon Creek 3.7 0.1 1.5% 1

150501000106 Upper Dripping Spring Wash1 1.3 0.5 38.5%

150602030205 Upper East Verde River 130.0 29.3 22.5% 2

150501000206 Upper Mineral Creek 45.0 8.8 19.6% 2

150601030604 Upper Pinal Creek 85.3 23.4 27.4% 3

150601030703 Upper Pinto Creek 70.1 14.7 20.9% 2

150400070301 Upper Ranch Creek 15.0 2.8 18.7% 2

150601050307 Upper Rye Creek 125.5 18.6 14.8% 2

150601030803 Upper Salome Creek 80.5 9.2 11.4% 2

150400070202 Upper Sevenmile Wash 103.7 15.3 14.8% 2

150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek 24.0 4.8 20.1% 2

150601050103 Upper Spring Creek 74.7 10.9 14.6% 2

150400070204 Upper Sycamore Creek 24.2 3.5 14.6% 2

150602030601 Upper Sycamore Creek 209.9 29.8 14.2% 2

150501000302 Walnut Canyon 6.6 0.0% 1

Page 152 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050104 Walnut Creek 33.4 8.9 26.7% 3

150601030406 Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 46.9 6.0 12.7% 2

150602030203 Webber Creek 84.1 15.3 18.1% 2

150501000802 Weekes Wash 15.1 6.2 41.2% 3

150601030702 West Fork Pinto Creek 46.0 1.3 2.9% 1

150602030405 Wet Bottom Creek 79.9 0.0% 1

150501000801 Whitlow Canyon 45.6 1.3 2.9% 1

150601030311 Willow Creek 24.3 2.4 9.8% 1

150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 48.1 5.0 10.3% 2

150601030405 Wilson Creek 24.9 2.1 8.5% 1

150601030802 Workman Creek 41.4 11.4 27.5% 3

150601030507 Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt River 84.7 6.8 8.0% 1

Total 13443 1796.6

Good - Proximity < 10% Good 74

Fair - Proximity > 10% and < Fair 25% 83

Page 153 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating Poor - Proximity > 25% Poor 21

Not Rated 19

Table 11. Alternative D - Percent of Streams within 300 ft of Motorized Routes Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000405 Alamo Canyon-Queen Creek 85.4 23.79 27.9% 3

150602030508 Alder Creek 68.9 6.78 9.8% 1

150602030204 American Gulch 27.5 6.70 24.4% 2

150501000806 Apache Land Tank 14.5 0.0% 1

150601030908 Armer Gulch 56.2 3.54 6.3% 1

150501000401 Arnett Creek 74.9 17.26 23.0% 2

150601030503 Ash Creek 66.8 10.46 15.6% 2

150601050409 Ash Creek-Tonto Creek 73.4 9.88 13.5% 2

150601050207 Big Canyon-Tonto Creek 49.3 0.91 1.8% 1

150701020406 Bishop Creek 72.4 17.79 24.6% 2

150601030409 Bladder Canyon-Cherry Creek 190.4 27.07 14.2% 2

150601030602 Bloody Tanks Wash 21.5 6.63 30.9% 3

150501000309 Box Canyon-Gila River 7.0 0.06 0.9% 1

Page 154 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030507 Buck Basin-Verde River 158.2 28.94 18.3% 2

150601060102 Buckhorn Creek-Salt River 101.4 10.45 10.3% 2

150601050206 Bull Tank Canyon-Tonto Creek 87.4 9.57 11.0% 2

150601060302 Bulldog Canyon-Salt River 253.1 37.71 14.9% 2

Bulldog Wash-Buckhorn Mesa 150601060301 FRS 12.2 1.58 13.0% 2

150601050503 Bumblebee Creek-Tonto Creek 106.3 13.36 12.6% 2

150601030506 Butte Creek-Salt River 56.6 5.24 9.3% 1

150601050101 Buzzard Roost Canyon 68.1 25.71 37.7% 3

150400070305 C K Canyon1 2.2 0.0%

150602030701 Camp Creek 204.7 107.76 52.7% 3

150601030705 Campaign Creek 110.9 13.86 12.5% 2

150601060109 Cane Spring Canyon 41.3 1.07 2.6% 1

150602030404 Canyon Creek-Verde River 113.0 0.0% 1

150601030302 Canyon Creek Headwaters2 38.4 12.91 33.6%

150601030902 Chalk Creek 76.0 13.31 17.5% 2

150400070205 Champion Creek 5.4 1.95 36.3% 3

Page 155 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000709 Cholla Mountain1 2.3 0.24 10.4%

150601050203 Christopher Creek 88.4 23.39 26.5% 3

150601030208 Cienega Creek-Salt River 31.7 5.47 17.3% 2

150701020802 Cline Creek 40.9 3.83 9.4% 1

Cocomunga Canyon-Tonto 150601050310 Creek 109.6 22.38 20.4% 2

150601030901 Coon Creek 41.6 3.67 8.8% 1

150601030408 Cooper Forks-Cherry Creek 93.0 9.55 10.3% 2

150400070201 Corral Creek 37.1 6.26 16.9% 2

150602030703 Cottonwood Basin-Verde River 147.8 30.21 20.4% 2

150501000703 Cottonwood Canyon 4.0 0.97 24.0% 2

150601050404 Cottonwood Creek 57.2 12.11 21.2% 2

150601060110 Cottonwood Creek 163.7 15.35 9.4% 1

150601030910 Cottonwood Creek-Salt River 72.2 11.98 16.6% 2

150601030907 Cottonwood Wash 71.4 13.03 18.2% 2

150601030403 Crouch Creek 25.4 2.48 9.8% 1

150400070302 Cutter Tank 48.8 12.50 25.6% 3

Page 156 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030504 Davenport Wash 93.3 1.81 1.9% 1

150602030501 Deadman Creek 87.6 0.55 0.6% 1

150601050308 Deer Creek 50.2 1.16 2.3% 1

150501000205 Devils Canyon 52.0 11.50 22.1% 2

Dinosaur Mountain-Roosevelt 150501000808 Canal1 3.8 0.0%

150601050305 Dry Pocket Wash-Tonto Creek 48.2 1.59 3.3% 1

150602030409 Dry Wash-Verde River 47.9 0.34 0.7% 1

150602030202 East Verde River Headwaters 79.4 33.23 41.9% 3

150601030306 Ellison Creek 15.7 6.06 38.6% 3

150602030201 Ellison Creek 120.2 47.56 39.6% 3

150601060105 Fish Creek 87.7 4.33 4.9% 1

150602030708 Fort McDowell-Verde River1 1.5 0.0%

150701020602 Galloway Wash-Cave Creek 112.5 4.71 4.2% 1

150602030308 Gap Creek-Verde River2 30.0 1.97 6.6%

150601030305 Gentry Canyon 15.0 6.43 43.0% 3

150601050303 Gibson Creek 37.4 10.46 28.0% 3

Page 157 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601050202 Gordon Canyon 82.8 20.97 25.3% 3

150701020801 Grapevine Canyon-New River 173.0 17.01 9.8% 1

150601050301 Green Valley Creek 67.7 19.66 29.1% 3

150601050408 Greenback Creek 126.6 16.80 13.3% 2

150601030906 Griffin Wash 57.5 11.58 20.1% 2

150601030404 Gruwell Canyon-Cherry Creek 67.5 16.40 24.3% 2

150601050401 Gun Creek 146.4 9.84 6.7% 1

150601050205 Haigler Creek 120.3 26.09 21.7% 2

150602030306 Hardscrabble Creek 73.2 6.75 9.2% 1

150601050311 Hardt Creek-Tonto Creek 90.0 13.76 15.3% 2

150601030701 Haunted Canyon 29.7 2.94 9.9% 1

150601030505 Hess Canyon 120.4 12.95 10.8% 2

150501000404 Hewitt Canyon 58.7 19.18 32.7% 3

150602030408 Horse Creek 38.5 0.03 0.1% 1

150601030605 Horseshoe Bend Wash 44.1 15.33 34.7% 3

150601050204 Horton Creek-Tonto Creek 58.9 14.00 23.8% 2

150601050304 Houston Creek 100.3 28.21 28.1% 3

Page 158 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030401 Houston Creek 52.5 5.17 9.8% 1

150701020404 Indian Creek1

Indian Spring Wash-Verde 150602030702 River 101.6 30.87 30.4% 3

150601060112 Jones Canyon 91.1 34.54 37.9% 3

150601060107 La Barge Creek 107.1 0.70 0.7% 1

150601050406 Lambing Creek-Tonto Creek 204.9 27.31 13.3% 2

150601060104 Lewis and Pranty Creek 45.6 2.81 6.2% 1

150602030502 Lime Creek 125.1 3.96 3.2% 1

150701020501 Little Squaw Creek 20.6 1.24 6.0% 1

150602030706 Lousely Hill-Verde River 22.0 0.63 2.9% 1

150701020410 Lousy Canyon-Agua Fria River 10.7 0.47 4.4% 1

150602030210 Lower East Verde River 95.0 0.70 0.7% 1

150602030307 Lower Fossil Creek2 45.4 3.94 8.7%

150501000207 Lower Mineral Creek1 0.9 0.0%

150601030607 Lower Pinal Creek 91.5 16.95 18.5% 2

150601030706 Lower Pinto Creek 141.4 29.02 20.5% 2

Page 159 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150400070303 Lower Ranch Creek 20.6 6.71 32.6% 3

150601050309 Lower Rye Creek 134.1 28.34 21.1% 2

150601030805 Lower Salome Creek 82.4 10.16 12.3% 2

150601050106 Lower Spring Creek 52.7 0.96 1.8% 1

150602030605 Lower Sycamore Creek 202.2 89.25 44.1% 3

Lower Verde River-Bartlett 150602030509 Reservoir 183.1 22.04 12.0% 2

Lower Verde River-Horseshoe 150602030503 Reservoir 82.2 4.74 5.8% 1

150501000204 Lyons Fork 32.6 3.53 10.8% 2

150602030704 Malpais Canyon-Verde River 133.4 23.79 17.8% 2

150601050201 Marsh Creek 71.4 16.06 22.5% 2

150602030709 McDowell Pass-Verde River1 21.4 1.58 7.4%

150601030905 Meddler Wash-Salt River 164.6 32.51 19.7% 2

150602030603 Mesquite Wash 65.8 10.84 16.5% 2

150601050502 Methodist Creek 32.9 2.88 8.7% 1

150601030603 Miami Wash 16.8 6.96 41.4% 3

150601030310 Middle Canyon Creek1 2.0 0.66 32.2%

Page 160 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150602030207 Middle East Verde River 81.9 10.79 13.2% 2

150601030606 Middle Pinal Creek 137.3 26.26 19.1% 2

150601030704 Middle Pinto Creek 82.1 17.28 21.0% 2

Middle Queen Creek (Local 150501000809 Drainage) 1 4.7 1.12 23.6%

150602030402 Middle Red Creek 69.9 5.48 7.8% 1

150601030804 Middle Salome Creek 84.3 3.26 3.9% 1

150601050105 Middle Spring Creek 52.3 10.53 20.1% 2

150602030604 Middle Sycamore Creek 172.2 39.64 23.0% 2

150601050504 Mills Canyon-Tonto Creek 118.9 13.78 11.6% 2

150701020502 Moore Gulch 8.6 0.30 3.5% 1

150601050405 Oak Creek 54.0 9.09 16.9% 2

150601030407 P B Creek-Cherry Creek 118.6 15.23 12.8% 2

150601050403 Packard Wash-Tonto Creek 140.2 18.08 12.9% 2

150601060201 Paradise Valley1 5.3 2.41 45.4%

150601030401 Parallel Canyon-Cherry Creek 37.5 14.86 39.7% 3

150501000805 Peralta Canyon 5.6 0.42 7.5% 1

Page 161 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601060101 Pine Creek 99.8 1.19 1.2% 1

150602030206 Pine Creek 97.0 10.10 10.4% 2

150601030402 Pleasant Valley 25.7 4.41 17.1% 2

150501000403 Potts Canyon 30.0 6.82 22.7% 2

150400070304 Ramboz Wash 44.3 14.96 33.7% 3

150602030403 Red Creek 78.7 16.06 20.4% 2

150601030801 Reynolds Creek 33.3 10.21 30.7% 3

150601030502 Rock Canyon-Salt River 27.4 2.97 10.8% 2

150601050102 Rock Creek 63.5 7.16 11.3% 2

150601050501 Rock Creek 65.7 4.81 7.3% 1

150602030208 Rock Creek 42.7 0.0% 1

150602030602 Rock Creek 44.4 2.94 6.6% 1

150601030308 Rock House Canyon 25.7 7.17 27.9% 3

150701020604 Rock Tank-Cave Creek1 15.8 0.64 4.1%

150601030601 Russell Gulch 47.2 12.68 26.9% 3

150601050306 Saint Johns Creek 51.1 15.51 30.4% 3

150601060103 Salt River-Apache Lake 150.3 7.35 4.9% 1

Page 162 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601060108 Salt River-Canyon Lake 74.6 4.12 5.5% 1

150601060113 Salt River-Saguaro Lake 63.3 15.89 25.1% 3

150601060304 Salt River-Tempe Town Lake1 1.1 0.0%

150601030909 Schell Gulch-Salt River 160.6 33.69 21.0% 2

Seven Springs Wash-Cave 150701020601 Creek 155.6 26.20 16.8% 2

150602030506 Sheep Creek 70.9 0.0% 1

150601030904 Shute Springs Creek-Salt River 86.5 5.66 6.5% 1

150501000105 Silver Creek 12.3 3.15 25.6% 3

150701020405 Silver Creek 23.8 4.11 17.3% 2

150501000402 Silver King Wash-Queen Creek 71.3 28.83 40.5% 3

150501000803 Siphon Draw 21.4 0.0% 1

150601050402 Slate Creek 110.6 21.48 19.4% 2

150601030307 Sloan Creek 13.2 2.70 20.5% 2

150601050302 Soldier Camp Creek 35.5 4.40 12.4% 2

150602030505 South Fork Sheep Creek 50.9 0.0% 1

150701020409 Squaw Creek 123.6 5.42 4.4% 1

Page 163 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150501000901 Superior Tank1 4.8 2.38 49.2%

150701020805 Sweat Canyon-New River1 7.5 0.63 8.4%

150601030903 Sycamore Canyon-Salt River 122.4 13.86 11.3% 2

150601050407 Sycamore Creek 71.8 5.35 7.5% 1

150602030407 Sycamore Creek 61.6 0.0% 1

150701020402 Sycamore Creek1

150602030406 Tangle Creek 175.0 19.36 11.1% 2

150701020407 Tank Creek 12.4 2.68 21.6% 2

150601030205 Tanks Canyon 6.0 2.49 41.5% 3

150602030209 The Gorge 53.7 0.27 0.5% 1

150601060106 Tortilla Creek 93.0 9.01 9.7% 1

150601030304 Upper Canyon Creek 3.7 1.31 35.3% 3

150501000106 Upper Dripping Spring Wash1 1.3 1.08 84.2%

150602030205 Upper East Verde River 130.0 31.41 24.2% 2

150501000206 Upper Mineral Creek 45.0 15.10 33.6% 3

150601030604 Upper Pinal Creek 85.3 24.38 28.6% 3

150601030703 Upper Pinto Creek 70.1 17.01 24.2% 2

Page 164 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150400070301 Upper Ranch Creek 15.0 3.21 21.5% 2

150601050307 Upper Rye Creek 125.5 21.77 17.3% 2

150601030803 Upper Salome Creek 80.5 16.30 20.3% 2

150400070202 Upper Sevenmile Wash 103.7 20.42 19.7% 2

150701020803 Upper Skunk Creek 24.0 3.10 12.9% 2

150601050103 Upper Spring Creek 74.7 17.06 22.8% 2

150400070204 Upper Sycamore Creek 24.2 3.42 14.1% 2

150602030601 Upper Sycamore Creek 209.9 35.98 17.1% 2

150501000302 Walnut Canyon 6.6 0.35 5.2% 1

150601050104 Walnut Creek 33.4 10.09 30.2% 3

150601030406 Walnut Creek-Cherry Creek 46.9 9.63 20.5% 2

150602030203 Webber Creek 84.1 21.18 25.2% 3

150501000802 Weekes Wash 15.1 6.19 41.1% 3

150601030702 West Fork Pinto Creek 46.0 1.32 2.9% 1

150602030405 Wet Bottom Creek 79.9 0.0% 1

150501000801 Whitlow Canyon 45.6 1.31 2.9% 1

150601030311 Willow Creek 24.3 2.50 10.3% 2

Page 165 of 199

Routes w/in Stream Streams Affected by HUC12 Number HUC12 NAME Stream (mi) Buffer (mi) Routes WCC Rating 150601060111 Willow Springs Canyon 48.1 5.81 12.1% 2

150601030405 Wilson Creek 24.9 3.05 12.3% 2

150601030802 Workman Creek 41.4 13.66 33.0% 3

150601030507 Yankee Joe Canyon-Salt River 84.7 8.25 9.7% 1

Total 13443 2210

Good - Proximity < 10% Good 59

Fair - Proximity > 10% and < Fair 25% 80

Poor - Proximity > 25% Poor 39

Not Rated 19

Page 166 of 199 Perennial Streams Tables Table 12. Existing Condition - Percent of Perennial Stream Reaches Affected by motorized Routes Within 300 Feet of Channel Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Alder Creek 1.1 3.7 31%

Arnett Creek 0.3 3.0 11%

Ash Creek 0.3 6.1 4%

Big Cherry Creek 0.2 0.4 47%

Billy Lawrence Canyon 0.3 1.0 25%

Bishop Creek 0.1 2.2 4%

Board Cabin Draw 0.2 0.8 24%

Bonita Creek 1.6 2.2 73%

Bray Creek 0.4 1.4 31%

Buzzard Roost Canyon 1.3 1.0 131%

Camp Creek 2.1 3.6 60%

Campaign Creek 0.7 1.3 54%

Cane Spring Canyon 0.1 0.4 35%

Canyon Creek 1.8 6.6 27%

Carol Spring 0.1 0.3 25%

Cave Creek 3.0 7.8 39%

Chase Creek 0.8 2.3 35%

Cherry Creek 7.6 41.9 18%

Christopher Creek 1.2 8.2 15%

Clover Canyon 0.0 0.3 15%

Cold Water Canyon 0.2 1.0 17%

Page 167 of 199

Coon Creek 1.9 4.2 46%

Crouch Creek 0.9 6.7 13%

Del Shay Creek 0.0 3.3 2%

Devils Chasm 0.6 1.6 36%

Dinner Creek 0.3 0.5 64%

East Verde River 10.8 52.6 20%

Ellison Creek 0.5 1.8 29%

Fish Creek 0.7 5.3 14%

Fossil Creek 1.4 14.3 10%

Greenback Creek 0.4 5.9 7%

Haigler Creek 2.1 16.5 13%

Hells Gate Canyon 0.4 1.4 31%

Hinton Creek 0.3 1.6 20%

Horrell Creek 0.5 0.4 127%

Horton Creek 0.1 3.3 4%

Houston Creek 2.1 17.9 12%

Jones Water 1.5 1.0 154%

JS Ranch Creek 0.0 2.1 1%

Little Cherry Creek 0.3 0.4 88%

Little Turkey Creek 0.2 0.8 26%

Log Corral Canyon 0.8 0.7 117%

Mail Creek 0.9 1.8 53%

Middle Red Creek 0.1 0.6 20%

Miller Spring 0.1 0.9 13%

Mo Creek 0.5 1.3 36%

Page 168 of 199

Mud Springs Wash 1.3 1.1 121%

Mule Creek 1.4 2.1 66%

Naegelin Springs Canyon 1.1 1.1 105%

North Sycamore Creek 0.4 1.7 22%

Nugget Wash 0.2 0.6 36%

PB Creek 0.4 1.9 21%

Perley Creek 0.2 2.2 7%

Pine Creek 0.3 8.3 4%

Pinto Creek 0.7 9.8 7%

Queen Creek 1.9 3.0 63%

Red Creek 4.1 7.2 57%

Reynolds Creek 3.8 5.7 67%

Rock Creek 1.3 7.9 17%

Rock House Creek 0.4 1.7 24%

Roundtree Canyon 1.9 1.9 101%

Russell Gulch 0.6 0.7 82%

Rye Creek 1.0 1.6 63%

Salt River 6.2 69.2 9%

Sand Wash 0.1 0.1 95%

Saunders Canyon 0.4 0.7 51%

Seven Springs Wash 1.5 1.2 124%

Sharp Creek 0.5 0.6 90%

Silver Creek 0.1 2.3 3%

Slate Creek 0.4 1.3 33%

Sloan Creek 0.4 1.5 27%

Page 169 of 199

South Fork Workman Creek 0.7 0.6 30%

Spring Creek 1.5 16.7 9%

Sycamore Creek 6.1 13.7 44%

Tangle Creek 1.2 3.6 33%

Telegraph Canyon 0.4 1.5 30%

Tonto Creek 4.7 45.0 10%

Turkey Creek 0.5 2.5 19%

Unnamed trib to Board Cabin Draw 0.2 1.1 18%

Unnamed Trib to Naegelin Springs 0.4 0.3 150% Canyon

Verde River 9.1 61.8 15%

Walnut Creek 0.7 4.0 18%

Webber Creek 1.6 4.9 33%

West Fork Sycamore Creek 3.8 5.1 75%

Wolf Spring 0.3 1.0 29%

Workman Creek 7.4 9.6 77%

Grand Total 120.4 550.5 19%

Table 13. Alternative B - Percent of Perennial Stream Reaches Affected by Roads Within 300 Feet of Channel Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Alder Creek 0.5 3.7 13%

Arnett Creek 0.1 3.0 4%

Ash Creek 0.3 6.1 4%

Big Cherry Creek 0.2 0.4 47%

Bishop Creek 0.1 2.2 4%

Page 170 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Board Cabin Draw 0.2 0.8 24%

Bonita Creek 0.4 2.2 16%

Bray Creek 0.4 1.4 31%

Buzzard Roost Canyon 1.1 1.0 111%

Camp Creek 1.9 3.6 54%

Canyon Creek 1.6 6.6 24%

Carol Spring 0.1 0.3 25%

Cave Creek 2.1 7.8 27%

Chase Creek 0.8 2.3 35%

Cherry Creek 3.1 41.9 7%

Christopher Creek 1.1 8.2 14%

Clover Canyon 0.0 0.3 15%

Coon Creek 1.7 4.2 40%

Crouch Creek 0.8 6.7 13%

Del Shay Creek 0.0 3.3 2%

Devils Chasm 0.3 1.6 16%

Dinner Creek 0.3 0.5 61%

East Verde River 8.3 52.6 16%

Ellison Creek 0.5 1.8 29%

Greenback Creek 0.3 5.9 4%

Haigler Creek 0.4 16.5 2%

Horrell Creek 0.5 0.4 127%

Horton Creek 0.1 3.3 4%

Houston Creek 1.7 17.9 10%

Page 171 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Jones Water 1.4 1.0 147%

JS Ranch Creek 0.0 2.1 0%

Little Cherry Creek 0.3 0.4 88%

Log Corral Canyon 0.8 0.7 117%

Mail Creek 0.9 1.8 50%

Miller Spring 0.1 0.9 13%

Mo Creek 0.5 1.3 36%

Mud Springs Wash 0.1 1.1 13%

Mule Creek 0.6 2.1 26%

Naegelin Springs Canyon 0.6 1.1 56%

Nugget Wash 0.2 0.6 36%

Pine Creek 0.3 8.3 4%

Pinto Creek 0.6 9.8 6%

Queen Creek 1.3 3.0 42%

Red Creek 0.1 7.2 2%

Reynolds Creek 0.5 5.7 9%

Rock Creek 1.3 7.9 17%

Rock House Creek 0.1 1.7 4%

Roundtree Canyon 1.9 1.9 101%

Russell Gulch 0.6 0.7 82%

Rye Creek 0.3 1.6 20%

Salt River 3.9 69.2 6%

Saunders Canyon 0.1 0.7 18%

Seven Springs Wash 1.4 1.2 109%

Page 172 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Sharp Creek 0.1 0.6 16%

Silver Creek 0.1 2.3 3%

Spring Creek 0.8 16.7 5%

Sycamore Creek 2.2 13.7 16%

Tangle Creek 0.1 3.6 3%

Telegraph Canyon 0.4 1.5 30%

Tonto Creek 3.5 45.0 8%

Turkey Creek 0.3 2.5 11%

Unnamed trib to Board Cabin 0.2 1.1 18% Draw

Verde River 1.4 61.8 2%

Walnut Creek 0.1 4.0 2%

Webber Creek 1.6 4.9 33%

West Fork Sycamore Creek 2.7 5.1 53%

Wolf Spring 0.2 1.0 16%

Workman Creek 4.4 9.6 46%

Grand Total 64.9 511.6 10%

Table 14. Alternative C - Percent of Perennial Stream Reaches Affected by Roads Within 300 Feet of Channel Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Alder Creek 0.9 3.7 25%

Arnett Creek 0.1 3.0 4%

Ash Creek 0.3 6.1 4%

Big Cherry Creek 0.2 0.4 47%

Page 173 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Bishop Creek 0.1 2.2 4%

Board Cabin Draw 0.2 0.8 24%

Bonita Creek 0.4 2.2 16%

Bray Creek 0.4 1.4 31%

Buzzard Roost Canyon 1.1 1.0 111%

Camp Creek 2.1 3.6 58%

Campaign Creek 0.7 1.3 54%

Canyon Creek 1.8 6.6 27%

Carol Spring 0.1 0.3 25%

Cave Creek 2.1 7.8 27%

Chase Creek 0.8 2.3 35%

Cherry Creek 4.1 41.9 10%

Christopher Creek 1.1 8.2 14%

Clover Canyon 0.0 0.3 15%

Coon Creek 1.9 4.2 46%

Crouch Creek 0.8 6.7 13%

Del Shay Creek 0.0 3.3 2%

Devils Chasm 0.1 1.6 8%

Dinner Creek 0.3 0.5 61%

East Verde River 10.2 52.6 19%

Ellison Creek 0.5 1.8 29%

Fish Creek 0.7 5.3 14%

Fossil Creek 1.4 14.3 10%

Greenback Creek 0.3 5.9 4%

Page 174 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Haigler Creek 1.3 16.5 8%

Horrell Creek 0.5 0.4 127%

Horton Creek 0.1 3.3 4%

Houston Creek 2.0 17.9 11%

Jones Water 1.4 1.0 147%

JS Ranch Creek 0.0 2.1 1%

Little Cherry Creek 0.3 0.4 88%

Little Turkey Creek 0.2 0.8 26%

Log Corral Canyon 0.8 0.7 117%

Mail Creek 0.9 1.8 53%

Miller Spring 0.1 0.9 13%

MO Creek 0.5 1.3 36%

Mud Springs Wash 1.1 1.1 102%

Mule Creek 0.6 2.1 26%

Naegelin Springs Canyon 1.1 1.1 105%

North Sycamore Creek 0.2 1.7 11%

Nugget Wash 0.2 0.6 36%

PB Spring 0.3 1.9 16%

Pine Creek 0.3 8.3 4%

Pinto Creek 0.6 9.8 6%

Queen Creek 1.9 3.0 63%

Red Creek 0.1 7.2 2%

Reynolds Creek 3.7 5.7 66%

Rock Creek 1.3 7.9 17%

Page 175 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Rock House Creek 0.1 1.7 4%

Roundtree Canyon 1.9 1.9 101%

Russell Gulch 0.6 0.7 82%

Rye Creek 0.6 1.6 35%

Salt River 5.5 69.2 8%

Saunders Canyon 0.4 0.7 51%

Seven Springs Wash 1.4 1.2 109%

Sharp Creek 0.1 0.6 16%

Silver Creek 0.1 2.3 3%

Sloan Creek 0.4 1.5 29%

South Fork Workman Creek 0.6 0.6 100%

Spring Creek 0.8 16.7 5%

Sycamore Creek 2.3 13.7 17%

Tangle Creek 1.2 3.6 33%

Telegraph Canyon 0.4 1.5 30%

Tonto Creek 4.0 45.0 9%

Turkey Creek 0.5 2.5 19%

Unnamed trib to Board Cabin Draw 0.2 1.1 18%

Unnamed Trib to Naegelin Springs 0.4 0.3 150% Canyon

Verde River 2.4 61.8 4%

Walnut Creek 0.7 4.0 18%

Webber Creek 1.6 4.9 33%

West Fork Sycamore Creek 3.6 5.1 71%

Page 176 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Wolf Spring 0.3 1.0 29%

Workman Creek 6.1 9.6 64%

Grand Total 88.6 539.2 14%

Table 15. Alternative D - Percent of Perennial Stream Reaches Affected by Roads Within 300 Feet of Channel Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Alder Creek 1.1 3.7 31%

Arnett Creek 0.3 3.0 11%

Ash Creek 0.3 6.1 4%

Big Cherry Creek 0.2 0.4 47%

Billy Lawrence Canyon 0.3 1.0 25%

Bishop Creek 0.1 2.2 4%

Board Cabin Draw 0.2 0.8 24%

Bonita Creek 0.4 2.2 16%

Bray Creek 0.4 1.4 31%

Buzzard Roost Canyon 1.3 1.0 131%

Camp Creek 2.1 3.6 60%

Campaign Creek 0.7 1.3 54%

Cane Spring Canyon 0.1 0.4 35%

Canyon Creek 1.8 6.6 27%

Carol Spring 0.1 0.3 25%

Cave Creek 3.0 7.8 39%

Chase Creek 0.8 2.3 35%

Cherry Creek 6.3 41.9 15%

Page 177 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Christopher Creek 1.1 8.2 14%

Clover Canyon 0.0 0.3 15%

Cold Water Canyon 0.2 1.0 17%

Coon Creek 1.9 4.2 46%

Crouch Creek 0.9 6.7 13%

Del Shay Creek 0.0 3.3 2%

Devils Chasm 0.6 1.6 36%

Dinner Creek 0.3 0.5 64%

East Verde River 10.8 52.6 20%

Ellison Creek 0.5 1.8 29%

Fish Creek 0.7 5.3 14%

Fossil Creek 1.4 14.3 10%

Greenback Creek 0.4 5.9 7%

Haigler Creek 1.8 16.5 11%

Hells Gate Canyon 0.4 1.4 31%

Hinton Creek 0.3 1.6 20%

Horrell Creek 0.5 0.4 127%

Horton Creek 0.1 3.3 4%

Houston Creek 2.1 17.9 12%

Jones Water 1.5 1.0 154%

JS Ranch Creek 0.0 2.1 1%

Little Cherry Creek 0.3 0.4 88%

Little Turkey Creek 0.2 0.8 26%

Log Corral Canyon 0.8 0.7 117%

Page 178 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Mail Creek 0.9 1.8 53%

Middle Red Creek 0.1 0.6 20%

Miller Spring 0.1 0.9 13%

MO Creek 0.5 1.3 36%

Mud Springs Wash 1.3 1.1 121%

Mule Creek 1.4 2.1 66%

Naegelin Springs Canyon 1.1 1.1 105%

North Sycamore Creek 0.4 1.7 22%

Nugget Wash 0.2 0.6 36%

PB Spring 0.3 1.9 16%

Perley Creek 0.2 2.2 7%

Pine Creek 0.3 8.3 4%

Pinto Creek 0.7 9.8 7%

Queen Creek 1.9 3.0 63%

Red Creek 4.1 7.2 57%

Reynolds Creek 3.7 5.7 66%

Rock Creek 1.3 7.9 17%

Rock House Creek 0.2 1.7 14%

Roundtree Canyon 1.9 1.9 101%

Russell Gulch 0.6 0.7 82%

Rye Creek 1.0 1.6 63%

Salt River 6.0 69.2 9%

Sand Wash 0.1 0.1 95%

Saunders Canyon 0.4 0.7 51%

Page 179 of 199

Motorized Route Stream Stream miles Affected by Motorized Stream Name miles miles Routes Seven Springs Wash 1.5 1.2 124%

Sharp Creek 0.5 0.6 90%

Silver Creek 0.1 2.3 6%

Slate Creek 0.4 1.3 33%

Sloan Creek 0.4 1.5 29%

South Fork Workman Creek 0.6 0.6 105%

Spring Creek 1.3 16.7 8%

Sycamore Creek 6.1 13.7 44%

Tangle Creek 1.2 3.6 33%

Telegraph Canyon 0.4 1.5 30%

Tonto Creek 4.7 45.0 10%

Turkey Creek 0.5 2.5 19%

Unnamed trib to Board Cabin Draw 0.2 1.1 18%

Unnamed Trib to Naegelin Springs 0.4 0.3 150% Canyon

Verde River 3.9 61.8 6%

Walnut Creek 0.7 4.0 18%

Webber Creek 1.6 4.9 33%

West Fork Sycamore Creek 3.8 5.1 75%

Wolf Spring 0.3 1.0 29%

Workman Creek 5.7 9.6 59%

Grand Total 109.7 548.8 17%

Page 180 of 199 Stream and Riparian Summary Tables

Table 16. Existing Condition: Miles of Roads within Buffer Distances, Corridors, and Riparian Areas Cave Creek Globe Mesa Payson Pleasant Valley Tonto Basin Total Perennial Streams 24.1 7.7 15.4 26.8 34.6 11.6 120.2

Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams 422.2 379.9 386.6 338.7 275.7 403.4 2206.5

Lakes 7.5 6.9 14.9 29.3

Impaired Water Bodies 2.1 20.6 11.4 10.9 34.5 79.5

Riparian Areas 88.7 65.5 59.5 72.2 41.1 96.1 423.1

Number of Stream Crossings

Road crossings - Perennial streams 96 39 96 123 172 53 579

Road crossings - Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams 1360 1110 1221 952 754 1439 6836

Table 17. Alternative B: Miles of Roads within Buffer Distances, Corridors, and Riparian Areas Cave Creek Globe Mesa Payson Pleasant Valley Tonto Basin Total Perennial Streams 9.8 5.4 8.6 19.0 16.1 6.0 64.9

Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams 195.6 274.7 184.9 224.0 134.5 272.5 1286.1

Lakes 1.7 5 11.3 17.9

Impaired Water Bodies 0.5 15.4 8.4 8.2 20.3 52.8

Page 181 of 199

Cave Creek Globe Mesa Payson Pleasant Valley Tonto Basin Total Riparian Areas 35.6 46.2 27.7 52.7 24.8 55.0 242.1

Number of Stream Crossings

Road crossings - Perennial streams 38 22 42 95 78 30 305

Road crossings - Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams 600 784 544 616 368 1061 3973

Table 18. Alternative C: Miles of Roads within Buffer Distances, Corridors, and Riparian Areas Cave Creek Globe Mesa Payson Pleasant Valley Tonto Basin Total Perennial Streams 12.2 7.0 10.9 22.8 25.7 10.2 88.6

Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams 289 313 275 285 192 354 1708

Lakes 2.5 6.2 13.9 22.6

Impaired Water Bodies 0.7 17.4 11.0 9.6 21.9 65.9

Riparian Areas 49.5 50.5 34.0 64.5 31.9 86.4 316.8

Number of Stream Crossings Road crossings - Perennial streams 51 30 56 102 116 44 399

Road crossings - Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams 891 884 842 816 544 1300 5277

Table 19. Alternative D: Miles of Roads within Buffer Distances, Corridors, and Riparian Areas Cave Creek Globe Mesa Payson Pleasant Valley Tonto Basin Total Perennial Streams 19.0 7.7 15.2 25.5 30.8 11.6 109.7

Page 182 of 199

Cave Creek Globe Mesa Payson Pleasant Valley Tonto Basin Total Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams 377.0 378.6 343.2 335.4 269.0 397.7 2100.8

Lakes 7.5 6.7 14.8 29

Impaired Water Bodies 1.8 20.6 11.2 10.8 33.3 77.7

Riparian Areas 76.5 65.5 47.2 71.5 39.1 95.3 395.1

Number of Stream Crossings Road crossings - Perennial streams 67 39 96 119 155 53 529

Road crossings - Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams 1202 1105 1047 941 737 1425 6457

Page 183 of 199 Appendix B: Proximity to Water Assessment of the “Proximity to Water” attribute of the “Roads and Trails” indicator component in the Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (USFS, 2011) requires an analysis of the percent of roads within 300 feet of water to the total miles of roads in the HUC12 watershed. The watershed condition assessment conducted on the Tonto National Forest assessed this attribute by analyzing the percent of roads within 300 feet of water to the total miles of stream channels in a HUC12 watershed. This assessment was completed in error. However comparing the total miles of roads within 300 feet of water to the total miles of stream channels in a watershed may be a more appropriate method for assessing this attribute. This method assesses the percent of streams impacted by roads rather than the percent of roads impacted by streams which is the method described in the technical guide. Revision of this attribute to adopt the method used by the Tonto National Forest in error has been discussed with the Washington Office of the Forest Service. The Washington Office proposes to put together a team of practitioners after a few years of field experience with the Technical Guide to revise attributes where revision is appropriate and is receptive to changing this attribute. The method used by the Tonto National Forest in the Watershed Condition Assessment process was also used for the Travel Management analysis.

Page 184 of 199

Appendix C: BMPs Best Management Practices from Region 3 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook

Page 185 of 199

Page 186 of 199

Page 187 of 199

Page 188 of 199

Page 189 of 199

Page 190 of 199

Page 191 of 199

Page 192 of 199

Page 193 of 199

Page 194 of 199

Page 195 of 199

Page 196 of 199

Page 197 of 199

Page 198 of 199

In addition to the Best Management Practices identified in the Regional Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, Best Management Practices identified in the National Core BMP Technical Guide available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf should be incorporated as well. BMPs specific to Road Management and Recreation Management Activities are the most applicable to the Travel Management process.

Page 199 of 199