Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist's Report

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

United States Department of Soils, Watershed, and Agriculture Air Quality Specialist’s Forest Service Report January 2013

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment

North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest C i C t Ai

Prepared by: /s/ Kit MacDonald Kit MacDonald Soil Scientist Kaibab National Forest

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...... 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 2 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 2 ALTERNATIVES ...... 8 Alternative 1…The Proposed Action ...... 8 Alternative 2…Current Management ...... 17 Alternative 3…No grazing...... 18 Alternative 4…Alternative considered but eliminated from further analysis ...... 18 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS PROCESS ...... 20 SOILS AND WATERSHED ISSUES ...... 26 SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES CONDITION INDICATORS ...... 26 RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES ...... 27 KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN DIRECTION ...... 29 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 32 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 32 CLIMATE ...... 32 SOILS ...... 35 Soil Erosion Hazard ...... 44 Hydrologic Soil Groups ...... 47 Vegetative Ground Cover ...... 51 Soil Organisms ...... 52 Revegetation Potential ...... 54 Roads ...... 56 WATER RESOURCES ...... 58 Watersheds ...... 58 Streamcourses ...... 64 Wetlands and Springs ...... 64 Water Quality ...... 66 Flood Zones ...... 67 AIR QUALITY ...... 67 RELEVANT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES THAT APPLY ...... 68 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 74 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 74 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 81 Alternative 2 – Current Management ...... 83 Alternative 3 – No Grazing ...... 83 Cumulative Effects ...... 84 CERTIFICATION ...... 91

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED SEASON OF USE AND AUMS FOR PASTURES IN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS...... 12 TABLE 2. RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES...... 27 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FROM THE KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST PLAN THAT OCCUR WITHIN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS EA ANALYSIS AREA (ACRES ARE APPROXIMATE)...... 29 TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF THE DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR GEOGRAPHIC AREAS WITHIN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS EA ANALYSIS AREA...... 29 i

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

TABLE 5. TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM UNITS LOCATED WITHIN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS ANALYSIS AREA, KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST, ARIZONA (BREWER ET AL 1991)...... 35 TABLE 6. PREDICTED SOIL EROSION HAZARD BY TEU WITHIN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS ANALYSIS AREA (BREWER ET AL, 1991). (ACRES ARE APPROXIMATE)...... 46 TABLE 7. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS AND ASSOCIATED ACREAGES FOR THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS ANALYSIS AREA (BREWER ET AL, 1991). (ACRES ARE APPROXIMATE)...... 48 TABLE 8. ESTIMATED PERCENT VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER, LITTER, AND PERCENT TOTAL EFFECTIVE GROUND COVER WITHIN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS ANALYSIS AREA (BREWER ET AL, 1991). (ACRES ARE APPROXIMATE)...... 51 TABLE 9. REVEGETATION POTENTIAL WITHIN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS ANALYSIS AREA (BREWER ET AL.1991). (ACRES AREA APPROXIMATE)...... 54 TABLE 10. SUBWATERSHED (HUC12) NAMES, HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODES, CONDITION RATINGS, TOTAL WATERSHED ACREAGES, AND WATERSHED ACREAGES OCCUPIED BY KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS...... 59 TABLE 11. WATRSHED CONDITION INDICATOR SUMMARY FOR WATERSHEDS THAT OCCUR IN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS ANALYSIS AREA...... 60 TABLE 12. COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED FOR THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT EA...... 76 TABLE 13. PREDICTED AVERAGE SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT YIELD RATES UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION, CURRENT MANAGEMENT, AND NO -1 -1 -1 GRAZING. VALUES ARE IN TONS ACRE YR . VALUES FOR TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT YIELD ARE IN TONS YR ...... 79

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. MAP UNIT 251. THIS MAP UNIT, LOCATED IN THE BRIDGER KNOLL FIRE AREA IS IN . IMPAIRED CONDITION DUE TO LOSS OF A HORIZON SOIL AND INSUFFICIENT VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER AND ASSOCIATED LITTER. THE CONDITION OF THIS SOIL IS IMPROVING AND WILL BE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION WITHIN A FEW YEARS UNDER CONSERVATIVE GRAZING USE...... 38 FIGURE 2. MAP UNIT 274. THIS MAP UNIT IS ALSO IN THE BRIDGER KNOLL FIRE PERIMETER AND IS IN IMPAIRED CONDITION DUE TO INADEQUATE VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER...... 38 FIGURE 3. PHOTO OF ANOTHER MAP UNIT POLYGON OF TES MAP UNIT 251. THIS SOIL IS IMPAIRED DUE TO LOSS OF A HORIZON SOIL, INADEQUATE VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER AND LITTER. THIS SOILS WAS PREVIOUSLY DOMINATED BY UTAH JUNIPER THAT WAS PARTIALLY BURNED IN THE BRIDGER KNOLL FIRE AND IS TRENDING TOWARD A DRY GRASSLAND/SHRUB COMMUNITY. AS THE A HORIZON CONTINUES TO BUILD, SOIL CONDITIONS WILL CONTINUE TO IMPROVE IN THIS MAP UNIT...... 39 FIGURE 4. UNSATISFACTORY TES MAP UNIT 251 LOCATED IN JUNIPER WOODLAND. NOTE LACK OF VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER AND SURFACE GRAVEL. EROSION HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF MUCH OF THE A HORIZON, LEAVING GRAVEL AS THE DOMINANT SOIL PROTECTIVE COVER...... 40 FIGURE 5. UNSATISFACTORY TES MAP UNIT 274. THIS MAP UNIT IS IN UNSATISFACTORY CONDITION DUE TO LOSS OF THE A HORIZON...... 41 FIGURE 6. UNSATISFACTORY TES MAP UNIT 274 LOCATED IN THE BRIDGER KNOLL FIRE BURN AREA. REFORESTATION HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN IN PORTIONS OF TIS MAP UNIT, WITH GOOD SURVIVAL. IT IS LIKELY THIS MAP UNIT WILL IMPROVE OVER TIME...... 41 FIGURE 7. SOIL CONDITIONS AND ASSOCIATED ACREAGES WITHIN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS EA ANALYSIS AREA...... 43 FIGURE 8. SOIL EROSION HAZARD OF TES MAP UNITS IN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS EA ANALYSIS AREA...... 45 FIGURE 9. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS OF TES MAP UNITS IN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS ANALYSIS AREA...... 50 FIGURE 10. BIOLOGICAL SOIL CRUST COMMUNITY FOUND ON TES MAP UNIT 632...... 53 FIGURE 11. CLOSEUP VIEW OF BIOLOGICAL SOIL CRUSTS ON TES MAP UNIT 632 IN THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENT...... 53 FIGURE 12. SUBWATERSHED CONDITIONS FOR THE KANE RANCH ALLOTMENTS...... 63

Appendix A: U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook and Climate Information for the Kane Ranch Allotments Analysis Area ...... A-1 Appendix B: Natural and Developed Waters Information for the Kane Ranch Allotments ...... B-1

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

INTRODUCTION The North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD) of the Kaibab National Forest is proposing to re-authorize cattle grazing on the Central Winter, Central Summer, and Kane Allotments. These three allotments are collectively referred to as the Kane Ranch Allotments. This report is the specialist’s report for soils and water resources related to the Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment (EA). The purpose of this report is to provide detailed information and analysis related to soils and water resources in order to support the conclusions in the EA. This report will provide a brief description of the project; discuss key assumptions and methodologies used in the analysis; identify existing inventories, monitoring, and research literature used in the analysis; describe desired conditions and site- specific resource conditions; discuss resource impacts and effects of the proposed action and alternatives; recommend site specific mitigation measures to minimize or avoid any adverse effects; and identify specifically required disclosures for soils resources.

The Central Summer, Central Winter, and Kane Allotments cover approximately 435,000 Forest Service acres, all of which are located in Coconino County, Arizona. The legal description of the allotments includes all or the majority of the sections within the following townships: • Township 34 North, Range 1 East to 3 East; • Township 35 North, Range 2 West to 3 East; • Township 36 North, Range 3 West to 4 East; • Township 37 North, Range 3 West to 4 East; • Township 38 North, Range 3 West to 3 East; • Township 39 North, Range 2 East to 3 East.

The Central Summer Allotment consists of two very large pastures with a combined total of approximately 281,000 acres. The North Summer pasture is approximately 102,000 acres and the South Summer pasture is approximately 179,000 acres. This allotment includes most of the higher elevation portions of the Kaibab plateau from the Jacob Lake vicinity to the Grand Canyon National Park boundary. The current allotment management plan authorizes 400 head of cattle from June 1 to June 30 and then 800 head of cattle from July 1 to October 15 in a rest rotation grazing system where one pasture is grazed each year while the other is rested.

The elevations of the Central Summer allotment range from 6,200 to 8,800 feet. Primary vegetation types include ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, subalpine meadows, pinion-juniper, and shrubland communities. There are no listed (threatened or endangered) animal or plant species known to occur on the allotment, but there is suitable habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Two sensitive plant species occur in subalpine meadows near State Highway 67 and the Paradine Plains Cactus (Pediocactus paradinei) occurs on the eastern edge of the allotment.

One of the few perennial streams on the KNF occurs in the Central Summer allotment, but the stream is located in an area within the Saddle Mountain Wilderness where livestock use is prohibited. Riparian vegetation and natural lakes formed from limestone sinkholes and influenced by groundwater occur in several subalpine meadows across the allotment.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

The Central Winter Allotment is located on the west side of the NKRD and consists of four active pastures and one pasture that is closed to grazing. Active pastures include: Little Mountain, Slide, Ranger Pass and Sowats. The JumpUp pasture is closed to grazing in accordance with the 2001 Kane Ranch Environmental Assessment Decision Notice. There is a total of approximately 129,000 Forest Service acres in this allotment. The current allotment management plan authorizes 400 to 800 head of cattle (the latter number to be utilized when all available water sources are functioning) for a season of use from May 1 to June 30 in a rest rotation grazing system. One pasture is to be grazed for one month, and then livestock are to be moved to another pasture for one month. The following year, the two ungrazed pastures are utilized in the same manner.

Elevations of the Central Winter allotment range from approximately 6,000 feet to 7,600 feet. Primary vegetation types include pinion-juniper woodlands, great basin grassland, shrubland, and ponderosa pine. The 1996 Bridger Knoll Complex fire burned approximately 54,000 acres of this allotment, resulting in increases in Gambell oak (Quercus gambelii) and New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), as well as cheatgrass (bromus tectorum) that has heavily infested parts of the allotment. There are no perennial streams on this allotment. West Lake, which has riparian vegetation, is located on the eastern edge of the allotment. There are nine known springs that occur on this allotment. All of these springs are located along the western edge of the allotment on steep terrain that makes them inaccessible to livestock.

The Kane Allotment is approximately 25,649 acres in size and consists of two pastures, North Kane (11,746 ac.) and South Kane (13,903 ac.). The allotment is located on the eastern side of the North Kaibab Ranger District and borders Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to the east. The current management plan authorizes 800 head of livestock from October 15 to October 31 in a rotation grazing system where one pasture is grazed each year while the other is rested. The elevations of the allotment range from 5,500 to 7,200 feet. Primary vegetation types include shrubland and pinion-juniper communities. There are no perennial streams, springs, or riparian areas known to occur on the allotment.

The Kanab Creek Allotment is also associated with the Kane Ranch Allotments. However, this allotment has been closed to grazing since 2001. The Kanab Creek Allotment is therefore not included in this analysis as it will remain closed to livestock grazing.

Purpose and Need ______The purpose of this project is to re-authorize cattle grazing on the Kane Ranch Allotments in a manner that is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of the 1988 Kaibab National Forest Plan, as amended, as well as provide logical, flexible, and adaptive grazing rotations. There is a need for this analysis to ensure the maintenance and/or improvement of vegetation and soil conditions that provide for ecosystem stability while allowing livestock grazing to occur on the allotments. Proposed Action ______The Proposed Action is to continue grazing on the Central Summer, Central Winter, and Kane Allotments. The Central Winter Allotment would have a separate Allotment Management Plan that

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report balances a research component with a grazing strategy that would be independent of the Allotment Management Plan for the Central Summer and Kane Allotments.

The North Kaibab Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest proposes the following:

Reauthorization of grazing on the Central Summer and Kane Allotments A term grazing permit would authorize cattle grazing on the Central Summer and Kane Allotments for a range of 600 to 1,000 head of livestock from May 15 to November 30. Upon implementation of the new Allotment Management Plan, the initial stocking would be 600 head of livestock. Once post implementation monitoring has occurred and indicated static or increasing vegetative conditions, the permittee will have the option to increase livestock numbers to the upper limit of 1,000 head. This range of proposed livestock numbers represents a range of 3,900 to 6,500 Animal Unit Months (AUMs).

The grazing system would be a six pasture rest rotation and deferment system whereby each pasture receives rest every other year. This system will require the construction of three strategically located holding pastures to improve efficiency of livestock pasture moves. Proposed locations and details are as follows: • Murray Holding Pasture: 2,000 acre pasture to be developed by constructing six miles of fence in the Murray Lake area. • Lookout Canyon Holding Pasture: 1,000 acre pasture to be developed in Lookout Canyon by primarily utilizing natural topography and constructing three short 200-300 feet fence segments. • Little Pleasant Valley Holding Pasture: 1,000 acres on the edge of Little Pleasant Valley to be developed by constructing five miles of fence.

Another fence would be constructed on the west side of State Highway 67 that would parallel the highway from Jacob Lake to the National Park Service boundary for approximately 31 miles. This fence would be located approximately 60 to 120 feet to the west of the highway for the northern 17 miles and then would follow the tree line on the edge of the meadows as the fence line travels south to the National Park Service boundary. The primary purpose of this fence is to prevent livestock from entering the highway corridor during the summer. Secondary benefits of the fence include reducing livestock impacts to sensitive meadow plant species and natural lakes in Pleasant Valley, DeMotte Park and Saddle Mountain Wilderness; reducing livestock conflicts with recreational users; improved efficiency of livestock rotations; and improved ability to adapt grazing management to changing resource conditions. While the northern section of this fence would be initially planned for implementation and construction, the southern 14 mile fence section would only be constructed if a series of livestock management strategies were unsuccessful in keeping livestock away from the highway and adjoining meadows or other factors indicated a need to construct the fence. The majority of livestock use will occur on the two western Central Summer Allotment pastures with the eastern Central Summer and Kane Allotment pastures serving as spring and fall transitional use. The following is an example of the potential rotation system including overlap in pasture timing to account for pasture moves:

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Year 1: • May 15 to May 31: Livestock may be herded up the Kane Trail that crosses through the South Kane and Summer Southeast Pastures to the Summer Northwest Pasture. Livestock may also be transported by semi-truck during this timeframe instead of utilizing the trail. • May 15 to November 1: Livestock would graze the Summer Northwest Pasture. • September 15 to October 31: Livestock would graze the Summer Northeast Pasture. • October 15 to November 30: Livestock would transition through the North Kane pasture to winter range.

Year 2: • May 15 to May 31: Livestock may be herded up the Kane Trail that crosses through the South Kane and Summer Southeast Pastures to the Summer Southwest Pasture. Livestock may also be transported by semi-truck during this timeframe instead of utilizing the trail. • May 15 to November 1: Livestock would graze the Summer Southwest Pasture. • October 1 to November 30: Livestock would transition through the Summer Southeast and South Kane pastures to winter range.

In the event that there is need to rest one of these pastures for multiple years, the sequence of pastures may be modified and could also involve grazing the pastures in a deferment system.

The permitted range of livestock use is based on the combination of vegetative condition, trend, and forage production studies completed in 2011 and also incorporates professional judgement and historical actual use. The carrying capacity was further refined by accounting for the capability of different soil types, production studies, topography, access across the allotments, and factoring in a 40 percent allowable utilization rate. These calculations determined that the forage available for livestock consumption (excluding browse) when grazing the upper limit of 1,000 head of livestock or 6,500 AUMs would reflect less than 20 percent of the forage available in each pasture. Approximately 10 percent of the available forage would be consumed when grazing 600 head (the initial stocking level).

A 30 to 40 percent conservative utilization rate would be used throughout these allotments. This utilization rate follows the guidance of the Kaibab National Forest Plan, as amended and reflects the proportion of current year’s herbaceous vegetation that is consumed or destroyed by all animals (including wildlife species and insects) compared to the amount produced during the year.

Using a Pediocactus monitoring and livestock trailing protocol that specifies criteria for how livestock can be herded through the Pediocactus Paradinei Conservation Area, livestock would be authorized to utilize the South Kane Trail that is located in the South Kane and Central Summer South Pastures. Livestock would be herded up the South Kane Trail in late May to access the summer pasture(s) to be utilized that year. The use of the trail would improve efficiency of moving livestock on and off the summer pastures.

The following items would also be implemented as part of the proposed action: • Resuming partial to full livestock access to Dry Park, West, Murray and Snipe Lakes and fully excluding four new natural lakes. o Dry Park and Snipe Lakes do not contain wetland habitat or riparian vegetation. Livestock access to these lakes would resume.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

o Murray Lakes consists of two lakes that are currently divided by a fence. The lake which has riparian vegetation would continue to be excluded to livestock while the second lake would have limited livestock access. o West Lakes contain three lakes. The two lakes that contain riparian vegetation would be separated from the third lake by constructing 400 feet of wildlife accessible fence. The third lake would resume limited livestock access.

• Bear, Cougar, Indian, and Wall Lakes would be fully excluded from livestock access. o Cougar Lake has a fence that would be converted to an exclusion fence. o Indian Lake could be excluded by the construction of the Highway 67 right-of-way fence. o Bear and Wall Lakes would be excluded by a potential combination of terrain, and small fence segments that would encompass the riparian area.

• Modify 10 earthen tanks or wildlife guzzlers on the Central Summer Allotment for the purpose of increasing water availability during drier years. • Approximately 18,000 acres of the northwestern portion of the Central Summer South Pasture would be separated from the rest of the pasture by utilizing existing topography and constructing two sections of fence for a total of 3.8 miles. This new pasture would be called Burnt Corral and would add to the rotation flexibility of the overall operation. • Up to fifteen exclosures (to keep livestock out) and/or enclosures (to keep livestock confined for short durations) would be constructed to serve as monitoring sites within the allotment. These exclosures and enclosures could be up to forty acres each and encompass up to 80 acres on each monitoring site. The exact size will be determined by site conditions and research needs. • As many as two fence segments may be constructed on the KNF extending from the Grand Canyon National Park boundary fence. Each of these fence segments would be less than one mile long and extend from the existing boundary fence to naturally steep terrain for the purpose of reducing the amount of current boundary fence necessary to prevent livestock from entering National Park Service lands.

Authorize a new grazing strategy and research program on the Central Winter Allotment The Central Winter Allotment Management Plan would become independent of the Central Summer and Kane Allotments. The allotment would be managed in a manner that balances livestock grazing with a series of well-defined research projects focused on the best grazing strategy for a variety of natural resource objectives.

A new 18,000 acre pasture to be called Burnt Corral Pasture would be added to the Central Winter Allotment from the Central Summer Southwest Pasture. This pasture would be developed by constructing two fence segments totaling approximately 4 miles and utilizing natural topography and existing fence lines for remaining pasture boundaries.

The key components of the allotment management plan would be specifying usage limits and possible range of dates for use of each pasture. The general limitations applied to all Central Winter Pastures are as follows:

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

• A range of 200 to 400 head of livestock. Upon implementation of the new Allotment Management Plan, the initial stocking would be up to 200 head of livestock. Once post implementation monitoring and/or associated research activities have occurred and indicated static or improving vegetative conditions, the permittee will have the option to increase livestock numbers to the upper limit of 400 head. A 30 to 40 percent conservative utilization rate would be used throughout this allotment. • Up to four months of use per pasture. • Livestock utilization would not exceed 1,200 AUMs per pasture. • One pasture can be utilized two consecutive years in a row as long as the second year of use has deferred grazing during the cool and warm season grass growing season. In the event that a pasture was utilized in this manner for two years, the pasture would be rested the third year. • The permitted range of livestock use is based on the combination of vegetative condition, trend, and forage production studies completed in 2010, and incorporates professional judgement, and historical actual use. The carrying capacity was further refined by consideration of the capability of different soil types, production studies, topography, access across the allotments, and factoring in a 40 percent allowable utilization rate.

Each pasture would have timing constraints specified for permitted livestock activities with possible exceptions for research activities. Details are as follows:

• Little Mountain (up to 6,400 AUMs) and Burnt Corral (up to 8,400 AUMs): May 15 to Nov. 1.

• Slide (up to 21,000 AUMs) and Ranger Pass (up to 13,000 AUMs): August 1 to November 1.

• Sowats: This pasture would not have a typical, planned rotation. It would be available for research needs.

• JumpUp would remain closed to permitted grazing and research grazing as per the 2001 Kane Ranch Environmental Assessment Decision Notice.

The exception to the above timing constraints would be if there was a research project developed that needed to occur outside of this window. Examples include studying livestock and mule deer interactions on winter range and intensive or flash grazing of spring cheatgrass growth/seed spread concerns. In the event that research findings indicate that livestock impacts are minimal if grazed in a certain way at a certain time, the allotment management plan can be adapted to incorporate the appropriate timing and/or stocking rate.

From these basic pasture limitations, a series of potential rest and deferment rotation systems can be developed with enough flexibility to accommodate all research project requirements and the ability to rest multiple pastures for multiple years. The results of future research projects will direct further refinement of the pasture limitations, whether that means more flexibility in how and when livestock are grazed or more limitations and constraints.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Additional measures incorporated into the proposed action include: • Up to fifteen exclosures (to keep livestock out) and/or enclosures (to keep livestock confined for short durations) monitoring sites would be constructed across the Central Winter Allotment for the purposes of research as well as long term monitoring. The exclosures and enclosures could be up to forty acres each and encompass up to eighty acres per monitoring site. The exact size will be determined by site conditions and research needs.

• Up to 10 existing dirt tanks would be modified to improve the water holding capability for livestock and wildlife.

• Up to thirty miles of the existing Little Mountain pipeline system would be repaired or replaced. The Little Mountain storage tank that is part of the system would also be replaced.

• Reconstruction of three miles of fence near Sowats Canyon that was damaged in the 1996 Bridger Knoll fire.

Monitoring Monitoring is adaptive so improved methodologies can be employed as they are develops. The methodologies and frequency of monitoring are dependent on the availability of funding and the management practices occurring on the allotment. Allotment monitoring includes the following:

• Forage utilization will be monitored to ensure that conservative grazing utilization is not exceeded. Utilization monitoring occurs before the end of the grazing season to determine when livestock are to be removed from the pasture. Other factors that guide rotation decisions include weather patterns and previous years’ utilization levels.

• Rangeland conditions, including plant vigor and species diversity will be monitored. Adjustments in timing, duration, and frequency of livestock grazing in areas with declining conditions can be made in the Annual Operating Instructions.

• Visual observations will be conducted annually to assess permit compliance, range readiness, and forage production.

• Long-term monitoring will be conducted at the established plots every 5 to 10 years, or as funding becomes available. Monitoring data used to understand vegetative trend, rangeland health, and forage production currently includes frequency, canopy cover, dry-weight rank, comparative yield, photo points, and ground cover estimation.

Adaptive Management The proposed action includes the continued use of adaptive management, which provides flexibility in managing livestock and rangeland resources. Adaptive management provides opportunity to adapt management practices to changing conditions. If monitoring indicates that desired conditions are not

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report being achieved, management will be modified in cooperation with the permittee. Changes may include administrative decisions such as the specific number of livestock authorized annually, specific dates of grazing, class of animal, or modifications in grazing area rotations. Recommended changes will not exceed the limits for grazing intensity, livestock numbers, or the occurrence and frequency of livestock grazing in this proposed action.

Decision to be Made and Timing of Decision The District Ranger of the North Kaibab Ranger District is the Responsible Official for this project and will decide: • Whether to re-authorize livestock grazing and in what manner, as described in the Proposed Action; • Whether to implement an alternative to the proposed action, or current livestock management; • What mitigation measures are needed, and; • What monitoring is required.

The North Kaibab District Ranger expects to issue a decision by September 2013. Implementation of the Allotment Management Plan would follow the decision and close of the appeal period as applicable. Reauthorization of livestock grazing would exist for minimum of ten years. However, future NEPA analysis for additional projects within the allotments, changing rangeland conditions, or violations of the Term Grazing Permit could change the timing of this decision.

Alternatives ______

Alternative 1…The Proposed Action

Alternative 1 was developed by the Kaibab National Forest and the grazing permittee to meet the purpose and need of this project. The alternative was then further refined through informal meetings with stakeholders. The following goals were established as part of developing the proposed action: • re-authorize cattle grazing on the Kane Ranch Allotments in a manner that is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of the 1988 Kaibab National Forest Plan, as amended, • provide logical, flexible, and adaptive grazing rotations, • ensure the maintenance and/or improvement of vegetation and soil conditions that provide for ecosystem stability while allowing livestock grazing to occur on the allotments. • meet goals and objectives as expressed in the Kane and Two Mile Research and Stewardship Partnership.

The Proposed Action would continue grazing on the Central Winter, Central Summer, and Kane Allotments. There is a fourth Forest Service allotment that is associated with the Kane Ranch Allotments, called Kanab Creek that was closed to grazing in 2001. The Kanab Creek Allotment will not be part of the proposed action and will remain closed to livestock grazing.

A term grazing permit would authorize cattle grazing on the Central Summer and Kane Allotments for a range of up to 600 to 1,000 head of livestock from May 15 to November 30. Upon implementation of

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report the new Allotment Management Plan, the initial stocking would be 600 head of livestock. Once post implementation monitoring has occurred and indicated static or improving vegetative conditions (over a 2-5 year period), the permittee will have the option to increase livestock numbers to the upper limit of 1,000 head. In terms of the amount of vegetation the average cow could consume for this season of use, the proposed range of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) is from 3,900 to 6,500.

While the proposed range of 600 to 1,000 head of livestock represents the lower and upper limits of permitted grazing, numbers can drop to as low as 0 head and/or a reduced season of use if conditions warrant such action. Possible rationale for reducing livestock numbers below 600 includes pro-longed drought, large wildfires, or declining vegetative conditions. A 30-40 percent conservative utilization rate would be used throughout these allotments. This amount of use follows the guidance of the Kaibab National Forest Plan, as amended. This percent utilization rate reflects the proportion of current year’s herbaceous vegetation that is consumed or destroyed by all animals (including wildlife species and insects) compared to the amount produced during the year. The grazing system would be a six pasture rest rotation system where each pasture would typically receive rest every other year. The majority of livestock use would occur on the two western Central Summer Allotment pastures with the eastern Central Summer and Kane Allotment pastures serving as spring and fall transitional use. The current North and South Central Summer pastures may be split along State Highway 67 to create Central Summer Northwest, Central Summer Northeast, Central Summer Southwest, and Central Summer Southeast pastures. Little Mountain and Burnt Corral pastures may also be used to add additional flexibility to the grazing management system.

State Highway 67 Right-of-Way Fence A fence may be constructed on the western side of State Highway 67 and only on the western side of the highway. This fence would consist of two sections, the north and the south. The fence design would follow Arizona Game and Fish Department guidelines to reduce potential wildlife crossing and entrapment concerns. The Northern section of the fence would start near Jacob Lake and would be located 60 to 120 feet from the highway for seventeen miles, ending where the meadows in the South Summer Pasture begin. The primary purpose for the fence would be to respond to public safety concerns related to the number of automobile livestock strikes in the North Summer Pasture. Six cows were hit in 2010 and five were hit in 2012 while grazing in the North Summer Pasture. This fence would keep livestock contained in the Northwest Pasture during the peak (i.e., May 15 to September 15) Grand Canyon National Park-North Rim visitation season. The first step to construction of the north fence is to test the effectiveness of large flashing signs warning the public of the livestock hazard. If this doesn’t work, then the fence will be built as soon as funding is granted.

The southern section of fence would not be planned for immediate construction, but would be considered adaptive management. This 14 mile section occurs entirely in the South Summer Pasture and spans from Pleasant Valley meadow to the Grand Canyon National Park boundary. The goals of splitting the South Summer Pasture into the Southwest Summer and Southeast Summer Pastures differ from the management of the North Pastures. The meadows along the highway and the area east of the highway would become the Southeast pasture and would be for limited spring and fall transitional use only. The reasons for this include public safety along the highway, sensitive plant species, and natural lakes in Pleasant Valley and DeMotte Park Meadows, mitigating livestock/public interaction around the Kaibab Lodge/north Rim Country Store/DeMotte Campground area, and reducing livestock impacts in

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report the Saddle Mountain Wilderness and related recreational areas. To keep livestock from the Southeast pasture a series of management strategies will be utilized in the following order: 1. Livestock permittee will be required to monitor the meadows and area of the Southeast Summer Pasture periodically throughout the grazing season. Any livestock found during the June 1 to October 15 timeframe will be returned to the Southwest Summer Pasture. Random small bunches of less than 20 head that are found and removed a few times a season will be acceptable. 2. If large groups of livestock in excess of 20 head continue to return after continuous removals, the permittee will post a rider to inspect for and remove livestock on a weekly basis. This action will primarily be based on livestock impacts to meadow and riparian areas, greater than 10 percent use. 3. If livestock are regularly found in the Southeast Summer pasture in spite of the efforts outlined above, a fence would be constructed. The fence would be built along the western edge of the meadows and follow the tree line. This action will primarily be based on livestock impacts to meadow and riparian areas, greater than 20% use and/or trailing evidence. The permittee would be responsible to maintain this fence away from the highway.

Trailing Using a developed Pediocactus monitoring and livestock trailing protocol that specifies criteria for how livestock can be herded through the Pediocactus Paradinei Conservation Area, livestock would be authorized to utilize the South Kane Trail, which is located in the South Kane and Central Summer Southeast Pastures. Livestock would be herded up the South Kane Trail in late May to access the summer pasture(s) to be utilized that year. The trailing would be optional to the permittee to improve the efficiency of getting livestock to the summer pastures, but would not be a required annual action. Trucking livestock would be a viable alternative any year.

The complete trailing protocol that provides guidance for livestock trailing across the entire Pediocactus paradinei conservation area can be found in the project record. Additional discussion of species will be included in the botany report. Specific details from that document that relate to the Kane Trail are as follows:

The route was confirmed as being inside a pediocactus conservation unit but not inside a subunit. A survey for pediocactus was conducted. Limited suitable habitat was found and cacti were found in one location that would be easy to identify and avoid when trailing the livestock.

For use of the trail to occur, surveys would need to occur every other year. The locations where surveys locate additional cacti would be identified for avoidance by either flagging the locations or constructing temporary fences or small rock structures. The livestock permittee would be provided the locations and would be responsible for ensuring livestock were herded around the cacti.

Use of the trail would cease on any given year if any of the following events were to occur: • The permittee elected to truck their livestock to the summer range instead of utilizing the trail. • Monitoring of the trail did not occur with the last two years. • Mitigation measures for avoiding cacti were not effective (as evidenced by mortality of greater than five plants trampled by cattle). • New information becomes available that indicates trailing needs to cease.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Holding Pastures Three strategically located, small “holding pastures” would be constructed to increase the efficiency of pasture moves. These pastures would not be utilized during most of the regular grazing season and would typically be utilized during pasture moves. Holding pastures are designed for the purpose of gathering dispersed groups of livestock from the large summer pastures and keeping them in a smaller pasture temporarily. The congregated livestock are then more easily moved to the next pasture. Proposed locations and details include: • Murray Holding Pasture: 2,000 acre pasture to be developed by constructing six miles of fence in the Murray Lake area. • Lookout Canyon Holding Pasture: 1,000 acre pasture to be developed in Lookout Canyon by primarily utilizing natural topography and constructing three short fence segments of 200-300 feet. • Little Pleasant Valley Holding Pasture: 1,000 acres on the edge of Little Pleasant Valley to be developed by constructing five miles of fence.

Standard pasture rotations to be implemented under Alternative 1.

The following is an example of the expected and typical two year rest rotation system including overlap in pasture timing to account for pasture moves:

Year 1: • May 15 to May 31: Livestock may be herded up the Kane Trail that crosses through the South Kane and Summer Southeast Pastures to the Summer Northwest Pasture. Livestock may also be transported by tractor trailer during this timeframe instead of utilizing the trail. • May 15 to October 15: Livestock would graze the Summer Northwest Pasture, with the livestock numbers scaling down in mid-September as the pasture move begins. The Murray holding pasture would be utilized to facilitate the pasture move. • October 15 to November 30: Livestock would transition through the North Kane pasture to winter range. Exact timing of transition would be dependent on fall snow storms.

Year 2: • May 15 to May 31: Livestock may be herded up the Kane Trail that crosses through the South Kane and Summer Southeast Pastures to the Summer Southwest Pasture. Livestock may also be transported by semi-truck during this timeframe instead of utilizing the trail. • May 15 to November 1: Livestock would graze the Summer Southwest Pasture, with the livestock numbers scaling down as the pasture move begins. • October 1 to November 30: Livestock would transition through the Summer Southeast and South Kane pastures to winter range. The Little Pleasant Valley and Lookout Canyon holding pastures would be utilized to facilitate the pasture moves.

Adaptive Management in grazing rotations In the event that there is need to rest one of these pastures for multiple years or modify the standard grazing rotations to improve vegetative conditions, the sequence of the remaining pastures may be

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report modified and could also involve grazing the pastures in a deferment system. The Southwest, Northwest, and Northeast pastures would retain the flexibility to be utilized up to their AUM limits or a season of use from May 15 to November 1, as needed for a temporary basis and dependent on the number of cattle stocked. Examples of how the deferment system could be utilized will be described in the livestock management section. Additional monitoring would occur to ensure that utilization rates were not exceeded and that conditions do not decline during this period. Utilizing adaptive management to alter the grazing rotations would not apply to Summer Southeast, North or South Kane and the three holding pastures. These pastures are for transitional use for spring trailing and/or fall transition. Their season of use, duration, and intensity would not change with the potential exception of multiple years of rest in which trucking livestock and/or not utilizing the pasture is the change in management.

Table 1 summarizes the anticipated AUMs utilized under the basic rest-rotation system with the initial 600 head stocking rate, the maximum allowable duration and Animal Unit Months (AUMs) that could be utilized with the 1,000 head upper limits, as well the available forage (excluding production for browse which will also be utilized by livestock) in AUMs for each of the six pastures and three holding pastures. The allowable utilization rate is factored into all three columns. Details of how the AUMs were determined will be described in detail under the Vegetation report.

Table 1. Anticipated season of use and AUMs for pastures in the Kane Ranch Allotments. Pasture Name Maximum Anticipated AUMs Maximum AUMs Available forage season of use under initial authorized AUMs on an stocking rate & average year. standard rest rotations Northwest Summer May 15 to 2,400 4,000 5,000 November 1 Northeast Summer May 15 to 600 2,000 2,800 November 1 Southwest Summer May 15 to 2,700 5,000 7,900 November 1 Southeast Summer May 15 to June 150 1,000 2,000 1, October 1 to November 1 North Kane October 15 to 300 500 640 November 30 South Kane May 15 to June 300 500 1,200 1, October 15 to November 30 Little Mountain May 15 to 1,000 1,200 6,400 November 1 Burnt Corral May 15 to 1,000 1,200 8,400 November 1 Murray Holding September 1 to 200 500 900 Pasture November 1 Lookout Canyon September 1 to 200 500 1,100 Holding Pasture November 1

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Pasture Name Maximum Anticipated AUMs Maximum AUMs Available forage season of use under initial authorized AUMs on an stocking rate & average year. standard rest rotations Little Pleasant September 1 to 200 400 800 Valley Holding November 1 Pasture

The following items would also be implemented as part of the proposed action:

Natural Lake Fencing Resuming partial to full livestock access to Dry Park, West, Murray and Snipe Lakes and fully excluding four new natural lakes. The lakes that would be resuming some level of livestock access have been modified by equipment and contain limited to no riparian vegetation.

• Dry Park Lakes does not contain wetland habitat or riparian vegetation. Livestock access would resume on one of the two lakes. The second lake would continue to be excluded from livestock by an exisiting fence line that divides the two lakes. • Murray Lakes consists of two lakes that are currently divided by a fence. The lake that contains riparian vegetation would continue to be excluded to livestock while the second lake would have limited livestock access during the period that the Murray holding pasture is utilized. • West Lakes contain three lakes. The two lakes that contain riparian vegetation would be separated from the third lake by constructing 400 feet of wildlife accessible fence. The third lake would resume limited livestock access. • Snipe Lake has limited riparian vegetation. It will have partial access to livestock by constructing a partial fence to allow livestock access to approximately a third of the lake. Livestock access to the Lake would only be authorized for limited windows to facilitate rounding up livestock. • Bear, Cougar, Indian, and Wall Lakes would be fully excluded from livestock access. • Cougar Lake has a fence that would be converted to an exclusion fence. • Indian Lake could be excluded by the construction of the Highway 67 right-of-way fence and plans to exclude the area from livestock. If the Southern section of the highway right-of-way is not constructed, an exclusion fence would be constructed around the lake and adjoining riparian area. • Bear and Wall Lakes would be excluded by a potential combination of terrain, tree felling, and small fence segments that would encompass the riparian area.

Spring Restoration Up to 20 spring improvement project will be completed within the project area to restore full or partial natural flow and riparian vegetation. Existing spring improvements will be removed where human and livestock improvements are no longer necessary. Fences will be built, removed, or modified to best protect the spring while still providing water to livestock and wildlife where necessary. Most of this work will likely be done with volunteers and grant funding. The following are specific spring restoration/improvement examples: • Acer Unnamed Spring – (Kanab Creek Wilderness). Remove old spring box to restore more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

• Big Spring – (Forest Service Big Springs Adiminstrative Site). Construct a small stepping stone trail to the spring source area to reduce erosion. Increase the area of riparian habitat at the base of the slope by increasing channel width and sinuosity. • Castle Spring – (one mile south of Big Spring in cattle exclosure area). Adjust and remove current fencing to better protect site. Alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Locust Spring – (South Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Mangum Spring – (North Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Mangum Springs 1 – (North Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow for more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. Construct a trail of stepping-stones to the source to reduce site erosion. • Mangum Springs 7 – (North Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Oquer Spring – (South Summer Pasture). Remove spring box and old fencing to restore the site to a wet meadow. Add fencing around spring source if needed. • Pasture Spring – (Southwest Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove, pipe and drinker system or to maximize riparian vegetation while maintaining drinker water. Fence the spring source to enhance riparian vegetation. • Pigeon Spring – (Snake Gulch, Kanab Creek Wilderness) Remove all piping, troughs, and fencing to improve open water riparian habitat. • Table Rock Spring – (Snake Gulch, Kanab Creek Wilderness). No changes to current management because it would take a massive effort to undue a higher impacted historic livestock/human use water source. It also makes sense to leave this watering site for packhorses and human consumption in this dry gulch. • Watts Spring – (South Summer Pasture). Fence the hillslope spring source to enhance the native riparian vegetation.

Springs restoration would be largely completed with volunteer labor with oversight by the Forest Service. Great care will be taken to protect archeological resources and maintain the integrity of the spring source and existing riparian vegetation.

Additional Allotment Improvements Modify 10 earthen tanks or wildlife guzzlers across the Central Summer Allotment for the purposes of increasing water availability during drier years. Existing earthen tanks that currently do not hold water due to erosion or sedimentation would be repaired and potentially lined. Wildlife-specific (livestock excluded) guzzlers that are currently not functioning would be repaired or replaced at the existing location.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Approximately 18,000 acres of the Northwestern corner of the Central Summer South Pasture would be separated from the rest of the pasture by utilizing existing topography and constructing two sections of fence for a total of 3.8 miles. This new pasture would be called Burnt Corral and would add to the flexibility of livestock rotations for the overall operation.

Up to fifteen exclosures (to keep livestock out) and/or enclosures (to keep livestock confined for short durations) monitoring sites would be constructed in the allotment. The exclosures and enclosures could be up to forty acres each and encompass up to 80 acres on each monitoring site. The exact size will be determined by site conditions and research needs. Within two of the exclosures an approximate five acre common gardens with be constructed. The gardens will include planting of native plants species from Northern Arizona. It will also include watering facilities (from an existing developed spring/pipeline system) for the plants and a weather station.

As many as two fence segments may be constructed on the National Forest to extend from the Grand Canyon National Park boundary fence. Each of these fence segments would be less than one mile long and extend from the existing boundary fence to natural topography with the purpose of reducing the amount of current boundary fence needed to prevent livestock from entering National Park Service lands.

Authorize a new grazing strategy and research program on the Central Winter Allotment The Central Winter Allotment Management Plan would become independent of the Central Summer and Kane Allotments. The allotment would managed in a manner that balances livestock grazing with a series of well-defined research projects focused on the best grazing strategy for a variety of natural resource objectives.

A new 18,000 acre pasture to be called Burnt Corral Pasture would be added to the Central Winter Allotment from the Central Summer Southwest Pasture. This pasture would be developed by constructing two fence segments of an approximate total of 3.8 miles of fence and utilizing natural topography and existing fence lines for remaining pasture boundaries.

The key component to the allotment management plan would be specifying the range of use limits and possible range of dates for each pasture. The general limitations applied to all Central Winter Pastures are as follows:

• A range of 200-400 head of livestock. Upon implementation of the new Allotment Management Plan, the initial stocking would be up to 200 head of livestock. Once post implementation monitoring and/or associated research activities have occurred and indicated increasing vegetative conditions, the permittee will have the option to increase livestock numbers to the upper limit of 400 head. A 30-40 percent conservative utilization rate would be used throughout this allotment.

While the proposed range of 200 to 400 head of livestock represents the lower and upper limits of permitted grazing, numbers can drop to as low as 0 head and/or a reduced season of use if conditions require such an action. Possible rationale for dropping below 200 includes pro-longed drought, large wildfires, declining vegetative conditions, or a specific research project that needs to run a lower number of livestock.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

• Up to four months of use per pasture. • Livestock utilization would not exceed 1,200 AUMs per pasture. • One pasture can be utilized two consecutive years in a row as long as the second year of use has deferred grazing during the cool and warm season grass growing season. In the event that a pasture was utilized in this manner for two years, the pasture would receive a rest the third year.

Each pasture would have timing constraints specified for permitted livestock activities with exceptions that can be made for research activities. Those details are as follows:

• Little Mountain (up to 6,400 AUMs available) and Burnt Corral (up to 8,400 AUMs available): May 15 to November 1. • Slide (up to 21,000 AUMs available) and Ranger Pass (up to 13,000 AUMs available): August 1 to November 1. • Sowats: This pasture would not have a typical, planned rotation. It would be available for research needs and have the ability to be utilized as a forage reserve tied to these allotments. • JumpUp would remain closed to permitted grazing and research grazing as per the 2001 Kane Ranch Environmental Assessment Decision Notice.

The exception to the above timing constraints would be if there was a research project developed that needed to occur outside of this window. Examples include studying livestock and mule deer interactions on winter range and high intensity grazing during spring or fall cheatgrass growth/seed spread concerns. In the event that research findings indicate that livestock impacts are minimal if grazed in a certain way at a certain time, the allotment management plan can be adapted to incorporate the timing and/or stocking rate.

As previously noted, Burnt Corral and Little Mountain pastures may be used in conjunction with the Central Summer pastures when there is a need of additional flexibility in grazing management, primarily for fire recovery and drought.

Additional measures incorporated into the proposed action include:

• Up to fifteen exclosures (to keep livestock out) and/or enclosures (to keep livestock confined for short durations) monitoring sites would be constructed across the Central Winter Allotment for the purposes of research as well as long term monitoring. The exclosures and enclosures could be up to 50 acres each and encompass up to 100 acres per monitoring site. The exact size will be determined by site conditions and research needs. Within one of the exclosures an approximate five acre common garden with be constructed. The garden will include planting of native plants species from Northern Arizona. It will also include watering facilities (from an existing developed spring/pipeline system) for the plants and a weather station.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

• Up to 10 existing earthen tanks would be modified at their existing locations to improve the water holding capability for livestock and wildlife. • Up to thirty miles of the existing Little Mountain pipeline system would be repaired or replaced. The Little Mountain storage tank that is part of the system would also be replaced. • Reconstruction of three miles of fence near Sowats Canyon that was damaged in the 1996 Bridger Knoll fire.

Kanab Creek Allotment There is a fourth Forest Service allotment that was associated with the Kane Ranch Allotments, called Kanab Creek that was closed to grazing in 2001. The Kanab Creek Allotment will not be part of the proposed action and will remain closed to livestock grazing.

Universal management actions associated with Alternative 1 Salt and mineral supplement will be authorized as “distribution aids” to help improve livestock distribution. These supplements will be placed in locations away from water or meadows to encourage livestock not concentrate in one location.

Monitoring Monitoring is adaptive with the ability to consider and utilize improved methodologies as they are developed. The methodology and frequency of monitoring is dependent on the availability of funding and the management practices occurring on the allotment. At a minimum, allotment monitoring includes the following: • Forage utilization is monitored to ensure the conservative grazing utilization is not exceeded. Utilization is measured before the end of the grazing season to determine when livestock are to be removed from the pasture. Other factors that guide rotation decisions include weather patterns and previous years’ utilization levels. • Rangeland conditions, including plant vigor and species diversity are monitored. Adjustments in timing, duration, and frequency of livestock grazing in areas with declining conditions can be made in the Annual Operating Instructions. • Visual observations are conducted annually to assess permit compliance, range readiness, and forage production. • Long-term monitoring is conducted at the established plots every 5 to 10 years, or as funding becomes available. Monitoring data used to establish vegetative trend, rangeland health, and forage production currently includes frequency, canopy cover, dry-weight rank, comparative yield, photo points, and ground cover.

Alternative 2…Current Management

This alternative would continue the current allotment management plan as developed from alternative six of the 2001 Kane Ranch Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

The Central Winter Allotment would be authorized for a season of use from May 1 to a July 14 for 800 head. As per the decision notice livestock numbers are to be limited to 400 until specified work is completed on water developments, fences, and corrals. The four pastures (Slide, Ranger Pass, Little Mountain, and Sowats) would be utilized in a rest rotation system where each pasture is to be grazed for one month, followed by a second pasture to be utilized for the next month. The remaining pastures would be utilized the following year in the same fashion. Up to three pastures can be utilized in one year if monitoring determines that the one month duration in any pasture needs to be shortened. Repairing and/or replacing structures on the allotment that were identified in the 2001 Kane Ranch Environmental Assessment Decision Notice including the Little Mountain Pipeline system would be ongoing.

The Central Summer Allotment would be authorized for 400 head from June 1 until June 30 and then 800 head from July 1 to October 29. Central Summer consists of the North (108,000 acres) and South (179,000) Pastures and would be grazed in a rest system where one pasture is grazed one year and then rested the following year. With the exception of North Canyon, livestock are able to access the remaining areas of the pasture all season long.

The Kane Allotment would be authorized from October 16 to November 12 for 800 head. Like the Central Summer Allotment the North and South Kane pastures alternate each year.

The utilization rate across the allotments would be set at twenty percent, but up to fifteen of the key areas may exceed the twenty percent. The high elevation meadows within Central Summer may be utilized up to 30 percent as long as the average for each pasture is no more than twenty percent.

The Kanab Creek Allotment would remain closed to grazing.

Alternative 3…No grazing

This alternative would discontinue livestock grazing on the Central Winter, Central Summer, and Kane Allotments. This alternative will be fully analyzed.

The Forest Service requires that a “No Action” (i.e. “no grazing”) alternative be analyzed in detail (FSM 2209.13, 92.31).

Alternative 3 would not authorize livestock grazing on the Allotments. This alternative does not preclude livestock grazing on this allotment in the future following a separate analysis and a decision made by the Responsible Official to resume livestock grazing. Under this alternative, existing range improvements (e.g., earthen water tanks and pipelines) would require a separate analysis and coordination with other agencies to determine whether or not to maintain or remove these structures.

Alternative 4…Alternative considered but eliminated from further analysis

An alternative was developed in response to scoping comments on the proposed action. This alternative was later eliminated from further consideration as each item that differs from the proposed action can be

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report achieved within the adaptive management strategy of the proposed action. The details of alternative 4 are as follows: • The seventeen-mile northern section of the Highway 67 right-of-way fence would be implemented as discussed in alternative one. The southern section of the fence would not be implemented as an adaptive management option. Livestock would be kept away from the highway and the meadows/wilderness/recreation areas of the South Summer Pasture by herding management. • The Burnt Corral Pasture would not be developed. • The three Central Summer Pastures would be authorized for a season of use from May 15 to November 1 with an upper limit of 600 head. • The holding pastures and enclosures/exclosures would be included in this alternative as described in the proposed action. • The existing natural lakes excluded from livestock would continue to be fully excluded. Cougar, Wall, Bear, and Indian Lakes would also be excluded from livestock. • Spring trailing would not be authorized through Pediocactus paradenei habitat. The two pastures of the Kane Allotment would be utilized only for a fall transition period of October 15 to November 30. The AUM limit for each pasture would be 300. • The current utilization rate across the allotments would be set at twenty percent, but up to fifteen of the key areas may exceed the twenty percent. The high elevation meadows within the Central Summer Allotment may be utilized up to 30 percent as long as the average for each pasture is no more than twenty percent.

This alternative was removed from further consideration as the majority of differences between the proposed action and this alternative can be achieved with the adaptive management strategy of alternative 1. The ability for the differences to be achieved through alternative 1 is as follows: • The southern section of the Highway 67 Right-of-way fence is adaptive management with options that will be implemented first that could eliminate the need for the fence. • The lower limit of livestock numbers on the Central Summer Allotment is 600 head. Annual livestock numbers can be as low as zero if there is a resource related reason to do so. • Unless there is new information that provides rationale to authorize full, partial, or limited utilization to Murray, Dry Park, Snipe, or West Lakes, they would remain excluded to livestock access. • Spring trailing through the Pediocactus paradinei conservation area is an optional way to transport livestock. Use of this trail can be discontinued at any time. • The livestock numbers on the Central Winter Allotment will also be adaptable from the 200 to 400 head stocking with the ability to reduce stocking to zero head if there is a resource related reason to do so. • Given the low stocking rate for the allotments and the low utilization rates recorded when the stocking rate was 1,200 head, it is unlikely that utilization rates in key areas will exceed 20-30 percent under the proposed action.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report Methodology and Analysis Process ______Analyses for environmental consequences to soils and watershed resources that may result from implementation of each alternative were conducted using information contained in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Kaibab National Forest (Brewer et al. 1991), the Watershed Condition Framework, the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended (1988), information obtained from other KNF resource specialists, other agency reports, available literature, and input from KNF collaborators and cooperators. Geospatial analysis was used to quantitatively and qualitatively assess soils and watershed conditions using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data obtained from a variety of sources.

Soils of the KNF were mapped as part of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Kaibab National Forest (Brewer et al. 1991). This information is available at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office or via the internet at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5138598.pdf.

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

It is important to understand that differences in ecosystem properties including soil and vegetation can occur within short distances. The TES was mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 across the landscape. Generally, small vegetative communities (i.e., smaller than about 40 acres) were not differentiable and are therefore inclusions within larger TES map units.

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

The TES is used to evaluate and adjust land uses to the limitations and potentials of natural resources and the environment. It presents important properties pertaining to the natural, physical, and behavioral characteristics of the terrestrial ecosystems and provides the background for making interpretations. Interpretations based upon TES incorporate 1) soil physical and chemical properties, 2) climatic considerations, 3) topographic position and slope, 4) vegetation and anthropogenic influences as well as animal impacts, 5) productive and successional potentials, and 6) geologic influences.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

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

Range data used for determining soils and watershed trends and conditions

This section describes the methodology and analysis processes used to determine the existing conditions and environmental consequences to soils and watershed resources from implementation of each alternative. Environmental consequences are site-specific at the project planning level and will be described in qualitative and quantitative terms, supported by past studies and observations.

In assessing the existing condition of Central Winter, Central Summer, and Kane Allotments, the following methodology was used: • Reading the existing transects across the three allotments while converting the transects to an updated protocol. • Linking all transects to ecosystem types and TES map units (TEU) and aggregating similar TES map units into strata that have similar characteristics. • Establishing new transects in strata where there was insufficient data. • Conducting forage and browse production surveys at each transect location. • Assessing changes in vegetative condition by comparing the differences in vegetative frequency, production, and species diversity since the last readings. • Comparing changes in annual and seasonal precipitation from rain gauges proximal to the North Kaibab Ranger District.

Parker 3 step transects were initially established across the allotments in the 1950’s to evaluate and record vegetative condition and trend. These plots have been read intermittently since installation to determine changes in species composition, frequency, and diversity. To support this analysis, these plots were monitored and recorded from 2010 through 2012. The methodology for monitoring the transects included converting to a nested frequency and dry weight ranking protocol to determine plant frequencies of occurrence while continuing to utilize the existing Parker 3-step locations in order to maintain the linkage to the previous 60 years of vegetative data. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units (TEU) were used to represent the vegetation occurring on these sites. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units containing similar soil types, slopes, elevation, ecosystems, and vegetation communities were aggregated into strata for each respective allotment. All monitored plots were then linked to strata. If there was insufficient quantitative data for a given stratum known to have suitable grazing capability, additional plots were installed in order to establish a monitoring baseline and to provide opportunity for recording vegetative changes over time. In the tables for each allotment the following data will be described:

• The most common species found on the plots, • The change in vegetative trend since the last monitoring plot reading (Upward, static, downward). No trend was recorded for strata with steep slopes (> 40 percent) or newly established plots. • The individual TEU’s that occur within each strata,

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

• The capability of each site for grazing, which is designated by one of three potential labels: o FC, full capability. Every acre is suitable for grazing and accessible. o FC__%, partial capability. The percent identified is the estimated amount of acres that are fully capable of supporting livestock grazing. The remaining acres have either limited or potential capability for grazing due to steep slopes, access, limited water availability, insufficient forage, or sensitive areas where grazing is discouraged. o NC, No capability. These areas primary consist of areas livestock are either not going to graze due to inaccessibility, steep terrain, limited vegetation on low productivity soils, or areas where livestock are not to graze due to sensitive resources.

At each of the monitoring plots, forage (primarily grasses and small forbs) and browse (shrubs/large forbs) production studies were conducted to establish a point in time vegetation quantity using a protocol called Comparative Yield. The results of each plot were then averaged to represent the actual results of the strata. It is important to note that forage and browse production are “point in time” measurements. The same study could be conducted on the same site at a different time of year or on the same day the following year with different results depending on the growth of the plants at the site and factors including precipitation.

To determine “carrying capacity” in each pasture, the forage production and browse production numbers for each of the full capability (FC) or the percent FC stratum were assigned and the acres of each stratum totaled. Pounds of forage and browse were converted to Animal Unit Months (AUMs), which is the amount one cow/calf pair would consume in one month. The allowable use rate was also calculated and the number of forage AUMs available for livestock in each pasture was determined. Although shrub browse species are often utilized by livestock, with the degree of shrub utilization being dependent on the location and time of year, potential carrying capacity was calculated for grass forage production alone. The final authorized livestock numbers were then established in order to be well- within the potential forage production limits and to account for factors which could limit forage production such as drought, forest canopy encroachment, and climate change. The stocking rate of livestock was then further refined in each pasture in order to assure sufficient forage for wildlife that utilize the same forage and browse species as domestic livestock.

The detailed results of each transect, plot, forage and browse production, and the tables of compiled data can be found in the project record. Descriptions of the protocol can also be found in the project record.

Rangeland condition is considered satisfactory when the existing vegetation community is similar to the desired condition, vegetation trends are improving, and/or short-term objectives are being achieved that guide the rangeland toward the desired condition. Similarity is a comparison of existing vegetation to either the potential natural community or desired plant community. Factors such as the amount and distribution of precipitation, general climate trends, encroachment of woody plant species, wildlife and domestic livestock utilization, soil organic matter, and soil seed banks can affect plant community dynamics. Decreases in floristic abundance and diversity may indicate a downward trend which could be attributable to land management practices.

Range condition is a subjective expression (very poor, poor, fair, good, and excellent) and is evaluated relative to a standard that encompasses the composition, density, and vigor of the vegetation and the

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report physical characteristics of the soil. Range trend expresses the direction of change in range condition over time in response to livestock management and other environmental factors.

It is important to note that the methods used to evaluate range condition and trend are generally considered a process for determining range condition and trend relative to the lands ability, or value for grazing livestock and do not provide information of ecological status (USDA Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide 1997). As such, there is not a strong correlation between range condition class and ecological condition; an area could therefore be in poor or fair range condition simply because the area has a low value for livestock grazing.

Grazing capability of a land area is dependent upon the interrelationship of the soils, topography, plants and animals. Grazing capability is expressed as one of three capability classes (Region 3 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide; June, 1997; 2.8-2.10):

a. Full Capacity (FC) - Areas that can be used by grazing animals under proper management without long-term damage to the soil or vegetative resource. They must also produce a minimum of 100 pounds per acre of forage and are on slopes less than 40 percent.

b. Potential Capacity (PC) – Areas that could be used by grazing animals under proper management but where soil stability is impaired, or range improvements are not adequate under existing conditions to obtain necessary grazing animal distribution. Grazing capacity may be assigned to these areas, but conservative allowable use assignments must be made.

c. No Capacity (NC) – Areas that cannot be used by grazing animals without long-term damage to the soil resource or plant community, or are barren or unproductive naturally. In addition, it includes areas that produce less than 100 pounds per acre of forage and/or are on slopes greater than 40 percent. Grazing capacity is not assigned to sites with a “no capacity” classification.

Soil erosion rates associated with livestock grazing were modeled using the Rangeland Hydrology and Erosion Model Web Tool (RHEM), which is a single storm runoff and erosion computer model. Parameter estimation equations were developed based on the measured rangeland erosion plot data for the sheet erosion (Kss) and infiltration (Ke) parameters. Parameter estimation for other input parameters, including concentrated flow detachment, are currently under development. The parameter estimation procedures for Kss and Ke are grouped according to dominant plant forms of sod-grass, bunch-grass, and shrubs, with a different set of estimation equations for each grouping.

Effects to surface water quality are assessed qualitatively by alternative by comparing predicted direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from grazing.

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

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

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Category 2 - Surface waters assessed as “attaining some uses.” Each designated use is assessed as either “attaining,” “inconclusive,” or “threatened.” Category 3 - Surface waters assessed as “inconclusive.” All designated uses are assessed as “inconclusive” due to insufficient data to assess any designated use (e.g., insufficient samples or core parameters). By default, this category would include waters that were “not assessed” for similar reasons Category 4 - Surface waters assessed as “not attaining.” At least one designated use was assessed as “not attaining” and no uses were assessed as “impaired.” A Total Maximum Daily Load1 (TMDL) analysis will not be required at this time for one of the following reasons: 4 A. - A TMDL has already been completed and approved by EPA but the water quality standards are not yet attained; 4 B. - Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards by the next regularly scheduled listing cycle; or 4 C. - The impairment is not related to a “pollutant” loading but rather due to “pollution” (e.g., hydrologic modification). Category 5 - Surface waters assessed as “impaired.” At least one designated use was assessed as “impaired” by a pollutant. These waters must be prioritized for TMDL development.

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

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

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

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Effects to groundwater availability will be discussed qualitatively using regional studies and FS policies to generally predict effects to the forests. There is no difference between alternatives regarding groundwater use or groundwater quality, and slight differences predicted in groundwater recharge potential from the Forest.

A watershed condition assessment was completed in 2010 for all sixth-level (HUC12) subwatersheds in the proposed project area as part of a Forest-level assessment of watershed condition (Potyondy and Geier, 2010). Watershed condition was classified using a core set of national watershed condition indicators that were updated with local data and interpreted by a Forest interdisciplinary (ID) team. These indicators are grouped according to four major ecosystem process categories: (1) aquatic physical; (2) aquatic biological; (3) terrestrial physical; and (4) terrestrial biological. These categories represent terrestrial, riparian, and riverine ecosystem processes or mechanisms by which management actions can affect the condition of watersheds and associated resources. Each indicator was evaluated using a defined set of attributes whereby each attribute was scored by the Forest interdisciplinary team as GOOD (1), FAIR (2), or POOR (3) using written criteria, rule sets, the best available data, and professional judgment.

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

Attribute scores for each indicator were summed and normalized to produce an overall indicator score. The indicator scores for each ecosystem process category were then averaged to arrive at an overall category score. The Watershed Condition scores were tracked to one decimal point and reported as Watershed Condition Classes 1, 2, or 3. Class 1 = scores of 1.0 to 1.7; Class 2 = scores >1.8 and <2.3, and Class 3 = scores from 2.4 to 3.0. Class 1 watersheds are functioning properly. Class 2 watersheds are functional – at risk, and Class 3 watersheds have impaired function.

Precipitation data for each allotment is collected from rain gauges that are located on or within a mile of each allotment. The data represents annual totals as well as amounts throughout the year. The pattern of precipitation in the region is bimodal with precipitation generally occurring in the winter as snow or rain and in summer (July through August) as monsoon storms with an extended dry period commonly occurring from April through June. Storms associated with the winter precipitation are normally frontal storm systems that cover large areas in the State, including the North Kaibab Ranger District. In contrast, the summer monsoon rains are typically localized (i.e., less than 5 miles in diameter), short- duration, high-intensity storms. These monsoon storms typically provide moisture to the higher elevations of the North Kaibab Ranger District with minimal precipitation occurring on the east and west sides of the plateau. A summary of the rain gauge data applicable to the project area is included in the project record.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report Soils and Watershed Issues ______Soils and watershed issues include: • Changes to soil stability resulting from implementation of each alternative • Changes to soil productivity (i.e., nutrient cycling) resulting from implementation of each alternative • Changes to soil hydrologic function resulting from implementation of each alternative • Changes to soil biota from implementation of each alternative • Changes to surface water quality resulting from implementation of each alternative • Changes to water yield resulting from implementation of each alternative • Changes to overall watershed condition resulting from implementation of each alternative • Changes to riparian areas resulting from implementation of each alternative • Cumulative effects to soils and watershed resources, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions Soil and Water Resources Condition Indicators ______Soil condition indicators are used to assess soil functions. Most soil condition indicators are observations and measurements taken at the soil surface and in the upper portion of the mineral soil profile. Conditions at the soil surface and in the upper mineral soil strongly influence soil stability, hydrologic function, biology, carbon sequestration, and nutrient cycling, and in turn, long term soil productivity and overall ecosystem processes and functions.

For water quality measures, no physical measurements have been taken to determine water quality. A narrative description will explain the effects to water quality by alternative.

Desired Conditions

Soil Condition is satisfactory when: • Surface soils have moderate to strong granular structure • There are common to many tubular pores with high vertical continuity • Surface soils have low resistance to rupture • There is no physical surface crusting or subsurface compaction (this criterion only refers to physical crusts and does not apply to biological soil crusts, or cryptogams) • There is no reduction in water infiltration rates • There is no increase in resistance to penetration • Current soil loss is less than the tolerance rate of soil loss • Sheet, rill and gully erosion is not evident • There is minimal to no pedestaling of vegetation, litter or rocks • There is minimal to no desert pavement • There are no indications of unusual or excessive soil deposition • Soil “A” horizons are present, well distributed, and not fragmented • Vegetative communities consist of desirable native perennial plants indicative of healthy, vigorous plant communities with stratification common to the terrestrial ecosystem

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

• Litter is distributed evenly across soil surfaces and is associated with all vegetative layers • Coarse woody debris exists at levels appropriate for the associated terrestrial ecosystem • There are common to many roots in surface soil horizons

Water Quality must meet state standards for designated uses. Sediment inputs to stream courses and other water bodies does not contribute to impairment of stream courses or other water bodies.

Streams and riparian areas are in proper functioning condition when: Riparian areas and stream channels are functioning properly or show a trend towards an improving condition where sufficient native vegetation, landforms, soil condition, and woody debris are present to: • Dissipate water energy, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; • Filter sediment, capture bedload, and contribute to favorable floodplain development; • Improve flood-water retention and ground water recharge; • Develop root biomass that stabilizes channel banks against scour, slumping, and erosion; • Develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide habitat and water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for aquatic/amphibian habitat, waterfowl breeding, and other uses;

Springs are functioning properly when: • Spring sources have the necessary soil, water, and vegetation attributes to be healthy and functioning. • Water levels, flow patterns, groundwater recharge rates, and geochemistry are similar to reference conditions • Springs runout channels have appropriate plant cover to protect banks from excessive erosion. 3 • Hydrophytic and emergent vegetation exist in patterns of natural abundance in wetlands and springs at levels that reflect climatic conditions.

Resource Protection Measures ______Resource protection measures listed in Table 1 include references to standard SWCPs and BMP’s found in the Soil and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA, 1990). Resource protection measures are implemented to minimize nonpoint source pollution as outlined in the intergovernmental agreement between the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service (ADEQ, 2008).

Table 2. Resource Protection Measures Required for All Action Alternatives.

BMP Mitigation Purpose #

BMP Manage forage utilization by livestock to maintain healthy Safeguard water and soil resources #1 ecosystems for all resource objectives under sustained forage production.

3 Plant that grow and reproduce in very moist to saturated environments

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

BMP Mitigation Purpose #

BMP Several techniques are used to achieve proper distribution, or To manage sustained forage #2 lessen the impact on areas which are sensitive or which would production and forage utilization by naturally be overused. These techniques include: livestock while protecting soil and a. Construction of fences, and implementation of seasonal water resources. Maintaining healthy or pasture systems of management. ecosystems for wildlife and other resources. b. Water development in areas that receive little use and closing off water developments when proper use has been achieved. c. Riding and herding to shift livestock locations. d. Using salt or supplement feed as tools to gain proper distribution of livestock. e. Range improvements, prescribed burning, trail construction, or seeding. f. Prevention of intensive livestock grazing or concentrated livestock use on soils that have low bearing strength and are wet. Developing sufficient watering places is one way to limit the amount of trailing. Livestock distribution needs are determined through evaluations of range conditions and trends, including utilization studies

BMP Soil condition class is determined by qualified soil scientists using This practice is an administrative and #3 Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES). A range conservationist will preventative control. Soil condition use the soil condition class in determining the grazing capacity. classes, based on the relationship of current and natural soil loss tolerances, are used to determine grazing capability. Only land with soils in stable condition are considered as "full capability" range. Grazing capability ratings are then used in conjunction with other grazing considerations to determine the actual grazing capacity of an area.

BMP Where soil has been severely disturbed by past overgrazing and To establish a vegetative cover on #4 the establishment of vegetation is needed to minimize erosion, the disturbed sites to prevent accelerated appropriate measures shall be taken to establish an adequate erosion and sedimentation. cover of grass or other vegetation acceptable to the Forest Service and outlined in the allotment management plan. This measure is applied where it is expected that disturbed soils in parts of the area will require vegetative cover for stabilization and the problems will not be mitigated by other management plan provisions.

BMP Rangeland improvements are intended to enhance forage quality, To improve, maintain or restore range #5 quantity, and/or availability, and to provide protection to the other resources, including soil and water resources. Building fences to control the movement of livestock, through the use of rangeland improve watershed condition, and develop watering sites are just improvements. a few of the types of rangeland improvements implemented by the

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

BMP Mitigation Purpose # permittee or Forest Service as identified in the allotment plan. If a structure is causing soil erosion or water quality degradation, the allotment plan will identify it and state corrective measures. Other measures may include stream channel stabilization efforts such as riprapping, gully plugging, and planting; or mechanical treatments such as pitting, chiseling, or furrowing. Reseeding and/or fertilization may be done alone or in conjunction with any of these measures.

Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan Direction ______

Table 3 summarizes the acreages for each Geographic Area within the Kane Ranch Allotments. Table 4 summarizes the desired conditions and guidelines in the Kaibab National Forest Plan that affect soils and watershed resources.

Table 3. Summary of Geographic Areas from the Kaibab National Forest Plan that occur within the Kane Ranch Allotments EA analysis area (acres are approximate). Geographic Area Description Acres in Analysis Area Pediocactus This management area was established to aid in Conservation Area managing Pediocactus paradinei B.W. Benson (which is also known as the Paradine or Kaibab plains cactus). 42,162 wildland area surrounding resident populations and Wildland-Urban other human developments having special Interface significance that are at imminent risk from wildfire 8,157 Major public and private sector developed recreation Developed Recreation sites and other smaller sites (trailheads, interpretive Sites sites, etc.). 60 Kanab Creek Area within the Kaibab NF that satisfy the definition Wilderness of wilderness found in the 1964 Wilderness Act 27,018 Saddle Mountain Area within the Kaibab NF that satisfy the definition Wilderness of wilderness found in the 1964 Wilderness Act 26,795

Table 4. Summary of the Desired Conditions for Geographic Areas within the Kane Ranch Allotments EA analysis area.

Geographic Desired Conditions Guidelines Area Pediocactus Paradine plains cactus (Pediocactus • Collection of Paradine plains cactus plants should Conservation paradinei) has a sustainable population not be permitted. Area and is at low risk for extirpation. • Project activities should incorporate protective Measures for the Paradine plains cactus. Any

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Geographic Desired Conditions Guidelines Area potentially ground-disturbing activities in the Pediocactus Conservation Area should be evaluated, and protective measures should be implemented to minimize resource impacts. • Nonnative invasive weeds should be regularly monitored and promptly treated. • Wildfires in the Pediocactus Conservation Area should be suppressed when it is safe to do so and high severity fire is anticipated. • Motorized access should be restricted. • Public information and recreational brochures should not feature this area.

• Wilderness provides opportunities for • Group size should be limited to 12 people in primitive and unconfined recreation wilderness areas. and contiguous wildlife habitat. Social • Wildfires should be suppressed in the desert encounters are infrequent and occur communities of the Kanab Creek Wilderness. only with individuals or small parties. • Wildfires in North Canyon of the Saddle Mountain • The environment is essentially Wilderness should be suppressed when it is safe unmodified. No services are provided to do so and high severity fire is anticipated. and self-reliance is required. The • Nonnative, invasive species should be treated naturally occurring scenery dominates within wilderness in order to allow natural the landscape. Manmade features are processes to predominate. rare and use natural or complimentary materials. Some constructed features • The fire lookout on Kendrick Mountain should be are present when needed to provide staffed, supplied, and maintained using non- for public safety or resource motorized equipment and non-mechanized protection. transport. • Enduring, high-quality wilderness values are maintained while providing Kanab Creek for solitude and primitive, unconfined Wilderness recreation experiences. • Natural processes are maintained within wilderness. Fires function in their natural ecological role. • Wilderness areas have minimal to no nonnative invasive species. • Wilderness boundary postings are well maintained. • Maps, information, and educational material are provided at wilderness access points. The Materials encourage understanding of wilderness philosophy and support for its ecological and social benefits • A reproducing population of Apache trout is maintained in North Canyon Creek.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Geographic Desired Conditions Guidelines Area Saddle Same as above Same as above Mountain Wilderness • Wildland fires in the WUI do not result None in the loss of life, property, or characteristic ecosystem function. • Wildland fires in the WUI are low intensity surface fires. Firefighters are able to safely and efficiently suppress wildfires in the WUI using direct attack. • When WUI intersects vegetation types with a mixed or high-severity fire regime, characteristic ecosystem function is modified to promote low intensity surface fires. • The desired tree basal area in the WUI is on the lower end of the range given in the vegetation community desired conditions. • Ladder fuels are nearly absent. • Logs and snags, which often pose fire control problems, are present in the Wildland- WUI, but at the lower end of the range Urban given in the vegetation community Interface desired conditions. • Dead and down fuel load is between 1 and 5 tons per acre. This light fuel load is desirable even in vegetation types with higher reference fuel loads, such as mesic mixed conifer, to provide improved fire protection to human developments deemed to have special significance. • Openings between tree groups are of sufficient size to discourage isolated group torching from spreading as a crown fire to other groups. • Openings with grass/forb/shrub vegetation occupy the mid to upper end of the percentage range in the desired conditions. Trees within groups may be more widely spaced with less interlocking of the crowns than desirable in adjacent forest lands.

Developed • Developed campgrounds are places • Reconstruction and improvements of private Recreation where structures and human impacts sector developed sites should be within site Sites on vegetation may be seen, but they

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Geographic Desired Conditions Guidelines Area do not dominate the view or attract capacity allocations. attention (low to moderate scenic • Surveys should be conducted to assess bat integrity). activity and intensity of use before demolishing • Human activities in the areas visible and/or modifying structures such as old buildings. from campgrounds (foreground to If surveys determine that bats are actively roosting middle ground, 300 feet to 4 miles) do in such structures and no alternate bat roost sites not attract attention or stand out, and exist in the immediate vicinity, project design the landscapes appear natural should include efforts to minimize impacts and to (moderate to high scenic integrity). provide for alternate roost sites such as bat boxes • Volunteer hosts are provided at all where feasible. public sector fee campgrounds. • Developed recreation site vegetation management plans should guide tree removal and burning activities in the campgrounds.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section details the affected environment and environmental consequences for the soil and water resources within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area. It establishes the baseline against which the decision maker and the public can evaluate the effects of the action alternative.

This section also describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing each alternative on the soils and water resources in the project area. It presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of the alternatives presented in Alternatives section. NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

Affected Environment ______The resource areas within this analysis to be affected by the proposed action are soils and watershed conditions, riparian area conditions, and water quality.

CLIMATE The project area occurs within the North central climatological division of Arizona and is generally classified as low sun cold climate class. Precipitation on the average varies from 18 to 30 inches annually and is bimodal. The majority of the precipitation falls from October 1 to March 31, mainly in

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report the form of snow as a result of large frontal storm systems. Thus the winters are cold and soil temperatures are generally classified as frigid throughout much of the allotment and subject to freezing and thawing. Summer precipitation is irregular, but usually takes place in the form of high-intensity, short-duration thunderstorms of limited areal extent during the monsoon season (July through September).

Average annual temperatures range from 55° Fahrenheit at lower elevations to 34° Fahrenheit at higher elevations. For the month of January, mean minimum temperatures range from 10° to 20° Fahrenheit; mean maximum temperatures range from 32° to 50° Fahrenheit. For the month of July, mean minimum temperatures range from 45° to 52° Fahrenheit; mean maximum temperatures range from 70° to 105° Fahrenheit.

The NOAA U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook released April 18, 2013 indicates that drought will persist or intensify in the vicinity of the North Kaibab Ranger District (Figure 1, Appendix A). Currently, the NOAA U.S. Drought Monitor (dated April 16, 2013) indicates that the area is under moderate to severe drought conditions (Figure 2, Appendix A).

The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook for April 18 – July 31, 2013 is based primarily on short-, medium-, and long-range forecasts, initial conditions, and climatology. Drought persistence is expected for western Colorado, most of New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona due to below average snow-water equivalent values (generally at or below 75 percent of normal) and below average stream flows forecast for spring and summer. Enhanced odds for below median precipitation and above normal temperatures during May, June and July also indicate drought will persist (NOAA Climate Prediction Center, 2013). Available online at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.html

The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) was developed by Thomas McKee, Nolan Doesken and John Kleist of the Colorado Climate Center in 1993 and has been embraced by the Western Regional Climate Center as a statistical method from assessing rainfall. In calculating the SPI rainfall data, values are fitted to a gamma distribution and are then transformed to a Gaussian distribution to standardize the results. All of the above steps make the SPI independent of both the location and the range in values so that the different seasons and climate areas are represented on an equal basis (WRCC, 2013). The purpose is to assign a single numeric value to the precipitation which can be compared across regions with markedly different climates (WRCC, 2013). The latest 12- month Standardized Precipitation Index through the end of March 2013 shows all of the regions mapped near the Kane Ranch Allotments to be in near normal conditions (Figure 3, Appendix A).

The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) was one of the first techniques to demonstrate success at quantifying the severity of droughts across different climates (Wells, 2004). Instead of being purely based on precipitation, the PDSI is based upon a primitive water balance model and has been used for approximately 40 years to quantify the long-term drought conditions.

The NOAA Palmer Drought Severity Index Long Term meteorological conditions dated April 20, 2013 show the area surrounding the Kane Ranch Allotments to be in a severe drought (Figure 4, Appendix A). Drought monitoring data and forecasts are always changing and are useful tools for assessing short term and long term forecasts.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Temperature and precipitation records have been kept in the towns of Fredonia and Jacob Lake for nearly 100 years. Average annual temperatures during the last 10 years have exceeded the 100-year average every year by 2 to 4 degrees F. The average temperature during the last 20 years is 3 degrees higher than the average temperature in Fredonia from 1912-1932 (the earliest records available). The average precipitation during the last 20 years is approximately 1 inch lower than the average precipitation in Fredonia from 1912-1932. Annual temperature and precipitation summaries for the stations near Fredonia and Jacob Lake, Arizona are included in Tables 1 through 4 for of Appendix A, respectively.

Climate conditions are a major contributing factor affecting range condition and trend in the southwestern United States. Large year-to-year differences in rainfall and forage production are characteristic of southwestern ranges (Martin 1974). Climate model projections for the southwest United States predict average temperatures will continue to rise as will the potential for an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events (Crimmins et al. 2007). Increased temperatures combined with decreased precipitation would lead to lower plant productivity and cover, which in turn would decrease litter cover. The reduction in plant and litter cover would make the soils more susceptible to erosion by both wind and water. Timing of moisture can lead to shifts in dominance from warm to cool season plant species or vice-versa. Currently we are observing a shift to warm season species dominance in many areas of northern Arizona as a result of reduced winter moisture and increased summer moisture. The dominant warm season plant in northern Arizona is blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis). Despite the frequent dry years, many areas exhibit an increase in perennial plant cover due to the sod-forming habit of blue grama.

Climate change may be the cause of this unusual weather, but scientists cannot be certain. Large shifts in precipitation and temperature have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. All action alternatives include adaptive management strategies. Adaptive management uses monitoring to adjust timing, duration and occurrence of livestock grazing, movement of livestock within the allotment, and livestock numbers. If adjustments are necessary, they are implemented through the Annual Operating Instructions, whereby livestock numbers can be adjusted so use is consistent with current productivity.

Coupled with poor forage conditions, there may be a general scarcity of water for cattle (USDA, 2010). Water supplies are projected to become increasingly scarce and seasonal as snowmelt occurs earlier in the year. The Colorado River, Rio Grande, and several other southwestern rivers have streamflows that appear to be peaking earlier in the year, suggesting that the spring temperatures in these regions are warmer than in the past, causing snow to melt earlier. While the Southwest is expected to become warmer and drier, it is likely to experience more flooding (USDA, 2010). Some of the most notable observed effect of climate change occur in the Western United States and include an increase in the size and intensity of forest fires, bark beetle outbreaks killing trees over large areas, accelerated tree mortality from drought, and earlier snowmelt and runoff (USDA, 2012).

The regional trend and projections of changing climatic conditions for the West indicate lower precipitation in Arizona, More frequent rain-on-snow flooding in some areas, decreased soil productivity, reduced vegetative cover and a highly variable climate with exceptionally wet and dry periods (USDA, 2010).

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Some ranchers rely on well water for livestock watering, but often ranchers use earthen tanks to capture summer monsoon rainfall runoff from snow melt (USDA, 2010). During the recent droughts, earthen tanks have dried prematurely, making many pastures problematic for livestock management, even though forage was still available (Conley et al. 1999).

It is difficult to conclude whether recently observed trends or changes in ecological phenomena are the result of human influences, natural climatic variability, or other factors (USDA, 2012). As documented in the U.S Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (Backlund et al. 2008), climate change is occurring and we are observing many effects on forests. A growing body of science has demonstrated that the Earth’s climate warmed rapidly during the 20th century (USDA, 2010).

Regardless of the causes of climate change, our responsibility is to determine effective ways to respond to changes and manage the land effectively. One of our identified goals is maintaining and improving watershed health. Healthy, resilient watersheds are more likely to support desired ecological services in the face of climate change (Furniss, 2010).

SOILS Elevations across the Kane Ranch Allotments range from 4,465 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in Slide Canyon to 9,176 feet amsl near Johns Tank southwest of the Saddle Mountain Wilderness. Slopes range from 1 degree (flat) to as much as 90 degrees (vertical) with steeper slopes occurring along canyons and escarpments and on hillsides of less prominent knolls. There are a many differences in soil ecosystem properties across the Kane Ranch Allotments. Some soils are too shallow or rocky for certain uses, other soils may be too unstable. Some soils are well-suited for reforestation or revegation while others are not. Table 5 provides a summary of the taxonomic classifications of TES map units in the project area and their associated soil phases and acreages.

Table 5. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units located within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area, Kaibab National Forest, Arizona (Brewer et al 1991). MAP UNIT SOIL TAXONOMIC SOIL PHASE ACRES SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION 005 Pachic Udic Argiudolls Deep loam 3,007.1 009 Cumulic Haploborolls Deep loam 1,282.9 015 Typic Torrifluvents Deep loamy fine sand 3.3 017 Cumulic Haplustolls Deep loam 17,63.6 023 Fluventic Ustochrepts Deep very fine sandy loam 787.1 032 Fluventic Ustochrepts Deep fine sandy loam 1,219.1 035 Argic Cryaquolls Deep loam 607.6 154 Typic Ustorthents Fine sandy loam 258.4 156 Udic Haploborolls Moderately deep loam 3,721.0 250 Lithic Ustochrepts Fine sandy loam 12,772.5 251 Lithic Ustochrepts Fine sandy loam 25,465.2 252 Lithic Ustochrepts Fine sandy loam 32,341.2

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

MAP UNIT SOIL TAXONOMIC SOIL PHASE ACRES SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION 263 Lithic Ustochrepts Loam 16,501.4 264 Lithic Ustochrepts Loam 10,158.7 271 Lithic Ustochrepts Loam 6,861.4 272 Typic Haplustalfs Loam 9,150.2 273 Typic Haplustalfs Loam 18,964.0 274 Typic Ustochrepts Moderately deep fine sandy loam 5,948.4 281 Typic Ustochrepts Moderately deep fine sandy loam 250.2 293 Mollic Eutroboralfs Loam 48,343.7 294 Mollic Eutroboralfs Loam 35,395.4 297 Mollic Eutroboralfs Loam 5,957.0 298 Mollic Eutroboralfs Loam 7,232.2 299 Typic Haploborolls Moderately deep loam 1,915.3 603 Eutric Glossoboralfs Fine sandy loam 2,128.8 604 Eutric Glossoboralfs Fine sandy loam 1,171.7 605 Lithic Glossoboralfs Sandy loam 1,407.1 606 Lithic Haploborolls Sandy loam 615.9 612 Lithic Haploborolls Fine sandy loam 542.0 613 Eutric Glossoboralfs Fine sandy loam 2,035.0 614 Eutric Glossoboralfs Fine sandy loam 2,966.5 615 Udic Haplustalfs Fine sandy loam 128.8 618 Typic Eutroboralfs Fine sandy loam 227.3 619 Udic Haplustalfs Fine sandy loam 8,684.5 620 Lithic Haploborolls Loam 4,701.5 621 Mollic Eutroboralfs Loam 6,493.7 622 Lithic Haploborolls Fine sandy loam 2,682.0 623 Typic Paleboralfs Sandy loam 33,082.6 624 Eutric Glossoboralfs Sandy loam 46,451.1 625 Eutric Glossoboralfs Moderately deep loam 10,910.3 626 Typic Haplocryalfs Sandy loam 15,956.3 627 Typic Haplocryalfs Moderately deep very gravelly loam 2,001.3 628 Typic Haplocryalfs Fine sandy loam 1,439.6 629 Lithic Dystrudepts Sandy loam 775.5 631 Lithic Eutroboralfs Loam 2,384.3 633 Lithic Eutroboralfs Fine sandy loam 1,632.7 634 Typic Ustochrepts Moderately deep loam 6,261.3 636 Aridic Ustochrepts Fine sandy loam 1,719.2 637 Lithic Ustochrepts Fine sandy loam 1,279.0 641 Typic Paleboralfs Fine sandy loam 8,547.1 642 Typic Eutrochrepts Moderately deep loam 669.7 643 Lithic Eutrochrepts Loam 137.7 644 Typic Haplustalfs Moderately deep loam 4,903.2 645 Typic Eutrochrepts Moderately deep loam 89.2

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

MAP UNIT SOIL TAXONOMIC SOIL PHASE ACRES SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION 655 Argic Cryoborolls Loam 826.4 672 Typic Haplustalfs Loam 7,868.5 673 Typic Haplustalfs Loam 4,263.9 681 Udic Haplustalfs Moderately deep fine sandy loam 912.3 Total 435,802.7

The TES includes an evaluation of soil condition, including erosion rates (current, tolerance, and potential), litter cover, and vegetative ground cover, allowing the user to classify all soils into one of four condition classes based on soil condition ratings: satisfactory, impaired, unsatisfactory or satisfactory but inherently unstable. The soil condition ratings are based on interpretations of the three primary soil functions: soil hydrologic function, soil stability and nutrient cycling.

Hydrologic function of the soil is based on indications of infiltration. Hydrologic function decreases with a loss of soil aggregate stability as evidenced by platy structure, ponding and puddling. Other indicators of soil hydrologic condition include bulk density, presence of crusting, and pore space. Soil stability is generally assessed through visual inspection of the soil surface for evidence of erosion including rills, pedestaling (i.e., plants or rock fragments elevated above surrounding soil), soil displacement, and changes to surface horizon thickness. Nutrient cycling is generally assessed by visual observation of surface litter (distribution and depth), composition and distribution of perennial vegetation, presence of coarse woody material, and root distribution within the upper mineral soil horizons.

Soil condition may vary within the same map unit across the landscape due to differences in disturbance and soil characteristics.

There are approximately 193,731 acres of soils in satisfactory condition. Most satisfactory soils have high amounts of effective ground cover that protect the soil from accelerated erosion. Effective vegetative ground cover consists of litter greater than 1.25 cm in depth plus plant basal area. Satisfactory soils occur where all three soil functions- the ability of the soil to resist erosion, infiltrate water, and recycle nutrients are properly functioning. These soils are fully capable of supporting livestock grazing while allowing for maintenance of soil productivity when utilization guidelines are not exceeded.

Approximately 105,249 acres of soils within the Kane Ranch Allotments are currently in impaired condition. Figures 1 through 3 provide examples of impaired soils within the Kane Ranch Allotments. Impaired soils generally occur in pinyon-juniper woodlands, juniper-semidesert grassland transitional areas, semidesert grassland/shrublands, and in some areas affected by high severity wildfires.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 1. Map unit 251. This map unit, located in the Bridger Knoll fire area is in impaired condition due to loss of A horizon soil and insufficient vegetative ground cover and associated litter. The condition of this soil is improving and will be in satisfactory condition within a few years under conservative grazing use.

Figure 2. Map unit 274. This map unit is also in the Bridger Knoll Fire perimeter and is in impaired condition due to inadequate vegetative ground cover.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 3. Photo of another map unit polygon of TES map unit 251. This soil is impaired due to loss of A horizon soil, inadequate vegetative ground cover and litter. This soils was previously dominated by Utah juniper that was partially burned in the Bridger Knoll fire and is trending toward a dry grassland/shrub community. As the A horizon continues to build, soil conditions will continue to improve in this map unit.

Areas encroached by pinyon and juniper have reduced nutrient cycling, impaired soil hydrologic function, reduced effective vegetative ground cover, and decreased vegetative diversity. In some cases, these soils are at risk of trending toward unsatisfactory conditions due to loss of the herbaceous understory that protects soil surfaces from raindrop impact, soil particle detachment, and transport in surface runoff. As a result, some soils in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type exhibit erosion rates and bare soil that are approaching tolerance thresholds.

Map units subjected to recent (i.e., within the last 20 years) high severity wildfire show signs of accelerated erosion. Soils in wildfire scars that are over 20 years old generally have adequate vegetative cover to protect soil surfaces from accelerated erosion and loss of soil productivity. However, more recent, large fire scars of the Warm and Bridger Knoll fires continue to exhibit impaired soil conditions through inadequate vegetative cover, and indications of minor, discontinuous sheet, rill, and gully erosion. Impaired soils are potentially capable of supporting livestock grazing under conservative allowable use while still allowing maintenance of soil productivity, which is dependent on utilization guidelines being met.

There are approximately 39,615 acres of unsatisfactory soils within the Kane Ranch Allotments. Unsatisfactory soils are assigned potential capability to support grazing, but no grazing capacity is assigned to these TES map units. Figures 4 through 6 provide examples of soils that are in unsatisfactory

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report condition within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area. Hydrologic function, soil stability, and the ability of these soils to cycle nutrients are currently unsatisfactory. Similar to impaired soils, most unsatisfactory soils are located within recent wildfire scars (i.e., wildfires that have occurred within the last 20 years), in pinyon and juniper woodlands, in grasslands encroached by pinyon and juniper, and in grasslands dominated by non-native cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Some soils within wildfire perimeters have lost portions of A horizons through sheet erosion. Rill and gully formation has also occurred in some areas, with erosion extending to the regolith in some locations. Many of these soils are trending toward an improved condition as vegetative ground cover and the associated litter has increased, thus restoring many soil ecosystem processes that are critical to healthy, stable soils. Unsatisfactory soils in pinyon and juniper woodlands and encroached grasslands are continuing to trend downward due to loss of ground cover contribution to higher soil erosion rates.

Figure 4. Unsatisfactory TES map unit 251 located in juniper woodland. Note lack of vegetative ground cover and surface gravel. Erosion has resulted in loss of much of the A horizon, leaving gravel as the dominant soil protective cover.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 5. Unsatisfactory TES map unit 274. This map unit is in unsatisfactory condition due to loss of the A horizon.

Figure 6. Unsatisfactory TES map unit 274 located in the Bridger Knoll fire burn area. Reforestation has been undertaken in portions of tis map unit, with good survival. It is likely this map unit will improve over time.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

There are approximately 96,405 acres of satisfactory, but inherently unstable soils in the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area. Areas of satisfactory, but inherently unstable soils (portions above 40 percent slope) currently do not have the capacity to support grazing without risking loss of long-term soil productivity. Though incidental use may occur, by assigning no capacity to these soils, overall grazing capacity is reduced and adverse impacts are minimized to ensure soil conditions are maintained or improved. These soils are primarily found along escarpments, canyon walls, and side slopes of hills and knolls. Natural erosion rates of these soils often exceed the rates at which soils form.

Figure 6 displays soil condition ratings for TES map units in the Kane Ranch Allotments and their associated locations.

The approach taken in assigning capability and capacity based on soil condition rating is summarized below. Please note that capability and capacity are calculated using slope reduction factors and other information described in the Range Specialist Report, also available in the Project Record. Guidance below pertains only to soil condition:

 Satisfactory soils o Full capability o Assign capacity  Impaired Soils o Potential capability o Conservative/ reduced capacity  Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable Soils (as verified by field visits) o No capability o No capacity  Unsatisfactory (soil loss is greater than tolerance (CSL>TSL)): o Potential capability o No capacity assigned . Capacity could be increased after unsatisfactory soils have been shown to move towards an improved soil condition class and have more than 100 lbs/acre of forage. . A soil condition objective and monitoring protocol should be established

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 7. Soil conditions and associated acreages within the Kane Ranch Allotments EA analysis area.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Soil Erosion Hazard

The TES defines erosion hazard based on bare ground (complete removal of vegetation and litter). Estimates of sheet and rill erosion hazard were developed using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) predicts the long term average annual rate of soil loss from a given area based on rainfall pattern, soil type, topography, crop system and management practices. The USLE only predicts the amount of soil loss resulting from sheet and rill erosion on a single slope and does not account for additional soil loss resulting from gully, wind, or tillage erosion. While created for use in selected cropping systems, the USLE is also applicable to non-agricultural conditions such as forests and construction sites. The USLE can be used to compare soil losses from a particular area under a specific management system to "tolerable soil loss" rates. Alternative management systems and practices may also be evaluated to determine the adequacy of conservation measures in land management planning. In the Kaibab National Forest TES, a slight rating indicates that all vegetative ground cover could be removed from the site and the resulting soil loss will not exceed "tolerance" soil loss rates. A moderate rating indicates that predicted rates of soil loss will result in a reduction of site productivity if left unchecked. Conditions in moderate erosion hazard sites are such that reasonable and economically feasible mitigation measures can be applied to reduce or eliminate soil loss. A severe rating indicates that predicted rates of soil loss have a high probability of reducing site productivity before mitigation measures can be applied. Figure 8 displays the soil erosion hazard ratings for TES map units in the Kane Ranch Allotments.

Within the project area, there are approximately 78,609 acres of soils having slight erosion hazard, 185,536 acres of soils having moderate erosion hazard, and about 171,431 acres of soils having severe erosion hazard (Table 6). Acres presented in Table 6 are for each map unit as a whole. There can be, and often are inclusions of different soil types within each TES map unit. Soils having single taxonomic classifications rarely, if ever, are mapped without including some areas of soils having other taxonomic classifications. As a result, most soils map units are comprised of the primary soil for which the unit is categorized and some soils that belong to other taxa. These latter soils are called inclusions or included soils.

Typically inclusions have properties and behavioral characteristics that are similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and therefore do not affect use and management. These are referred to as noncontrasting inclusions. They may or may not be noted in the map unit descriptions. Other inclusions may have properties and behavioral characteristics that deviate enough to influence use or management. These are referred to as contrasting inclusions. They generally occupy small areas and are inseparable on the soil maps due to the scale at which soils are mapped. The inclusions of contrasting soils are typically discussed in map unit descriptions. Sometimes inclusions are not mapped as they were not observed in the field. This typically occurs where soil patterns are so complex as to preclude a sufficient number of observations to identify all of the soils that occur within a given landscape.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 8. Soil erosion hazard of TES map units in the Kane Ranch Allotments EA analysis area.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 6. Predicted Soil Erosion Hazard by TEU within the Kane Ranch Allotments Analysis Area (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are approximate). MAP SOIL EROSION CURRENT TOLERANCE POTENTIAL SLOPE ACRES UNIT CONDITION HAZARD EROSION EROSION EROSION (%) RATE RATE RATE TONS/AC/YR TONS/AC/YR TONS/AC/YR 005 Satisfactory Slight 1.2 2.7 5.7 0-15 3,007.1 009 Satisfactory Slight 0.6 2.7 4.6 0-15 1,282.9 and Impaired 015 Satisfactory Moderate 1.1 0.9 2.3 0-15 3.3 017 Impaired Slight 1.7 2.7 3.8 0-5 17,63.6 023 Impaired Slight 2.6 2.7 4.8 0-5 787.1 032 Impaired Moderate 2.1 2.7 3.1 0-15 1,219.1 035 Satisfactory Slight 0.3 2.7 3.6 0-15 607.6 Inherently 154 Severe 5.5 2.7 15.7 40-120 258.4 Unstable 156 Satisfactory Severe 2.3 2.7 43.5 40-80 3,721.0 250 Impaired Moderate 1.1 1.8 2.0 0-15 12,772.5 251 Unsatisfactory Severe 7.1 1.8 12.1 15-40 25,465.2 Inherently 252 Severe 9.4 2.7 15.8 40-80 32,341.2 Unstable 263 Impaired Moderate 1.4 1.8 2.0 0-15 16,501.4 264 Unsatisfactory Moderate 5.2 1.8 12.1 15-40 10,158.7 271 Unsatisfactory Severe 4.7 1.8 34.2 40-80 6,861.4 272 Impaired Slight 2.0 2.7 3.8 0-15 9,150.2 273 Impaired Moderate 2.7 2.7 9.9 15-40 18,964.0 274 Unsatisfactory Severe 3.0 2.7 4.9 40-120 5,948.4 281 Satisfactory Slight 1.3 2.7 2.9 0-15 250.2 293 Satisfactory Slight 0.4 2.7 3.4 0-15 48,343.7 and Impaired 294 Satisfactory Moderate 1.8 2.7 20.3 15-40 35,395.4 and Impaired 297 Impaired Slight 0.4 2.7 3.4 0-15 5,957.0 298 Impaired Moderate 1.8 2.7 20.3 15-40 7,232.2 Inherently 299 Severe 3.3 2.7 37.1 40-80 1,915.3 Unstable 603 Impaired Moderate 0.3 1.8 2.7 0-15 2,128.8 604 Impaired Severe 0.9 1.8 16.8 15-40 1,171.7 605 Satisfactory Slight 0.1 0.9 0.9 0-15 1,407.1 606 Satisfactory Severe 0.7 0.9 5.6 15-40 615.9 612 Impaired Severe 0.8 1.8 27.3 15-40 542.0 613 Satisfactory Moderate 0.3 1.8 3.3 0-15 2,035.0 and Impaired 614 Satisfactory Severe 0.9 1.8 20.9 15-40 2,966.5 and Impaired

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

MAP SOIL EROSION CURRENT TOLERANCE POTENTIAL SLOPE ACRES UNIT CONDITION HAZARD EROSION EROSION EROSION (%) RATE RATE RATE TONS/AC/YR TONS/AC/YR TONS/AC/YR 615 Satisfactory Moderate 0.3 1.8 3.3 0-15 128.8 618 Satisfactory Not modeled ------15-40 227.3 619 Satisfactory Moderate 0.4 2.7 4.3 0-15 8,684.5 and Impaired 620 Satisfactory Moderate 2.0 1.8 14.4 15-40 4,701.5 and Impaired Inherently 621 Severe 3.7 1.8 12.3 40-80 6,493.7 Unstable 622 Satisfactory Moderate 0.2 1.8 4.3 0-15 2,682.0 and Impaired 623 Satisfactory Moderate 0.4 2.7 4.3 0-15 33,082.6 and Impaired 624 Satisfactory Severe 1.9 2.7 34.4 15-40 46,451.1 and Impaired 625 Impaired Severe 1.5 2.7 65.8 40-120 10,910.3 626 Satisfactory Severe 1.7 2.7 19.4 15-40 15,956.3 and Impaired 627 Impaired Severe 0.6 2.7 25.1 40-120 2,001.3 628 Satisfactory Not modeled ------0-15 1,439.6 629 Satisfactory Not modeled ------15-40 775.5 631 Impaired Slight 0.3 1.8 0.9 0-15 2,384.3 Satisfactory 633 and Severe 3.0 1.8 8.5 15-40 1,632.7 Unsatisfactory 634 Impaired Moderate 2.4 2.7 4.6 0-15 6,261.3 636 Impaired Slight 1.2 2.7 2.1 0-15 1,719.2 637 Impaired Slight 0.7 1.8 1.4 0-15 1,279.0 641 Satisfactory Moderate 0.3 2.7 3.5 0-15 8,547.1 and Impaired 642 Impaired Slight 0.5 2.7 2.3 0-15 669.7 643 Impaired Severe 2.7 1.8 29.3 15-40 137.7 644 Impaired Moderate 0.8 2.7 3.8 0-15 4,903.2 645 Unsatisfactory Severe 9.5 1.8 29.7 40-80 89.2 655 Satisfactory Moderate 1.1 2.7 3.5 0-15 826.4 672 Impaired Moderate 0.9 2.7 2.9 0-15 7,868.5 673 Impaired Not modeled ------15-40 4,263.9 681 Impaired Severe 1.1 2.7 35.0 40-80 912.3

Hydrologic Soil Groups

Soils are classified into hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) to indicate the minimum rate of infiltration and runoff potential obtained for bare soil after prolonged wetting. This information is important to project

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

and watershed planning since runoff determines, to a large extent, the flood hazard, the character and amount of stream flow, and the hazard of erosion from rainwater and snowmelt. The HSG designations are A, B, C and D, and are defined by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as follows: Group A soils have low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. They consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission (greater than 0.30 in/hr). Group B soils have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission (0.15-0.30 in/hr). Group C soils have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils have a low rate of water transmission (0.05-0.15 in/hr). Group D soils have high runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very low rate of water transmission (0-0.05 in/hr). Table 7 below lists the HSGs for soils that occur within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area and their associated acreages. For the analysis area, approximately 8 percent (34,816 acres) are in hydrologic soils group B; 57 percent (246,834 acres) are in hydrologic soils group C; and 35 percent (154,153 acres) are in hydrologic soils group D. Figure 3 displays the location and extent of soils by their associated hydrologic soils groups.

Table 7. Hydrologic Soil Groups and associated acreages for the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are approximate). HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TES MAP UNIT ACRES

A None 0.0 B 005 3,007.1 009 1,282.9 017 1,763.6 023 787.1 032 1,219.1 154 258.4 156 3,721.0 281 250.2 299 1,915.3 626 15,956.3 628 1439.6 636 1719.2 642 669.7 655 826.4 Total (B) 34,815.8 C 015 3.3 293 48343.7 294 35395.4 297 5957.0 298 7232.2 603 2128.8

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TES MAP UNIT ACRES

C (cont’d) 604 1,171.7 613 2,035.0 614 2,966.5 615 128.8 618 227.3 619 8,684.5 621 6,493.7 623 33,082.6 624 46,451.1 625 10,910.3 627 2,001.3 629 775.5 634 6,261.3 641 8,547.1 644 4,903.2 645 89.2 672 7,868.5 673 4,263.9 681 912.3 Total (C) 246,834.2 D 035 607.6 250 12,772.5 251 25,465.2 252 32,341.2 263 16,501.4 264 10,158.7 271 6,861.4 272 9,150.2 273 18,964.0 274 5,948.4 605 1,407.1 606 615.9 612 542.0 620 4,701.5 622 2,682.0 631 2,384.3 633 1,632.7 637 1,279.0 643 137.7 Total (D) 154,152.7

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 9. Hydrologic Soil Groups of TES map units in the Kane Ranch Allotments Analysis Area.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Vegetative Ground Cover

Vegetative ground cover is important for protecting soil surfaces from erosion and invasion by noxious weeds. The TES includes values for vegetative ground cover for each TES mapping unit. These values include both vegetation basal area and litter. Table 8 below lists vegetative ground cover and associated acreages for each TES mapping unit in the proposed project area.

Table 8. Estimated percent vegetative ground cover, litter, and percent total effective ground cover within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are approximate). MAP CURRENT CURRENT TOLERANCE NATURAL VEGETATIVE UNIT VEGETATION LITTER VEGETATIVE COVER COVER (%) (%) (%) (%) 005 40 30 18 95 009 50 35 12 90 015 10 5 10 50 017 20 10 10 55 023 20 10 15 55 032 10 10 5 45 035 60 40 10 95 154 30 15 50 40 156 70 15 65 60 250 15 15 5 50 251 12 10 50 50 252 10 8 45 50 263 8 8 5 30 264 20 17 45 55 271 50 45 70 75 272 15 15 10 65 273 30 25 30 60 274 10 9 15 35 281 20 17 5 55 293 55 53 5 85 294 60 53 51 85 297 65 63 5 80 298 60 50 50 80 299 60 64 65 70 603 70 60 25 80 604 70 60 55 80 605 50 20 0 60 606 50 20 45 60 612 80 25 65 80 613 70 58 15 80 614 75 58 60 80 615 70 58 15 80 618 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 619 60 58 10 85 620 50 49 50 60 621 30 29 50 50 622 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 51

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

MAP CURRENT CURRENT TOLERANCE NATURAL VEGETATIVE UNIT VEGETATION LITTER VEGETATIVE COVER COVER (%) (%) (%) (%) 623 60 58 10 85 624 70 47 65 85 625 85 39 75 85 626 60 53 50 85 627 85 84 53 85 628 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 629 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 631 30 20 0 85 633 20 14 35 50 634 10 7 5 55 636 10 5 0 50 637 10 11 0 50 641 60 58 5 90 642 40 39 0 80 643 30 10 0 65 644 40 38 5 65 645 20 15 60 60 655 30 25 8 70 672 30 21 2 60 673 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 681 80 77 65 85

Soil Organisms

Knowledge of specific fungal, bacterial, and arthropod populations is not available for analysis in this project. Biological soil crusts, commonly found in arid or semi-arid environments (USDA NRCS 1997) are known to exist in the Kane Ranch Allotment. Cryptogamic crusts have been identified in the same ecosystems as those found in the analysis area, including mixed conifer forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands (Beymer and Klopatek 1992). Figures 10 and 11 below illustrate the characteristics of biological soil crusts found on TES map unit 632. Biological soil crusts are common on arid, sandy soils with high gravel content.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 10. Biological soil crust community found on TES map unit 632.

Figure 11. Closeup view of biological soil crusts on TES map unit 632 in the Kane Ranch Allotment. 53

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

In arid and semi-arid native vegetation communities, plants often exhibit patchy distributions that result in discontinuous fuel conditions and mosaics of fire intensities (Whisenant 1990). Biological soil crusts do not provide adequate fuel to carry a fire through interspaces, thereby serving as “refugia” to decrease the spread of fire and its intensity (Rosentreter 1986). The remaining unburned islands of vascular vegetation and biological soil crust provide propagules for reestablishment in burned areas. Johansen et al. (1993) observed that the structural matrix of soil biological crusts remained intact following low- intensity fire, indicating that lightly burned crusts still function to provide stability against erosive forces.

Populations of other soil organisms include mycorrhizal fungi, soil-dwelling arthropods, gastropods, nematodes and bacteria. All of these types of organisms are expected to occur in soils throughout the Kane Ranch Allotments.

Revegetation Potential

Revegetation potential refers to the probable success and ease in the establishment of native grasses. This potential rating is influenced by climate, soil characteristics, and slope. The rating system is based on use of a rangeland drill, broadcast seeder (hand held), and aerial seeding with no consideration for site preparation (removal of trees, etc.).

A low or moderate rating alerts the land manager to potential limitations for successful artificial revegetation of an area. Soils associated with a "high" rating offer the best opportunity for success. The udic/frigid combination offers the optimum soil climate for establishment of vegetation. Conversely, the aridic/thermic combination offers the most limiting soil climate for the establishment of vegetation. For the project area, Table 9 below displays the artificial revegetation potential. It is important to note that these potentials correspond to no site preparation or removal of trees. It is very likely that natural revegetation potentials would be higher than these values following vegetation treatments since soil moisture and light penetration to the forest floor would be increased. Practices that minimize soil disturbance such as churning of soil profiles would preserve native seed banks, thus improving natural revegetation.

Table 9. Revegetation potential within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area (Brewer et al.1991). (acres area approximate). REVEGETATION POTENTIAL MAP UNIT SYMBOL ACRES High 005 3,007.1 009 1,282.9 281 250.2 603 2,128.8 604 1,171.7 655 826.4 High Total 8667.1 Moderate 017 1,763.6 023 787.1 032 1,219.1 250 12,772.5 264 10,158.7 54

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

REVEGETATION POTENTIAL MAP UNIT SYMBOL ACRES Moderate (cont’d) 272 9,150.2 273 18,964.0 293 48,343.7 294 35,395.4 297 5,957.0 298 7,232.2 613 2,035.0 614 2,966.5 615 128.8 619 8,684.5 623 33,082.6 624 46,451.1 634 6,261.3 636 1,719.2 644 4,903.2 672 7,868.5 673 4,263.9 Moderate Total 270,108.1 Low 015 3.3 035 607.6 154 258.4 156 3,721.0 251 25,465.2 252 32,341.2 263 16,501.4 271 6,861.4 274 5,948.4 299 1,915.3 605 1,407.1 606 615.9 612 542.0 620 4,701.5 621 6,493.7 622 2,682.0 625 10,910.3 626 15,956.3 627 2,001.3 628 1,439.6 629 775.5 631 2,384.3 633 1,632.7 637 1,279.0 641 8,547.1 643 137.7 645 89.2 681 912.3 Low Total 156,130.7 Grand Total 435,802.7 55

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Roads

Currently, National Forest System roads within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area occupy approximately 2,895 miles or 4,210 acres based on an average road width of 12 feet. In addition to National Forest System, non-system roads occur within the analysis area. Most of these roads are the result of indiscriminate, unauthorized route proliferation caused by dispersed camping, hunting, fuelwood gathering, and similar activities. The North Kaibab Ranger District recently issued a Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the North Kaibab Ranger District Travel Management Project, which was upheld by the regional office following an appeal. If implemented, The selected alternative would result in a designated road system on the NKRD of approximately 1,476 miles of roads open to motor vehicle use by the public, including the 16 miles of short road segments to be added. Thirty-nine miles of road (not included in the total miles mentioned above) will be restricted to administrative use only and closed to the public except by permit, allowing limited use for administrative purposes such as continued administration of range permits and timber sale contracts. Approximately 337 miles of existing NFS road will be closed.

Forest roads are classified by Maintenance Levels (ML) in accordance with Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.58,10,12.3. Maintenance levels are defined by the FSH as the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with road management objectives, and maintenance criteria. The following criteria are considered when selecting road maintenance levels: a. Resource program needs, environmental and resource protection requirements, visual quality objectives, and recreation opportunity spectrum classes. b. Road investment protection requirements. c. Service life and current operational status. d. User safety. e. Volume, type, class, and composition of traffic. f. Surface type. g. Travel speed. h. User comfort and convenience. i. Functional classification. j. Traffic service level.

All roads within the Kane Ranch Allotments area are classified as Maintenance level 1, 2, 3, or 4. Maintenance level 1 roads are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year.

Basic custodial maintenance of roads is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate.” Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for nonmotorized uses. There are approximately 20 miles of ML-1 roads within the project area. Maintenance level 1 roads have the following attributes: • Vehicular traffic is eliminated, including administrative traffic. 56

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

• Physically blocked or entrance is disguised. • Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act. • Maintenance is done only to minimize resource impacts. • No maintenance other than a condition survey may be required so long as no potential exists for resource damage.

Maintenance level 2 roads are open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log hauling may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles. Maintenance level 2 roads have the following attributes: • Roads have low traffic volume and low speed. • Typically local roads. • Typically connect collectors or other local roads. • Dips are the preferred drainage treatment. • Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act. • Surface smoothness is not a consideration. • Not suitable for passenger cars.

Maintenance level 3 roads are open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard passenger cars. User comfort and convenience are low priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts, and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users. Maintenance level 3 roads have the following attributes: • Subject to the requirements of Highway Safety Act and MUTCD. • Roads have low- to moderate-traffic volume. • Typically connect to arterial and collectors roads. • A combination of dips and culverts provide drainage. • May include some dispersed recreation roads. • Potholing or washboarding may occur.

Maintenance Level 4 roads provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage." However, the "prohibit" strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times. (FSH 7709.58, 12.3). Maintenance level 4 roads have the following attributes: • Subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and MUTCD. • Roads have moderate traffic volume and speeds. • May connect to county roads. • Culverts provide drainage. • Usually a collector. • May include some developed recreation roads.

System roads convert productive soils to an essentially non-productive condition in the long-term (i.e., greater than fifty years). Most of the precipitation that falls on the compacted surfaces becomes surface 57

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report runoff. Implementation of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) as outlined in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 during road construction and maintenance activities facilitates road drying, redirects surface runoff onto undisturbed areas of the forest floor, and prevents runoff from entering watercourses.

WATER RESOURCES

Watersheds

The Kane Ranch Allotments occupy portions of 38 sixth-level (HUC12) hydrologic units or subwatersheds as shown in Table 10. A watershed condition assessment was conducted in 2010 for all subwatersheds in the project area as part of a Forest-level assessment of watershed condition. This assessment is used to: 1) prioritize watersheds for restoration, 2) identify specific on-the-ground activities and the associated costs to maintain or improve watershed condition, and 3) manage the data appropriately. Watershed conditions for the subwatersheds in the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area were classified using a core set of national watershed condition indicators that were updated with local data and interpreted by Forest interdisciplinary (ID) teams. These indicators were grouped according to four major ecosystem process categories: (1) aquatic physical; (2) aquatic biological; (3) terrestrial physical; and (4) terrestrial biological. These categories represent terrestrial, riparian, and riverine ecosystem processes or mechanisms by which management actions can affect the condition of watersheds and associated resources. Each indicator was evaluated using a defined set of attributes whereby each attribute was scored by the Forest interdisciplinary team as GOOD (1), FAIR (2), or POOR (3) using written criteria and rule sets and the best available data and professional judgment. Attribute scores for each indicator were summed and averaged to produce an overall indicator score. The indicator scores for each ecosystem process category were then averaged to arrive at a process category score. The overall watershed condition score is computed as a weighted average of the four process category scores based on the relative contribution that each process category provides toward watershed condition. The watershed condition scores are tracked to one decimal point and reported as Watershed Condition Classes 1, 2, or 3. Class 1 scores are from 1 to 1.6 and represent good, or properly functioning condition; class 2 scores are from 1.7-2.2 and represent fair or functioning at risk condition, and class 3 scores are from 2.3-3.0 and represent poor or impaired function condition (Potyondy and Geier, 2011).

Twelve core watershed condition indicators were evaluated for the watersheds in the project area. Aquatic physical indicators included: 1) water quality condition, 2) water quantity (flow regime) condition, and 3) stream and habitat condition. Aquatic biological indicators included: 4) aquatic biota condition and 5) riparian vegetation condition. Terrestrial physical indicators included: 6) road and trail condition, and 7) soil condition. Terrestrial biological indicators included: 8) fire effect and regime condition, 9) forest cover condition, 10) rangeland, grassland and open area condition, 11) terrestrial non-native invasive species condition, and 12) forest health condition. A summary of watershed conditions for the all watersheds in the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area is included in Table 11 and Figure 12.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 10. Subwatershed (HUC12) names, hydrologic unit codes, condition ratings, total watershed acreages, and watershed acreages occupied by Kane Ranch Allotments. WATERSHED NAME HYDROLOGIC CONDITION WATERSHED PROJECT UNIT CODE RATING ACRES AREA (HUC12) ACRES Bright Angel Creek 150100010608 1.0 24,226.0 6.2 Buck Farm Canyon- Colorado River 150100010504 2.0 21,279.6 1,262.3 Cane Canyon 150100010106 2.0 33,873.2 19,460.4 Castle Canyon 150100010106 2.0 11,184.6 11,170.5 Chamberlain Canyon-Kanab Creek 150100031004 2.0 38,346.2 1,744.7 Deer Creek 150100020206 1.0 10,797.4 1,674.7 Fence Canyon 150100010405 1.0 18,327.0 8,829.3 Flint Creek 150100020106 1.0 16,621.5 1,122.9 House Rock Canyon-House Rock Wash 150100010103 2.0 33,047.9 663.6 Hundred and Forty Mile Canyon-Colorado River 150100020207 1.0 25,004.7 5.7 Indian Hollow 150100031002 2.0 32,706.5 27,245.6 Jacob Canyon 150100030406 2.0 32,448.3 408.1 Jumpup Canyon 150100031003 2.0 36,919.8 29,817.0 Little Spring Canyon-Kanab Creek 150100030906 2.0 20,748.3 11,269.2 Lookout Lakes 150100030702 2.0 38,761.2 38,716.3 Lower North Canyon Wash 150100010205 1.0 28,614.4 417.5 Middle North Canyon Wash 150100010204 1.0 17,124.4 8,458.7 Moquitch Canyon 150100010204 2.0 16,296.4 16,275.2 Nail Canyon 150100030705 2.0 17,625.5 17,132.4 Nankoweap Creek 150100010505 1.0 20,936.6 16.8 Pasture Canyon 150100010102 1.0 23,319.9 11,875.0 Pigeon Canyon-Snake Gulch 150100030707 2.0 40,164.1 18,312.5 Pleasant Valley Outlet 150100010203 2.0 16,235.1 14,038.6 Rock Canyon 150100010104 2.0 24,761.8 20,432.7 Rock Canyon 150100030205 2.0 66,690.8 9565.7 Saddle Canyon 150100020203 2.0 25,637.4 14,966.5 Saddle Canyon-Colorado River 150100010506 1.0 20,977.5 219.0 Seegmiller Canyon-House Rock Wash 150100010107 1.0 24,313.3 3,702.4 Shinumo Creek (Local Drainage) 150100020108 2.0 29,028.9 4,017.1 Slide Canyon 150100030706 2.0 25,906.4 25,036.5 South Canyon 150100010406 2.0 28,878.7 5,124.9 Sowats Canyon 150100031001 2.0 39,609.0 33,220.5 Tapeats Creek 150100020204 2.0 27,839.1 15,060.7 Tater Canyon 150100010201 2.0 23,222.7 22,649.3

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

WATERSHED NAME HYDROLOGIC CONDITION WATERSHED PROJECT UNIT CODE RATING ACRES AREA (HUC12) ACRES The Transept 150100010606 1.0 19,338.9 230.9 Trail Canyon 150100010101 2.0 11,619.6 3,560.0 Upper North Canyon Wash 150100010202 2.0 15,679.0 14,013.6 Warm Springs Canyon 150100030704 2.0 29,435.1 24,138.2 Total 962,785.1 435,861.2

Table 11 below provides a summary by watershed of indicator ratings that resulted in the corresponding watershed condition rating found in Table 10.

Table 11. Watrshed condition indicator summary for watersheds that occur in the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area. Subwatershed Watershed Condition Summary Name Bright Angel Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many Wash roads near water courses; high risk of insect and disease. Buck Farm Moderate to high burn severity - Outlet Fire 2000; fire regime departed from Canyon-Colorado reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many roads River near water courses. Cane Canyon Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (3 springs; 109 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance. Castle Canyon Fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high insect and disease risk. Chamberlain Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas Canyon-Kanab (2 springs and 308 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from Creek reference condition; low road maintenance. Deer Creek Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance. Fence Canyon Low road maintenance. Flint Creek Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; high insect and disease risk. Gann Tank Low road maintenance; many roads near water courses. Garden Tank- Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; low road maintenance; cinder pits and Partridge Creek quarries. Garland Prairie Reduced flows to springs (5 springs); high road density; low road maintenance; septic systems present; many tanks; 8 wells present. Government Reduced flows to springs (2 springs); high road density; low road maintenance; Prairie septic systems present; many tanks and 1 well present; high insect and disease risk. Hancock Spring- Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; low road maintenance. House Rock Wash Heather Wash Low road maintenance; many roads near water courses. (Local Drainage) 60

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Subwatershed Watershed Condition Summary Name Hidden Lake Moderate to high burn severity - Hidden Fire 2001; low road maintenance. House Rock Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; fire regime departed from reference Canyon-House condition; low road maintenance. Rock Wash Indian Hollow Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (4 springs; 4 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present. Jacob Canyon Fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks and 1 well present. Jumpup Canyon Moderate to high burn severity - Bridger Knoll Fire 1996; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (4 springs; 73 acres of riparian habitat; fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high noxious weeds infestation (Scotch thistle) Little Spring Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas Canyon-Kanab (3 springs; 509 acres of riparian habitat; fire regime departed from reference Creek condition; low road maintenance; many roads near water courses. Lookout Lakes Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (3 springs and 30 acres of riparian habitat); high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high insect and disease risk. Lower North Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many Canyon Wash roads near water courses. Middle North Low road maintenance. Canyon Wash Moquitch Moderate to high burn severity - Warm Fire 2006; Reduced flows to springs Canyon and riparian areas (1 spring and 8 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present. Nail Canyon Moderate to high burn severity - Warm Fire 2006; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (10 springs; 24 acres of riparian habitat; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high noxious weed infestation (cheatgrass). Pasture Canyon Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; high insect and disease risk. Pigeon Canyon- Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (7 springs; 183 ac. of riparian Snake Gulch habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance. Pleasant Valley High road density. Outlet Rock Canyon Moderate to high burn severity - Warm Fire 2006; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (2 springs and 35 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Subwatershed Watershed Condition Summary Name Rock Canyon Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high insect and disease risk. Saddle Canyon Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (5 springs); fire regime departed from reference condition.; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present. Saddle Canyon- Moderate to high burn severity - Outlet Fire 2000; low road maintenance; Colorado River septic systems present. Seegmiller Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; fire regime departed from reference Canyon-House condition; low road maintenance. Rock Wash Shinumo Creek Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance. (Local Drainage) Slide Canyon Moderate to high burn severity - Bridger Knoll Fire 1996; Slide Fire 2007; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (4 springs; 84 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; high noxious weeds infestation. South Canyon Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance. Sowats Canyon Moderate to high burn severity - Bridger Knoll Fire 1996; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (15 springs; 129 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present; Tapeats Creek Reduced flows to springs (7 springs); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present. Tater Canyon Moderate to high burn severity - Point Fire 1993; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (3 springs; 15 acres of riparian habitat); high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks; 1 well. Trail Canyon Moderate to high burn severity - Warm Fire 2006; fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present. Upper North Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (3 springs; 34 acres of riparian Canyon Wash habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance. Warm Springs Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (2 springs; 17 acres of riparian Canyon habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; many tanks present.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 12. Subwatershed conditions for the Kane Ranch Allotments. 63

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Streamcourses

The Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area has a dendritic drainage pattern dominated by ephemeral and intermittent drainages. The majority of drainages have medium to low gradient channel characteristics, although some high gradient channels exist as canyon headwaters or initiating from the upper slopes of steep hills and knolls. Approximately 1,658 miles of streamcourses occur within the analysis area, with only North Canyon Wash and headwater canyons of Kanab Creek having riparian reaches. The only perennial stream reach within the Kane Ranch Allotments is located in the Upper North Canyon Wash subwatershed (HUC12) of the North Canyon Wash watershed (HUC10) of the Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon sub-basin (HUC8). The historic flow ranged from one to six miles, depending on precipitation, before becoming subsurface flow. Current riparian conditions are thought to be near historic conditions with a wide variety of riparian species present.

The Forest Service, in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department completed repair and replacement of log drop and other fish habitat structures in North Canyon Creek in 2010. This project has helped protect a genetically pure population of Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apache) by rehabilitating pools that provide winter habitat and refugia in times of stream dewatering from limited precipitation. The project was completed in the lower to mid portion of North Canyon Creek below North Canyon Spring in the Saddle Mountain Wilderness. This stream channel is currently classified in good condition and is not diverted for other uses. A list of stream reaches with associated reach codes and lengths are included in the project record.

Wetlands and Springs

There are 246 livestock ponds, reservoirs, and natural waters within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area that impound water for a sufficient duration to support livestock and wildlife needs. Some waterbodies impound water for sufficient duration to exhibit wetland characteristics or support hydrophytic vegetation. It should be understood that the majority of water resources within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area are excavated, diked, or otherwise impounded bodies of water that were initially developed for the purpose of providing water for domestic livestock and wildlife. They were not intended to serve as functioning wetland habitats, and most do not. A list of natural and developed waters in the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area and available condition information are included in Tables 1 through 3 of Appendix B.

There are at least one hundred eighteen natural springs or seeps known to occur on the allotments. Comprehensive spring ecosystems inventories and surveys using the Spring Ecosystem Assessment Protocol (SEAP) (Stevens et al. 2012) have been completed on the North Kaibab Ranger District by researchers from the Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA), Spring Stewardship Institute (SSI), and Northern Arizona University (NAU). Many of these recent springs inventories and assessments have been conducted for the primary purpose of informing the KNF Land and Resource Management Plan revision process. An additional benefit of these springs inventories and assessments is these data can now be used to guide management and restoration efforts into the future and provide a baseline from which to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration efforts. At least forty of the springs on the Kane Ranch Allotments are in pristine condition, with no evidence of livestock use. This is generally due to steep terrain or dense forest vegetation that precludes access by livestock. Forty-seven springs occur in the Kanab Creek Allotment, of which twenty-seven are in pristine condition due to inaccessibility to 64

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report livestock. There are at least 22 additional springs throughout the allotments that are inaccessible to livestock due to exclosure fencing, steep terrain, or dense forest vegetation, but have been developed to provide water for livestock and human use (i.e., spring flow has been captured and diverted to troughs, tanks, or other offsite locations). Approximately 12 springs have been adversely affected by livestock and wildlife grazing, browsing, and trampling due to exclosure fences that are in disrepair or lack of exclosure fencing altogether. Additional known and unknown seeps and springs are likely to occur across the allotments that may have no to minimal livestock access.

Spring Restoration

The following spring improvement projects are recommended to restore full or partial natural flow and riparian vegetation. Existing spring improvements will be removed where human and livestock improvements are no longer necessary. Fences will be built, removed, or modified to best protect the spring while still providing water to livestock and wildlife where necessary. Most of this work will likely be done with volunteers and grant funding. The following are specific spring restoration/improvement recommendations:

• Acer Unnamed Spring – (Kanab Creek Wilderness). Remove old spring box to restore more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Big Spring – (Forest Service Big Springs Adiminstrative Site). Construct a small stepping stone trail to the spring source area to reduce erosion. Increase the area of riparian habitat at the base of the slope by increasing channel width and sinuosity. • Castle Spring – (one mile south of Big Spring in cattle exclosure area). Adjust and remove current fencing to better protect site. Alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Locust Spring – (South Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Mangum Spring – (North Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Mangum Springs 1 – (North Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow for more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. Construct a trail of stepping-stones to the source to reduce site erosion. • Mangum Springs 7 – (North Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove existing pipeline system to allow more natural spring flow and to enhance riparian vegetation. • Oquer Spring – (South Summer Pasture). Remove spring box and old fencing to restore the site to a wet meadow. Add fencing around spring source if needed. • Pasture Spring – (Southwest Summer Pasture). If possible, alter or remove, pipe and drinker system or to maximize riparian vegetation while maintaining drinker water. Fence the spring source to enhance riparian vegetation. • Pigeon Spring – (Snake Gulch, Kanab Creek Wilderness) Remove all piping, troughs, and fencing to improve open water riparian habitat. • Table Rock Spring – (Snake Gulch, Kanab Creek Wilderness). No changes to current management because it would take a massive effort to undue a higher impacted historic 65

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

livestock/human use water source. It also makes sense to leave this watering site for packhorses and human consumption in this dry gulch. • Watts Spring – (South Summer Pasture). Fence the hillslope spring source to enhance the native riparian vegetation.

Water Quality

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

Arizona's most recent Integrated Report (305(b) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) list) is available from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The Arizona Impaired Waters List can be found at: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/2008/2006_2008.pdf

Water quality data are available for many of the perennial and intermittent flowing springs in the Kane Ranch Allotments. These data were collected by the SSI during recent spring assessments. Surface water quality data for springs that were inventoried and assessed using the SEAP protocol are included in the project record and as hyperlinks in Table 4 of Appendix B.

As previously noted, North Canyon Wash is one of two perennial streams on the NKRD, and it provides habitat for the threatened Apache trout. Water quality monitoring in North Canyon Wash includes an aquatic ecosystem inventory and analysis of North Canyon Creek, completed in 1990, and water quality data for three springs (Upper, Middle, and Lower) in North Canyon Wash. The aquatic ecosystem inventory included sampling macroinvertebrates, measuring physical stream characteristics and collecting water quality parameters. The results of the inventory and analysis indicate that North Canyon Creek is in good condition with regard to water quality, although sampling indicated that the macroinvertebrate community had low diversity, which could be an indicator of instability in the ecological system. A copy of the Aquatic Ecosystem Survey macroinvertebrate report is included in Appendix B. Springs assessment reports, including water quality data for springs in North Canyon Wash are included in Appendix B. The findings of the springs assessment indicate that water quality was very good and habitat conditions were very good to excellent with few indications of human influence. Since cattle are excluded from the Saddle Mountain Wilderness and the nearest fence is approximately 4 miles from Upper North Canyon Spring, it is very unlikely that livestock grazing in the Central Summer Allotment would adversely affect water quality in the Saddle Mountain Wilderness. The springs that issue in North Canyon Wash are approximately 0.25 miles from the Wilderness boundary.

No water bodies are listed as impaired within the Kane Ranch Allotments or the NKRD on the Arizona 2006/2008 Impaired Waters List.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Flood Zones

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

Since there are no large communities within the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area, there are no designated FEMA flood zones. However, flash flood hazard areas exist within the Allotments. These are generally restricted to stream channels and associated floodplains.

AIR QUALITY The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act identifies two types of national ambient air quality standards. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings (EPA 2008).

EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants. These include carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate pollution, and sulfur dioxide. Units of measure for the standards are parts per million (ppm) by volume, parts per billion (ppb) by volume, and micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3).

The Kane Ranch Allotments are not located within an air quality Non-Attainment Area designated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. The closest Non-Attainment Areas are the Las Vegas, Nevada for ozone and portions of Maricopa County for PM10 and ozone.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7)) requires states to assess and reduce pollutants that cause haze in order to improve visibility in Class I Airsheds, including Grand Canyon National Park and the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area. The Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the State of Arizona from December 23, 2003 states that “road dust is not a measurable contributor on a regional level to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. Due to this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are needed…” The Plan also states that the State of Arizona will “perform further assessments of road dust impacts on visibility. Based on these assessments, if road dust emissions are determined to be a significant contributor to visibility impairment, the State of Arizona commits to implement emissions management strategies…”

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality does not require the Kaibab National Forest to minimize fugitive dust from road use, range improvement construction and maintenance, or grazing allotment management.

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

The U.S. Forest Service Directives System (FSM/FSH): Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks codify the agency’s policy, practice, and procedure. The system serves as the primary basis for the internal management and control of all programs and the primary source of administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) are the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out the direction issued in the FSM. Specialists and technicians are the primary audience of Handbook direction. Handbooks may also incorporate external directives with related USDA and Forest Service directive supplements. Forest Service Manual – Service Wide Issuance Forest Service Manual 2500 – WATERSHED AND AIR MANAGEMENT Region 3 (Southwestern Region): Regional Issuances Forest Service Manual 2504.3 Exhibit 01 Forest Service Manual 2510 - WATERSHED PLANNING Forest Service Manual 2520 - WATERSHED PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT Forest Service Manual 2530 - WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Forest Service Manual 2540 - WATER USES AND DEVELOPMENT Forest Service Manual 2580 - AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Forest Service Handbook – Service Wide Issuance Forest Service Handbook 2500 – Watershed and Air Management Region 3 (Southwestern Region): Regional Issuances 2509.16 - Water Resource Inventory Handbook 2509.21 - National Forest System Water Rights Handbook

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation Handbook 2509.23 - Riparian Area Handbook 2509.24 - National Forest System Watershed Codes Handbook 2509.25 - Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook

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

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

Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (16 U.S.C. at 576b). Specifies that the Secretary may require any purchaser of national forest timber to make deposits of money in addition to the payments for the timber, to cover the cost to the United States of planting, sowing with tree seeds, and cutting, destroying or otherwise removing undesirable trees or other growth, on the national forest land cut over by the purchaser, in order to improve the future stand of timber, or protecting and improving the future productivity of the renewable resources of the forest land on such sale area.

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

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

Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. 611-614). Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to manage the surface resources of unpatented mining claims located under the authority of the 1872 Mining Law as amended, including, but not limited to, reclamation of disturbance caused by locatable mineral activities.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of August 3, 1977: Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with landowners, providing for land stabilization, erosion, and sediment control, and reclamation through conservation treatment, including measures for the conservation and development of soil, water, woodland, wildlife, and recreation resources, and agricultural productivity of such lands. 69

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

U.S. Mining Laws (Public Domain Lands) Act of May 10, 1872 - Provides that all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. There are a number of Acts which modify the mining laws as applied to local areas by prohibiting entry altogether or by limiting or restricting the use which may be made of the surface and the right, title, or interest which may pass through patent.

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

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

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

Water Resources Planning Act of July 22, 1965 - Encourages the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the United States on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal government, states, localities, and private enterprises.

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

Water Quality Improvement Act of April 3, 1970 - Amends the prohibitions of oil discharges, authorizes the President to determine quantities of oil which would be harmful to the public health or welfare of the United States; to publish a National Contingency Plan to provide for coordinated action to minimize damage from oil discharges. Requires performance standards for marine sanitation device and authorizes demonstration projects to control acid or other mine pollution, and to control water pollution within the watersheds of the Great Lakes. Requires that applicants for Federal permits for activities 70

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report involving discharges into navigable waters provide state certification that they will not violate applicable water quality standards

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969: (16 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Declares it is the policy of the Federal Government to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. The Act requires agencies proposing major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, to prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of the proposed action, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, alternatives to the action proposed, the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved if the proposed action is implemented. The Act also provides that for any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, an agency must study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action.

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

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972: Public Law 92-500, as amended in 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4) (also known as the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)): This Act provides the structure for regulating pollutant discharges to waters of the United States. The Act’s objective is “…to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and is aimed at controlling both point and non-point sources of pollution. The U.S. EPA administers the Act, but many permitting, administrative, and enforcement functions are delegated to state governments. In Arizona, the designated agency for enforcement of the Clean Water Act is the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Relevant sections of the Clean Water Act: CWA Sections 208 and 319: recognizes the need for control strategies for non-point source pollution. CWA Section 303(d): requires waterbodies with water quality determined to be either impaired (not fully meeting water quality standards for designated uses) or threatened (likely to violate standards in the near future) to be compiled by ADEQ in a separate list, which must be submitted to EPA every 2 years. These waters are targeted and scheduled for development of water quality improvement strategies on a priority basis. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs): As of May 2006, there were no applicable TMDL requirements in effect for the KNF. CWA Section 305(b): requires that states assess the condition of their waters and produce a biennial report summarizing the findings. CWA Section 401: allows states and tribes to review and approve, set conditions on, or deny Federal permits (such as 404 permits) that may result in a discharge to state or tribal 71

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report waters, including wetlands. Applications for Section 404 permits are often joint 404/401 permits to ensure compliance at both the Federal and state levels. CWA Section 404: outlines the permitting process for dredging or discharging fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers the 404 Program.

Safe Drinking Water Amendments of November 18, 1977: Amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize appropriations for research conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to safe drinking water; Federal grants to states for public water system supervision programs and underground water source protection programs; and grants to assist special studies relating to the provision of a safe supply of drinking water.

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

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

Stewardship End Result Contracting Projects (16 U.S.C. 2104 (note)). Grants the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service ten-year authority to enter into stewardship contracts or agreements to achieve agency land management objectives and meet community needs.

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

Executive Orders relevant to ecological restoration include:

Executive Order 11514: issued March 5, 1970, as amended by E.O. 11991 issued May 24, 1977. Protection and enhancement of environmental quality (35 FR 4247, March 7, 1970). This order states that the Federal Government shall provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's environment to sustain and enrich human life. This order provides for monitoring, evaluation, and control on a continuing basis of the activities of each Federal agency so as to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. 72

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

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

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

33 CFR 323 Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States - This regulation prescribes those special policies, practices and procedures to be followed by the Corps of Engineers in connection with the review of applications for permits to authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

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

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

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

Environmental Consequences ______

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects of an action are caused by the action and occur on site and affect only the area where they occur. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Soil Erosion rates were modeled using the Rangeland Hydrology and Erosion Model (RHEM) web tool. Individual TES map units were modeled to determine the soil loss and sediment yield response under the Proposed Action, Current Management, and No Grazing alternatives. Input parameters included climate station data from CLIGEN, the soil texture class of the upper 4 cm of soil, slope characteristics (i.e., length, shape, and steepness), and cover characteristics (i.e., percent canopy cover, basal area, rock cover, and litter cover).

Table 12 provides a comparative summary of direct and indirect effects to soils and watershed resources by alternative for the Kane Ranch Grazing Allotments Renewal EA. Table 13 provides the RHEM modeled erosion and sediment delivery rates for each TES unit under each alternative. Highlighted map units in Table 13 were not modeled using RHEM as these units all have slopes that exceed 40 percent. These map units would therefore not be grazed by livestock under any of the alternatives in this analysis. It’s important to note that RHEM models sediment delivery rates as though all soil erosion is being delivered to watercourses. Map units 618, 622, 626, 628, and 643 were not modeled as there is insufficient information in the TES to develop model parameters for these map units.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 12. Comparison of direct and indirect effects of each Alternative considered for the Kane Ranch Allotment Management EA. ALTERNATIVES Resource and 1 2 3 Unit of Measure Proposed Action Current Management No Grazing

There would be slightly more soil Soil disturbance levels would remain There would be no livestock grazing on disturbance and displacement on the at current levels as there would be no the Kane Ranch Allotments. There South Kane Trail when cattle are trailed change from current management. would therefore be no soil disturbance from BLM pastures to the Central or displacement resulting from Summer Allotment pastures. If cattle are livestock use. moved using trucks, this disturbance would not occur.

There would be slightly more soil disturbance in the three proposed holding pastures, although cattle are already attracted to these areas and causing minor disturbance.

The proposed fence at the North Summer Pasture along Hwy 67 would improve Soil disturbance / livestock distribution, timing and intensity displacement of grazing by providing more opportunities to control rest and deferment. This would reduce soil disturbance and displacement at the landscape scale. There would be minor, short term soil disturbance and displacement caused by fence installation and maintenance.

Since cattle are not adversely impacting meadows west of Hwy 67, the proposed fence to divide the South Summer Pasture are not expected to change soil disturbance levels in the South Summer pasture.

The initial reduction in the number of 76

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report ALTERNATIVES Resource and 1 2 3 Unit of Measure Proposed Action Current Management No Grazing

livestock would result in less soil disturbance and displacement under this alternative. There is potential for minor increase in Soil erosion rates would remain at Soil erosion would be expected to soil erosion rates on the South Kane Trail current levels as there would be no decline over the long term in areas resulting from livestock trailing. change from current management. currently grazed by livestock. In the Monitoring of the trail and coordination absence of prescribed fire or reduction with the permittee would provide of pinyon and juniper trees, grasslands opportunity to address any observed soil and savannahs that have been invaded erosion. by pinyon and juniper would continue to erode at current rates. Where pinyon Soil erosion Improved livestock distribution, and and juniper continue to encroach on timing, and intensity of grazing through grasslands and savannahs, soil erosion pasture splitting and improved herding rates will increase. practices would minimize soil erosion under this alternative.

The initial reduction in the number of livestock would result in less soil erosion under this alternative. Soil compaction would be expected to Soil compaction would remain at Soil compaction that results from increase slightly on the South Kane Trail current levels under this alternative. permitted grazing management and in the three proposed holding The locations and distributions of soil activities would be eliminated. Over pastures. However, with improved compaction may change over time, but time, existing soil compaction would be flexibility in managing livestock overall rates would remain relatively ameliorated naturally through freeze- Soil compaction distribution, timing, and intensity of constant under Current management. thaw and wetting-drying cycles, grazing, soil compaction would be improved vegetative ground cover, and reduced overall. biological activity (i.e., soil dwelling organisms and fine root development)

Soil nutrient cycling would improve since Soil nutrient cycling would not change Soil nutrient cycling would be expected there would be greater opportunity to under the Current Management to improve over the long term in areas control pasture rest and deferment. alternative. currently grazed by livestock since Soil Nutrient Cycling biomass removal rates would be reduced. Vegetative ground cover and associated litter would be expected to increase over time in grasslands and 77

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report ALTERNATIVES Resource and 1 2 3 Unit of Measure Proposed Action Current Management No Grazing

savannahs. Areas encroached by pinyon and juniper would remain impaired with regard to nutrient cycling due to reduced vegetative ground cover and associated litter. Herbaceous ground cover would improve Continuation of current management Herbaceous ground cover would be since there would be more options would result in no changes to expected to increase in currently grazed available for rest and deferment of herbaceous ground cover. areas. While the rates of wildlife forage Herbaceous ground cover pastures under the Proposed Action. consumption cannot accurately be predicted, wildlife consumption of herbaceous ground cover would continue. Soil organism populations would increase Continuation of current management Soil organism populations would be across the allotments as livestock would result in no change to organism expected to increase due to improved distribution, and timing and intensity of populations. soil microsite conditions (i.e., increased Soil Organisms grazing are better controlled under the vegetative ground cover and litter that proposed rotation system. provides refugia and moisture for soil organisms. Water quality would improve since There would be no changes to water Surface water quality would be livestock use of surface waters would be quality under current management as expected to improve over the long term better controlled and exclosure fences livestock grazing management would since livestock use of surface waters repaired or constructed where the need remain unchanged. within the allotment would be Water quality has been identified. Restoration and discontinued. Wildlife impacts to protection of springs would also surface water quality would continue. contribute to improved water quality in these areas. There are no anticipated changes in water Since there would be no changes in There are no anticipated changes to yield under the proposed action. management under the Current water yield as a result of the No Action Management alternative, there would Alternative. However, due to Water yield be no changes in water yield. elimination of water consumption by domestic livestock, water availability for wildlife would be expected to increase slightly.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report -1 -1 Table 13. Predicted average soil erosion and sediment yield rates under the proposed action, current management, and no grazing. Values are in tons acre yr . Values for total erosion and sediment yield -1 are in tons yr . MAP SOIL SOIL EROSION SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT ACRES TOTAL TOTAL SOIL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT EROSION RATE EROSION YIELD YIELD YIELD SOIL EROSION SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT RATE CURRENT RATE PROPOSED CURRENT NO EROSION CURRENT EROSION YIELD YIELD YIELD PROPOSED MANAGEMENT NO ACTION MANAGEMENT GRAZING PROPOSED MANAGEMENT NO PROPOSED CURRENT NO ACTION GRAZING ACTION GRAZING ACTION MANAGEMENT GRAZING 005 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.05 3,007.1 240.5 270.6 150.4 240.5 270.6 150.4 009 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.03 1,282.9 64.1 64.1 38.5 64.1 64.1 38.5 015 0.40 0.50 0.20 0.40 0.50 0.20 3.3 1.32 1.65 0.66 1.32 1.65 0.66 017 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.11 1,763.6 229.3 264.5 194.0 229.3 264.5 194.0 023 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.10 787.1 94.5 102.3 78.7 94.5 102.3 78.7 032 0.12 0.56 0.34 0.12 0.56 0.34 1,219.1 146.3 682.7 414.5 146.3 682.7 414.5 035 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 607.6 18.2 18.2 12.15 18.2 18.2 12.15 154 258.4 156 3,721.0 250 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.12 12,772.5 1,915.8 2,171.3 1,532.7 1,915.8 2,171.3 1,532.7 251 0.37 0.40 0.29 0.37 0.40 0.29 25,465.2 9,422.1 10,186.1 7,384.9 9,422.1 10,186.1 7,384.9 252 32,341.2 263 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.06 16,501.4 1,155.1 1,485.1 990.1 1,155.1 1,485.1 990.1 264 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.06 10,158.7 1,015.9 1,219.0 609.5 1,015.9 1,219.0 609.5 271 6,861.4 272 0.23 0.29 0.10 0.23 0.29 0.10 9,150.2 2,104.5 2,653.6 915.2 2,104.5 2,653.6 915.2 273 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.04 18,964.0 948.2 1,327.5 758.6 948.2 1,327.5 758.6 274 5,948.4 281 0.25 0.31 0.15 0.25 0.31 0.15 250.2 62.6 77.6 37.5 62.6 77.6 37.5 293 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 48,343.7 966.9 1,450.3 483.4 966.9 1,450.3 483.4 294 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 35,395.4 707.9 1,061.9 707.9 707.9 1,061.9 707.9 297 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.009 0.006 0.003 5,957.0 53.6 35.7 17.9 53.6 35.7 17.9 298 0.01 0.02 0.009 0.01 0.02 0.009 7,232.2 72.3 144.6 65.1 72.3 144.6 65.1 299 1,915.3 603 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 2,128.8 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.2 6.4 4.2 604 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 1,171.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 605 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.005 1,407.1 7.0 9.8 7.0 7.0 9.8 7.0 606 0.012 0.015 0.012 0.012 0.015 0.012 615.9 7.4 9.2 7.4 7.4 9.2 7.4 79

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report MAP SOIL SOIL EROSION SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT ACRES TOTAL TOTAL SOIL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT EROSION RATE EROSION YIELD YIELD YIELD SOIL EROSION SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT RATE CURRENT RATE PROPOSED CURRENT NO EROSION CURRENT EROSION YIELD YIELD YIELD PROPOSED MANAGEMENT NO ACTION MANAGEMENT GRAZING PROPOSED MANAGEMENT NO PROPOSED CURRENT NO ACTION GRAZING ACTION GRAZING ACTION MANAGEMENT GRAZING 612 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 542.0 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 613 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 2,035.0 4.1 6.1 4.1 4.1 6.1 4.1 614 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003 2,966.5 8.9 11.9 11.9 8.9 11.9 11.9 615 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.002 128.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 618 227.3 619 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.002 8,684.5 26.1 43.4 17.4 26.1 43.4 17.4 620 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 4,701.5 47.0 94.0 47.0 47.0 94.0 47.0 621 6,493.7 622 2,682.0 623 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.002 33,082.6 99.3 165.4 66.1 99.3 165.4 66.1 624 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 46,451.1 464.5 929.0 464.5 464.5 929.0 464.5 625 10,910.3 626 15,956.3 627 2,001.3 628 1,439.6 629 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 775.5 31.0 46.5 7.8 31.0 46.5 7.8 631 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 2,384.3 95.4 143.1 23.8 95.4 143.1 23.8 633 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.08 1,632.7 163.3 179.6 130.6 163.3 179.6 130.6 634 0.33 0.35 0.25 0.33 0.35 0.25 6,261.3 2066.1 2191.3 1565.2 2066.1 2191.3 1565.2 636 0.40 0.43 0.33 0.40 0.43 0.33 1,719.2 687.6 739.2 567.3 687.6 739.2 567.3 637 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.8 1,279.0 153.5 166.3 102.3 153.5 166.3 102.3 641 0.005 0.007 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.002 8,547.1 42.7 59.8 17.1 42.7 59.8 17.1 642 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 669.7 26.8 26.8 20.1 26.8 26.8 20.1 643 137.7 644 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 4,903.2 147.1 147.1 98.1 147.1 147.1 98.1 645 89.2 655 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.07 826.4 82.6 90.9 57.8 82.6 90.9 57.8 672 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.05 7,868.5 472.1 550.8 393.4 472.1 550.8 393.4 673 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04 4,263.9 255.8 255.8 170.6 255.8 255.8 170.6 681 912.3 80

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Potential direct effects of livestock grazing to soils and water resources include: • reduction of vegetative canopy cover that protects soil surfaces from raindrop impact and soil particle detachment, • reduction of vegetative ground cover that provides soil stability and prevents entrainment of soil particles in surface runoff, • reduction in the surface litter component that otherwise protects soil surfaces from raindrop impact, contributes to nutrient cycling, improves soil moisture retention, and provides habitat/refugia for soil organisms. • Increased bare mineral soil that is subject to raindrop impact • Soil compaction and displacement • degradation of surface water quality in livestock and wildlife waters • destabilization of ephemeral and intermittent streambanks

Potential indirect effects of livestock grazing to soils and water resources include: • loss of long term soil productivity • degradation of downstream surface water quality through increased sediment delivery to streamcourses and water bodies and increased nutrient concentrations in surface waters

Under the Proposed Action, conservative utilization (i.e., 30-40 percent) would be implemented across the three Kane Ranch Allotments. While this represents an increase in utilization of each pasture in the Allotments, it would continue to be a conservative level of use and is based on utilization of grasses and forbs, and not browse species. This alternative incorporates adaptive management through AUM utilization limits, pasture duration of use limits, limits to the number of livestock in a given pasture, and research to inform future management actions. Although utilization above conservative use would be allowed for restoration research purposes, the stocking rate has been established to ensure conservative use during years of below-average moisture. This alternative also provides improved flexibility in adaptive management of grazing resources to changes in resource conditions beyond those caused by livestock grazing. As a result, adverse impacts to soils and watershed resources would be minimized under the Proposed Action.

Since the Proposed Action provides flexibility that limits livestock as a vector for introduction or relocation of invasive or noxious weeds, particularly cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), it provides better protection of native plant communities that are important for maintaining soil productivity. Native plant communities contribute to improved soil ecological function through perennial rooted vegetation that improve soil stability, provide habitat/refugia for native soil organisms, and improve nutrient cycling. Soil stability has a direct relationship with sediment delivery to streamcourses and waterbodies.

The Proposed Action would improve rest and deferment options for the Central Summer and Kane Allotments through installation of a fence along Highway 67 that would divide the North Summer pasture into the Northwest and Northeast pastures. This action would prevent cattle from congregating in the northwest portion of the North Pasture as they currently do. Soil disturbance and compaction caused by livestock trampling would be reduced. Also, reduction of vegetative cover through intensive grazing would be minimized. As a result, soil conditions would likely improve in the North Pasture.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Since livestock already congregate throughout the grazing season in areas where holding pastures are proposed, improvement in soils and watershed resources are expected since holding pasture fences would serve as exclosures for most of the year, except during pasture moves.

Dividing the North Pasture and installing holding pastures would improve the permittee’s ability to implement pasture moves in a timely manner, thereby minimizing the actual AUM’s utilized in each pasture. By minimizing AUMs used on a per-pasture basis, vegetative ground cover is expected to improve over time.

Prior to 1998, the stocking level of the Central Summer Allotment was approximately 1,100 head of cattle with a static vegetation trend. The proposed stocking rate under this alternative is initially 600 head, with an option to increase livestock numbers to 1,000 if vegetation conditions improve. If vegetation trends remain static, then the stocking rate would remain at 600. Livestock numbers may be reduced if a declining trend is observed. This adaptive management approach would ensure that soils and watershed resources are not subject to degradation as a result of livestock grazing.

Further improvement of soils and watershed resources would be realized as a result of the additional pasture in the Central Summer Allotment. Currently, with only two pastures, a multi-year rest for one pasture means the other must be grazed for multiple seasons. The Proposed Action would allow a pasture to be grazed while the remaining two pastures are either rested or placed in deferment system. There would therefore be no long term reduction of soil vegetative cover in the Central Summer Allotment under this alternative. The Proposed Action further ensures that stocking and utilization levels in the Central Summer Allotment are based on rangeland ecological trends and conditions.

The only notable change from Current Management in the Kane Allotment would be the added option of using the Kane Trail for moving livestock. The Kane Trail would be used for a few days in late spring for moving livestock to their summer range. The Trail is currently in a somewhat compacted condition with sparse vegetative cover, so adverse effects to the trail would be minimal. Monitoring and coordination with the permittee would ensure that any observed increase in soil displacement, erosion, or sediment delivery to ephemeral drainages could be addressed in a timely manner through implementation of BMPs and SWCPs to protect soil resources and surface water quality.

Excluding livestock from Bear, Cougar, Indian, and Wall Lakes would improve water quality and increase riparian vegetation in transition zones around these lakes

Restoring and protecting springs would improve water quality and ecosystem function of the springs proposed for protection and restoration.

The Proposed Action provides an opportunity to improve soils and watershed resources within the Kane Ranch Allotments in a manner that is compatible with grazing use. It also meets the purpose and need of maintaining and/or improving vegetation, soil, and water resources conditions within the Kane Ranch Allotments. Improved soil conditions lead to improved watershed conditions, and thus this alternative would move towards the Forest Plan guidance of improving watershed condition by 2020 at a faster rate than the other alternatives, although, if drought conditions persist or increase, such improvement may not be fully attained by 2020.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Alternative 2 – Current Management

Potential direct and indirect effects to soils and watershed resources would be the same as those outlined for the Proposed Action. The Current Management alternative would continue the same management strategy implemented in 2001. Soils and watershed conditions would therefore be expected to remain static under this alternative. Under Current Management, there would be no research to guide future management decisions toward improving rangeland ecological conditions. Management practices intended to improve rangeland conditions through multi-year pasture rests that improve vegetative cover, controlling invasive cheatgrass that damages soils and watershed resources through increased fire frequency, and improved understanding of the most appropriate timing, frequency, and distribution of livestock grazing necessary to improve vegetation, soils and watershed resources would not occur under Current Management.

Water quality and riparian habitats would remain static or improve only slightly under Current Management. Proposed livestock exclosures for Bear, Cougar, Indian, and Wall Lakes would not be constructed under Current Management.

In the absence of active herding, livestock would likely continue to congregate in preferred areas of the Central Summer Allotment, causing continued minor soil disturbance, displacement, and erosion.

Under Current Management, there would be less opportunity to implement adaptive management strategies to protect soils and watershed resources when large scale disturbances such as wildfire or prolonged drought occur since there would be fewer pastures in the system.

Alternative 2 would continue to include implementation of adaptive management strategies, which allows the KNF to adjust the timing, duration and frequency of livestock grazing, as well as livestock numbers. If adjustments are warranted, they are implemented through the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) to ensure that livestock use is consistent with current soil productivity and rangeland conditions. Adaptive management is the mechanism which ensures the maintenance and/or improvement of vegetation, soils and watershed conditions that provide for ecosystem stability and resilience while allowing livestock grazing to occur on Forest Service lands.

Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need of maintaining and/or improving vegetation and soil conditions because it ensures the monitoring of livestock grazing impacts on vegetation, soils, and water resources therefore providing information to invoke adaptive management when warranted.

Alternative 3 – No Grazing

As previously noted, the No Action Alternative would mean livestock grazing on the Kane Ranch Allotments would no longer be authorized. This alternative would not preclude livestock grazing on this allotment in the future following a separate analysis of the environmental effects and a decision made by the Responsible Official to resume livestock grazing.

Under the No Action Alternative, direct and indirect effects of cattle grazing would be eliminated. Range conditions may improve in some areas, although some portions the Central Winter Allotment (i.e., Slide, Ranger Pass, and Sowats) have received limited grazing impact, yet soils and watershed

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report conditions are less than satisfactory as a result of wildfires and spread of invasive and noxious weeds. The amount and probability of increased effective ground cover would depend on precipitation patterns and wildlife utilization. This statement would only be true in areas of the allotment where soil and watershed conditions are being impacted by livestock use and would not apply to areas where impaired soils are the result of encroachment by pinyon, and juniper trees, which inhibit development of understory herbaceous vegetative communities, where wildfires damage soils and watershed resources, and where invasive and noxious weeds threaten native plant communities.

Eliminating grazing on the Kane Ranch Allotment would also eliminate use of existing livestock waters by cattle. A direct effect would be decreased soil disturbance around existing stock tanks. Livestock have been shown to degrade water quality in stock tanks when access is not controlled (Davis 2011, Pfost and Fulhage 2001). Wildlife use would continue as a source of shoreline disturbance of natural and manmade waters. Overall, shoreline stability and surface water quality in existing livestock waters would be expected to improve in the short term. However, the No Action Alternative does not provide for ongoing maintenance of livestock and wildlife waters. Therefore, a long term indirect effect would be reduced water availability for wildlife consumption as earthen tanks, which are currently maintained, fill with sediments.

Alternative 3 meets the purpose and need of maintaining and/or improving soil and watershed conditions through elimination of adverse direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on vegetation, soils, and water quality. However, the No Action Alternative does not address the need to control cheatgrass in the Kane Ranch Allotments as well as other Proposed Action as it does not include research on grazing as it relates to control of cheatgrass. There is therefore potential for the cheatgrass infestation to increase in size under this alternative, further impairing soil function on affected TES map units.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other action (40 CFR § 1508.7). The geographic setting for the cumulative effects analysis for soils and watersheds includes all of the 6th- level (HUC12) hydrologic unit subwatersheds where the Kane Ranch Allotments occurs, which comprises approximately 108,600 acres. The timeframe for past actions is 20 years, based on soil productivity, watershed condition, and vegetative response. Surface disturbing activities that are older than 20 years are assumed to be contributing negligible or no measurable cumulative effect within the analysis area

Following is a partial listing of actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis for this project: Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, noxious weeds treatments, and recreational activities have occurred in the past, are occurring, and are reasonably foreseeable actions on the North Kaibab Ranger District. These activities could occur on private lands as well. Firewood cutting has occurred in the past and would likely continue in the foreseeable future on the District and private lands within watersheds that include the Kane Ranch Allotments.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Road construction, maintenance and right-of-way clearing can be expected to continue on non-National Forest System land. Road use and maintenance would continue on National Forest System lands. Travel Management Rule will be implemented.

Vegetation Treatments and Timber Harvesting Vegetation management projects such as forest thinning and fuelwood gathering reduce overstory cover in the short-term but typically result in an increase in understory vegetation within three to five years following treatment. These projects would also cause an initial increase in soil organic matter in the form of residual woody debris from tree harvesting activities that prevents soil erosion by improving surface roughness and ground cover and improves nutrient cycling. As native grasses and forbs increase in numbers, fine root material would contribute to soil organic matter accumulation, improve soil aggregate stability and soil porosity, protect soil surfaces from erosion by wind and rain, and sequester organic carbon. Reduction of tree canopy and fuel loads would reduce the threat of high severity wildfire that could remove plant and litter cover, consume soil seed bank, sterilize soils, create erosion and flooding hazards, and degrade soil productivity.

Project objectives are typically designed to improve forest health by thinning overstocked stands and reducing the potential for high severity wildfire. These activities may require the use of logging machinery with potential to disturb soils. Overall, forest thinning improves tree vigor, increases the diversity, distribution, and amount of herbaceous understory vegetation (including effective vegetative ground cover), and reduces the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Effects on soil productivity and stability are common to all tree harvest/removal activities, but vary by silvicultural treatments, fuel treatments, and acres treated. Effects are generally related to roads, skid trails, log landings and burn piles resulting in varying degrees of soil displacement, compaction, and soil loss due to short-term reduction or complete removal of vegetative ground cover. Adequate vegetative ground cover is the primary component that protects the soil from accelerated erosion.

It is assumed that between harvest and fuel reduction treatment activities, every acre in each proposed treatment unit would be affected. Therefore, the total acreage is assumed to be at risk for some level of soil disturbance. The risk of accelerated erosion from soil disturbance is expected to last until vegetative ground cover is sufficient to protect soil surfaces, which typically occurs within 3 to 5 years after fuel reduction treatments are completed. It is important that the reader understand that not all soil disturbance is detrimental. For example, a low severity prescribed fire disturbs soils by partially consuming and redistributing the surface organic fraction. This changes short term carbon-nitrogen ratios and increases available short term nutrient supplies, resulting in increased understory response which in turn provides improved protection of soils from erosion by wind and rain.

By identifying and implementing site-specific BMPs and SWCPs prior to and during project implementation, adverse effects to soils and watershed resources are minimized and are generally short term (3 to 5 years). Best Management Practices are designed to maintain soil productivity and surface water quality by minimizing soil loss and associated sediment delivery to waterbodies.

When combined with vegetation treatments and timber harvests, all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative would result in improved soils and watershed conditions over the long term by increasing protective vegetative ground cover in treated areas.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Recreational Activities Recreational activities common to the North Kaibab Ranger District and likely to occur within the Kane Ranch Allotments include: hiking, viewing wildlife, hunting, dispersed car-camping, backpack camping, orienteering, horseback riding, photography, picnicking, taking scenic drives, ORV/ATV use, bicycling, shooting, and gathering in family or social groups. The project area is part of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Game Management Units 12AE and 12AW, and is popular for hunting turkey, mule deer, blue grouse, Kaibab squirrel, and mountain lion. Dispersed camping, ORV/ATV use, firewood collection and Christmas tree cutting have the greatest potential to result in adverse cumulative effects to soils through compaction, puddling, erosion, and displacement. These conditions would be limited to areas where such activities take place. Since the Proposed Action provides the most effective means of improving vegetative ground cover, it would also provide the least adverse cumulative effects to soils and watershed conditions when combined with recreational activities. The No Grazing Alternative would also improve vegetative ground cover in some areas while cheatgrass infested areas would likely persist, increasing the risk of wildfire in infested areas. Current Management would likely result in cumulative effects to soils and watershed conditions that are static to slowly improving.

Invasive and Noxious Weeds The cumulative effect of the increased risk of spread on noxious weeds on soil productivity can only be described in general terms because of the large number of unknown factors. Areas where soil disturbance includes compaction, displacement, erosion, and excessive heating are at the greatest risk of invasion by noxious weeds. These include livestock watering areas, corrals, infrequently used roads, and areas where invasive or noxious weeds currently exist. Monitoring of these areas for the presence of invasive and noxious weeds and treating observed populations in a timely manner would mitigate these adverse effects. To minimize cumulative adverse effects if invasive and noxious weeds, observed infestations would be managed in accordance with the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests. The Proposed Action includes research activities designed to better understand cheatgrass as it relates to livestock grazing and improve control of this invasive species. Cheatgrass control would likely continue under Current Management and the No Grazing alternatives, although control methods would be limited to herbicide use until other control methods are developed and approved for use on the Forest.

Fire Effects In low burn severity areas, effects are mainly light ground char where the litter is scorched, charred, or partially consumed. The litter layer, or duff, is largely intact, although it may be charred on the surface. Woody debris accumulations are partially scorched, charred, or consumed. Mineral soil properties are not adversely affected. In fact, low severity fire releases nutrients stored in surface organic matter and live vegetation. These nutrients facilitate rapid reestablishment of vegetative ground cover since root to shoot ratios are improved for grasses and forbs that survive fire, resulting in protection of soils from accelerated soil erosion soon after fire has occurred. Evidence of sheet and rill erosion as a result of low severity fire is minor. In forested areas, much of the tree overstory is green with some scorch at the base of the trees and in the lower branches following low severity fire. Most trees survive; however, pockets of seedlings, saplings, and mature trees can be killed or consumed where moderate to high severity fires occur. While most of the shrubs, forbs and grasses are affected under low severity fire conditions, in most cases, much of this vegetation survives. Areas identified as low burn severity may also contain large unburned areas, resulting in a mosaic of burned and unburned sites across the landscape.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Moderate severity fire results in consumption of most fine litter and increased bare mineral soil. Some standing trees may be killed under moderate fire intensity through damage to tree cambium and crown scorch. The risk of accelerated soil erosion increases following moderate severity fire. Runoff is also expected to increase in areas subjected to moderate severity fire since vegetative cover is reduced or non-existent.

High severity fire typically results nearly complete consumption of all litter, leaving only ash and bare soil. Soil aggregate stability is reduced or destroyed and soils become loose, or single-grained. These soils are highly susceptible to erosion due to increased hydrophobicity (water repellency) that prevents water infiltration, thereby increasing overland flow. Sheet and rill erosion are common on soils that burn at high severity.

Although several high severity wildfires have occurred on the NKRD over the last 20 years as a result of historic fire suppression and exclusion, efforts to return low and moderate severity fire to fire adapted ecosystems has been underway for several years on the North Kaibab Ranger District. When a wildfire occurs, it typically results in the burned area being rested until the herbaceous understory has recovered sufficiently to support livestock grazing and protect soil surfaces from accelerated erosion. Through improved management of the timing, frequency, intensity, and duration of livestock grazing, the Proposed Action, when combined with fire effects, provides the best opportunity to prevent adverse cumulative effects of fire and livestock grazing. Since there would not be as much flexibility in

Soil Stability and Erosion Processes Gullies and headcuts are a primary source of sedimentation. They channelize and accelerate sediment- laden water, resulting in soil movement to downslope locations or into drainages. Areas which are sensitive to gully erosion are long, narrow alluvial plains, alluvial fans, and low lying areas with moderate slopes and deep, fine-textured soils. Gullies are partly the result of historical management practices and partly the result of high severity wildfires and are now in varying degrees of recovery. Gullies have been observed in the Warm Fire and Bridger Knoll Fire perimeters. As management practices have improved and watershed conditions have changed, some gullies are reaching more stable conditions through aggradation and widening, creating more favorable floodplains and gentle gradients. This adjustment process involves erosion of banks and headcuts in order to reach a point of equilibruim. Once this point is reached, erosion decreases, vegetation begins to grow where gully sidewalls have a more gentle angle of repose, and gullies stabilize. The effect of gully stabilization is reduced loss of soil productivity and downstream sedimentation. Through anticipated improvements in vegetative ground cover, the Proposed Action would provide the best opportunity to ensure soil stability and mitigate soil erosion processes. Soil stability and erosion processes would likely remain static or improve slightly over the long term under Current Management. The No Grazing Alternative would provide for soil stability and erosion mitigation through elimination of livestock grazing on the Kane Allotments. However, areas infested with cheatgrass would likely continue to trend downward as a result of cheatgrass-induced wildfires that increase erosion and sediment delivery rates substantially.

Nutrient Cycling The Proposed Action, in combination with vegetation treatments (i.e., forest thinning and prescribed fire use), and control of invasive and noxious weeds would improve soil nutrient cycling over time due to the addition of small and large woody material from thinning, reintroduction of fire to fire adapted ecosystems, and control of invasive and noxious weeds that displace native plant communities. 87

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Vegetation management projects would leave at least 5-7 tons per acre of CWD in treatment areas. In addition, up to 1-3 tons per acre of fine fuels would be left as needles, twigs, small limbs, and other small woody material. The addition of CWD and other fine fuels would have a beneficial effect to long- term soil productivity by providing microsites and refugia for soil organisms, microsites that aid in reestablishment of herbaceous vegetative cover, increasing soil organic matter which improves soil moisture retention, and sequestering organic carbon. The effectiveness of woody debris retention has been proven to reduce and control adverse impacts to soil resources and water quality (Graham et al. 1994, Ice 2004, Seyedbagheri 1996). Controlling cheatgrass and other invasive and noxious weeds would reduce wildfire risk in cheatgrass infested areas and protect or restore native plant communities, thus restoring soil nutrient cycles. Current Management and the No Grazing Alternative would also improve soil nutrient cycles in some areas in combination with vegetation and noxious weeds treatments. However, areas where cheatgrass and noxious weeds have displaced native plant communities would continue to function in an impaired condition with regard to nutrient cycling

Soil Hydrology Since the Proposed Action will increase flexibility in managing livestock distribution, timing, intensity and duration of grazing through pasture divides and new holding pastures, stocking rates will be relatively low, and research will be implemented to investigate cheatgrass control, it is reasonable to expect that vegetative ground cover and overall range conditions would improve. With improved vegetation conditions, soil hydrologic processes would also improve. Increased infiltration and percolation would be expected. Compaction and sealing of soil surfaces caused by raindrop impact would be reduced. Overland flow would also be reduced as soil porosity improves, increasing water infiltration rates. Current Management would likely result in static to slightly improving trends in soil hydrologic function. However, with reduced flexibility in grazing management under this alternative, improvements would likely occur at a much slower rate. The No Action Alternative would also improve soil hydrologic function through reduced soil compaction caused by cattle trampling, trailing, and grazing. Removal of cattle would allow soils to improve over time. However, areas where cheatgrass infestations have caused frequent wildfires would continue to exhibit a downward trend through increased soil hydrophobicity following wildfires resulting in impermeable soil surfaces and increased runoff and erosion.

Watershed Response The magnitude of change in water yield resulting from the combination of grazing management, vegetation treatments and prescribed burning is most strongly related to the amount of precipitation and intensity of the treatments. The hydrologic response of watersheds to which the Kane Ranch Allotments belongs would depend on the summed effect of the changes in evaporation, transpiration, soil moisture storage, and snowpack accumulation and melt processes. This includes the degree to which grazing and vegetation treatments influence precipitation that reaches soil surfaces and infiltrates or runs off as a result of reduced tree canopy interception, changes to soil moisture evaporation rates, and changes to the amount of transpiration and soil water depletion. Changes to streamflow would depend on whether precipitation or snowmelt exceeds evapotranspirational demand of vegetation, soil moisture holding capacity, and groundwater recharge rates.

Changes in evapotranspiration following vegetation treatments would be the result of reduced soil moisture depletion during the growing season and decreased winter snowfall interception. Precipitation 88

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report accumulates over the winter as snowpack, with melting and sublimation occurring during warm phases throughout the winter. Much of the winter precipitation in forested areas of the Kane Ranch Allotments is intercepted by tree canopies. Some of this moisture evaporates or sublimates without contributing to increased soil moisture, while some is blown off of intercepting vegetation or simply falls off, thus reaching soil surfaces. When the remaining snowpack begins to melt in spring, melt water first recharges the soil by replacing the water that was depleted during the previous growing season. Once soil moisture storage capacity is at its maximum, remaining melt water is available to become stream flow. On north facing slopes, some of the snowpack remains almost continuously from December to April. While the evaporation rate is lower than south facing slopes, the relatively large surface area of snow permits a substantial amount of evaporative loss to occur. In contrast, on south facing slopes, intercepted snow quickly leaves the less dense forest canopies, thus allowing less interception loss. When combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the Proposed Actions would result in improved watershed conditions throughout the Kane Ranch Allotments. As vegetative and soil conditions improve in watersheds of the Kane Ranch Allotments, it follows that watershed response would improve. Groundwater storage would be expected to increase slightly under the Proposed Action as infiltration rates increase and evapotranspiration are reduced through vegetation treatments and prescribed burning. Current management would also result in improved watershed condition as projects are implemented to reduce the threat of high severity wildfire, re-introduce low severity fire to fire adapted ecosystems, control invasive and noxious weeds and improve watershed conditions. The No Grazing Alternative would also improve watershed conditions by eliminating livestock impacts to soils and watersheds such as soil compaction and removal of vegetative cover that increases surface runoff and decreases infiltration.

Cumulative watershed effects from grazing of the Kane Ranch Allotments under the Proposed Action would include improved overall soils and watershed condition and restoration of the ecological interrelationships of soils, vegetation, and watersheds throughout the analysis area. Continued grazing under Current Management would result in many areas that exhibit static to downward trends due to the lack of flexibility in controlling the timing, distribution, intensity and frequency of grazing since the existing challenges related to the limited number of pastures make rest rotation and deferment systems difficult to implement and there would be limited opportunity to control cheatgrass infestations as compared to the Proposed Action. The No Grazing Alternative would result in cumulative improvement in watershed condition in most areas, although cheatgrass infested areas would likely continue to exhibit a static to downward trend

Air Quality There would be no changes to air quality as a result of implementation of any of the proposed alternatives. Minor, localized dust from livestock management is expected to occur occasionally as a result of livestock trailing and livestock movement under dry soil conditions. Climate Change While it is currently not possible to discern climate change effects of the Proposed Action or other Action Alternatives, given the lack of effects that can be meaningfully evaluated under current science and modeling, one would expect no detectable change in climate specifically related to livestock grazing under any of the alternatives in this analysis, including the No Action alternative.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asserted that scientists know with virtual certainty that human activities are changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is also 89

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report documented that “greenhouse” gases, including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and hydrofluorocarbons have been increasing (EPA, 2010). The atmospheric increase of these gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy that would otherwise be reflected from the earth. As this infrared energy is absorbed, the air surrounding the earth is heated (CARB 2007).

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

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

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

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

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

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

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

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated With livestock grazing on the Kane Ranch Allotments. An “irreversible commitment of resources” occurs when, once committed to an Action, the resource would continue to be committed throughout the life of the Proposed Action. An "irretrievable commitment of resources" refers to those resources that, once used, consumed, destroyed or degraded during a Proposed Action, would cause the resource to be unavailable for use by future generations. There would be no irretrievable or irreversible losses of Forest Service resources under any of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative.

Certification ______Kit MacDonald prepared the report considering the Best Available Science and locally gathered data. Much of the information related to the effects of fire on soil and water attributes were attained through research of peer reviewed scientific publications and publications from the Rocky Mountain Research Station, including RMRS GTR-42, volume 4 Wildland Fire in Ecosystems Effects of Fire on Soil and Water (Neary et al, 2005). Local data include the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest (Brewer et al, 1991). Four field visits in 2010 and 2011 were also used to inform this report.

My experience includes a Master’s Degree in Forestry with an emphasis in Soil Science and completion of coursework toward a Ph.D. in Forestry from Stephen F. Austin State University. Since 1999, I have worked in areas of soils classification and mapping, wetland delineation and functional assessment, wetland restoration, disturbed land remediation and reclamation, and forestry best management practices (BMP) implementation and effectiveness monitoring related to silvicultural operations including timber harvesting, site preparation, reforestation, prescribed fire, forest road construction and obliteration, and burned area emergency response.

Prepared by: /s/ Kit MacDonald Date: March 28, 2012

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Kit MacDonald Soil Scientist Kaibab National Forest

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Intergovernmental agreement between the State of Arizona and US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southwestern Region. February 15, 2008.

Backlund, P; Janetos, A; Schimel, et al. 2008. The effects of climate change on agricultural, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. Final Report, synthesis, and assessment product 4.3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of agriculture. 362 p.

Beymer, Renee J., Jeffrey M. Klopatek. 1992. Effects of Grazing on Cryptogamic Crusts in Pinyon- Juniper Woodlands in Grand Canyon National Park. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 127, No. 1, 139-148.

Brewer, David G., Rodney K. Jorgensen, Lewis P. Munk, Wayne A. Robbie, and Janet L. Travis. 1991. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County and Part of Yavapai County. USDA Forest Service. 319 pp.

CARB, 2007. California Air Resources Board; http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm

Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2008.

Furniss, Michael J., Sherry Hazelhurst, Caty F. Clifton, Ken B. Roby, Bonnie L. Ilhardt, Elizabeth B. Larry, Albert H. Todd, Leslie M. Reid, Sarah J. Hines, Charlie H. Luce, Pamela J. Edwards. 2010. Water, Climate Change, and Forests. Watershed Stewardship for a Changing Climate. PNW-GTR-812. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 75 p.

Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R; Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1994. Managing course woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. Int-477. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13 p.

Guido, Zack. (2008). Southwest Climate Change Network. http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/land/fire

Ice, George. 2004. History of Innovative Best Management Practice Development and its Role in Addressing Water Quality Limited Waterbodies. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Volume: 2, Issue: 6, Pages: 684-689

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Quin, M. Manninget al. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press: 996.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Johansen, Jeffrey R. 1993. Cryptogamic Crusts of Semiarid and Arid Lands of North America. Journal of Phycology 29, 140-147.

Neary, Daniel G., K. Ryan, L. DeBano. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems. Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. USDA Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 4. Ft Collins, CO. 250 p.

Potyondy, John P. and Theodore W. Geier. 2011. Waterhsed Condition Classification Technical Guide. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Technical Guide FS-978. 41 pp.

Pfost, Donald L. and Charles D. Fulhage. 2001. Water Quality for Livestock Drinking. University of Missouri Extension Publication EQ381. 7 pp.

Rosentreter, R. 1986. Compositional patterns within a rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus) community of the Idaho Snake River Plain. In: McArthur, E. D., and B. L. Welch, comps. Proceedings—Symposium on the Biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus. General Technical Report INT-200. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Pages 273-277.

Seager, R., R. Burgman, et al. 2008. "Tropical Pacific Forcing of North American Medieval Megadroughts: Testing the Concept with an Atmosphere Model Forced by Coral-Reconstructed SSTs." Journal of Climate 21: 6175-6190.

Seyedbagheri, K.A. 1996. Idaho forestry best management practices: Compilation of research on their effectiveness. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-339. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 89 p.

Truebe, M.; Evans, G. 1994. Lowell surfacing thickness design test road: Final report. Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-FLP-94-008. USDA Forest Service. San Dimas Technology and Development Center. San Dimas, CA. 108 p.

USDA. 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as Amended. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 173 pp.

USDA. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. pp 83.

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Introduction to Microbiotic Crusts. Soil Quality Institute; Grazing Lands Technology Institute.

USDA Forest Service, 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning 2010, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.

USDA Forest Service, 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector. Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: McArthur, E.D., E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith, and P.T. Tueller, eds. Proceedings—Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrub

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Biology and Management. General Technical Report INT-276. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Pages 4-10.

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

APPENDIX A

U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Information

A-1

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 1. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook, Drought Tendency During the Valid Period of April 18 through July 31, 2013.

A-1

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 2. U.S. Drought Monitor for Arizona released April 17, 2013.

A-2

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 3. U.S. Standardized Precipitation Index (12 months).

A-1

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Figure 4. Weekly values for the long term Palmer Drought Severity Index dated April 20, 2013.

A-2

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 1. Period of Record General Climate Summary of Temperature for the Town of Fredonia, AZ.

A-1

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 2. Period of Record General Climate Summary of Precipitation for the Town of Fredonia, AZ

A-2

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 3. Period of Record General Climate Summary of Temperature for the Town of Jacob Lake, AZ

A-3

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 4. Period of Record General Climate Summary of Precipitation for the Town of Jacob Lake, AZ

A-4

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

APPENDIX B

Natural and Developed Waters Information for the Kane Ranch Allotments

B-1

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 1. Water bodies in the Kane Ranch Allotments and associated acreages WATERBODY NAME SIZE (ac.) 641/429 Junction Tank 0.14 Allens Tank 0.11 Aspen Tank 0.07 Bear Lake 0.37 Bear Spring Tank 0.23 Big Cove Earthen Tank 0.36 Big Ridge Tank 0.18 Big Saddle Tank And Corral 0.16 Big Springs Barn Tank 0.18 Big Springs Kitchen Tank #1 0.30 Big Springs Kitchen Tank #2 0.13 Blowdown Tank VT #1 0.08 Board Corral Tank 0.25 Bone Hollow 0.16 Brown Canyon Tank 0.17 Buckhorn Tank 0.32 Buffalo Hill Tank 0.23 Buffalo Trick Tank Overflow 0.07 Burn Tank 0.05 Burnt Corral Tank 0.21 Cane Water Storage Tank 0.19 Corral Lake 0.24 Cougar Lake 0.17 Crane Lake #1 1.44 Crane Lake #2 0.14 Crossover Tank 0.07 Crystal Springs Tank 0.06 Deer Lake 1.34 Divide Tank 0.26 Dog Canyon Tank 0.22 Dog Lake 0.15 Dry Park Lakes #1 0.23 Dry Park Lakes #2 0.09 Dugway Tank 0.07 East Branch Tank South 0.08 East Lake 0.74 East Lake B Guzzler 0.14 East Side #3B Cachment 0.06 East Slide Tank 0.57 Faver Tank 0.34 B-2

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

WATERBODY NAME SIZE (ac.) Fracas Canyon Tank #1 0.11 Fracas Canyon Tank #2 0.07 Fracas Canyon Trap 0.12 Fracas Lake 0.54 Franks Lake 2.23 Glen Lakes #1 0.33 Glen Lakes #2 0.25 Glen Lakes #3 0.24 Grassy Tank 0.32 Gully Plug On Road 212 0.03 Hole-In-Rock Tank 0.11 Indian Hollow Tank 0.23 Indian Lake 0.33 Jack Tank 0.10 Jacks Tank #2 0.07 Jackson Tank 0.38 Jacob Lake 0.95 Joes Mudhole #1 0.50 Joes Mudhole #2 0.25 Johns Tank 0.86 Jolly Sink #1 0.14 Jolly Sink #2 0.05 Jolly Sink Road Tank 0.28 Jumpup Tank 0.12 Junction Tank 0.08 Little Pleasant Valley 0.22 Lookout Canyon Tank 0.19 Lookout Lakes #1 0.46 Lookout Lakes #2 0.14 Lower Moquitch Tank 0.24 Mackelprang Tank 0.13 Marble View Sink Tank 0.42 Marble View Tank 0.05 Mathers Tank 0.16 Middle Burnt Corral Tank 0.15 Middle Moquitch Tank 0.15 Mile And Half Lake 0.59 Moquitch Point Tank 0.08 Moquitch Tank 0.12 Mud Lake #1 0.47 Mud Lake #2 0.09 B-3

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

WATERBODY NAME SIZE (ac.) Murrays Lake #1 0.17 Murrays Lake #2 0.21 Nail Tank 454 0.11 North Blowdown Tank 0.15 North Oak Tank 0.08 Oquer Lake 0.46 Oquer Tank 0.25 Oquer Tank 0.09 Pine Flat Tank 0.31 Pine Hollow Tank 0.21 Red Point Tank #2 0.05 Ridge Tank 0.13 Road 214B Lakes South #1 0.33 Road 214B Lakes South #2 0.06 Road 214B Lakes South #3 0.07 Road 241/633 Tank 0.16 Road 262 Tank #1 0.34 Road 262 Tank #2 0.07 Road 430 ET 0.28 Road 633D 2.7 Mile Tank 0.06 Road 640 Tank #1 0.08 Road Hollow Tank 0.08 Rollys Tank 0.75 Round Vally Tank 2.27 Sawmill Tank 0.21 Sink Hole Tank Road 213 0.14 Slide Elbow Tank #1 0.09 Slide Elbow Tank #2 0.09 Slide Tank & Trough 0.32 Smokey Tank 0.11 Snipe Lake 0.58 Sorenson Tank 0.12 Sourdough Tank2 0.10 South Big Spring Tank 0.28 South Blowdown Tank 0.05 South Rock Tank 0.13 South Slide Tank 0.16 South Slide Tank Trough 0.08 Sowats Tank 0.28 Spare Tank 0.12 Table Rock Tank & Trough 0.27 B-4

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

WATERBODY NAME SIZE (ac.) Tater Tank 0.10 Telephone Hill Tank 0.12 Three Lakes #1 9.08 Three Lakes #2 0.23 Three Lakes #3 0.47 Three Lakes Tank East 0.18 Three Lakes Tank West 0.07 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.18 Unnamed 0.12 Unnamed 0.16 Unnamed 0.09 Unnamed 0.10 Unnamed 0.10 Unnamed 0.16 Unnamed 0.14 Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 0.05 Unnamed 0.15 Unnamed 0.09 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 0.03 Unnamed 0.09 Unnamed 0.11 Unnamed 0.15 Unnamed 0.18 Unnamed 0.09 Unnamed 0.14 Unnamed 0.27 Unnamed 0.53 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 0.11 Unnamed 0.13 Unnamed 0.04 Unnamed 0.12 Unnamed 0.24 Unnamed 0.05 B-5

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

WATERBODY NAME SIZE (ac.) Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 0.10 Unnamed 0.10 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.09 Unnamed 0.32 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.10 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 0.14 Unnamed 0.27 Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 0.09 Unnamed 0.14 Unnamed 0.10 Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.10 Unnamed 0.13 Unnamed 0.51 Unnamed 0.18 Unnamed 0.14 Unnamed 0.14 Unnamed 0.12 Unnamed 0.14 Unnamed 0.03 Unnamed 0.04 Unnamed 0.04 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.12 Unnamed 0.05 Unnamed 0.23 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 5.98 Unnamed 0.07 B-6

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

WATERBODY NAME SIZE (ac.) Unnamed 0.08 Unnamed 0.05 Unnamed 0.36 Unnamed 0.12 Unnamed 0.12 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.06 Unnamed 0.21 Unnamed 0.05 Unnamed 0.11 Unnamed 0.12 Unnamed 0.16 Unnamed 0.21 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 0.09 Unnamed 0.33 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 0.18 Unnamed 0.13 Unnamed 0.07 Unnamed 7.52 Unnamed 0.23 Unnamed 0.25 Unnamed 0.42 Unnamed 0.27 Unnamed 0.42 Unnamed 1.15 Unnamed 0.18 Unnamed 0.14 Unnamed 0.31 Upper Moquitch Tank 0.14 V.T. Sink Hole #1 0.13 Vaughn Tank 0.84 VT Lake 1.02 VT Ridge Tank 2 0.06 Wall Lake 0.75 Warm Springs Tank #1 0.14 Warm Springs Tank #2 0.07 West Blowdown Tank 0.19 West Lake #1 0.25 West Lake #2 0.13 B-7

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

WATERBODY NAME SIZE (ac.) White Pockets Earthen Tanks 0.11

B-8

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 2. Riparian area locations, characteristics, current condition and management options LOCATION TOWNSHIP/ SECTION CATEGORY CURRENT CONDITION / RANGE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Semi-permanent wetlands Closed to grazing 2005 Kane Decision FRACAS LAKE T37NR2E 1SE Semi-permanent wetland - bulrush, carex FRANK'S LAKE T36NR2E 16SE Semi-permanent wetland - bulrush, reedgrass Seasonal wetlands BEAR LAKE T34NR2E 3S Seasonal wetland - reedgrass COUGAR LAKE T36NR2E 28S Seasonal wetland - spikerush CRANE LAKE T36NR2E 11SE Seasonal wetland - spikerush, carex DEER LAKE T35NR2E 25E Seasonal wetland - spikerush, carex DOG LAKE T35NR3E 21NW Seasonal wetland - carex Excluded from use in Kane Ranch EA DRY PARK LAKE T35NR2E 19W Seasonal wetland - juncus Excluded from use in Kane Ranch EA GLEN LAKE T37NR2E 34W Seasonal wetland - spikerush, carex Excluded from use in Kane Ranch EA LITTLE PLEASANT T36NR2E 24NE Seasonal wetland - spikerush VALLEY LAKE LOOKOUT LAKE 1 T35NR2E 4NE Seasonal wetland - spikerush, carex LOOKOUT LAKE 2 T35NR2E 4N Seasonal wetland - reedgrass, Excluded from use in Kane spikerush Ranch EA MILE-AND-A-HALF T37NR2E 7SE Seasonal wetland - carex Excluded from use in Kane LAKE Ranch EA ROAD HOLLOW TANK T36NR1E 33N Seasonal wetland - carex SNIPE LAKE T36NR2E 8 Seasonal wetland - canary grass THREE LAKES T37NR2E 6NE Seasonal wetland - reedgrass, spikerush, carex VT LAKE T36NR2E 27NW Seasonal wetland - reedgrass, spikerush, carex B-9

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report LOCATION TOWNSHIP/ SECTION CATEGORY CURRENT CONDITION / RANGE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS WARM SPRINGS LAKE T38NR1E 15SW Seasonal wetland - spikerush, no pictures WEST LAKE T36NR1W 10S Seasonal wetland - spikerush, carex Excluded from use in Kane Ranch EA Stock tanks with riparian vegetation BIG SPRINGS POND T37NR1W 13S Stock tank - reedgrass CORRAL LAKE T37NR1E 12W Stock tank - spikerush EAST LAKE T37NR2E 28SE Stock tank with veg- carex, Excluded from use in Kane spikerush Ranch EA JOE'S MUD HOLE T37NR2E 29W Stock tank - carex Silted in post Warm Fire JOLLY SINK T38NR2E 16S Stock tank - juncus, carex Filled in from the Warm Fire LAMB LAKE T38NR1E 14E Stock tank - spikerush Old copper mine pit, holds reliable water MUD LAKE T37NR1E 10NE Stock tank - spikerush While not listed for exclusion, partial exclusion already occurs MURRAY LAKE T37NR2E 3SW Stock tank - spikerush Excluded from use in Kane Ranch EA Stock tanks with little or no riparian vegetation BURNT CORRAL LAKE T36NR1E 19S Stock tank - no riparian veg Stock tank - no riparian veg HIDDEN LAKE T39WR1E 22S Stock tank - no riparian veg. Stock tank - no riparian veg. WILDHORSE PARK T39NR2E 29N Stock tank - no riparian veg. Stock tank - no riparian veg. Perennial Streams NORTH CANYON T35NR3E 28 Perennial stream - box elder, maple, CREEK 1 alder NORTH CANYON T35NR3E 21 Perennial stream - box elder, maple, CREEK 2 alder KANAB CREEK Perennial stream in some spring closed to grazing 2005 Kane sections - cottonwood, willow Decision Perennial Springs with riparian vegetation B-10

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report LOCATION TOWNSHIP/ SECTION CATEGORY CURRENT CONDITION / RANGE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS CANE SPRINGS T37NR3E 23SW Perennial spring - water diverted, willow, rock armored CASTLE SPRING T37NR1E 19SW Perennial spring - piped trough, little riparian veg. CRYSTAL SPRING T35NR3E 32NE Perennial spring - old nonworking trough, carex LITTLE SPRING T37NR3W 25 Perennial spring - willow, cattail, access difficult reedgrass, juncus MANGUM SPRINGS T37NR1E 7NW Perennial spring - box elder, juncus, good shape, armored carex MOQUITCH SPRING T37NR1E 6E Perennial spring - Phal looks good OAK SPRING T38NR1E 19W Perennial spring - velvet ash OQUER SPRING T36NR1E 13N Perennial spring - piped trough, carex RIGGS SPRING T37NR1E 31SE Perennial spring - piped trough, juncus SLIDE SPRING T38NR3W 25SE Perennial spirng - willow, canary grass TABLE ROCK SPRING T38NR2W 12NW Perennial spring - piped trough, reedgrass WARM SPRINGS T38NR1E 17E Perennial spring - diverted, willows Springs with little or no riparian vegetation PIGEON SPRING T38NR2W 4 Perennial spring - mostly diverted, little riparian veg. WILDBAND SPRING T38NR2W 4S Perennial spring - piped trough, no riparian veg WILLOW SPRING T38NR2W 8N Perennial spring - little riparian veg.

B-11

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report Table 3. Riparian areas, descriptions, habitat type, condition, dominant vegetation and narrative for wetlands in the Kane Ranch Allotments. SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION ALLEN WL PERSISTANT WET POOR Rucr WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LAKE LIVESTOCK GRAZING Rucr THERE ARE NO OTHER HAS REDUCED WETLAND PLANT SPECIES WETLAND PRESENT. VEGETATIONAL SPECIES DIVERSITY (NO RUSHES, WATER BUTTERCUP, POLYGONUM, ETC. PRESENT AT THESE THREE TANKS IN ALLEN LAKE BED). SOME INVASION BY TER- RESTRIAL SPECIES HAS OCCURRED IN PLACE OF WETLAND SPE BEAR WILDLIFE USE THIS WET GOOD CALA-1 LOW DIVERSITY OF LAKE SITE EXTENSIVELY FOR WETLAND VEGETATION DRINKING WATER. (REEDGRASS, POLYGONUM, HUNTERS ALSO USE GREEN ALGAE), BUT HIGH THIS SITE FREQUENTLY IN ABUNDANCE. AS EVIDENCED BY THE BLINDS FOUND AROUND THE LAKE SHORE.

B-12

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION BIG DISCLIMAX PLANT RIP FAIR ELEO DISCLIMAX DUE TO 1900 SPRING 1 COMMUNITY DUE TO LOGGING, GRAZING AND GRAZING 1900 TERRESTRIAL PLANT LOGGING, AND INVASION. THE PRESENCE TERRESTRIAL PLANT OF WILLOW DOES INDICATE INVASION. THAT THIS AREA DOES HAVE POTENTIAL BIG DISCLIMAX PLANT RIP POOR CARE DISCLIMAX HISTORICAL SPRING 2 COMMUNITY CAUSED NATURE OF THIS AREAIS BY GRAZING AND PROBABLY DUE TO THE PREVIOUS LOGGING. INTERMITTENT QUALITY OF THE SPRING AS WELL AS LIVESTOCK GRAZING. BIG CEMENT DUMPED RIP FAIR CARE ALTHOUGH IN LOW SPRING 3 FROM BRIDGE ABUNDANCE THE CONSTRUCTION PRESENCE OF WOODY RESULTED IN THE RIPARIAN/WETLAND DEMISE OF VEGETATION COTTONWOODS. (NARROWLEAF LIVESTOCK GRAZING COTTONWOOD, CAREX, HAS DAMAGED THE RE- AND JUN- CUS) INDICATE GENERATING THAT THIS AREA HAS COTTONWOODS AND POTEN- TIAL. FACILITATED TERRESTRIAL PLANT INVASION. BIG WATER FROM SPRING WET GOOD JUNC A NICE, BUT SMALL, SPRINGS 2 IS DIVERTED AT THE RIPARIAN AREA THAT HAS BOTTOM OF THE HILL SOME PEACH LEAF WILLOW INTO A POND AND FOR GROWING, BUT VERY USE BY RESIDENTS. LITTLE ELSE THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS OBLIGATE RIPARIAN B-13

BIG EX MAIN ROAD IS WET GOOD CALA-1 REEDGRASS PROVIDES SPRINGS DIRECTLY ADJACENT LOTS OF COVER FOR POND TO THIS POND. RESIDENT WATERFOWL, BUT VEGETATIVE DIVERSITY IS LOW (3 SPECIES OF GRASS & GREEN ALGAE) AROUND THIS POND. NO IMMEDIATE MID- AND OVERSTORY PRESENT AROUND THE POND. BURNT WL HEAVY LIVESTOCK USE WET FAIR Raaq DISCLIMAX CONDITION IS CORRAL OF THIS WATERHOLE DUE TO INTENSE GRAZING, LAKE HAS GREATLY SHOULD HAVE MORE REDUCED DIVERSITY IN WETLAND VEGETATION. VEGETATION AT THE VERY LEAST. CANE DIVERSION OF WATER WET POOR SALI WATER DIVERSION AND SPRINGS FOR PRIVATE USE AND CONFINEMENT OF WATER FOR LIVESTOCK USE HAS PROBABLY RESULTED HAS LED TO IN THE LATE TERRESTRIAL PLANT SUCCESSIONAL HISTORIC ENCROACHMENT. CONDITION OF THIS AREA

B-14

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION CORRAL WL LIVESTOCK USE HAS WET POOR ELEO LIVESTOCK USE OF THIS LAKE SIGNIFICANTLY TANK HAS SEVERELY REDUCED VEGETATIVE DIMINISHED VEGETATIVE ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY OF BOTH DIVERSITY AT THIS WETLAND (SPIKERUSH, SITE. PREVIOUS TIMBER BURREED, BUTTERCUP) SALE HAS REDUCED AND TERRESTRIAL SPECIES OVERSTORY. AS WELL AS GREATLY REDUCING THEIR ABUNDANCE AT THIS SITE. COUGAR COMBINATION OF WET FAIR ELEO INTERMITTENT NATURE OF LAKE LIVESTOCK GRAZING THIS LAKE PROBABLY AND THE LIMITS WETLAND INTERMITTENT VEGETATION NATURE OF THIS WETLAND HAS PROBABLY BEEN THE GREATEST INFLUENCE ON THE REDUCED VEGETATIVE DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE AT THIS SITE. COUGAR LIVESTOCK GRAZING RIP FAIR CALA-1 HIGH POTENTIAL FOR PARK HAS DRASTICALLY BEING A GOOD WETLAND REDUCED WETLAND AREA IN THE ABSENCE OF VEGETATION. TIMBER GRAZING BY LIVESTOCK. SALE WAS IN CAREX, SPIKERUSH, PROGRESS AT THE TIME REEDGRASS, BUTTERCUP OF THIS SURVEY. THIS PRESENT IN GOOD AREA IS ALSO USED BY ABUNDANCE. CAMPERS. FLOODING EVENTS ARE ERODING B-15

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION THE BANKS.

COUGAR THE TIMBER SALE HAS RIP FAIR CALA-1 HIGH POTENTIAL FOR PARK INCREASED THE BEING A GOOD WETLAND ACCESS OF VEHICLES AREA IN THE ABSENCE OF ACROSS THE MEADOW GRAZING BY LIVESTOCK. TO THE WETLAND CAREX, SPIKERUSH, AREA. LIVESTOCK REEDGRASS, BUTTERCUP GRAZING HAS PRESENT IN GOOD CONTRIBUTED TO THE ABUNDANCE. LOW CROPPING OF THE RUSHES AND OTHER WETLAND VEGETATION. FLOODING HAS CAUSED EROSION OF THE BANKS. CRANE EX WET FAIR ELEO THIS AREA IS ALREADY A LAKE GOOD WETLAND FOR WATERFOWL WITH A GOOD DIVERSITY OF WETLAND VEGETATION (SUCH AS CAREX, WATERCRESS, BURREED, BUTTERCUP). IF ALLOWED TO MATURE WITHOUT DISTURBANCE IT HAS THE POTENTIAL OF

B-16

CRYSTAL SOME LIVESTOCK WET FAIR CARE CAREX ABUNDANCE IS SPRING GRAZING HERE, BUT HIGH, BUT WETLAND ITS IMPACT IS NOT TOO VEGETATION DIVERSITY IS EXTENSIVE ON THE LOW. VEGETATION. DIRT ROAD RUNS CLOSE BY THE SPRING AND LEADS TO A HIKING TRAIL THAT ENTERS NORTH CANYON CREEK. DEER USAGE BY LIVESTOCK WET FAIR POLY GOOD DIVERSITY OF LAKE AND WILDLIFE HAVE WETLAND SPECIES PROBABLY REDUCED (CAREX, SPIKERUSH, THE VEGETATIONAL BUTTERCUP, WATERCRESS, DIVER-SITY AROUND POLYGONUM), BUT DOES THIS SITE. DUST FROM NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH THE MAIN ROADS MAY COVER FOR WILDLIFE. HAVE SOME IMPACT UPON THE PLANT COMMUNITY AT THIS SITE.

B-17

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION DOG LAKE GRAZING HAS WET GOOD ELEO LOW DIVERSITY OF REDUCED SOME WETLAND SPECIES, BUT VEGETATIVE CO- VER. GRASSES PROVIDE GOOD EASY ACCESS COULD COVER FOR WATERFOWL. CONTRIBUTE TO FREQUENT HUNTER USE. DRY PARK WL LIVESTOCK USE OF WET POOR JUNC LOW WETLAND LAKE THIS SITE HAS CONTRI- VEGETATION DIVERSITY BUTED GREATLY TO POSSIBLY DUE TO THE REDUCTION OF EXTENSIVE LIVESTOCK WET- LAND GRAZING. VEGETATIVE DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE.SOME CAMPING OCCURS HERE. EAST LAKE WL LIVESTOCK USE HAS WET FAIR CALA - 1 THIS AREA HAS A GOOD RESULTED IN REDUCED VARIETY OF WETLAND ABUNDANCE AND VEGETATION (SUCH AS DIVERSITY OF CAREX, REEDGRASS, SHORELINE VE- WATERCRESS, POLYONUM,). GETATION. IT IS MAINLY LACKING IN OVERSTORY AND MIDSTORY RIPAR-IAN VEGETATION.

B-18

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION FRACAS WL LIVESTOCK IMPACT WET FAIR Raaq INTERMITTENT NATURE LAKE HERE IS NOT SEVERE AND LIVESTOCK GRAZING BUT STILL HAS CONTRIBUTE TO LOW REDUCED THE ABUNDANCE OF WET-LAND OVERALL ABUNDANCE SPECIES (BULRUSH, OF WETLAND PLANTS. BURREED, CAREX). THE SHALLOWNESS OF THIS LAKE BED MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANTFACTOR IN ITS INABILITY TO RETAIN WATER FRANKS LIVESTOCK GRAZING IS LAKE REDUCING COVER FOR WATERFOWL.

GLEN LIVESTOCK USE HAS WET POOR LIVESTOCK USE HAS LAKE SEVERELY REDUCED SEVERELY REDUCED THE WET- LAND ABUNDANCE AND VEGETATION DIVERSITY OF WETLAND DIVERSITY AND VEGETATION (ONLY GREEN ABUNDANCE. ALGAE GROWS HERE). JOE'S MUD WL LIVESTOCK USE HAS WET FAIR CARE AROUND SHORES OF THESE HOLE REDUCED VEGETATIVE TWO WATERHOLES THERE DI-VERSITY AND IS VERY LITTLE IN THE WAY ABUNDANCE AT BOTH OF WETLAND VEGETATION WATERHOLESSOME (PROBABLY DUE TO LIVE- CAMPING SIGNS STOCK USE). ON SMALL EVIDENT. ISLAND CAREX, SPIKERUSH, PANICUM, AND PHLEUM PROVIDE EXCEL-LANT

B-19

JOLLY WL LIVESTOCK USE HAS WET FAIR JUNC THE DISCLIMAX CONDITION SINK GENERALLY REDUCED AND THE LOW ABUNDANCE THE ABUNDANCE AND OF JUNCUS AND CAREX IS DIVERSITY OF THE PROBABLYA RESULT OF WETLAND THE CONTINUAL GRAZING VEGETATION GROWING BY LIVESTOCK. HERE. SOME CAMPING OCCURS AT THIS SITE. LITTLE LIVESTOCK GRAZING PLEASENT IMPACT NOT SEVERE VALLEY HERE. LAKE LITTLE COMBINATION OF WET FAIR POLY DESPITE GRAZING IMPACTS, PLEASENT LIVESTOCK GRAZING THE SMALL SIZE,AND THE VALLEY AND INTERMITTENT NATURE OF TANK THEINTERMITTANT THIS AREATHERE IS STILL A NATURE OF THE GREAT DEAL OF WETLAND HAS DIVERSITYIN THE RESULTED IN GREATLY WETLAND VEGETATION REDUCED VEGETATIVE SPECIES (SUCH AS DIVERSITY. SPIKERUSH, WATERCRESS, BUTTERCUP). WITH A HIGHER WATER TABLE THIS AREA HAS POTENTIAL FOR

B-20

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION LOOKOUT LIVESTOCK GRAZING WET FAIR ELEO GOOD DIVERSITY OF LAKE 1 HAS REDUCED WETLAND SPECIES (CAREX, ABUNDANCE OF SPIKERUSH, WATERCRESS, WETLAND REEDGRASS) FOR THIS VEGETATION AT THIS WATERHOLE. SITE. SEEMS TO BE A FAVORITE SPOT FOR CAMPERS. LOOKOUT N LIVESTOCK GRAZING WET FAIR CALA-1 INTERMITTENT NATURE LAKE 2 PROVIDES THE MAJOR HOLDS DOWN DIVERSITY IMPACT AT THIS SITE. AND ABUNDANCE OF HOWEVER, LOSS OF WETLAND SPECIES. VEGETATION IS MINIMAL AT THIS SITE DUE TO THE HEAVIER USE BY LIVESTOCK

MANGUM THE CLOSE PROXIMITY RIP GOOD Acne STREAM BED IS SPRING TO A CAMP GIVES EASY OVERGROWN WITH ACCESS TO TERRESTRIALAND RECREATIONALHIKERS. RIPARIAN VEGETATION PERIODIC FLOODS (BOX ELDER, JUN-CUS AND LEAD TO CAREX AS WELL AS OVERGROWTH OF STINGING NET- TLES AND VEGETATION ON NEW MEXICAN LOCUST). BANKS. MOQUITCH PERIODIC FLOODING RIP GOOD Phal RIPARIAN VEGETATION IS SPRING EVENTS HAVE LED TO GENERALLY LACKINGAT OVERGROWTH OF THIS SITE, BUT THE VEGETATION ON TERRESTRIAL VEGE- BANKS AND IN TATION IS VERY LUSH AND CHANNEL BED. ABUNDANT (GOOD AREA B-21

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION FOR WILDLIFE).

MUD LAKE WL USED PRIMARILY FOR WET FAIR ELEO LOW OVERALL DIVERSITY LIVESTOCK GRAZING. OF WETLAND VEGETA-TION HUNTERS ALSO (CAREX, BURREED, UTILIZE THIS SITE SPIKERUSH) IS PRO-BABLY (HUNTING BLIND IN A DIRECT RESULT OF EVIDENCE). PREVIOUS LIVESTOCK PRE- SENCE AT TIMBER SALEHAS THIS WATERHOLE. THIS REDUCED OVERSTORY ALSO AP- PLIES TO AT THIS SITE. TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION. MURRAY WL LIVESTOCK USE HAS WET POOR ELEO THIS LAKE IS HEAVILY LAKE SEVERELY REDUCED GRAZED BY LIVESTOCKAND VEGE-TATIVE COVER THIS HAS PROBABLY AT THIS SITE. SOME CONTRIBUTED TO LACK CAMPING OCCURS OF VEGETATION (RUMEX, HERE. SPIKERUSH, RED[?] ALGAE ARE THE ONLY SPECIES FOUND HERE). NORTH SILTATION FROM RIP FAIR CALA-1 PRESENCE OF A GOOD CANYON TRAILS AND DIVERSITY AND ABUN- CREEK 1 TIMBER/ROAD DANCE OF WOODY ACTIVITY ABOVE. 50- RIPARIAN SPECIES (BOX 100 YEAR FLOOD ELDER, BIGTOOTH MAPLE, EVENTS ARE MAJOR ELM). THIS AREA IS IMPACTS TO BANKS LACKING IN WETLAND WITH LIMITED VEGE- VEGETATION. TATIVE COVER.

B-22

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION NORTH SILTATION FROM SIDE RIP FAIR CARE THIS AREA HAS A GOOD CANYON SLOPES AND VARIETY AND DIVER- SITY CREEK 2 RECREATION TRAIL OF WOODY RIPARIAN CROSSING. 50- 100 SPECIES (BOX ELDER, YEAR FLOODS. BIGTOOTH MAPLE, ALDER). OQUER SOME LIVESTOCK WET FAIR POLY GOOD VARIETY OF LAKE GRAZING AT THIS SITE, WETLAND VEGETATION BUT VEGETATIVE (BUR-REED, SPIKERUSH, IMPACT IS NOT BUTTER-CUP, SEVERE. SOME WATERCRESS,POLYGONUM) CAMPING AT THIS SITE. BUT NO IMMEDIATE MID- OR OVERSTORY. OQUER LIVESTOCK GRAZING WET POOR CARE CONTAINMENT OF SPRING SPRING AND LACK OF WATER WATER HAS FLOWFROM SPRING PROBABLYCONTRIBUTED HAS RESULTED IN A TO TERRESTRIAL PLANT MUCH RE- DUCED INVA- SION. WETLAND VEGETATIVE STATE. PINE FLAT RIPARIAN AREA IS RIP GOOD SALI MATURE WOODY RIPARIAN LOCATED ON EITHER COMMUNITY (NARROW- SIDE OF ROAD. LEAF COTTONWOOD, PERIODIC FLOODING WALNUT, PEACHLEAF WIL- EVENTS LEADS TO LOW). FLOODING HAS EROSION OF BANKS CAUSED EROSION OF AND STRIPPING AWAY SOILS. OF VEGETATION. ROAD WL HEAVILY USED BY WET POOR CARE THIS AREA HAS BEEN VERY HOLLOW LIVESTOCK WHICH HAS HEAVILY IMPACTEDBY TANK RE- SULTED IN LOW GRAZING WHICH HAS VEGETATIVE CAUSED A DRASTIC DIVERSITY AND REDUCTION IN THE ABUNDANCE. THERE IS DIVERSITY OF VEGETATION. B-23

TABLE DIVERSION OF SPRING WET POOR CALA-1 VERY LITTLE VEGETATION ROCK WATER FOR AT THIS SITE DUE TO THE SPRING LIVESTOCK USE HAS NEARLY COMPLETE RESULTED IN A DIVERSION OF SPRING HISTORIC WATER TO LIVESTOCK RIPARIANSITUATION TROUGHS. SITEIS WITH TERRESTRIAL UNDOUBTEDLY AN PLANTS INVAD-ING. HISTORIC RIPARIAN HA- BITAT. THREE EX LIVESTOCK AND WET FAIR CALA-1 THE LARGE LAKE HAS LAKES WILDLIFE GRAZING GOOD POTENTIAL FOR HAVE NOT IMPACTED WATERFOWL WITH A GOOD THE MAIN LAKE AS DIVERSITY OF WET- LAND MUCH AS IT HASTHE VEGETATION (CAREX, SMALLER LAKES DUE REEDGRASS, SPIKERUSH TO THE 4' DEEP AND POLYGONUM). CHANNEL THAT HOWEVER, THE VEGE- ENCIRCLES THE LAKE TATION IS STILL TOO LOW BED. HUNTING TO BE ADEQUATE FOR OCCURS IN THIS AREA. NESTING COVER. FLOODING HAS LED TO SOME EROSION OF THE CHANNEL BANKS.

B-24

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SITE FENCE DESCRIPTION HABITAT CONDITION DOMINANT VEGETATION NARRATIVE VEGETATION VT LAKE HIGHWAY 67 IS WET GOOD CALA-1 GOOD DIVERSITY OF DIRECTLY ADJACENT WETLAND SPECIES (REED- TO THE LAKE BED AND GRASS, CAREX, RUSH, SERVES AS ABARRIER WATERCRESS, BUTTER- ALONG ITS WESTERN CUP, POLYGONUM) END. FLOODING PRESENT IN GOOD ABUN- EVENTS ARE DANCE (PROVIDES GOOD PROBABLY COVER FOR WATERFOWL). RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE FOREST FROM MOVING ANY CLOSER TO THE BODY OF WATER. WARM DIVERSION OF SPRING WET POOR NO VEGETATION AROUND SPRINGS WATER HAS RESULTED THE AREA HOUSING THE IN AN HISTORICAL SPRING SOURCE (ALL RIPARIAN SITUATION. SPRING WATER IS LO-CATION OF SPRING DIVERTED FOR SOURCE ON HILLSIDE PUBLIC/PRIVATE USE). MAKES IT HOW- EVER, AT SITES OF VULNERABLE TO ROCK LEAKAGE FROM SLIDES. PIPELINESTHERE ARE SOME COYOTE WILLOW COMMUNITIES. WARM LIVESTOCK GRAZING WET POOR ELEO DIVERSITY OF WETLAND SPRINGS HAS SEVERLY SPECIES LAKE REDUCED WETLAND (SPIKERUSH,WATERCRESS, VEGETATIONAL WATER PLANTAIN) IS VERY DIVERSITY AND ABUN- LOW.PROBABLY DUE TO DANCE. CROPPING BY LIVESTOCK.

B-25

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-26

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 4. Spring Conditions in the Kane Ranch Allotments analysis area.

SHORT NAME PASTURE MANAGEMENT HYPERLINK HUC NORTHING EASTING RECOMMENDATIONS 27 Mule Kanab Creek This is a very small, ephemeral http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/453_27 15010003 4040839 361586

springs that requires no management Mule_SummaryReport.pdf actions, but likely warrants occasional monitoring. Acer Unnamed Kanab Creek This site offers excellent potential for http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/763_Ace 15010003 4049018 361366

restoration by removing the spring r_SummaryReport.pdf box, as it is in a rarely visited area and doesn't appear to be currently used. However, it would be important to determine historical significance. Aconitum South This is a pristine springs, needing no http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/717_Aco 15010001 4355754 403078

Summer management action; however, nitumunnamed_SummaryReport.pdf occasional monitoring is appropriate. Bear Lake South Recommend fencing out or remove http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/322_Bea 15010002 4351843 397082

Summer bison to protect this omnotrophic big rLake_SummaryReport.pdf lake, which may have groundwater flow. We would also recommend occasional monitoring. Bear South The springs are likely ephemeral. The http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/689_Bea 15010002 4351644 394737

Summer channel appears to be functional in all r_SummaryReport.pdf respects. This is a low priority site for management action, as it is subject to natural surface flooding and is unlikely to support rare species. Occasional monitoring is warranted. Bear Lower South Inadequate information to support 15010002 4351596 394554 Summer management recommendations

B-27

Summer geomorphology restored. The spring _SummaryReport.pdf may require bison exclusion and at least occasional monitoring. Big North The piping may need attention. More http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/271_Big 15010003 4383810 379355

Summer importantly, the hillslope up to the _SummaryReport.pdf source area has no trail, and access to the source area for maintenance results in erosion of the upper, steeper hillslope. Construction of a small stepping stone trail to source area would allow access for maintenance of piping without causing further erosion. One other management recommendation is to consider increasing the area of stream habitat at the base of the slope. The stream channel is presently a linear feature. Because the number of species is related to habitat area, creating a longer, more meandering channel could provide additional low-velocity lotic habitat for springstream species. As streams are rare on the Forest, any increase in stream habitat area can be advantageous. Bitter Kanab Creek There was no evidence of flow http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/662_Bitt 15010003 4043448 361044

modification, and the overall site er_SummaryReport.pdf condition was pristine. Bone Hollow Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4045393 365036 hillslope management recommendations

B-28

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SHORT NAME PASTURE MANAGEMENT HYPERLINK HUC NORTHING EASTING RECOMMENDATIONS Boulder Unnamed Kanab Creek This site is in relatively natural http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/704_Bou 15010003 4055142 358037

condition; however, as a rheocrene it lderUnnamed_SummaryReport.pdf is subject to considerable natural flooding disturbance. While not requiring any immediate management action, it may be useful as a rheocrene reference site; occasional (3-5 yr) monitoring may be useful for tracking changes. Box Elder Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4045498 366371 management recommendations Castle North Recommend removing fencing, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/373_Cast 15010003 4381589 379993

Summer restoring the flow, but maintaining the le_SummaryReport.pdf historic wooden trough and stream system. While this would require substantial effort, the area is well served by roads and could be an excellent public relations site. Management of nonnative understory will require considerable effort. A detailed investigation of cultural use and archaeology is needed here. Coconino fracture South This pristine spring requires no http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/17948_C 15010001 4355730 402762

Summer management action, but may warrant oconinoFracture_SummaryReport.pdf occasional monitoring attention. Cottonwood Cienega Kanab Creek No evidence of flow modification, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/798_Cott 15010003 4043041 362486

and the overall site condition is onwoodCienega_SummaryReport.pdf pristine. Cottonwood Kanab Creek No evidence of flow modification, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/797_Cott 15010003 4043267 361966

Pourover and the overall site condition is onwoodPourover_SummaryReport.pdf pristine. Cottonwood Kanab Creek No evidence of flow modification, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/663_Cott 15010003 4043446 361587

B-29

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SHORT NAME PASTURE MANAGEMENT HYPERLINK HUC NORTHING EASTING RECOMMENDATIONS

and the overall site condition is onwood_SummaryReport.pdf pristine. Crane Lake South Maintain the fencing and monitor http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/330_Cra 15010001 4373785 397132

Summer occasionally. This pond dried up in neLake_SummaryReport.pdf late 2000 and 2002, and does not appear to be groundwater dependent. Crystal South We would recommend that some http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/331_Cry 15010001 4354300 401709

Summer open water is maintained and made stal_SummaryReport.pdf more accessible to birds -- the standing water is now in a concrete wall. It will also be beneficial to create fencing to exclude undesired ungulates and occasionally monitor. Daves Canyon Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4039205 351050 management recommendations Dead Fawn South This spring is in nearly pristine http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/678_Dea 15010001 4356806 403033

Summer condition. Occasional monitoring is dFawnUnnamed_SummaryReport.pdf warranted. Deer Lake South No management recommendations - http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/278_Dee 15010001 4356084 398620

Summer may or may not be spring-fed rLake_SummaryReport.pdf Dog Lake Unnamed South No management recommendations - http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/280_Dog 15010001 4354266 401647

Summer may or may not be spring-fed. Notes Lake_SummaryReport.pdf indicate there is restoration potential, but do not provide specific recommendations Dry Cottonwood Kanab Creek No evidence of flow modification, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/799_Dry 15010003 4042604 363878

and the overall site condition is Cottonwood_SummaryReport.pdf pristine. Dry Park Lake South Fence is down - Maintenance of the http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/762_Dry 15010003 4358500 389416

Summer fence is warranted to exclude cattle ParkLake_SummaryReport.pdf and bison; occasional monitoring is also warranted.

B-30

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SHORT NAME PASTURE MANAGEMENT HYPERLINK HUC NORTHING EASTING RECOMMENDATIONS East Rim South South Inadequate information to support 15010001 4356541 402852 unnamed Summer management recommendations Forgotten Canyon Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4039521 359231 management recommendations Franks Lake South No specific management http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/726_Fran 15010003 4371517 394102

Summer recommendations although it was ksLake_SummaryReport.pdf noted that there were scattered lumber and fence poles around the lake, some browsing and trampling of livestock and elk. There was little evidence of recreational use; area was closed by Forest Service to OHV use. Glenn Rink South The site is in pristine natural http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/832_Gle 15010001 4355008 402864

Summer condition, and due to difficult access nnRink_SummaryReport.pdf it likely receives little, if any human visitation. Occasional monitoring (3-5 years) is warranted due to the volume of flow contribution to North Canyon Creek. Hanging Willow Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4044863 368004 Unnamed management recommendations Horse Jumpup Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/629_Hor 15010003 4390428 359592

management recommendations se_SummaryReport.pdf Indian Hollow Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4037275 361986 management recommendations Jumpup Kanab Creek There is little evidence of visitation to http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/465_Jum 15010003 4049463 361544

the spring, although much evidence pup_SummaryReport.pdf below at the trough. A pipe is deeply imbedded in travertine, sending some of the flow to the trough. Kwagunt Columbine Kanab Creek Site condition is pristine http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/801_Kw 15010003 4041717 358600

aguntColumbine_SummaryReport.pdf

B-31

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SHORT NAME PASTURE MANAGEMENT HYPERLINK HUC NORTHING EASTING RECOMMENDATIONS Kwagunt Hollow Kanab Creek There are no flow modifications, and http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/808_Kw 15010003 4040950 361308

the overall site condition is pristine. aguntHollow_SummaryReport.pdf Kwagunt Hollow Kanab Creek No evidence of flow modification, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/794_Kw 15010003 4041584 358962

Zen and the overall site condition is aguntHollowZen_SummaryReport.pdf pristine. Little Sowats Lower Ranger Pass Inadequate information to support 15010003 4373823 369708 management recommendations Little Sowats Upper Ranger Pass Inadequate information to support 15010003 4373873 369742 management recommendations Little Kanab Creek There was no recent sign of human http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/703_Littl 15010003 4054946 358219

disturbance on 5/17/2011. No action e_SummaryReport.pdf is needed. Occasional monitoring is warranted. Little S Fork Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4054937 357353 unnamed management recommendations Little Willow Kanab Creek No evidence of human disturbance http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/705_Littl 15010003 4055255 358097

eWillowUnnamedSeep_SummaryReport.pdf Locust South No specific management http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/701_Loc 15010002 4355806 384678

Summer recommendations. However, there ust_SummaryReport.pdf were roads and OHV trails at this site, and evidence of contemporary human use. There was also evidence of livestock trampling and grazing, likely by cows, and evidence of wildlife trampling and grazing. The spring flow has been modified by a pipe diversion and encasement. However, the pipe diversion appeared to be non-functional. Lookout Lakes South Repair the wooden fence to protect http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/673_Loo 15010003 4364812 393683

Summer the site from grazing and trampling by koutLakes_SummaryReport.pdf non-native ungulates (Bison) is

B-32

Lower Cottonwood Kanab Creek No flow observed, although some http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/665_Low 15010003 4042838 362971

standing water was present. No action erCottonwood_SummaryReport.pdf is needed. Lower Forgotten Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4039504 358991 Canyon management recommendations Lower Jumpup Kanab Creek Site condition is pristine http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/455_Low 15010003 4044118 357872

erJumpup_SummaryReport.pdf Lower Jumpup Kanab Creek No management action http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/787_Low 15010003 4043973 357966

Below recommended. erJumpupbelow_SummaryReport.pdf Lower Sowats Seep Kanab Creek No evidence of flow modification, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/795_Low 15010003 4042825 358930

and the overall site condition is erSowatsSeep_SummaryReport.pdf pristine. Lower Two South No management recommendations http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/696_Low 15010002 4351223 382744

Summer erTwo_SummaryReport.pdf Lower Two 1 South No management recommendations http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/695_Low 15010002 4351267 382711

Summer erTwo1_SummaryReport.pdf Maidenhair Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4043511 352162 management recommendations Mangum 6 North This site has not been manipulated, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/830_Man 15010003 4386890 379854

Summer and there is no sign of recent gum6_SummaryReport.pdf visitation. No signs of animal visitation Mangum North The site may have some historical http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/632_Man 15010003 4386995 379672

Summer interest, but if not, the scaffolding and gum_SummaryReport.pdf other human alterations could be removed and the site restored. Occasional monitoring is warranted. Open water for wildlife may be of value. B-33

Summer site could relatively easily be gum1_SummaryReport.pdf restored; howver, if water capture is still desired by management, a trail of stepping stones to the source would help reduce site erosion. Occasional monitoring is recommended. Mangum 2 North No management Recommendations http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/634_Man 15010003 4386727 380030

Summer gum2_SummaryReport.pdf Mangum 3 North Inadequate information to support 15010003 4386602 380045 Summer management recommendations Mangum 4 North Inadequate information to support 15010003 4386672 380086 Summer management recommendations Mangum 5 North Inadequate information to support 15010003 4386525 380243 Summer management recommendations Mangum 7 North If the piping is no longer needed, the http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/829_Man 15010003 4386824 379920

Summer site could relatively easily be restored. gum7unnamed_SummaryReport.pdf The site is well protected from the public, as it is difficult to access due to dense rose and stinging nettle. Occasional monitoring is recommended. Middle Unnamed Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4039307 360672 management recommendations Moquitch North Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/images/Springs_image 15010003 4388335 381108

Summer management recommendations s/631_Moquitch.jpg Mountain Sheep Kanab Creek This is a nearly pristine site and may http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/459_Mo 15010003 4043108 359616

be of interest as a reference site for untainSheep_SummaryReport.pdf restoration of springs in similar geomorphic settings. Occasional monitoring is recommended.

B-34

Summer This site has been heavily urningDove_SummaryReport.pdf manipulated with a trough and disturbed soil Murray Lakes North Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/345_Mur 15010003 4387852 394823

Summer management recommendations raysLake_SummaryReport.pdf no spring South Inadequate information to support 15010001 4355879 403125 Summer management recommendations North Canyon all South Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/348_Nort 15010001 4355497 402767

Summer management recommendations hCanyonall_SummaryReport.pdf North Canyon Lower South There is no evidence of human http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/282_Nort 15010001 4355542 402804

Summer presence hCanyonlower_SummaryReport.pdf North Canyon South No sign of human disturbance at site, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/283_Nort 15010001 4355461 402775

Middle Summer but the trail across the creek is subject hCanyonmiddle_SummaryReport.pdf to light recreational use. North Canyon Upper South There is no visible human impact on http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/281_Nort 15010001 4355458 402734

Summer the site. hCanyonupper_SummaryReport.pdf Oak North Recommend site visit. At a minimum, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/585_Oak 15010003 4394228 380529

Summer remove sediment from tank and _SummaryReport.pdf control invasive weeds. Oquer South Remove spring box and fencing to http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/586_Oqu 15010003 4373217 388745

Summer restore the site to a wet meadow. er_SummaryReport.pdf Occasional monitoring is warranted to determine post-rehabilitation site recovery. Pair North Unnamed South Inadequate information to support 15010003 4363362 392061 Summer management recommendations Pair South Unnamed South Inadequate information to support 15010003 4363235 392207 Summer management recommendations Parissawampitts South Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/351_Pari 15010002 4357599 381963

Summer management recommendations ssawampitts_SummaryReport.pdf B-35

example of a pristine south-facing queUnnamed_SummaryReport.pdf hanging garden. If it is monitored or used as a reference site, access should be stabilized with a stepping stone trail to prevent erosion. Pasture South Remove all of the currently- http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/352_Past 15010002 4352651 383576

Summer dismantled plastic and metal piping ure_SummaryReport.pdf and the pipe diversion. Phragmites Kanab Creek No evidence of human impacts or http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/826_Phra 15010003 4055229 358018

Unnamed visitation. There was no exposed gmitesUnnamed_SummaryReport.pdf water at time of survey in 05/2011. This site needs no management attention, but is interesting as an example of a hypocrene spring. Pigeon Kanab Creek Remove all piping, troughs, fencing, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/603_Pige 15010003 4065329 365211

etc. Consider providing some open on_SummaryReport.pdf water for wildlife. Occasional monitoring is warranted, particularly if regional uranium mining or water extraction occurs. Fire danger is high due to extensive bromus cover, but resolution of this problem remains difficult. Primula North Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4044899 367630 Unnamed management recommendations Primula South Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4044655 367808 Unnamed management recommendations

B-36

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SHORT NAME PASTURE MANAGEMENT HYPERLINK HUC NORTHING EASTING RECOMMENDATIONS Quaking Aspen South This is a heavily manipulated spring http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/312_Qua 15010002 4352791 384953

Summer with a spring box, troughs, and kingAspen_SummaryReport.pdf piping, although there are no management recommendations from SSI. I recommend a site visit to evaluate restoration potential and options. Riggs South Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/587_Rig 15010003 4378239 381265

Summer management recommendations gs_SummaryReport.pdf Riggs Tank North Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/images/Springs_image 15010003 4378078 380939

Summer management recommendations s/834_RiggsTank.jpg Rock lower Kanab Creek A livestock enclosure on a nearby http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/460_Roc 15010003 4060937 359504

terrace attests to the historic use of the kLower_SummaryReport.pdf spring for grazing; however, those remnants of historic agricultural use are very old and no evidence exists of recent human use or change. Occasional monitoring is warranted, particularly in relation to regional uranium mining and wildland fire. Rock Upper Bowl Kanab Creek This is an interesting, very harsh, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/476_Roc 15010003 4060941 359556

nearly pristine hanging garden that kUpperBowl_SummaryReport.pdf could be used as a reference site and may warrant occasional monitoring, particularly in relation to regional uranium mining. Slide North Slide Inadequate information to support 15010003 4392333 360059 Unnamed management recommendations Slide South Slide Inadequate information to support 15010003 4391282 360344 Unnamed management recommendations

B-37

diverted from just below the source to e_SummaryReport.pdf several hundred meters downstream. The pipe is leaking severely in several places, and it is unclear where the diversion leads. If the water is not being used, it would be advisable to either remove the pipe or disconnect it from the source. If it is being used, maintenance of the pipe would be helpful. Solidago Unnamed Kanab Creek This remote site is an excellent http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/778_Soli 15010003 4044997 368032

example of a pristine south-facing dagoUnnamed_SummaryReport.pdf hanging garden. If it is monitored or used as a reference site, access should be stone trail to prevent erosion. South Canyon South No management recommendations http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/686_Sout 15010001 4347258 406906

Summer hCanyon_SummaryReport.pdf Sowats middle Ranger Pass No management action other than http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/9738_So 15010003 4373223 369636

occasional inspection is watsmiddleunnamed_SummaryReport.pdf recommended. The steepness of the site precludes monitoring. The site had no evidence of human disturbance Sowats Ranger Pass If the spring is left alone, no action is http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/310_Sow 15010003 4373438 369688

needed. However, if it is to be ats_SummaryReport.pdf regularly monitored or otherwise visited, a stepping stone trail to the source should be constructed. Sowats upper Ranger Pass Occasional monitoring may be http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/308_Sow 15010003 4372870 369707

warranted to keep track of aquifer atsUpperUnnamed_SummaryReport.pdf functionality.

B-38

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report SHORT NAME PASTURE MANAGEMENT HYPERLINK HUC NORTHING EASTING RECOMMENDATIONS Sowats Veronica Ranger Pass If this site was to be monitored or http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/309_Sow 15010003 4373083 369688

used, a trail to the source is needed to atsVeronicaunnamed_SummaryReport.pdf reduce erossion 8 Unnamed Kanab Creek No evidence of flow modification, http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/660_Unn 15010003 4045566 364128

and the overall site condition was amed8_SummaryReport.pdf pristine in 2009. Canyon 2 Unnamed South Inadequate information to support 15010002 4349377 393839 Summer management recommendations Squaw South Limited restoration potential http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/699_Squ 15010002 4355055 384721

Summer according to SSI report. If desired, aw_SummaryReport.pdf the pipe and encasement could be removed Stonefly South This spring may have value as a http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/833_Ston 15010001 4356976 402747

Summer reference site, as it is apparently eflyunnamed_SummaryReport.pdf pristine. Table Rock Kanab Creek If site history is not deemed http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/604_Tabl 15010003 4063892 369260

important, substantial geomorphic eRock_SummaryReport.pdf restoration is possible at this spring; however, there will be no benefit to wildlife from doing so. Tater Canyon South No management recommendations http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/708_Tate 15010001 4368914 404274

Summer rCanyon_SummaryReport.pdf Tater Canyon Upper South No management recommendations http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/723_Tate 15010001 4369078 404131

Summer rCanyonupper_SummaryReport.pdf Tilton North Better georeferencing is needed for http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/630_Tilt 15010003 4391658 380223

Summer this spring complex— at least one on_SummaryReport.pdf other springs system (downslope) may contribute to the tank. Occasional monitoring is warranted.

B-39

Summer site visit may be warranted to p_SummaryReport.pdf determine restoration opportunities since there is significant infrastructure (pipe and 2 troughs, one of which was dry at time of survey) Trailview South This is a small intermittent seep that http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/675_Trai 15010001 4357180 402448

Summer has low habitat value. No lview_SummaryReport.pdf management action is needed Turnaround Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4043951 368620 Unnamed management recommendations Typha Unnamed Slide There was very little evidence of http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/607_Typ 15010003 4391561 360062

human activity at the site, although haUnnamed_SummaryReport.pdf the area below is disturbed and apparently used as a camp. Upper Cottonwood Kanab Creek no evidence of flow modification, and http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/666_Upp 15010003 4042675 363515

the overall site condition was pristine erCottonwood_SummaryReport.pdf in 2009. Spring was dry at time of survey. Upper Forgotten Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4039633 359744 Canyon management recommendations Upper Sowats Seep Kanab Creek There was no evidence of flow http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/796_Upp 15010003 4043100 359266

modification, and the overall site erSowatsSeep_SummaryReport.pdf condition was pristine in 2009. Upper Two South Control invasive plant species http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/366_Upp 15010002 4350960 383481

Summer erTwo_SummaryReport.pdf VT Lake South Repair fence and monitor http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/17947_V 15010001 4362333 398954

Summer TLake_SummaryReport.pdf

B-40

Summer could enhance the native vegetation ts_SummaryReport.pdf habitat. If undertaken, the spring source should be fenced, but outflow provided for wildlife water. Occasional monitoring is warranted. Weeping Garden Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4044235 368297 Unnamed management recommendations West Lake (east) Little Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/369_Wes 15010003 4373039 376515

Mountain management recommendations tLake(east)_SummaryReport.pdf West Lake (west) Little Inadequate information to support http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/370_Wes 15010003 4373039 376515

Mountain management recommendations tLake(west)_SummaryReport.pdf White Kanab Creek There was no evidence of flow http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/661_Whi 15010003 4045257 363332

modification, and the overall site te_SummaryReport.pdf condition was pristine in 2009. Wildband Kanab Creek If this site were to be monitored or http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Reports/605_Wil 15010003 4064530 365117

rehabilitated, constructing a trail dband_SummaryReport.pdf would help protect it. SSI suggests determining if maintenance of the trough in the valley downslope is necessary. Willow Kanab Creek Inadequate information to support 15010003 4063901 363371 management recommendations

B-41

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-42

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

North Canyon Spring lower Survey Summary Report, Site ID 282

Submitted September 30, 2013 by the Springs Stewardship Institute

Location: The North Canyon Spring lower ecosystem is located in Coconino County in the Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon 8-digit HUC, within North Kaibab Ranger District. The spring is located at 36 23' 53.2" latitude, -112 5' 1.9" longitude in the Dog Point USGS Quad, measured using a Garmin GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 2485 meters. RJ Johnson, Larry Stevens, Margaret Erhart, Paul Lauck, and Nathan Zorich surveyed the site on 6/28/2000 for 01:15 hours, beginning at 13:45, and collected data in 10 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: North Canyon Spring lower is a hillslope perennial spring. This spring is the lowermost of three springs in a steep area of Upper North Canyon, visited by Larry Stevens and included in the Brown and Moran study. The slope above the spring is 44 degrees. The microhabitat associated with the spring covers 250 m2. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A— a 200 sqm colluvial slope, and B— a 50 sqm channel. Geomorphic diversity is 0.22, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index. Fig 38.1 North Canyon Spring lower. North Canyon Spring lower emerges as a contact from a sedimentary, sandstone rock layer in Coconino. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. It is spring dominated. The distance to the nearest spring is 51 meters. The site receives approximately 56% of available solar radiation, with 5157 Mj annually.

Survey Notes: Flow disappears and reemerges from mossy rocks, branches, and logs. There is no evidence of human presence. This survey was conducted using an earlier version of the survey protocols.

Water: Flow was measured at 2.776 L/s with a volume method. Field measurements and lab samples were collected 50 meters from spring orifice on steep slope after emerging from beneath vegetation and unconsolidated angular scree slope material. The water was clear.

Table 38.1 North Canyon Spring lower Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. B-43

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Characteristic Measured Average Value pH 8.4 Specific Conductance uS/cm 323 Water Temperature °C 5.8 18-Oxygen % - 13.4 2-Hydrogen % - 98.6

Flora: We identified 11 plant species at the site, with 0.044/m2. These included 10 native and 1 nonnative species.

Table 38.2 North Canyon Spring lower Cover Type, Percent Cover, and Wetland Species. Cover Type Species Count Percent Cover Wetland Species Count Wetland % Cover Ground 5 .01 4 .01 Shrub 2 .0 0 .0 Mid-canopy 0 .0 0 .0 Tall canopy 2 .03 0 .0 Basal 0 .0 0 .0 Aquatic 0 .0 0 .0 Non-vascular 2 .35 0 .0

Table 38.3 North Canyon Spring lower Vegetation % Cover in Microhabitats. Species Cover Code A B Native Status Wetland Status Aconitum GC 0 0.01 N F Aquilegia GC 0 1 N W Epilobium GC 0 1 I WR Lichen NV 30 0 N U Mimulus guttatus GC 0 1 N W moss NV 0 55 N F Picea engelmannii TC 0 10 N U Pseudotsuga menziesii TC 0 5 N U Sambucus SC 0 0.01 N F Symphoricarpos SC 0 0.01 N U Urtica dioica GC 0 1 N WR

Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 6 aquatic and 11 terrestrial invertebrate specimens. These represented 3 aquatic and 2 terrestrial species. No vertebrate species were detected.

Table 38.4 North Canyon Spring lower Invertebrates. Species Qty Stage Habitat Method Species detail COL 1 Spot DIP Tipulidae 1 Ad T Spot EPH Heptageniidae Epeorus longimanus 2 L A Spot LUMB Lumbriculoidea 10 T Spot PLE Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 Spot TRI 1 E Spot eggs? B-44

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Species Qty Stage Habitat Method Species detail TRI Limnephilidae Hesperophylax 2 L A Spot TRI Limnephilidae Hesperophylax occidentalis 2 P Spot TRI Limnephilidae Oligophlebodes 2 M A Spot 1 L, 1 immature pupae

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 6 categories and 41 subcategories, with 0 null condition scores, and 1 null risk score. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is excellent with no need for restoration and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

Table 38.5 North Canyon Spring lower Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk Aquifer Functionality & Water Quality 5.33 0.83 Geomorphology 5.20 1.20 Habitat 5.80 1.20

Biota 5.75 1.38 Human Influence 5.50 1.00 Administrative Context 3.22 2.25 Overall Ecological Score 5.13 1.31

B-45

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Fig 38.2 North Canyon Spring lower Sketchmap.

B-46

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

North Canyon Spring middle Survey Summary Report, Site ID 283

Submitted September 30, 2013 by the Springs Stewardship Institute

Location: The North Canyon Spring middle ecosystem is located in Coconino County in the Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon 8-digit HUC, within North Kaibab Ranger District. The spring is located at 36 23' 51.1" latitude, -112 5' 3.1" longitude in the Dog Point USGS Quad, measured using a Garmin GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 2534 meters. RJ Johnson and Larry Stevens surveyed the site on 6/20/2001 and collected data in 9 of 12 categories.

Fig 39.1 Photo of North Canyon Spring middle.

Physical Description: North Canyon Spring middle is a hillslope spring. This is the middle of three springs in a steep area of North Canyon, visited by Larry Stevens and included in the Brown and Moran study. The microhabitat associated with the spring covers 16 m2. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A— a 6.25 sqm channel, and B— a 10 sqm channel. Geomorphic diversity is 0.29, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

North Canyon Spring middle emerges as a contact from a sedimentary, sandstone rock layer in Coconino. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. It is spring dominated. The distance to the nearest spring is 30 meters. The site receives approximately 41% of available solar radiation, with 3784 Mj annually. B-47

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Survey Notes: There was no change since previous visit in 2000.

Water: Flow was measured at 0.0405 L/s with a Volume method. Field measurements and lab samples were collected 0.1 meters from spring orifice. The water was clear at the time of the survey

Table 39.1 North Canyon Spring middle Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value pH 8.7 Specific Conductance uS/cm 286 Water Temperature °C 6.3 18-Oxygen % - 13.5 2-Hydrogen % - 99.

Flora: Vegetation data were not collected during this survey, but below is a species list collected for the site during a 6/28/2000 survey conducted by Grand Canyon Trust.

Table 39.2 North Canyon Spring middle Vegetation Species List. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status Abies concolor MC N U Aconitum GC N F Epilobium GC I WR Galium GC I F Geranium GC N F Marchantia polymorpha GC N WR Mimulus guttatus GC N W moss NV N F Thalictrum GC N U Viola GC N F

Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 3 aquatic and 73 terrestrial invertebrate specimens. These represented 2 aquatic and 29 terrestrial species. No vertebrate species were detected during the survey.

Table 39.3 North Canyon Spring middle Invertebrates. Species Qty Stage Habitat Method Species detail COL Carabidae Nebria 1 Ad T Spot Loaned to D Kavanaugh Mar 07; COL Cerambycidae Lepturobosca 1 Ad T Spot Riparian or chrysocoma COL Tenebrionidae Eleodes pimelioides 1 Ad T Spot Tax conf. 2/25/05; Riparian or DIP 7 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 30 Ad T Spot B-48

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Species Qty Stage Habitat Method Species detail DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 2 Ad T Spot DIP 8 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot DIP 1 Spot EPH Baetidae Baetis tricaudatus 1 L A Spot EPH Baetidae Baetis tricaudatus 1 L A Spot HYM 2 Ad T Spot HYM Colletidae Hylaeus ellipticus 1 Ad T Spot Checked by OM at USU 050614; Riparian HYM Formicidae Camponotus 1 Ad T Spot Riparian HYM Siricidae 1 T Spot Riparian HYM Vespidae Ancistrocerus bustamente 1 Ad T Spot Riparian HYM Vespidae Ancistrocerus catskill 1 Ad T Spot Riparian HYM Vespidae Ancistrocerus catskill 1 Ad T Spot Riparian HYM Vespidae Polistes kaibabensis 1 T Spot Duplicate ID# - Jeri; Riparian LEP Hesperiidae T Spot yucca skipper LEP Hesperiidae T LEP Hesperiidae Erynnis T Spot LEP Lycaenidae Glaucopsyche T Spot LEP Lycaenidae Hemiargus isola 1 Ad T Spot Riparian LEP Lycaenidae Plebejus acmon T Spot LEP Lycaenidae Plebejus saepiolus 1 Ad T Spot Riparian LEP Nymphalidae Limenitis arthemis T Spot LEP Nymphalidae Nymphalis antiopa T Spot B-49

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Species Qty Stage Habitat Method Species detail LEP Nymphalidae Speyeria atlantis T Spot schellbachi LEP Nymphalidae Vanessa cardui T Spot LEP Papilionidae Papilio rutulus T Spot LEP Pieridae Colias T Spot LEP Pieridae Pontia occidentalis 1 Ad T Spot Habitat in red - Jeri; Stalaria LEP Pieridae Pontia protodice T Spot NEU Myrmeleontidae 1 Ad T Spot UV light NEU Myrmeleontidae 1 Ad T Spot UV light PLE Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 Ad T Spot PLE Nemouridae Malenka coloradensis 3 Ad T Spot PLE Nemouridae Malenka coloradensis 1 Ad T Spot TRI Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila rotunda 1 L A Spot group

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 6 categories and 41 subcategories, with 9 null condition scores, and 9 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

Table 39.5 North Canyon Spring middle Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk Aquifer Functionality & Water Quality 4.83 1.00 Geomorphology 4.60 1.60 Habitat 5.40 1.80

Biota 5.50 1.25 Human Influence 5.25 1.50 Administrative Context Overall Ecological Score 5.12 1.43

B-50

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Fig 39

B-51

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

North Canyon Spring upper Survey Summary Report, Site ID 281

Submitted September 30, 2013 by the Springs Stewardship Institute

Location: The North Canyon Spring upper ecosystem is located in Coconino County in the Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon 8-digit HUC, within North Kaibab Ranger District. The spring is located at 36 23' 51.1" latitude, -112 5' 4.7" longitude in the Dog Point USGS Quad, measured using a Garmin GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 2513 meters. RJ Johnson, Larry Stevens, Margaret Erhart, Nathan Zorich, and Paul Lauck surveyed the site on 6/28/2000 for 00:30 hours, beginning at 13:00, and collected data in 11 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: North Canyon Spring upper is a hillslope regular intermittent spring. It is the uppermost of three springs in the North Canyon drainage. This small spring emerges from a steep colluvial slope and flows about 4 m into North Canyon Creek at base of Coconino formation. The microhabitat associated with the spring covers 5 m2. The site has 1 microhabitat, A— a 4.5 sqm channel. Fig 40.1 North Canyon Spring upper. Geomorphic diversity is 0.0, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

North Canyon Spring upper emerges as a contact from a sedimentary, sandstone rock layer in Coconino. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. It is spring dominated. The distance to the nearest spring is 41 meters. The site receives approximately 40% of available solar radiation, with 3969 Mj annually.

Survey Notes: The flow disappears and reappears in among rocks, mosses, and logs. There is no visible human impact on the site. This spring was surveyed using an earlier version of the survey protocol.

B-52

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Water: Flow was measured at 0.0586 L/s with a volume method. Water quality field measurements and lab samples were collected 0.3 meters from spring orifice. The water was clear at the time of the survey.

Table 40.1 North Canyon Spring upper Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value pH 9.0 Specific Conductance uS/cm 313 Water Temperature °C 5.7 18-Oxygen % - 13.5 2-Hydrogen % - 98.7

Flora: We identified 15 plant species at the site, with 3.333/m2. These included 13 native and 2 nonnative species.

Table 40.2 North Canyon Spring upper Cover Type, Percent Cover, and Wetland Species. Cover Type Species Count Percent Cover Wetland Species Count Wetland % Cover Ground 9 .15 3 .05 Shrub 4 .25 1 .1 Mid-canopy 0 .0 0 .0 Tall canopy 1 .4 0 .0 Basal 0 .0 0 .0 Aquatic 0 .0 0 .0 Non-vascular 1 .55 0 .0

Table 40.3 North Canyon Spring upper Vegetation % Cover in Microhabitats. Species Cover Code A Native Status Wetland Status Aquilegia GC 0.01 N W Chenopodium GC 0.01 I F Cornus sericea SC 10 N R Geranium richardsonii GC 0.01 N F Maianthemum stellatum GC 0.01 N U Marchantia polymorpha GC 2 N WR moss NV 55 N F Prunus virginiana GC 5 N F Pseudotsuga menziesii SC 15 N U Pseudotsuga menziesii TC 40 N U Pteridium aquilinum GC 4 N U Ribes SC 0.01 N F Sambucus SC 0.01 N F Veronica GC 3 I A Viola GC 1 N F

Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 11 aquatic and 40 terrestrial invertebrate specimens. These represented 5 aquatic and 22 terrestrial species.

B-53

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Table 40.4 North Canyon Spring upper Invertebrates. Species Qty Stage Habitat Method Species detail CHIL Lithobiidae 1 Ad T Spot COL Carabidae Pterostichus protractus 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 Ad T Spot DIP 1 L Spot DIP 3 L Spot DIP Asilidae Cyrtopogon pulcher 1 Ad T Spot DIP Stratiomyidae 1 L A Spot HYM Formicidae Formica 1 Ad T Spot HYM Formicidae Formica neorufibarbis 1 Ad T Spot HYM Formicidae Formica obscuripes 1 Ad T Spot HYM Formicidae Formica obscuripes 1 Ad T Spot HYM Formicidae Formica obscuripes 1 Ad T Spot LEP 1 Ad T Spot LEP Hesperiidae Epargyreus clarus 1 Ad T Spot KNF-5 LEP Hesperiidae Poanes taxiles 1 Ad T Spot Mixed conife LEP Hesperiidae Poanes taxiles 1 Ad T Spot Mixed conife LEP Lycaenidae Agriades glandon 1 Ad T Spot On trail LEP Lycaenidae Lycaena heteronea 1 Ad T Spot KNF-5 LEP Lycaenidae Plebejus saepiolus 1 Ad T Spot On trail LEP Nymphalidae Adelpha bredowii T Spot LEP Nymphalidae Cercyonis oetus 1 Ad T Spot LEP Nymphalidae Limenitis weidemeyerii weidemeyerii T Spot LEP Nymphalidae Speyeria atlantis schellbachi T LEP Papilionidae Papilio rutulus T Spot LUMB 1 T Spot MOLL Endodontidae Discus cronkhitei 6 Ad T Spot MOLL Valloniidae Vallonia cyclophorella 1 L T Spot Larvae? B-54

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Species Qty Stage Habitat Method Species detail MOLL Zonitidae Zonitoides arboreus 2 L T Spot Larvae? PLE Nemouridae Malenka 2 L A Spot 3 L, 1 EPH L; lotic TRI 1 O A Spot Case TRI Limnephilidae Hesperophylax 3 P A Spot TRI Limnephilidae Hesperophylax 3 L A Spot TRI Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 L A Spot

Table 40.5 North Canyon Spring upper Vertebrates. Common Name Qty Detection Type Comments Clarks nutcracker obs black-throated gray warbler obs

Table 40.6 North Canyon Spring upper Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk Aquifer Functionality & Water Quality 5.00 0.83 Geomorphology 4.80 1.20 Habitat 5.80 1.20

Biota 5.50 1.38 Human Influence 5.50 1.00 Administrative Context 3.22 2.25 Overall Ecological Score 4.97 1.31

B-55

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

Fig 40.2 North Canyon Spring upper Sketchmap.

B-56

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-57

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-58

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-59

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-60

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-61

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-62

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-63

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-64

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-65

Kane Ranch Allotments Management Environmental Assessment Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report

B-66