3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequencesa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

____________________________________________________________________________ Environmental Assessment Walker Basin Rangeland Management Analysis Red Rock Ranger District February 2011

34

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the present conditions of the environment in Walker Basin Allotment,

and the reasonably foreseeable effects from implementing the proposed action and the no

action alternative. This chapter provides the analytical basis to compare the alternatives.

This chapter provides a summary of information and conclusions the Responsible Official

needs to make an informed decision. This chapter does not contain all the background

information, data, and processes used to make the conclusions that are summarized here.

Background information is contained in the project record, which is publicly available at the

RRRD.

This chapter begins by describing the resources that have been selected for analysis. These

resources were selected based on the results of: internal discussions between resource specialists,

the Responsible Official, the Permittee, and an evaluation of all public scoping responses. The

resources related to the key issues: Upland Vegetation, Rangeland Resources, Soils, Riparian

Vegetation, Economics and Social/Cultural Values, and Wildlife are discussed in the greatest

detail. Issues related to general issues are discussed only briefly. Resources determined to have

no reasonable potential to be affected, such as minerals and wilderness, are not discussed in this

EA. A summary of the affected and non-affected resources is presented in Table 15.

Table 15: Affected Resources – Summary Table†

Resources and Management

Elements

Potentially

Affected Resources and Management

Elements

Potentially

Affected

Yes No Yes No

Air Quality X Paleontology X

Cultural Resources and/or Native American Religious Concerns

X Hydrology/Water rights X

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern X Geology and Minerals X

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TE&S)

X Soils X

Migratory Birds X Wildlife, Aquatic and/or Terrestrial X

Wastes, Hazardous or Solid/ Health and Safety X Range Management X

Water Quality (Surface and Ground) X Recreation X

Invasive Non-native Species/Vegetation X Visual Resources X

Prime and Unique Farmlands X Noise X

Floodplains and/or Wetlands X Socioeconomic Values X

Wild and Scenic Rivers X Lands and Rights-of-way X

Wilderness X Law Enforcement X

Environmental Justice X Forest Management X

Timber X Fire and/or Fuels Management X

† This list of affected resources was approved by the Responsible Official


35

Several judgmental terms appear in the following sections. Unless otherwise specified, here

is what they mean in this EA:

Short-term effects: Effects that typically last less than five years.

Long-term effects: Effects that typically last longer than five years.

Adverse effects: Effects that are generally considered to not contribute towards the

health of a resource

Beneficial effect: Effects that generally contribute towards the health of a resource

The proposed action would not be a new use of the land; it would continue an activity that

has occurred for over 100 years. Therefore, the effects of the proposed action are only

discussed in detail where a problem or concern has been identified.

3.2 Alternatives and Their Response to Key Issues

This section summarizes how each alternative responds to each key issue. Key issues were

identified in Chapter 1.0, and the Alternatives were described in Chapter 2.0.

3.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action/No Grazing

The following table shows how Alternative 1 responds to the Key Issues

Table 16: Alternative 1 –No Action/No Grazing - Response to the Key Issues†

Key Issue Indicator(s) Effect of Livestock Removal Condition of

Upland Vegetation Riparian

Vegetation and Rangeland

Stubble height Vegetation would not be subject to cattle grazing, and stubble height

increases would be noticed quickly (1-3 years).

Condition of Soils (bare and eroding)

Amount of bare soil and soil

stability

Vegetation would have a greater chance of being able to reestablish itself on areas of bare soil. Recovery would be evident within 1-3

years.

Economic, Cultural

and Social Values

Presence and operation of the

private ranch

The ranch would likely not find substitute grazing land or be able to switch operations and would no longer be able to maintain itself. The common trend in the western US is for ranches to be purchased by

developers and subdivided into rural housing.

Wildlife - Turkey

Increased diversity of grass (3-5 types) and

forbs (4-8 types)

Would lead to increased diversity of grass and forbs for turkey habitat.

† The effects and timeframes are described as they would be expected under average conditions. Factors, such as drought or excessive moisture would affect

the timeframes.


36

3.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Table 17: Proposed Action - Response to the Key Issues† Key Issue Indicator(s) Effect of Proposed Action

Condition of Upland Vegetation, Riparian Vegetation

and Rangeland

Stubble height Grazing would continue. Adaptive management would allow us to make adjustments to move towards desired conditions. Improvements would

occur, but would likely take 5-10 years.

Condition of Soils bare and eroding

Amount of bare soil and soil

stability

Grazing would continue. Adaptive management would allow us to make adjustments to move towards desired conditions. Improvements would

occur, but would likely take 5-10 years.

Economic, Cultural and Social Values

Presence and operation of the

private ranch

The ranch would be able to sustain operations. It would continue its contributions to the local economy and provide habitat and open space benefits. Coconino County would be able to maintain part of its western

heritage.

Wildlife - Turkey

Increased diversity of grass (3-5 types) and forbs (4-8 types)

Would lead to increased diversity of grass and forbs for turkey habitat. However, it is assumed that with grazing, this diversity would take longer to

achieve than under the No Action Alternative.

† The effects and timeframes are described as they would be expected under average conditions. Factors, such as drought or excessive moisture would affect

the timeframes.

3.2.3 The No Action Alternative

A stand-alone no action alternative is not required for Environmental Assessments (FSH

1909.15, Chapter 40, Section 41.22). Therefore, the effects of no action are not broken out into a

separate alternative under each resource. Instead, consideration of the no action alternative is

documented by contrasting the impacts of the no action alternative with the proposed action at

the end of the effects discussions for each resource.

Under the no action alternative, no action would be taken to renew the TGP. The TGP would

expire, and livestock would be removed from Walker Basin Allotment.

3.3 Affected Resources

The Resources that were analyzed for potential effects are summarized below:

Rangeland Resources

Upland Vegetation

Soils

Economic and Social/Cultural Values

Wildlife

Riparian Areas and Water Quality

Cultural Resources

Fisheries

Visuals

Weeds

Recreation

The scope of the evaluation for the effects to resources is limited to Walker Basin Allotment, as

shown on Map 1 in Appendix 1.

In addition to the immediate effects that would result from the alternatives, each resource

includes a discussion on how the alternatives might result in effects that combine with the effects


37

of other projects for a cumulative effect contribution. In general, the past and reasonably

foreseeable actions are the same for every resource discussion. The past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future activities considered in the cumulative effects analysis include: dispersed

recreation, firewood gathering, watershed and wildlife habitat improvements, hunting, road

maintenance, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, wildlife grazing, wildfire and prescribed fire, and

weed treatments. Appendix 3 can be referenced for a detailed catalog of past, present and

reasonably foreseeable projects used in the evaluation of the cumulative effect contributions.

Except where otherwise indicated, the geographical extent of the cumulative effects analysis is

confined to Walker Basin Allotment. The timeframe selected for this analysis is 20 years; 10

years into the past and 10 years into the future. This timeframe was selected because 10 years is

one planning cycle, and ground-disturbing activities generally recover and stop contributing

effects within 10 years.

OHV use has increased over the last several years. A travel management analysis for the entire

Coconino National Forest is in progress to address travel management issues, including miles of

roads and off-road vehicle travel. Therefore, travel management is not addressed in this analysis.

3.3.1 Rangeland Resources This section describes the condition of the allotment based on established Forest Service Region

3 protocols for evaluating rangeland health for the purposes of livestock grazing.

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

The allotment is managed by the University of Arizona and is used for research into range

ecology, animal breeding, animal nutrition, and animal health. Elevations in the winter portion

of Walker Basin Allotment range from about 3,200 feet to about 6,400 feet. Elevations in the

summer portion range from about 6,000 to 7,300 feet. Refer to Appendix 1, Map 7 for seasonal

zones.

The typical vegetation below 4,500 feet is desert scrub. From 4,500-5,500 feet, the vegetation

turns into pinyon-juniper; above 5,500 feet is ponderosa pine. This vegetation is typical for the

area; special status vegetation is described in section 3.6.

Various range improvements, including fences, cattleguards, and drinkers are found throughout

the allotment. Section 1.8 presented an in-depth discussion on the existing condition and trend

of the rangeland, and that section is not repeated here.

3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences - Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

A. Proposed Action –Direct and Indirect Effects – Contrasted with No Action

Under the proposed action, livestock grazing would continue. The effects from grazing (forage

consumption and trampling) would continue. However, adaptive management and monitoring

would be used to evaluate the effects and make changes as necessary to maintain or move

towards desired conditions. Wildlife would continue to graze on the allotment. Under this


38

alternative, the University of Arizona would be able to continue rangeland ecology research on

Walker Basin Allotment.

Through consumption, livestock affect vegetation through a reduction in plant height and cover.

Under unfavorable climate conditions (ex. drought), this would lead to a decrease in: plant

diversity, canopy cover, abundance, production, and ground cover. Such impacts to plant health

can be reduced in several ways, such as through proper application and monitoring of forage

utilization and grazing intensity guidelines. Favorable climate is critical for maintaining

adequate plant health.

Adaptive management and monitoring would provide flexibility to adjust the management of the

Permittee’s herd to maintain or improve vegetative conditions. The proposed guidelines would

maintain forage on the allotment to: reproduce; grow to maturity; build necessary root mass;

produce seed heads; produce litter important for nutrient cycling; and, propagate and move into

new areas. In Galt, et al. (2000), a 25 percent utilization guideline was recommended for

livestock, with 25 percent allocated for wildlife and natural disturbance, and the remaining 50

percent left for site protection. Under this alternative, wildlife use is included within the

proposed forage utilization guideline of 30 to 50 percent. As a result, the proposed action would

leave 50-70 percent of the forage production available at the end of the growing season for site

protection. In contrast, the current AMP allows utilization in some areas of up to 60 and 70

percent.

The timing of grazing affects plant species composition. For example, spring and early summer

grazing occurs mainly on cool-season species. After the monsoon season, grazing occurs mainly

on warm-season species. As the weather cools in the fall, use changes back to cool-season

species. Under the proposed action, the grazing use period within a pasture would be seasonally

rotated so that forage is grazed and rested at different times each year. The proposed action is

based on light to moderate intensity grazing, which maintains and enhances forage production

and quality (Holocheck 1981). Also, by alternating the livestock use and rest periods on cool

and warm-season species, forage production, forage quality, and plant species composition

would be maintained or improved. Adaptive management and monitoring would provide the

necessary resource information and management options to adjust the timing, intensity,

frequency, and duration of livestock grazing to ensure that vegetation condition is maintained or

improved.

Under the proposed action, upland vegetation condition and trend is expected to remain static or

move upward. However, under this alternative, it would be due to more control over livestock

numbers and water development and fencing improvements that would lead to better livestock

distribution. It is assumed that the improvements under this alternative would take longer than

under the no action alternative, simply because the livestock would still be grazing.

There would be no measurable effects to vegetation resulting from the construction of structural

improvements (fences, tanks, cattleguards).

If the no action alternative is selected, range conditions would be expected to improve in the

same manner as described above. However, this improvement would be due to the livestock no


39

longer grazing and walking on vegetation and soil. It is assumed that conditions would improve

faster under the no action alternative because livestock would no longer be present. No new

structural range improvements (fences, cattleguards, drinkers) would be constructed, and those

on the allotment would no longer be maintained by the Permittee. Range improvements would

fall into disrepair, and the loss of the stock tanks would be a loss of water for wildlife.

B. Proposed Action - Cumulative Effects – Contrasted with No Action

Livestock grazing would affect understory plants by reducing plant height and canopy cover.

However, with adaptive management, condition and trend for upland vegetation is expected to

remain static or move upward with cattle grazing. This improvement would combine with past,

present and reasonably foreseeable prescribed burning and weed treatment projects on the

allotment for a cumulative effect contribution towards the upland vegetation trend.

If the proposed action is not implemented, the cumulative contribution would be the same.

However, it is assumed that without livestock grazing, the upward trends would occur more

quickly, although it is too speculative to try and assign a rate.

3.3.1.3 Design Criteria and Monitoring

Various resource protection measures would be used under the proposed action. These include

monitoring the Permittee’s compliance with the TGP, AMP, and AOIs. Grazing impacted areas

would be monitored, and salt, fences, water developments, and riders would be used to improve

livestock distribution. A detailed list of design criteria and monitoring that would be completed

under the Proposed Action is in Appendix 5.

3.3.1.4 Conclusion Summary

Under both the no action alternative and the proposed action, range condition and trend would

either be static or move upwards. It is too speculative to try and assign a rate of improvement to

each alternative, but it can be reasonably assumed that upward trends would slower under the

proposed action than under the no action alternative. Under the proposed action, the Permittee

would maintain stock tanks, which are important water sources for wildlife. Under the no action

alternative they would not be maintained. Under the proposed action, the University of Arizona

would be able to continue rangeland ecology research on this allotment.

3.3.2 Upland Vegetation – Special Status Species This section focuses on potential effects to special status plants, either threatened, endangered,

candidate or sensitive species and habitat. Riparian vegetation is not discussed here; it is

discussed in section 3.9.


No threatened, endangered, or candidate species are known to occur in Walker Basin Allotment.

Habitat in Walker Basin Allotment is capable of supporting nine Forest Service Region 3

sensitive plant species. Potential habitat exists for all nine species, but there are no known

occurrences of any of the nine species on the allotment. Therefore this evaluation focuses on

how the habitat would be affected. As described in section 3.3.1, both alternatives would

contribute towards habitat improvements.


40

The nine species are:

Tonto Basin Agave

Heathleaf Wild Buckwheat

Ripley Wild Buckwheat

Hualapi Milkwort

Verde Valley Sage

Cliff Fleabane

Arizona Sneezeweed

Eastwood Alum Root

Flagstaff Beardtongue

Livestock grazing has occurred on this allotment for the past 100 years. It is assumed that

incidental grazing of sensitive plants by livestock and wildlife has occurred in the past.

3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

A. Proposed Action – Direct and Indirect Effects – Contrasted with No Action

Potential habitat for heathleaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, Verde Valley sage and

Hualapai milkwort exists in the Russell and Wickiup Pastures of the allotment (Appendix 1, Map

2). Potential habitat for Arizona sneezeweed and Tonto Basin Agave occurs throughout the

allotment.

Table 18: How the Proposed Action Affects Potential Sensitive Species Habitat

Pasture Result of Proposed Action

Russell Pastures

Grazing would continue, but water and fencing improvements, and lower initial numbers, would result in a lower level of grazing than currently occurs.

No improvements would be constructed in the potential habitat.

Wickiup Pastures

Grazing would be more restricted in the Wickiup Pastures, and watershed improvement projects are proposed in these pastures. In addition, water and

fencing improvements, and lower initial numbers, would result in a lower level of grazing than currently occurs Any effects to the potential habitat from livestock

grazing would decline, and the extent of potential habitat may increase.

No improvements would be constructed in the potential habitat.

Entire Allotment (for Arizona sneezeweed and Tonto Basin Agave)

. Water and fencing improvements, and lower initial numbers, would result in a lower level of grazing than currently occurs Any effects to the potential habitat from livestock grazing would decline, and the extent of potential habitat may

increase.

This proposed action includes adaptive management for improving conditions to meet the

desired future condition for headwater meadows and riparian habitat. This would improve the

potential sensitive species habitat. In addition, the watershed restoration work proposed for

Wickiup Pastures would improve potential sensitive species habitat.

If any of these species do establish themselves in the allotment, there would be a potential for

livestock to incidentally graze them and trample them.


41

The proposed action would not affect potential habitat for cliff fleabane or Eastwood alum root.

These species generally occur on steep, cliffy areas that would not be affected by livestock

grazing or any of the proposed improvements. The proposed action would also not affect

Flagstaff Beardtongue, which has potential in the ponderosa pine habitat. As described earlier,

the ponderosa pine habitat is in good condition, without any concerns.

If no action was taken, the effects to the potential habitat for the nice species would be the same

as for the proposed action with two differences. Under no action, the watershed restoration

projects would not occur, and there would be no potential for livestock to graze and/or trample

species. However, wildlife would still be present to incidentally graze and trample species.

B. Proposed Action – Cumulative Effects – Contrasted with No Action

Grazing would continue under an adaptive management strategy. This course of action is

expected to improve range conditions, which would improve potential habitat for nine Forest

Service Region 3 sensitive species. Therefore, the habitat effects from this proposed action

would combine with the effects of thinning, prescribed burning, and weed treatments for a

cumulative contribution towards improving sensitive species habitat.

Under the no action alternative, the cumulative effects contribution would be the same as the

proposed action with one difference. Under no action, the watershed restoration work would not

occur.


Since there are no known occurrences of any special status species in the allotment, no design

criteria or monitoring is warranted.


Neither alternative would affect special status species. Both alternatives would contribute

towards habitat improvements, but the proposed action contains some specific watershed

restoration efforts.

3.3.3 Soils This section describes the current condition of the soil in the allotment and the potential effects

of the proposed action and no action alternative on the soil. This section does not describe

individual soil types, but rather focuses on the condition of the soil. This section does not break

down the condition of the soil pasture by pasture; it focuses on specific areas with the most

substantial problems (Appendix 1, Map 3). A complete breakdown of soils, pasture by pasture,

can be found on pages 62-66 of the soil and water specialist’s report.

Soil is affected by the livestock walking on the soil and consuming forage. This results in:

Compaction of soils from hoof action, resulting in a platy structure, reduced water

infiltration into the soil, reduced ability to exchange gases, and the formation of dense

horizons where root penetration is difficult.

Destabilization of soils, especially on the banks of streams.


42

Consumption of too much vegetation exposes the soil to raindrop impacts and overland

flows of water, leading to soil crusting, increased erosion, and a general loss of stability.

The reduced cover results in a loss of soil organic matter, which leads to a loss of soil

microbes that recycle nutrients.

Some studies have found some amount of grazing can be beneficial to the land by:

Breaking up dense, rank vegetation through hoof action, which can improve the health,

palatability and forage production of grass species (Savory, 1988).

Stimulating plant production, which can produce more above-ground biomass that would

be available for litter.

o One study (Loeser, 2004) on the Coconino NF in 2004 found that grazing can

increase the annual net primary production of plants, over non-grazed areas.

However, this increase was primarily due to an increased production of

squirreltail. So, production increased at the expense of diversity.

Some hoof action reducing compaction by breaking up the surface crust and preparing

the soil for seeds and plants. The hoof action mixes around the organic materials and

“plants” the seeds by burying them. (Savory and Parsons, 1980) (Savory, 1988).

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey for the Coconino National Forest (USDA, 1995) was used as

the basis for soil condition assessments. Soil condition ratings are based on interpretations of

soil hydrologic function, soil stability, and nutrient cycling. Soils are classified as one of the

following:

Unsatisfactory

Impaired

Satisfactory

Inherently Unstable

The effects of livestock grazing are most noticeable on impaired and unsatisfactory soils.


The allotment has variable soil types including: forest, montane meadow grassland, pinyon-

juniper woodland, semidesert and desert soils. Precipitation ranges from about 22 inches in

Ponderosa pine to about 12 inches in desert soil. The soil condition assessments were based on

the soil condition ratings in the TES of the Coconino National Forest. Some of these ratings

were adjusted based on soil-condition assessments made between 2004 and 2008 by Forest

Service personnel. The TES was mapped across the landscape at a scale of 1:24,000. Therefore,

small patches (<50 acres) are not broken out in the TES. However, the TES is considered

reliable for allotment-level evaluations.

See page 48 of the soil and water specialist’s report for a complete explanation of the limitations

of the data. For a breakdown of the specific units evaluated to draw the conclusions in the Table

19, refer to pages 52-53 and 59-62 of the soil and water specialist’s report.


43

Table 19: Soil Condition in Walker Basin Allotment

Vegetation Type Discussion of Soil Condition†

Ponderosa Pine

Forest

These soils are dominated by basalt and limestone. They have a thin

(<7 inches) layer of organic matter on the surface, have medium to clayey textures, and range from deep (>40 inches) to shallow (<20 inches) to bedrock.

Pastures in the ponderosa pine have mostly satisfactory soil conditions and offer full capability for grazing. Grazing can occur without posing risk to

long-term soil productivity.

Montane meadows within ponderosa pine

These soils have thick (8-16 inches) layers of organic material on the surface. They are capable of supporting large amounts of vegetation.

Pastures in the montane meadows have variable soil conditions from impaired to unsatisfactory and offer potential capability. Evidence of high elk utilization and soil trampling are common throughout these pastures. Soil conditions are

not likely to improve much under any kind of grazing system, given the extent of elk disturbance.

Pinyon-Juniper woodlands

These soils are dominated by basalt, and are fine-textured (clayey). They have thin (<7 inches) layers of organic material on the surface. There are some areas of thicker organic material where they transition into alligator juniper

woodlands. The majority of the pastures located in this vegetation type are impaired and

offer potential grazing capability under a conservative allowable use and adaptive management strategy.

Juniper - Semi-desert

Grassland

These soils are mostly in basalt and cinder and limestone alluvium, and are usually deep (>40 inches) to bedrock, with fine, clayey textures.

Semidesert Grassland/Shrubland

Developed in the Verde limestone formation and are medium textured, with thin, calcareous, organic surfaces and usually shallow (<20 inches) to bedrock

Desert

These soils are mostly calcareous alluvium and found in lowland plains. They are medium textured. The organic layer is very thin and they are usually deep

(>40 inches) to bedrock.

† The complete listing of soil classification by TES map unit number can be found in the TES of the Coconino National Forest at

http://alic.arid.arizona.edu/tes/tes.html

Across the allotment, soils were classified according to their ability to support grazing. They

were classified as follows:

Table 20: Classification of Soils on the Walker Basin Allotment*

Condition Acres Percentage of Allotment

Satisfactory 17,435 25%

Impaired 33,552 47%

Unsatisfactory 4,658 6%

Inherently Unstable 15,345 22%

* See pages 43-46 of the soil and water specialist’s report for details on how the classifications were made

† Montane meadows account for about 560 acres of the impaired soils listed above

http://alic.arid.arizona.edu/tes/tes.html


44

Satisfactory soils mostly occur in the ponderosa pine type because the needle cast protects the

soil from compaction and erosion. These soils are fully capable of supporting livestock grazing

while maintaining soil productivity.

Impaired soils generally occur in pinyon-juniper woodlands, chained areas, and some juniper-

semi-desert grassland transitional areas and semi-desert grassland/shrubs. These soils have

reduced species composition, less diversity of plants and litter cover, and show signs of

accelerated erosion. These soils are capable of supporting conservative use livestock grazing

while maintaining soil productivity.

Unsatisfactory soils generally occur on flat slopes (less than 10 percent slope), in deserts, and in

some pinyon-juniper semi-desert grassland transitions. They have signs of compaction, rilling,

and gullying, especially in Gypsum Pasture, Winter Heifer Pasture, and East and Middle

Wickiup Pastures. Livestock tend to congregate on these flat slopes when stock tanks are placed

on them. This reduces vegetation even further and contributes to more erosion and compaction.

The amount of forage on these areas is low, and they offer little to no potential for livestock

grazing in their current condition.

Inherently unstable soils have high natural erosion rates, but are functioning properly and

normally. Due to their erosion rates, they cannot support grazing. They tend to occur on steep

slopes (>40% slope). Due to the slope, livestock generally avoid these areas without the need for

fences.

Unsatisfactory soils in montane meadow systems have compacted soils, evidence of sheet

erosion, and reduced nutrient cycling, although many of these meadows produce an estimated

100 pounds or more of forage per acre per year. These soils are currently not capable of

supporting livestock grazing. However, unsatisfactory soils can be improved to support grazing.

Seven pastures in Walker Basin Allotment are of particular concern due to the amount of acres

and percentage of the allotment with unsatisfactory soil conditions. These pastures (Table 21) do

not offer much forage.

Table 21: Pastures with the Most Unsatisfactory Soils†

Pasture Soil Notes

Shipping

Pasture

The pasture is used for shipping and contains 177 acres of unsatisfactory soils.

The pasture would improve with continued grazing at conservative use under the proposed action

Shipping Lane 1

Contains more than 400 acres (40% of the pasture) of unsatisfactory soils

The pasture would improve under the proposed action. The improvement strategy may include rest rotation, deferral, and conservative use.

East Wickiup

Has active gullies (Wickiup Creek) that contribute substantial amounts of sediment into West Clear Creek and eventually the Verde River. Has 252 acres of unsatisfactory

soils. The headcut in East Wickiup was caused by overland sheet flow, due to a lack of vegetation.

Capable of supporting livestock grazing when conditions improve.

Middle Wickiup

Has 234 acres of unsatisfactory soils. Some (not all) of the gully formations are stable



45

Winter Heifer

Less than 25 % of the pasture contains unsatisfactory soils, but this is over 600 acres. These soils are located in a creosote desert. This pasture also has impaired soils.


West Snake Ridge

Less than 25% of the pasture contains unsatisfactory soils. This pasture also has impaired soils.

Has capability for grazing.

Gypsum

Pasture

About 13% unsatisfactory. Soils adjacent to gullies are mostly impaired.

Could be grazed under conservative use, while allowing for improvements.

† To see a complete breakdown of all soils in the allotment, pasture, by pasture, see pages 62-66, and Appendix B, pages 1-13

of the Soil and Water Specialist’s report in the project file

Other pastures are not specifically discussed in this EA. If the proposed action is capable of

moving the most critical areas towards the desired conditions, it can be assumed with a

reasonable degree of certainty that the less critical areas would also move towards desired

conditions.

Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution in the form of sedimentation is coming from Wickiup Draw.

As the pastures drain, they contribute sediment into Wickiup Draw, which carries the sediment to

West Clear Creek, which feeds into the Verde River, which is currently non-attaining for

turbidity. According to a 1969 Coconino National Forest report, the average estimated volume of

sediment lost in a 20 year period for the three major gully areas in the Wickiup pastures was

42,046 tons. There is no breakdown on how much of this can be attributed to livestock grazing.

Over the last 40 years, the gullies have grown in size.

Pastures with the greatest amount (>50%) of inherently unstable soils are:

West Wickiup

Walker Basin

Gypsum

Winter Heifer

Middle Wickiup

East Russell

Walker Rim

Although more than half of the area of each of these pastures is inherently unstable, the steepness

of the slopes and difficult access makes it difficult for cattle to access the inherently unstable

areas. Therefore, these areas are not intensely grazed and are not at high risk of damage to soil

productivity. These areas do not require any special protection measures and are not discussed

further.

So, in summary:

The majority of the pastures located in pinyon-juniper woodlands, converted woodlands

and juniper/semidesert grassland transition woodlands are impaired and offer potential

capability under a conservative allowable use and an adaptive management strategy.

Pastures located in ponderosa pine vegetation types have satisfactory soil conditions and

offer full capability for grazing. Grazing with a conservative allowable use and an

adaptive management strategy would maintain these pastures in full capacity.


46

Montane meadows located within the ponderosa pine have variable soil conditions from

Impaired to Unsatisfactory and offer potential capability. Evidence of high elk utilization

and soil trampling are common throughout these meadows. Improvements in soil

conditions in Montane meadows would be slow, given the extent of elk disturbance.

Overall, it appears as though the summer range pastures located in the PJ woodlands and

Ponderosa Pine vegetation types are more capable of supporting livestock grazing than

pastures located in the winter range PJ/semidesert grassland and desert vegetation.

3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects


The proposed action, a conservative stocking rate with adaptive management, would allow soil

and vegetative conditions to improve in riparian and upland areas where conditions are

unsatisfactory, while continuing livestock grazing. Since the proposed action is designed to

improve areas that are unsatisfactory, areas that are already in satisfactory condition would be

maintained in that condition. In general, the standing crop of forage would increase and

compaction of soils would no longer occur from livestock grazing. Vegetative composition,

diversity and ground cover would improve, and upland utilization standards would be met.

These effects would occur because the grazing strategy and proposed rangeland improvements

(see section 2.2.2) would assist with cattle movement and more efficient distribution on the

allotment. This would allow the satisfactory soils to maintain their satisfactory condition. It

would also allow the unsatisfactory and impaired soils to improve. The pastures would receive

use within their capacity, resulting in a build up of litter and plant basal area that would protect

the soil from erosion. Livestock would be better distributed on the allotment to reduce impacts

in the high use areas.

Under this strategy, soil organic matter would begin to accumulate in areas that have been

depleted and compacted; soils would return to their normal densities. Soil structure and the

ability of the soil to infiltrate water would improve; the soil would stabilize and maintain

productivity. In general, areas with unsatisfactory soils would improve at a slower rate than

those with impaired soils, but it is too speculative to try and predict rates of improvement.

The rate of vegetative ground cover buildup would be variable. It would be slow in winter

pastures located in dry climates (semi-desert and desert vegetation types). It would be faster in

summer pastures located in pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine vegetation types, and depend on

annual precipitation received.

In areas with impaired soil condition, improvement of vegetation composition, diversity, and soil

condition would likely improve. For unsatisfactory soils, such as in Winter Heifer Pasture, it

may take more than 3-5 years to reach the amount of vegetative ground cover required to

maintain soil productivity, and probably less than 5 years on impaired soils, depending on annual

precipitation. Effective vegetative ground cover (litter and basal area) would increase and

contribute towards soil condition objectives by holding the soil in place, dissipating the flow of

water over the ground, allowing the water to infiltrate the soil, and absorbing water.


47

By restricting use in East Wickiup (trail through) and Middle Wickiup (4-day graze), protecting

the gullied sections, and performing restoration work, the condition of the pastures would

improve. Improvement in the soil structure within these pastures would be expected. Then, as

vegetation becomes reestablished, the sheetflow of water would be reduced. This would mean

that less water would be available to contribute towards erosion and the expansion of the gullied

sections. It also means that less sediment would be carried off the allotment by Wickiup Draw to

West Clear Creek and the Verde River, which is currently non-attaining for turbidity (Section

3.3.5).

The increase in litter and vegetation would begin to move unsatisfactory soils towards

satisfactory. Although it cannot be stated that reducing the erosion in these pastures would bring

the Verde River into compliance, it would contribute towards a reduction in the non-point source

pollution being deposited in the Verde River. The Forest Service is required to make this effort

under the Nonpoint Source Intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (Section 1.6).

Grazing would continue in the montane meadows, so soil conditions in those meadows (TES

units 53 and 55) may improve at a slow rate. Given the extent of elk disturbance, improvements

may not be immediately noticeable in these meadows. As explained in section 2.2.2.D, if

improvements are not seen under the proposed action with the initial reduction in livestock

numbers, the meadows may be closed to recreational use or fenced, or both.

Adaptive management would allow adjustments to be made during drought periods, either

through a lower utilization level or removal of livestock. Under an adaptive management

scenario, utilization levels of 0 percent up to the maximum of 30-40 percent would occur

(leaving a minimum of 60-70 percent for site protection). Therefore, adaptive management

would move unsatisfactory and impaired soils towards satisfactory conditions, and maintain

satisfactory soil condition on sites that are currently satisfactory. Conversely, adaptive

management could be used to increase numbers and season in wet years, if conditions allow.

It is difficult to say over what period of time these improvements would be evident. Some of

them, like the increase in the standing crop of forage would probably be evident in 1-2 years.

However, most improvements would depend on the timing and the amount of precipitation. If

drought conditions persist, improvements would take longer. However, it can be stated with

reasonable certainty that the improvements would occur slower under the proposed action than

they would under the no action alternative, because the livestock would still be present.

Improved soil condition equates to improved watershed condition, and so this alternative would

move the allotment towards the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for improving watershed

condition by the year 2020, assuming there is not a prolonged drought. For a more in-depth

discussion on the processes that would lead to these effects, see pages 75-83 of the soil and water

specialist’s report in the project record.

If the proposed action is not implemented, livestock would no longer be on the allotment to

contribute towards erosion, compaction, and destabilization of soils. Erosion on the allotment

would decrease due to the increases in vegetative cover and litter. Therefore, less sediment

would enter the watercourses. In most areas, the improvements would be the same as described


48

for the proposed action, but they would occur at a faster rate; however, it would be too

speculative to try and assign a rate. However, without the proposed action, the watershed

restoration work would not occur. As such, there are some areas that would not noticeably

improve from the removal of livestock. It is unlikely the gullying and headcutting in the

Wickiup Pastures would stop and conditions improve without some restoration work.


Under the proposed action, erosion, compaction and destabilization of soils from livestock hoof

action would be reduced, and some soil stabilization and restoration projects would be

conducted. The condition of the soils would improve. This improvement would combine with

the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable prescribed burning and weed treatment

projects for a cumulative effect contribution. Weed treatments and prescribed burns improve

vegetation, which improves soil condition.

If the proposed action is not implemented, the cumulative contribution would be similar,

although no stabilization and restoration work would be undertaken. Without livestock grazing,

it is assumed that upward trends would occur more quickly in most areas, although it is too

speculative to try and assign a rate. However, little improvement would be seen in the Wickiup

Pastures without the proposed watershed restoration work to stabilize the gullies and headcuts.

C. Design Criteria and Monitoring

Various resource protection measures would be used under the proposed action. Monitoring

would be done in accordance with the Region 3 FSH Supplement 2509.18-99-1. A detailed list

of design criteria and monitoring that would be completed under the proposed action is in

Appendix 2.

D. Conclusion Summary

Under each alternative, the amount of bare soil and compacted soil in the allotment would be

reduced. Satisfactory soils would be maintained in satisfactory condition. Unsatisfactory soils

would make progress towards becoming satisfactory soils, and impaired soils would make

progress towards becoming satisfactory soils under both alternatives. The difference is that the

improvements in most areas would occur more slowly under the proposed action than under the

no action alternative. Some areas, like the gullied sections of the Wickiup Pastures would

improve faster under the proposed action due to the proposed restoration work. Placing an actual

rate of improvement is too speculative, since climate conditions are so variable.

3.3.4 Economic, Social and Cultural Values This section describes how the alternatives would affect the economic wellbeing of the

Permittee, and it also assesses potential social, economic, and cultural effects to Coconino and

Yavapai Counties. Therefore, this evaluation was done, and is presented, in both an individual

Permittee context, and a larger community-scale context. This section also briefly discusses

Environmental Justice.

The economic analysis does not consider the V-V Ranch’s private personal financial information

(profit margin, real estate, debt, etc.) or the financial resources of the University of Arizona in


49

regards to sustaining operations. This economic analysis is conducted under the assumption that

ranch sustainability is dependent upon operation as a business for a profit margin. This analysis

does not evaluate returns to the U.S. Treasury from grazing permits; that is outside the scope of

this analysis. This analysis does not evaluate the economic, social and cultural values of ranches

relative to the rest of the United States; it focuses on the economic, social and cultural values in

the local communities that would be affected by the proposed action.

Although some quantitative data is presented in this section, the majority of the social and

cultural analysis was done from a qualitative perspective. This is because many of the values

associated with western ranching, such as cultural lifestyle, community heritage, and aesthetics,

cannot be assigned a numerical value for evaluation.

A paper titled “The Economic Importance of Livestock Grazing on BLM Land in Fremont

County Wyoming” (Wyoming Paper) was used for this evaluation, and is referenced in this

section. Because a similar type of study has not been completed for Arizona, we are making the

assumption that the economic importance of livestock grazing in Arizona is similar to that in

Wyoming. Even though the paper focused on BLM-administered land, grazing is managed in a

similar fashion on Forest Service-administered land. Copies of all papers and fact sheets

referenced in this section are included in the project record.


The Permittee is involved in beef cattle production. To be successful they need economical

sources of feed and water for their mother cows 365 days a year.

Community Scale Context

The allotment is in Coconino and Yavapai Counties, which are predominantly rural. Ranches

and ranchlands are identified in the 2003 Coconino County Comprehensive Plan (pages 85-86)

and the Yavapai County Plan (page 9) as an important part of the county. The counties consider

ranching to be a viable method of land management to maintain open space and preserve

landscape integrity. They also see the preservation of working ranches as a way to preserve the

rural character of each county.

It is widely recognized that an important aspect of ranching in the west is that grazing on public

lands typically has no viable substitute. Ranch operations in the west have built and maintained

their operations with reliance on federal grazing permits. Relatively little grazing is available on

private land, due to high land values. Without federal grazing land, operators would either have

to purchase more feed, find other private land to use for grazing, or change operations.

Generally, the cost of grazing on other private land is several times the cost of grazing on federal

lands, making it an unaffordable option.

According to a 2003 Agricultural and Resource Policy Report prepared by Colorado State

University, agricultural lands in the west are under pressure to convert to rural residential uses.

A socioeconomic analysis in neighboring Colorado was completed for the Canyons of the

Ancients National Monument Resource Management Plan (CANM Plan).


50

The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the CANM Plan states that traditional ranching

and agricultural lands in Montezuma and Dolores Counties (Colorado) are being converted to

low-density rural residential subdivisions (FEIS, 246). Farm size in these counties has decreased

from 22-42 percent (FEIS, 246). Although the numbers for Coconino County cannot be assumed

to be the same as Dolores and Montezuma Counties, the landscape is similar, and therefore we

are assuming the conversion trend would be similar.

The FEIS for the CANM Plan can be accessed here:

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/land_use_planning/rmp/canyons_of_the_ancients/

documents/prmp.html

Residential land use typically leads to a greater demand for community services, including

police, emergency services, schools, and transportation infrastructure. The American Farmland

Trust (AFT) reported in a 2007 Cost of Community Services Fact Sheet that, on average,

residential development requires $1.19 in community services for every $1.00 of tax revenues it

generates. In contrast, forest and farm land requires only $0.37 in services for every $1.00 of tax

revenue generated.

A paper titled “The Lack of a Profit Motive for Ranching: Implications for Policy Analysis”

identified values associated with ranches that cannot be quantified in economic terms. Although

the paper was specific to Colorado, the value placed on ranches is assumed to be similar

throughout the west. The paper stated:

“Urban Coloradoans value Colorado ranchers, not for the beef they produce,

but for the open spaces they provide.”

This means an open-space value that cannot be quantified in terms of dollars is associated with

private ranches. Other values associated with agricultural land include: a diversity of ownership,

preservation of wildlife habitat, preservation of cultures and traditions, and attractive

contributions to the viewshed (pastures instead of buildings).

According to the paper “Livestock Grazing On The National Forests – Why Continue to do it?”

there appears to be a connection between rapid human development and declines in livestock

grazing on public lands. The paper stated that the loss of farm and ranchland in Colorado

averages 250 acres per day (90,000 acres per year). Although a figure for Arizona was not

given, it is assumed that the trend in all western states is similar.

It is recognized that there are individuals and organizations that are opposed to grazing on public

lands and would like to see it end. The opposition is generally based on the argument that

livestock are a non-native species that did not evolve with the western ecosystems. How

prevalent this opposition is in Coconino and Yavapai Counties is unknown.

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/land_use_planning/rmp/canyons_of_the_ancients/documents/prmp.html

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/land_use_planning/rmp/canyons_of_the_ancients/documents/prmp.html


51



The proposed action would allow the Walker Basin Permittee to continue livestock grazing and

sustain operations and research. The Permittee would experience some increased costs for

improvements, including water developments and fencing.

Community Scale – Proposed Action: Direct and Indirect Effects

With sustainable operations, the privately owned ranchland would continue to be agricultural

land. This would contribute towards:

o The Permittee being able to market beef and remain in business.

o Maintaining some local incomes (ranch employees).

o The Permittee’s privately owned ranch land continuing to be used for agricultural

purposes, rather than possible conversion into a rural residential area.

o Maintaining privately owned open space.

o Maintaining habitat for wildlife.

o Coconino and Yavapai counties maintaining part of their Western Heritage.

o The University of Arizona continuing to conduct research into rangeland ecology and

management (V-V Ranch is owned and operated by the University of Arizona).

Under no action, the Permittee would no longer be able to graze on Walker Basin Allotment.

There would be an increased likelihood the ranch would not be able to sustain operations. This

would impact the Permittee and anyone in their employment. As explained above, agricultural

land in the western United States is rapidly being converted into rural subdivisions. Under no

action, there is an increased possibility the ranch would be sold and converted to purposes other

than agricultural, including rural housing. This would impact local incomes because it would

affect the livelihood of the Permittee and anyone in their employment. This would reduce

habitat and open space, cause Coconino and Yavapai counties to lose part of their Western

Heritage, and reduce the University of Arizona’s ability to conduct research into rangeland

ecology and management.


Since grazing would continue under an adaptive management system, this alternative would

ensure the long-term sustainability of this land for grazing, and allow the affected ranch to

maintain operations. Therefore, the ranch affected by this decision would be less likely to be

sold and converted to other uses. The privately owned ranchland would remain as part of the

total amount of other privately owned agricultural lands in Arizona and the Rocky Mountain

West. This would be a cumulative contribution towards maintaining open space, habitat,

working ranches, western heritage, and viewsheds.

If no action is undertaken and livestock is removed from the allotment, there is an increased

possibility the ranch would not be able to sustain itself and be sold. This would contribute

towards the cumulative loss of agricultural land in Coconino and Yavapai counties and the

Rocky Mountain West.


52

3.3.4.3 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to consider Environmental Justice under

NEPA. Environmental Justice requires evaluating whether a proposed action would have a

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority and/or

low-income populations or Indian tribes, and consideration of that effect when making a

decision.

In Coconino County, the only minority groups present in a percentage greater than the Arizona

state percentage are American Indian and Alaska Native persons and persons claiming two or

more races. In Yavapai County, the only group present in a percentage above the Arizona state

percentage consists of white persons, not Hispanic. In Coconino County, the poverty level is

higher than the state percentage, indicating a low-income population. In Yavapai County, the

poverty level is below the state average. The US Census Bureau Quick Fact sheets from which

this information was obtained are in the project file.

Although minority and low-income populations are present, neither the proposed action, nor the

no action alternative would result in adverse, disproportionate effects to those groups. First, the

land under consideration for grazing is federal land, and no minority populations live there or are

potentially going to live there. Therefore, there are no issues related to displacement of or

disturbance to individuals or families. Secondly, there is no data to suggest current ranch

operations, and employment at the ranch is uniquely depended upon by any minority or low-

income populations. Therefore, there would be no adverse, disproportionate effects to minority

and/or low-income populations under either alternative.

3.3.4.4 Design Criteria

There are no specific design criteria for economic and cultural values.


Under the proposed action, the private ranch would likely be able to sustain operations and keep

contributing the values described above to the local economy and culture.

Under the no action alternative, there is an increased possibility the ranch would not be able to

sustain itself and be sold. The identified trend in the west is for agricultural land to be converted

in rural housing. This would affect Coconino and Yavapai counties rural character and fragment

habitat. Since this ranch is used for rangeland research by the University of Arizona, the

elimination of livestock grazing would inhibit this research, which has social, economic and

environmental value.

There would be no effect related to Environmental Justice under either alternative.

3.3.5 Water Quality and Riparian Areas This section briefly discusses the water quality of the area and how the alternatives may affect

the water resource and riparian areas. This section does not address stock tanks because stock

tanks are deliberately placed for livestock and are not part of the natural water resource. Stock

tanks are discussed in Section 3.3.9.


53


Excluding streams and riparian areas, which are discussed separately in this section, the Forest

Inventory shows there are no wetlands within the project area. The existing condition was

determined based on field assessments and information supplied by the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality. The field assessments were completed by Forest Service personnel;

therefore, the existing condition is based on individual professional judgment by persons trained

in hydrology. See page 44 of the soil and water specialist’s report for a more in-depth

explanation.

The allotment lies within the West Clear Creek 5th

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed,

Beaver Creek 5th

HUC watershed, and the Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 5th

HUC watershed

(Appendix 1, Map 5). The condition of the watershed is based on an evaluation of the soil,

aquatic, and riparian systems, as prescribed by the watershed classes in Forest Service Manual

2520. Some of the uplands in the watershed are in poor condition and are characterized by deep

gullies. The allotment has been heavily impacted by road construction, OHV use, and historic

and ongoing grazing. Poor watershed conditions affect stream channels by producing higher

flood flows and lower base flows.

Riparian plant communities with rooted plants retard streambank erosion, filter sediments out of

the water, build and stabilize streambanks and streambeds, and provide shade and nutrients for

aquatic species. Healthy riparian areas act as sponges during high water periods and raise water

tables, maintaining stream flows during dry seasons, resulting in more flow throughout the year

(Belsky et al. 1999).

Livestock tend to congregate in riparian areas; they favor the riparian forage, readily available

water, and shade. This causes excessive grazing and trampling in riparian areas, which breaks

down and destabilizes stream banks, causes damage to vegetation, exposes soil, and leads to

stream channels being widened and incised, and areas being invaded by weeds. This leads to

changes in stream function, especially related to stream sediments and warming of the stream

due to less vegetation for shade. More detail on this can be found on pages 92-93 of the soil and

water specialist’s report. Warming of the stream impacts the fisheries resource (Section 3.3.9).

According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), there are 0.2 miles of perennial and

intermittent streams in the project area. There are also many miles of headwater and upland

vegetation dominated stream channels not identified by the NWI. Even though these are not on

the NWI, they still provide important functions related to water quality, flooding, hydrological

connectivity, and wildlife habitat.

Reaching desired conditions for riparian areas and stream channels would primarily be

dependent on management of livestock and climate. Both drought and floods have the potential

to affect riparian areas and stream channels. High flow events (>10 year intervals) are likely to

scour impaired or unstable channels. Table 22 displays the condition of the major riparian areas

in Walker Basin Allotment.


54

Table 22: Riparian Area Extent and Condition

Stream Name HUC Name Pasture Name Total Miles Functional Class

Beaver Creek Cherry Creek –

Upper Verde River Gypsum/West

Russell 0.2 AT RISK

Walker Creek Beaver Creek Walker Basin 0.9 Proper Functioning

Condition

Total miles of riparian areas = 1.1

Springs are riparian areas that serve as habitat to sustain a variety of plant and animal species.

Current Geographic Information System coverage shows the following four springs on Walker

Basin Allotment.

Table 23: Current Condition of Known Springs on Walker Basin Allotment

Spring or Seep PFC Condition

Russell Spring 60% Functional at Risk - in 2004 and 2008

40% Nonfunctional – in 2004 and 2008

Unnamed Spring Nonfunctional - 2009

Cabin Spring Nonfunctional – 2003

Functional at Risk with Downward Trend – 2008

Walker Spring Unknown - Spring Condition is not Documented

The forest has about 70 water right claims in the allotment, mostly on stock tanks and Russell

Spring. There are about 65 private water right claims in the allotment. Neither alternative would

affect water rights, so they are not discussed further.

Water quality in Arizona is determined by the ADEQ. Excluding Walker Creek, the most recent

(2006/2008) ADEQ Impaired Waters Report shows there are no Category 5 (Impaired) streams

on the allotment. Walker Creek is not monitored by ADEQ, so water quality there is unknown.

Runoff and sediment from the allotment drain into Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and the

Verde River (Appendix 1, Map 6). Water quality is listed for these streams, which are

geographically outside the allotment, but are affected by livestock on the allotment.

Table 24: Current Condition of Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek and Verde River

Watercourse Condition†

Verde River

Category 4 (Not Attaining all Designated Uses)

Was previously listed as impaired due to exceedences of the turbidity standard. The river currently has a Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) Plan, approved in 2002, that recommends grazing management prescriptions to achieve state water quality standards.

West Clear Creek Category 1 (Attaining All Designated Uses)

Beaver Creek

Category 3 (Inconclusive)

for warm water fisheries and other uses - requires more monitoring

to determine its status.

† From the 2006/2008 Impaired Waters report by ADEQ

There are about 350 miles of inventoried roads, and numerous intermittent and ephemeral road-

stream crossings within the three watersheds that are affected by activity on the allotment. A


55

portion of these roads and crossings occurs in the allotment. However, there are no road-stream

crossings on the 0.2 miles of perennial streams.

It is assumed these roads contribute sediment into connected streamcourses and contribute to

degraded water quality in the Verde River. However, this contribution is unquantified. Erosion

and its consequence, sedimentation, are generally considered the number one problem associated

with watershed management (Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands, George E.

Dissmeyer, GTR SRS-39, September, 2000). See section 1.6 for the Forest Service’s obligation

to reduce sedimentation.


Livestock can have a variety of effects on water quality, including bacterial contamination from

animal waste, including fecal coliform, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Salmonella (Belsky et al

1999). Livestock also increase the sediment load and suspended solids in watercourses by

consuming the riparian vegetation which holds the soil in place, and physically disturbing

streambanks with hoof action. The sediments cause turbidity, which affects the fisheries

resource (Section 3.3.9).

With the disproportionate use of riparian habitat comes the over-utilization of riparian species by

livestock for forage. Continued overutilization of riparian vegetation can result in the loss of

riparian areas (Fleischner 1994). Riparian vegetation is altered by livestock in several ways:

Compaction of soil, which increases runoff and decreases water availability to plants;

Vegetation removal, which allows more sunlight to hit the ground, causing soil

temperatures to rise, thereby increasing evaporation;

Physical damage to vegetation by rubbing, trampling, and browsing; and

Altering the growth form of plants by removing buds, which causes lateral branching;

This section provides a summary of effects. More detail can be found on pages 75-103 of the

soil and water specialist’s report, in the project file.


Livestock access in riparian areas would continue. Under the proposed action, these riparian

areas would improve due to the prescribed resource protection measures and adaptive

management strategies described in Chapter 2.0. Improvements would occur as described in

Section 3.3.3.2.A, due to lower initial livestock numbers, better livestock distribution across the

allotment, and completion of watershed restoration projects.

Riparian species diversity and overall vegetative biomass would increase. As vegetation

increases, stream channels would be stabilized by the roots holding the soil in place. Channel

shape would begin to change as sediment would be trapped by vegetation, resulting in the

development of floodplains. Over time, the width/depth ratios of the watercourses would

decrease, and the sediment transport capacity would become more effective. The standing crop

of forage would increase; this would reduce erosion rates and decrease sediment loads.


56

The increased vegetative ground cover and litter would trap more sediment, reducing non-point

source pollution and sedimentation to connected streams. Riparian species diversity and overall

vegetative biomass would increase as cattle are more evenly distributed over the allotment by

fences, water developments, salting, and herding.

Riparian function in Walker Creek would remain the same and proper functioning condition

would be maintained. Cabin Spring riparian function would improve after the fence is rebuilt

and maintained. The conditions at the springs in Table 21 would improve as numbers and season

are adjusted, fences are repaired, and adaptive management strategies are used, which may

include additional fencing. However, bacterial contamination to streams from cattle waste would

still occur.

Under the no action alternative, water quality in West Clear Creek and Beaver Creek would be

maintained at its current classifications and may improve due to no bacterial contributions from

livestock waste, and no erosion from livestock hoof action on banks. Stream reaches currently

not in PFC would have one less influencing factor (livestock grazing) and likely would move

towards PFC. No range improvements would be built or maintained under this alternative.

Water Quality in the Verde River may improve slightly as sedimentation is reduced because

livestock are no longer present. However, no restoration projects to stabilize and rehabilitate any

areas would occur under the no action alternative. Therefore, water quality improvements may

be less under this alternative than under the proposed action.


Under the proposed action, and under no action, there would be improvements to water quality

and riparian areas. Therefore, those effects would combine with the effects of past, present and

reasonably foreseeable prescribed burning and weeds treatments for a cumulative effect

contribution. Prescribed burns and weed treatments are carried out in part to improve vegetation.

It has already been described how healthy vegetation contributes towards a healthy watershed.

The difference is that the cumulative contribution under the proposed action would likely be

greater because of the specific restoration projects that have been proposed to stabilize gullies

and headcuts.


The Nonpoint Source Intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Forest

Service (R-3) and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality in 2008 states that the

Forest Service will endeavor to minimize and mitigate all potential non-point source pollution

activities. As agreed upon by the State of Arizona and the USDA Forest Service, the most

practical and effective means of controlling potential nonpoint pollution sources from forests and

rangelands is through the development and implementation of preventive or mitigating land

management practices, generally referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs) or design

criteria. A list of BMPs for maintaining long-term soil productivity and enhancing water quality

is in Appendix 5.


57


The effects to water quality and riparian areas are essentially the same for the no action

alternative and the proposed action. Under both alternatives, the impacted springs and riparian

areas would recover, but it is assumed that recovery in most areas would be over a longer time

frame under the Proposed Action, because cattle would still be grazing. However, in some areas,

such as the Wickiup Pastures, recovery would be faster and more effective under the proposed

action, due to the proposed watershed restoration work.

3.3.6 Wildlife This section describes the wildlife (excluding fish, which is discussed in Section 3.3.9) found

within the project area and the effects of each alternative on the wildlife. The Walker Basin

Allotment provides a variety of habitat types that support many species. To determine potential

effects, the wildlife was evaluated in several categories:

Non-Special Status Species (Game Animals, General Wildlife)

Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Other Special Status Species

Management Indicator Species

Migratory Birds

Ground-disturbing activities affect wildlife species and cause destruction or modification to

wildlife and plant habitat. However, ground-disturbing actions can be planned in ways to

minimize (and when possible, to eliminate) effects to species and habitat. Best Management

Practices are used to reduce disturbances that would occur from project implementation.

The most wide-spread impact to wildlife is caused by livestock grazing. Livestock grazing of

ground cover affects wildlife in many ways. These effects include: decreases in the quality and

quantity of wildlife food, cover, and shelter; increased sedimentation into aquatic systems;

reduced animal abundance; reduced abundance of prey species; and, decreased reproductive

success, etc.

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment - Non-Special Status Species

A. Game Species and Mammals

Game species in the project area include: elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, bear, bighorn sheep,

mountain lion, bobcat, gray fox, coyote, javelina, cottontail, jackrabbits, squirrels and raccoons.

Elk compete with livestock for forage and are responsible for depleting the range in some areas.

Non-game mammal species include chipmunks, mice, rats, woodrats, skunks, ring-tailed cats,

and numerous species of bats.

The Permittee has stated a belief that there are too many elk on the allotment, and they are

contributing to resource damage that is being blamed on the livestock. Garrett Fabian, AZGFD

Wildlife Manager, stated that elk populations in the Game Management Units that fall on Walker

Basin Allotment have been cut about in half since the late 1990s. Garrett went on to say that the

2009-2010 winter was extreme and that a freak storm in December 2009 disrupted the normal

migration patterns of the elk, and forced them into a limited winter range. This forcing of the elk


58

on a limited winter range resulted in unusually high impacts to one area, which gave the

appearance of a greater population of elk than is actually present. The communication from

Garrett Fabian is in the project record.

B. Birds

There are many species of birds that occur on the Walker Basin Allotment, and many are

discussed in the special status species section. The majority of these birds on the allotment are

passerines (perching birds), but other groups of birds include some waterfowl and wading birds,

fowl-like birds, raptors, and various non-passerine birds such as kingfishers, doves,

hummingbirds, and woodpeckers.

Merriam’s turkey is present on the allotment. This species is a Coconino NF MIS species, as an

indicator for late seral Ponderosa Pine. However, grazing does not impact this habitat type and

therefore turkey was not analyzed under the MIS section of this report. Effects to Merriam’s

turkey were identified as a key issue due to concerns by AZGFD, so they are discussed in this

section.

Turkeys do better in a rest-rotation type of grazing regime and with utilization not exceeding

40% in meadows and openings (Hoffman et al. 1993). Turkeys require tall herbaceous

vegetation for nesting and the rearing of young. Grazing, resulting in low herbaceous cover,

affects the suitability of habitat. Turkeys rely on grass seed in late fall and early winter, so

excess grazing on winter range or grazing that reduces residual cover influences winter survival

(Wakeling, 1991). Furthermore, overgrazing that leads to decreases of biodiversity and cover

reduces the survivorship of the young. Although survivorship of the young is very low anyway

due to predation and other factors, turkeys rely on insects for food and require adequate cover

(Rumble et al 2003). There is a positive relationship between healthy grassland and meadow

systems and insect populations as a whole.

C. Amphibians and Reptiles

Amphibians on the allotment include toads, frogs, and salamanders. While the toads and frogs

do not require perennial waters as adults, they are dependent on pools of water for laying eggs,

as are the tadpoles until they grow into sub-adults. Adult salamanders require water for laying

eggs and the larvae require constant water due to the length of their different life stages.

Numerous species of lizards and snakes also occur throughout the allotment.

D. Water

There are 21 bodies of water in the Walker Basin Allotment that have been identified as

important sources of water for wildlife. Those waters are listed in Appendix 5 of this EA.


59

3.3.6.2 Environmental Consequences – Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Non-

Special Status Wildlife Species


Under this alternative, livestock grazing and the associated management activities would

continue on the allotment. This would result in less than optimal habitat for wildlife because the

effects that have been present from livestock grazing for the past 100 years would continue.

These effects include:

The sight and sound of vehicles and ranch personnel disturbing and displacing nearby

wildlife

Trampling of individuals and burrows by livestock

Consumption of food sources, such as seed heads, by livestock

Compaction of soils by livestock, especially around water sources

Reductions in cover by livestock grazing, making wildlife nests and individuals more

visible

Livestock waste affecting water quality in tanks and ponds. The nutrients cause algae to

grow. The decomposition of algae results in lower dissolved oxygen levels in water.

These above effects are not analyzed in detail in this Environmental Assessment. Although

some effect is assumed to occur, no specific problems, concerns or threats to any non-special

status species have been identified. Therefore, a more in-depth discussion is not warranted.

Merriam’s turkey

Under the proposed action, habitat for Merriam’s turkey would improve. Although livestock

would still be present, the more conservative use, range improvements, and specific design

criteria would ensure adequate habitat is maintained for Merriam’s turkey. Also, adaptive

management would allow adjustments in the livestock management to respond to any identified

needs related to the turkey. The design criteria include maintaining a diversity of grasses and

certain stubble heights. The design criteria are detailed in Appendix 5.

Wildlife Waters

Under this alternative, the Forest Service would request the Permittee maintain important water

sources for wildlife. The proposed action recommends maintaining water in stock tanks for

wildlife use after domestic livestock have been removed from the grazing unit. Due to water

rights, the Forest Service cannot require the Permittee to maintain this water.

To avoid unnecessary wildlife drownings, wildlife ramps on storage tanks and troughs with open

water would be maintained according to Bat Conservation International specifications. These

ramps were installed by the Permittee in 2008-2009.

In contrast, under the no action alternative, livestock would be removed from the allotment. In

general, this would allow for optimal upland vegetative and soil conditions, which would

increase the amount of food and cover available to wildlife and their prey. This would result in

an increase in the quality, quantity and diversity of wildlife food, cover, and shelter for all

species. This would result in taller herbaceous vegetation and more diversity of vegetation for

Merriam’s turkey. However, stock tanks would not be maintained under this alternative,

eliminating an important source of water for wildlife.


60


Reasonably foreseeable actions that would affect wildlife resources are: reauthorization of

livestock grazing allotments, fuels reduction projects, forest thinning, watershed improvement

projects, recreation management (obliteration of social trails and dispersed campsites,

designation of trails and campsites), lands special use permits (new issuances and maintenance

on existing structures), personal use activities, and new road construction.

Changes in livestock management can reduce these impacts. Adaptive management would allow

the Forest Service to quickly respond to any effects that threaten wildlife. Various other range

projects are being planned and implemented on the Red Rock District, such as on the Buckhorn,

Apache Maid, and Peaks allotments. All analyses for the reissuance of grazing permits are being

completed with adaptive management as part of the proposed action.

Fuels reduction and forest thinning projects affect wildlife and habitat. The effects are

minimized through project design and planning, and many projects improve wildlife habitat.

However, the improvements modify vegetation, which immediately affects foraging, nesting,

roosting, hiding and thermal cover, and daily and seasonal movements. So, there is some

disruption at first, but the improvements generally outweigh these initial impacts. Known future

fuels reduction projects include: Upper Beaver Creek Watershed Fuels Reduction Project,

Clint’s Forest Restoration Project, Munds Park Fuels Reduction, and the Hart Prairie Fuels

Reduction and Forest Health Project.

Wildfires contribute different effects, depending on the time of year, scale of the fire, intensity,

severity, and associated management or suppression activities. Predicting where wildfire would

occur is unrealistic but it is assumed the allotment would have wildfire activity within the next

10 years. There are best management practices for firefighting that have been and would

continue to be used for suppression activities to minimize impacts to wildlife. Wildfires that are

managed for resource benefit are also unpredictable on when and where they would occur over

the allotment. With both types of fire described above, a certain amount of recovery may be

necessary to achieve acceptable to optimal habitat conditions over the landscape. The effects of

wildfires would need to be evaluated on a fire by fire basis.

Unauthorized and unmanaged dispersed recreation affects wildlife and habitat. Social trails,

social roads, and dispersed camping: denude vegetation and compact soils; disturb rocks and

vegetation to which some species may be attached; crush life forms such as eggs and caterpillars;

collapse burrows; alter and fragment habitat; increase sedimentation into aquatic systems;

introduce and/or spread noxious weeds; visually and aurally disturb animals during critical

periods such as breeding and roosting; and, harass individuals through collection or handling. A

travel management EIS is being prepared to implement the Travel Management Rule on the

Coconino National Forest. Once implemented, this would affect most species by reducing cross-

country motorized travel and the densities of roads within species habitat, thereby reducing

fragmentation.

So, the proposed action would combine with other projects designed to improve wildlife habitat

for a cumulative effect contribution across the allotment and forest. Under the no action

alternative, the cumulative effect contribution would be the same, but it is assumed it would

occur at a faster rate.


61

3.3.6.3 Affected Environment – Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species

Six Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Species either have been identified in the project area

or have potential habitat in the project area. These species are:

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) – There are no MSO pairs, and therefore no Protected

Activity Centers (PACs) completely within Walker Basin Allotment. There is a PAC

about 1 km outside Walker Basin Allotment, and about 100 acres of that PAC which

overlaps onto the allotment, and is protected MSO habitat. The last time this PAC was

known to be occupied was 2002. There are about 2,300 acres of MSO critical habitat on

the allotment. Critical habitat consists of designated MSO protected habitat (outside

PACs) and restricted habitat.

Southwestern Willow Flycatchers

Bald Eagles (wintering and nesting)

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Mexican Garter Snake

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo


A. Proposed Action – Direct and Indirect Effects to TES Species – Contrasted with No

Action

The following determinations were reached for the TES species:

Table 25: Effects to TES Under the Proposed Action

Species Determination Brief Reason

Mexican Spotted Owl

May affect but will not adversely affect

Grazing utilization and intensity would leave enough residual plant cover to provide for the needs of prey species.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Would not be affected No occupied, suitable, or critical habitat on the allotment

Bald Eagle Would not be affected No bald eagles are known to nest in the allotment

Western

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

May affect but not likely to adversely affect

Livestock would have access to occupied and potential habitat, but the proposed action would result in improved riparian condition (habitat) for this

species.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Would not be affected Chiricahua leopard frogs are not present on the allotment.

Mexican Garter Snake

Would not be affected No suitable habitat on the allotment.

As shown in Table 25, there are two species that may be affected under the proposed action, the

Mexican spotted owl and the Western-billed cuckoo.

In contrast, under the no action alternative, no livestock would be grazing on the allotment and

no rangeland improvements would be constructed. There would be no effects to any of the

above-listed TES species except the Chiricuhua leopard frog. The lack of grazing near tanks

where these frogs were once present would initially result in an improvement of frog habitat at

these tanks. As a result, the frogs might naturally re-colonize these areas or they could be

reintroduced to these areas. However, without the Permittee maintaining the tanks, the habitat

would eventually be lost as the tanks dry up and fill in with sediment.


62

Since no adverse effects would occur, threatened and endangered species are not discussed

further in the EA. For more detail on how the determinations were reached, see pages 25-56 of

the wildlife biologist’s report in the project file.


Because no measurable effects would occur to the TES species under either alternative, there

would be no effects to combine with past, present and reasonably foreseeable effects for a

cumulative effect contribution.

3.3.6.5 Affected Environment – Sensitive Animal Species

The Region 3 Sensitive Species List was reviewed for this analysis. Twenty-two sensitive

species are present or have potential habitat within the analysis area. Those species are listed in

the table below:

Table 26: Forest Service Sensitive Species

Navajo Mogollon Vole Wintering Bald Eagle Reticulate Gila Monster

Plains Harvest Mouse Northern Goshawk Narrow-Headed Garter Snake

Merriam’s Shrew Common black-hawk Blue-black Silverspot Butterfly

Western Red Bat Ferruginous Hawk Mountain Silverspot Butterfly

Spotted Bat Abert’s Towhee Four Spotted Skipperling

Greater Western Mastiff Bat Lowland Leopard Frog -----

Allen’s Lappet-Browed Bat Northern Leopard Frog -----

Pale Townsend’s big-eared Bat Arizona Toad -----


A. Proposed Action – Direct and Indirect Effects - Contrasted with No Action

For the sensitive species listed above, the determination was that the proposed action may impact

individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. For

detailed information on how these determinations were reached for each species, see pages 56-

101 of the wildlife biologist’s report in the project file.

In contrast, under the no action alternative, the livestock would be removed and no new range

improvements would be constructed. More habitat would then be available for all the Forest

Service Sensitive Species in Table 25. There would be less disturbance to habitat by hoof action,

especially to burrows. So, the no action alternative would either result in no effect or possible a

slight benefit to some of the species in Table 25. There is a chance that the Chiracahua leopard

frog might re-colonize some of the tanks where it was once found. However, the tanks would

not be maintained under no action, so the aquatic habitat in the tanks would eventually be lost

B. Proposed Action – Cumulative Effects - Contrasted with No Action

Under the proposed action, livestock would still be grazing on the allotment, but with less

intensity. This is expected to result in habitat improvements. So, the habitat improvements from

this action would combine with the effects of other habitat improvement projects, including weed

treatments and prescribed burns, for a cumulative effect contribution.

Under no action, the cumulative contribution would be the same as described for the proposed

action. However, it is assumed the contribution would occur at a faster rate.


63

3.3.6.7 Affected Environment - Golden Eagles

Although not a sensitive species, the golden eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act. Golden eagles have been observed in the winter soaring in the western portion of

the allotment and feeding on animal carcasses on Cedar Flat. It is likely that golden eagles nest

in canyons on the allotment, however, no nests are known.



Under the proposed action, a no effect determination was reached for the golden eagle. The

proposed grazing utilization and intensity would leave adequate vegetation behind for prey

species. Also, range improvements would not affect the golden eagle because the terrain they

nest in is rugged and inaccessible. Under the no action alternative there would also be no effects

to the golden eagle.


Since there would be no effects to combine with the effects of any other past, present or

reasonably foreseeable future activities, there would be no contributions towards a cumulative

effect on golden eagles under either alternative. See pages 101-103 of the wildlife specialist’s

report in the project file for more detail.

3.3.6.9 Affected Environment - Management Indicator Species

Forest Service Manual 2620.5 states that management indicators are:

Plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning,

and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of

management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar

habitat needs which they may represent.

There are 17 Management Indicator Species for the Coconino National Forest. For 12 of these

species, indicator habitat would not be affected by the reauthorization of grazing. So, those 12

MIS species were excluded from analysis. The MIS that were fully analyzed are: pronghorn,

Lucy’s warbler, yellow-breasted chat, Lincoln’s sparrow, and cinnamon teal. See pages 106-120

of the wildlife report in the file for specific habitat descriptions.



A determination was reached for pronghorn, cinnamon teal and Lincoln’s sparrow that neither

the proposed action, nor the no action alternative, would result in a change in the forest-wide

trend of these species. Therefore, there is no measurable effect to contribute towards a

cumulative effect and these MIS are not discussed further in this EA. It was determined that

under the proposed action, Lucy’s warbler and yellow-breasted chat may be impacted, but the

impact is not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability. These impacts

would occur due to watershed restoration activities in riparian areas where these species nest.

There would be some initial disturbance during construction, but the long-term effect would be

improved habitat. So, this effect would combine with other habitat improvements resulting from

prescribed burns and weed treatments for a cumulative effect contribution towards improving

habitat for Lucy’s warbler and yellow-breasted chat.


64

In contrast, under the no action alternative, there would not be a change in the forest-wide trend

for either Lucy’s warbler or yellow breasted chat. Therefore, under the no action alternative,

there is no measurable effect to contribute towards a cumulative effect.

For detailed information on how these determinations were reached for each species, see pages

106-120 of the wildlife biologist’s report in the project file.

3.3.6.11 Affected Environment - Migratory Birds

Executive Order 13186 (January 10, 2001) requires federal agencies to consider management

impacts to migratory birds. The following table shows the migratory bird species identified by

either Partners in Flight as a priority species or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a bird of

conservation concern that may occur on the Walker Basin Allotment.

Table 27: Migratory Birds on the Walker Basin Allotment

----- Grasshopper Sparrow Costa’s Hummingbird

Olive-sided Flycatcher MacGillivray’s Warbler Crissal Thrasher

Virginia’s Warbler Red-faced warbler Sage Sparrow

Cordilleran Flycatcher Pinyon Jay Bendire’s Thrasher

Olive Warbler Gray Vireo Lawrence’s Goldfinch

Greater Pewee Gray Flycatcher Elf Owl

Grace’s Warbler Black-throated Gray Warbler Yellow Warbler

Lewis’s Woodpecker Band-tailed Pigeon Gila Woodpecker

Flammulated Owl Loggerhead shrike Phainopepla

Purple Martin Canyon Towhee American Bittern

Swainson’s Hawk Black-chinned Sparrow -----



For all migratory birds evaluated above, it was determined that the proposed action and no action

alternative would not result in any measurable effects to any species. Therefore, migratory birds

are not discussed further in this EA. For additional detail on how these determinations for each

individual species were reached, see pages 121-149 of the wildlife biologist’s report in the

project file.


Since there are no effects that would combine with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable

effects, neither the no action alternative, nor the proposed action would contribute towards a

cumulative effect on migratory birds.


The proposed action has been designed with management practices to reduce effects to wildlife.

For example, there are: restrictions on when work can occur within Mexican spotted owl habitat;

requirements that fences be constructed to wildlife standards; requirements that entry and escape

ramps be provided on tanks and drinkers; and specific criteria for Merriam’s turkey habitat. A

complete list of design criteria for wildlife is in Appendix 5.

Monitoring would focus on managing for certain stubble heights, diversity of grasses, and an

improved prey base. These requirements are also listed in Appendix 5.


65


Neither the No Action Alternative, nor the Proposed Action would have any discernible effect on

wildlife, either general or special status species. The effects to Merriam’s turkey were identified

as a key issue, but the proposed action has been designed (with lesser grazing intensity) to allow

for adequate turkey habitat, and adaptive management would allow adjustments to livestock

grazing if any concerns with turkey populations or habitat are identified.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the effects to wildlife as described above.

They provided a letter of concurrence, dated December 20, 2010, located in the project file.

3.3.7 Invasive Species This section describes the known invasive plant populations within the project area and how the

proposed action and no action alternative may affect those populations.

The Coconino National Forest does not have a complete survey of invasive plant species on the

allotment. Therefore, it is not possible to address invasive species quantitatively. In other

words, we are unable to say that there are so many acres of a particular invasive species on the

allotment, and the acres would be changed by so much under a particular alternative. Therefore,

the discussion of invasive species is done from a qualitative perspective. Since invasive species

were not identified as a key issue, a more in-depth discussion is not warranted.


Noxious weeds and invasive exotics affect the composition, structure and the function of native

ecosystems. In turn, this affects factors such as fire interval, and species composition within

plant communities.

Various surveyors have identified noxious or invasive weed species in the analysis area. These

infestations range from a few scattered plants to localized, severe infestations. Since the

Permittee and the Permittee’s employees represent more “eyes on the ground”, this helps identify

weed infestations, so they can be treated. But, livestock operations do contribute towards the

spread of weeds by transporting seeds. The seeds of weeds are transported to different locations

on both livestock and equipment.

Table 28: Invasive Weeds

Common name FS Classification† Objective

Yellow starthistle A Eradicate/Control

Dalmation toadflax B Contain/Control

Lehmann lovegrass C Contain/Control

Red brome C Contain

Bull thistle C Contain

Horehound C Monitor

Common stork’s bill Exotic Monitor

Tumble mustard Exotic Monitor

† A - Pose a serious threat and receive highest priority. Management emphasis is complete eradication. B - Have limited distribution or are unrecorded in a region of the state but are common in other regions of the state. Receive second highest priority. Management emphasis is to contain the spread, and eventually eliminate the infestation C - Any other invasive weeds (exotic or native). This classification receives the lowest priority. Management emphasis is to contain spread to present population size or decrease population.


66

Yellow starthistle, red brome, and Lehman lovegrass are the only species in the table above that

are listed as a noxious weed on the Coconino National Forest Invasive List. Yellow starthistle is

the highest priority species on the allotment and has been controlled using manual methods, bio-

control agents, and herbicides. Yellow starthistle is known only to be on the south edge of the

Winter Heifer and Gypsum pastures. These yellow starthistle populations are considered

contained, and work towards their eradication is in progress.

A risk assessment for the spread of the species listed in Table 28 was conducted. Refer to page

17 of the Invasive Species report in the project file for details on how this assessment was

conducted. Based on that assessment, the following species are at risk of spread under the

proposed action:

Table 29: Risk Assessment for Weed Spread

Common name Risk Rating Location (Pastures)

Red brome Moderate Present at less than 5% in all winter

pastures

Lehmann lovegrass Moderate/high Willard, Shipping, Hill Lane, East

Wickiup, Winter Heifer

There are other invasive species in the allotment that are not currently species of concern. These

are:

Table 30: Other Invasives

Species common name Occurrence in project area Source

Redstem stork’s bill Cedar Flats pastures NRIS

Mexican fireweed Along Forest Highway 3 NRIS

White sweetclover Common along roads, especially in the

northern portion of the allotment NRIS

Yellow sweetclover Common along roads, especially in the

northern portion of the allotment NRIS

Johnsongrass Along Hwy 260 west of the allotment NRIS

Common mullein Widespread throughout the allotment NRIS

Because they are not a concern, the species in Table 30 are not discussed further in this EA.


.


Livestock and equipment would continue to act as carriers for seeds and plant parts. This would

continue to spread existing invasive species across the allotment and also bring new seeds and

plant parts into the allotment. Since the rate of spread depends on many factors, such as rainfall

and whether or not a particular animal or vehicle is carrying a seed or plant, it is too speculative

to try and predict rates of spread for any particular species.

Standard resource protection measures would continue to be utilized to minimize the spread of

invasive plants from livestock operations, such as the washing of vehicles and the chemical

treatment of infestations. In addition, the Permittee and the Permittee’s employees would be


67

working on the allotment and would be able to report any weed infestations they find to the Red

Rock District. This would help make treatments more timely and effective.

Under the no action alternative, livestock and equipment would no longer be present to

contribute towards the spread of invasive weeds. The Forest Service would continue to conduct

weeds treatments, but without the Permittee monitoring the allotment, weed infestations may not

be identified as quickly.


Livestock and equipment would continue to act as carriers for seeds and plant parts. The

presence of livestock does not necessarily mean the rate of spread of invasive weeds would be

faster than if livestock were not present, but that is generally assumed.

The spread of invasive weeds by livestock and equipment would combine with past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable activities (listed in Table 30) for a cumulative contribution towards the

spread of invasive weeds.

Table 31: Past, Present, and Future Activities Contributing to the

Spread of Invasive Species Dispersed Recreation

Hikers, horses and vehicles transport seeds and plant parts

Thinning and Burning

These projects have occurred in the past and are expected to continue in the future. These activities leave areas of bare soil. Historically, these areas weren’t treated and became ideal

spots for invasive species to establish themselves. Recent thinning and burning, and all future projects, include provisions to limit the spread of invasive and treat known communities.

Road Maintenance

Can spread invasive species if they are growing next to the road being maintained. Resource protection measures are used to limit that spread

Fire Suppression Vehicles transporting seeds and plant parts. The use of wash station and the avoidance of

infested areas reduce the potential spread.

Invasive Treatments

Invasive species are treated with herbicides. This activity is expected to continue to reduce the spread

Road Construction

And Decommissioning

Causes ground disturbance, which invasive plants can use as a seedbed. Road construction and decommissioning projects include provisions to limit the spread of invasive plants and treat

known communities

The rate of spread would have some potential to be offset because the Permittee would be

managing a herd on the allotment and would have a vested interest in reducing invasive species.

Under no action alternative, invasive weeds would continue to spread due to the activities listed

in Table 23, but there would be no cumulative effect contribution from the no action alternative.


Under the proposed action, BMPs to limit the spread of invasive species would be utilized.

Those best management practices for herbicide treatments were taken from the noxious and

invasive weeds FEIS (See Section 1.10) and appear in Appendix 5 of this EA.

There would be no additional monitoring for invasive species under the proposed action. Should

grazing continue, monitoring for invasive species would continue the way it currently does, as

part of the regular allotment monitoring. As populations are found, they are mapped and entered


68

into a database. Proposed treatments would be reviewed by the district weed coordinator before

they occur. The Permittee would be informed of any treatments that would occur.


It would be too speculative to try and determine potential rates of spread or rates of identification

and treatment under each alternative. Therefore, there is no appreciable difference between the

no action/no grazing alternative and the proposed action. It is generally assumed the spread of

invasive weeds would be faster with livestock present. However, under both alternatives the

spread of invasive plant species would continue, and standard treatment procedures would also

continue.

3.3.8 Cultural Resources This section describes the cultural resources that are within the project area and the potential

effects of each alternative on those resources. The specific locations of cultural resources are not

disclosed in this EA. The locations of cultural resources are protected and are not kept in the

project file.


Some archeological surveys for other projects have been conducted on Walker Basin Allotment.

Almost 10 percent of the allotment has been surveyed.

In the surveyed areas, 125 archeological sites have been located and recorded. This indicates

there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of unrecorded sites within the allotment area. Of the 125

recorded sites, 23 are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 14 were

previously determined eligible for, but are not listed on the NRHP, and 5 were determined to be

ineligible for listing. All other sites are currently unevaluated, but would be treated as if eligible

for the NRHP. These sites would be protected until testing or additional information is obtained

that would allow formal determinations of eligibility to be made.

Archeological survey coverage and site types and densities for Walker Basin Allotment are

consistent with those of the surrounding areas. Known heritage properties range from simple

artifact scatters to pueblos, and from historic homestead sites to bridges and generating facilities.

As evidenced by 88 percent of known sites in the area, the major prehistoric occupation of the

allotment was that of the Southern Sinagua (A.D. 600 to 1350). There are two Yavapai/Apache

sites, dating to the protohistoric time period (circa 1400-1800). Euro-American use of the

allotment is related to ranching, homesteading, and power generation, with site dates ranging

from the 1870s to the present.

Archeological site distribution within the allotment may be interpreted as a system of settlements

designed to take advantage of various resources such as soil, water, and wild vegetation. Site

density tends to be low in the higher elevation, ponderosa pine dominated portions of the

allotment and in the white limestone clay hills of the Verde Valley. Site density ranges from

moderate to very high in the middle and lower elevations. Sites tend to cluster around springs,

along seasonal wetlands, in canyons, and in the pinyon-juniper vegetation zone.


69

No areas of traditional cultural importance or areas of specific tribal concern are known within

Walker Basin Allotment. This is based on previous consultations and research into tribal uses of

the forest. There are no known specific plant gathering areas or traditional sacred sites within

Walker Basin Allotment.


Impacts to cultural resources, especially sites, can be generally defined as anything that results in

the removal, displacement of, or damage to artifacts, features, and or deposits of cultural

material. In the case of cultural resources considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, this

can also include alterations of a property’s setting or context. In the case of traditional cultural

properties and sacred places, additional considerations may include alterations in the presence or

availability of particular plant species.

Discussions with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer indicate a general opinion that

livestock grazing has some continuing, but minor effect, on the condition of cultural resources.

However, taking into consideration that the existing condition includes the effects of historic and

unregulated grazing, the general consensus is that continuing livestock grazing with conservative

stocking levels that move the environment towards desired conditions would not have an adverse

effect on cultural resources.

Consultation with 13 tribes is ongoing. The following Native American Indian groups were

notified of the project in the Coconino National Forest Annual Consultation letters dated July 6,

2007 and August 20, 2008, as well as the Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions and quarterly

updates: Dine’ Medicine Man’s Association, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Tribe,

Hualapai Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, San Carlos Apache Tribe, San

Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott

Tribe, and White Mountain Apache Tribe. No issues or concerns regarding continued grazing or

associated improvements within the allotment were expressed by any tribal group.

A. Proposed Action – Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed action would continue livestock grazing on Walker Basin Allotment. Impacts to

cultural resources from livestock typically result from

Livestock trampling sites and artifacts,

The construction of range improvements, such as fences, damaging sites

Removal of vegetation and erosion caused by livestock grazing which affects the

movement of surface deposits and alters the setting and geographic context of sites.

Based upon the conclusions drawn by the soil and water specialist (Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5),

implementing the proposed action is likely to move the allotment towards a condition of

increased vegetation cover and more stable soils, but at a slower rate than the no action

alternative. Any improvement in vegetative cover and soil conditions would benefit cultural

resources, by reducing the visibility of sites and the movement of artifacts. As stated above,

when livestock grazing continues under a scenario that moves the land towards desired


70

conditions, an adverse effect would not occur. In contrast, no grazing would occur under the no

action alternative, so there would be no livestock impacts to cultural resources.

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the findings above. This is

documented in a concurrence letter in the project record. The concurrence was signed by SHPO

on September 20, 2010.

Any ground disturbing activities associated with the installation or removal of structural

improvements would not be covered by this analysis, and would require separate consultation

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

B. Proposed Action – Cumulative Effects

There are several past and planned projects, in addition to ongoing dispersed recreation, that

have impacts on individual cultural resources within the allotment. For instance, fuels treatment

projects may include hand thinning within sites and would likely involve allowing fire to burn

across sites that are not fire sensitive. This might increase the visibility of those sites to the

public. Anticipated implementation of the Travel Management Rule would likely reduce the

effects of unregulated recreation on sites by restricting vehicular access to certain areas of the

allotment and by eliminating some roads that may go through sites. However, the additive effect

of all the other projects and activities within the allotment combined with the proposed action

would be negligible. Therefore, this alternative would not contribute towards a cumulative

effect.

For the no action alternative, the cumulative effect contribution would be the same as described

for the proposed action.


The proposed action includes several improvements intended to facilitate livestock grazing and

improve soil and vegetative conditions. Specific cultural resource surveys would be completed

to clear the construction of range improvements once their specific locations are determined.


There is no discernible difference between the effects of the no action alternative and the

proposed action because both would allow for increased vegetation and more stable soils.

However, it is assumed that the increased vegetation and more stable soils would take longer

under the proposed action.

3.3.8.5 Visuals The presence or absence of livestock on public land is subject of debate. Some people expect to

see livestock grazing on public land as a symbol of the west and a symbol of the multiple-use

mission of the National Forests. Others argue for the removal of livestock grazing from public

lands because they believe domestic livestock do not belong, since they are a non-native species

that did not evolve with the western United States ecosystems. Deciding the presence or absence


71

of cattle on public lands due to opposing land use values is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Under law, livestock grazing is a legitimate use of the National Forests, and only Congress has

the authority to make changes to that use. Therefore, this analysis does not evaluate the visual

effects of the presence or absence of livestock. Rather, this analysis focuses on the visual effects

of the range improvements that are used to manage livestock, and the effects to the land from the

presence of livestock, and whether it is in compliance with the Visual Quality Objectives

(VQOs) for the area.


Grazing of domestic livestock has occurred in this area for over 100 years. Aspects of livestock

management that would affect the scenic quality of the area are: trampled and/or missing

vegetation and range improvements, such as water developments, cattleguards, and fences.

Range improvements and changes in vegetation and on the ground would only affect the

foreground area, which the Forest Service Landscape Aesthetics Handbook defines as the area

that a viewer can see up to 0.5 mile. Beyond this distance, the vastness of the landscape is

clearly dominant over the visibility of range improvements such as fences and drinkers.

However, we are assuming that most casual observers would probably not notice the condition of

vegetation, the ground, or range improvements beyond an eighth of a mile (660 feet) from the

road.

Forest plan VQOs in the project area range from Retention to Modification. For a full

description of these VQOs, consult the Coconino National Forest Plan. The majority of the

allotment (90%) is inventoried as a Modification objective. The Retention VQO is inventoried

on the eastern end of the allotment, as a corridor along Lake Mary Road, and on the west end of

the allotment around the Rimrock Community. Partial Retention in the project area is the

objective around the Camp Verde and Rimrock areas. These objectives were inventoried and

adopted in the 1989 Forest Plan. Currently, the Forest is in the process of transitioning to the

Scenery Management System and updating inventories and objectives to be adopted into the

Forest Plan revision. At the project scale, direction is to update objectives as part of the project.

The visual impacts of livestock grazing vary with the type of grazing system used, but the critical

factor in all systems is the carrying capacity or stocking rate of each pasture. Overgrazing with

any system degrades the scenic quality of the landscape. Range improvement structures used to

manage livestock include fences, cattleguards, and drinkers. While these structures help control

livestock distribution, which benefits the vegetation, they can also reduce the scenic quality of

the area. It can be assumed that the more miles of fences, acres of water developments, and

number of cattleguards built, the greater the impact on scenic quality. Also, any problems

associated with range improvements, such as a fence in disrepair, can affect the scenic quality.

However, range improvements can be designed to blend with the landscape. For example, water

troughs can be camouflaged behind vegetation and painted flat, non-reflective colors so as not to

be noticeable. Fences can be constructed with wooden posts and non-reflective wire.


72



This alternative would continue the change in visual resources that began when livestock grazing

was first introduced. There would be no immediate effect to the visual quality of the landscape,

since grazing currently occurs, and range improvements are present. Adaptive management

flexibility would allow the Forest Service to more quickly respond to monitoring data to move

the land towards desired conditions. Under this alternative, the quality of vegetation is expected

to improve, as described in Sections 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2.2, and 3.3.3.2, for the proposed action. These

vegetative improvements would improve the viewshed.

New range improvements would be constructed, including fences, water pipelines, drinkers,

storage tanks, corrals, cattleguards, and gates. These improvements would impact the visual

landscape, but they would be designed to minimize contrast, and their impact would be

negligible. This alternative would not affect the VQOs for the area.

Under the no action alternative, conditions on the allotment would improve as described in

Sections 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2.2, and 3.3.3.2 for no action. No new structural range improvements

would be constructed, and existing improvements would not be maintained and eventually fall

into disrepair. The no action alternative would not affect the VQOs for the area.

D. Proposed Action – Cumulative Effects – Contrasted with No Action

This alternative is expected to move the landscape towards desired conditions. Therefore, this

project would combine with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable prescribed burning and

weed treatment projects on the allotment to move areas of the forest towards desired conditions,

for a cumulative effect. These other projects may include: changes in grazing management on

other allotments, prescribed burns, re-seeding areas with native vegetation, and invasive species

treatments. This would not affect the VQOs for the area.

The cumulative effect contribution of the no action alternative would be the same as for the

proposed action. It would not contribute towards any change in the VQOs for the area.


Standard design criteria for range improvements would be required where improvements would

likely be seen by Forest visitors from trails and roads in the project area, The criteria includes

various camouflaging techniques. Range improvements, such as fencing and drinkers, would be

camouflaged by using self-weathering steel or painting improvements flat, non-reflective colors

that blend with the landscape. We would favor dull, rusty materials, and avoid bright or

galvanized materials to ensure improvements blend with the natural landscape character.


In the short-term, there would be no discernible difference in effects between the no action

alternative and the proposed action. Both alternatives would be in compliance with the VQOs

for the area.


73

In the long term, the range improvements would not be maintained under the no action

alternative; they would fall into disrepair and either need to be maintained or removed. Under

the proposed action, the Permittee would continue livestock grazing operations, which involves

maintaining range improvements. In addition, any new improvements would be constructed

according to BMPs for blending into the landscape. For example, fences would be rustic in

appearance, and drinkers would painted flat, non-reflective colors and placed in areas where they

would not be readily seen by the casual observer on a highway.

3.3.9 Fisheries This section discusses the potential effects of the alternatives on aquatic habitat for fish and

macroinvertebrates on the major watercourses in Walker Basin Allotment.


Three 5th

code watersheds influenced by Walker Basin Allotment are Beaver Creek, Cherry

Creek-Verde River (Verde River), and West Clear Creek (Appendix 1, Map 6). These

watersheds contain aquatic species or suitable habitat for candidate, threatened, endangered, and

Forest Service sensitive species.

Most of the streams in the Beaver Creek watershed are not perennial. Dry Beaver Creek is

largely ephemeral, while Wet Beaver Creek consists of a lengthy stretch (about 25 miles) of

perennial stream. One tributary of interest within the Beaver Creek watershed is Walker Creek

because it provides critical habitat for the endangered Gila chub.

A. Beaver Creek Watershed

The fish community in the Beaver Creek Watershed is dominated by non-native fish, which

includes channel and flathead catfish, largemouth and smallmouth bass, bluegill, green sunfish,

yellow bullhead, common carp, and red shiner. Native fish include: roundtail chub, Sonora

sucker, Desert sucker, and Gila chub (endangered). Walker Creek and Wet Beaver Creek are the

main watercourses on the allotment in this watershed.

Both Walker and Wet Beaver Creek are affected by livestock grazing, as both lie within or

downstream of the project area. Russell Wash lies within the winter season pasture area of

Walker Basin (Appendix 1, Maps 6 & 7) and carries sediment directly to Wet Beaver Creek

during periods of high runoff.

There is a 200-foot wide water gap on Walker Creek that is available to livestock during winter

grazing. The area of the water gap is heavily armored with cobbles and boulders, keeping soil

and banks stable. Observed riparian vegetation within the water gap is diverse, with all age-

classes of trees present. Vigorous growth of tree saplings, shrubs, and grasses is also evident.

No signs of grazing and problems at the water gap were observed (Photograph 5). It appears that

cattle are not using this water gap. Instead, they seem to be using a nearby, easily accessible

concrete lined irrigation ditch for a source of water.

Since livestock are not using the water gap, the only impact to Beaver Creek, if any, from current

grazing is where the Wickiup streamcourse joins Beaver Creek, approximately 1.5 miles


74

upstream from the Verde River (Appendix 1, Map 6). The Wickiup streamcourse carries

sediments from the headcuts and gullying in Wickiup Pasture and deposits them in Beaver

Creek.

B. Cherry Creek-Verde River Watershed

A majority of the Verde River watershed, upstream of the project area, is managed by the U.S.

Forest Service, including the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests. Current

conditions in the watershed are the result of a multitude of human influences that began in the

1800s, including livestock grazing, mining with associated clear-cutting and sulfur laden smoke,

logging, road construction, recreation, and settlement. Additionally, the Civilian Conservation

Corps (CCC) constructed various fences and water developments. In the 1950s, there was an

effort to increase the water supply by eradicating riparian and upland vegetation with aerial

chemical spraying and prescribed burning. There were also expansions of the road network as

the surrounding metropolitan areas developed.

The fish community of the Verde River is dominated by non-natives, including all those listed

for the Beaver Creek Watershed, plus fathead minnow. The native species present include

roundtail chub, Sonora sucker, desert sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker.

The AGFD has stocked hundreds of pikeminnow and razorback suckers over the past several

decades. In spite of these stockings, the two species comprise only a very small percentage of

the overall collection made during monitoring surveys in the Verde River (Robinson 2007).

C. West Clear Creek

West Clear Creek originates at the confluence of Clover and Willow Valley (Appendix 1, Map

6), and is perennial for about 25 miles to the confluence with the Verde River near Camp Verde.

Irrigation diversions often cause the stream to dry up near the confluence with the Verde River in

the summer months (Sullivan and Richardson 1993). West Clear Creek has a broad channel and

floodplain with gently sloping banks and the stream bottom is cobble and gravel.

Portions of West Clear Creek that may be affected by activities on Walker Basin Allotment

consist of:

1.2 miles of grazed riparian area in Willow Valley, which is a streamcourse on the far

eastern edge of the allotment, flowing into West Clear Creek.

Wickiup Creek, a highly eroded and headcut streamcourse on the southwest portion of

the allotment.

D. Fish Community

Forest Service sampling in 2002 and 2007 found the following native species present; roundtail

and headwater chub, speckled dace, longfin dace, and desert and Sonora sucker. Historically,

Gila trout were present in the headwaters (Minckley, 1973). Historically, the lower portion of

West Clear Creek was known to support spikedace, and contains suitable, although degraded,

habitat for the fish. Sampling also found the following nonnative species; black bullhead, red

shiner, smallmouth bass, rainbow trout, brown trout, and green sunfish. The Arizona Game and

Fish Department has documented fathead minnow in the upper reaches of West Clear Creek as

well (AGFD 2004).


75

The Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES) List for the Coconino National Forest

was reviewed, and a list of TES species was created for this project based on known occurrences

of species or, in the absence of survey data, the presence of suitable habitat.

Twelve federally listed or Forest Service sensitive fish species occur or once occurred in or near

the Walker Basin project area (see table below). Four of these species (Gila topminnow, loach

minnow, spikedace, and Gila trout) are considered extirpated from the project area, and

therefore are not discussed further in this analysis. Of the eight remaining species, five are either

federally listed as endangered, threatened, or are candidate species for federal listing. The

remaining three species are on the Southwestern Region Regional Forester’s sensitive species list

as of October 2007.

Table 32: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fishes in the Beaver, Verde, and West Clear Creek Watersheds.

Species Status† Occurrence

Gila chub Endangered, WSC Known to occur, Critical habitat present

Razorback sucker Endangered, WSC Known to Occur, Critical habitat present

Colorado pikeminnow Endangered, WSC Known to occur, Experimental, non-essential

Headwater chub Candidate, WSC, FS Known to occur

Roundtail chub Candidate, WSC, FS Known to occur

Longfin dace FS Known to occur

Desert sucker FS Known to occur

Sonora sucker FS Known to occur

†Status:

WSC=Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (1996 Arizona Game & Fish Department classification pending revision to Article 4 of the State Regulations) FS=Forest Service Sensitive Species (USFS, Southwestern Region, Regional Forester's List – October 2007).

Information on when each of these fish was given a special classification and their feeding and

spawning practices can be found on pages 23-29 of the fisheries specialist’s report in the project

file.

E. Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Aquatic macroinvertebrates are found in all aquatic habitats and therefore are present in the

streams, draws and stock tanks in the project area. Macroinvertebrate data from the ADEQ was

also reviewed to assess the health of the aquatic systems.

As a group, aquatic macroinvertebrates are identified in the Coconino National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan (as amended) as a management indicator for high and low elevation

late-seral riparian areas. Monitoring macroinvertebrates provides a method for assessing the

health of aquatic systems. Details on how these assessments are made can be found on pages 31-

33 of the fisheries specialist’s report in the project file.

There are many stocktanks located throughout Walker Basin Allotment; they are essentially

manmade ponds. Stock tanks have been developed on public lands throughout the southwest for

livestock and wildlife use. They benefit aquatic systems by limiting and trapping sediment that


76

otherwise would continue down ephemeral channels into perennial streams. They also capture

surface water and precipitation that has the potential to increase the flashiness of a stream during

a storm event and allow it to percolate into the soil, providing some recharge of the subsurface

aquifer and potentially adding to stream base flows. Stock tanks are adversely affect aquatic

systems when the sediment berms that are built to capture overland flow fail and result in a

sudden pulse of sediment into aquatic systems.

Stock tanks also provide an environment that contributes towards the spread of non-native

organisms including crayfish, nonnative fish, and bullfrogs. These nonnative species can

compete against native species for food and habitat. During high flows, the non-native species

can be washed out of the stock tanks and transported down the slopes to perennial aquatic

systems, where they can affect the native perennial ecosystem.


Effects to aquatic habitat and organisms from livestock are the result of changes to sediment and

water transport in the watershed. Many of these effects have already been described in the

Sections 3.3.3.2 and 3.3.5.2. This section describes how those effects specifically affect fish and

macroinvertebrates.

Sediments affect fish through: changing fish behavior, altering fish physiology, impairing

growth, shifting blood chemistry, inducing gill trauma, reducing disease resistance, increasing

the frequency of the cough reflex, avoiding suspended sediments, reducing feeding, temporarily

disrupting territoriality, increasing egg mortality, and causing the death of juveniles and adults if

strong enough (Anderson 1996, Argent and Flebbe 1999, Bisson and Bilby 1982).

The severity of changes in fish behavior depends on the timing of disturbance, the level of stress,

and the importance of the habitat that the fish may be excluded from by the sediments (Anderson

1996, Bisson and Bilby 1982, Rice et al. 2001). Other effects on stream fishes from sediment

can occur by modifications to stream habitat. These changes include: altered channel

morphology, loss of spawning habitat, loss of rearing habitat, changes in the food supply

(macroinvertebrate assemblage), and decreased over-wintering habitat (Lisle 1989, Miller and

Benda 2000, Wood and Armitage 1997).

With the loss of vegetation and soil productivity on streamsides and adjacent uplands, the

amount of water infiltration into the soil decreases. This leads to higher surface runoff and

higher flood pulses in stream channels (Belsky et al. 1999). Simulations of storm runoff in

Arizona indicate that peak storm runoff events would be 2-3 times greater when watersheds were

“heavily” grazed than when “lightly” grazed, resulting in higher energy erosive floods that would

deepen and reshape stream channels (USDI and USDA 1994). The erosive energy of floods can

cause stream channel down-cutting or incision, causing water to drain from floodplains into the

channel, resulting in lower ground water tables (Belsky et al. 1999). This results in a narrowing

or loss of riparian vegetation since they are left in drier soils. Additionally, with less water

entering upslope and riparian soils, less water is available to provide late season flows.

Therefore, the higher flows during precipitation events are often followed by low or no flow

during the drier weather periods (Belsky et al. 1999, Fleischner 1994).


77

The alterations listed above affect aquatic life. Lower water tables that reduce or eliminate

riparian vegetation affect macroinvertebrates. Streamside vegetation is a food source for

macroinvertebrates, and the quantity and quality of streamside vegetation plays a critical role in

regulating the macroinvertebrate assemblage that is present in the system (Gregory et al. 1991).

In turn, macroinvertebrates are a primary food source for fish, reptiles and amphibians.

Alterations to the food web at the lower levels has repercussions on these higher-level

consumers.

Riparian plant communities with rooted plants retard streambank erosion, filter sediments out of

the water, build and stabilize streambanks and streambeds, and provide shade and nutrients for

aquatic species. As explained in Section 3.3.5.2, livestock tend to avoid the hot dry areas and

congregate in the shaded wet areas. These are the riparian zones discussed in Section 3.3.5.2.

Effects to aquatic habitat and biota from livestock grazing are generally localized and can be

prevented through exclusion fencing or by limiting livestock to specific access points. Aquatic

habitat is altered by the direct removal of riparian vegetation from cattle grazing and altered

channel morphology from bank shearing by trampling hooves. While these effects are often

localized they contribute to other more serious effects. An important effect to fish from livestock

use of riparian areas is the removal of vegetative cover and the trampling of overhanging banks

(Fleischner, 1994).

A Proposed Action – Direct and Indirect Effects – Contrasted with No Action

Livestock grazing would continue on Walker Basin Allotment. The effects described in Sections

3.3.3.2 and 3.3.5.2 would apply here as well.

Although many activities are contributing towards watershed degradation, the proposed action

includes an initial reduction in grazing utilization and intensity from past management. Studies

have found that new grazing systems similar to the proposed action serve to slow the rate of

degradation of watersheds, and livestock exclusion from areas has consistently resulted in

ecosystem recovery (Armour et al. 1994, Belsky et al. 1999, Elmore and Kauffman 1994).

Since livestock are not accessing Walker Creek through the 200’ wide livestock water gap, the

observed good conditions at the water gap would be maintained.

Livestock would continue to have access to Willow Creek. The area along the watercourse that

is available to livestock is also heavily armored with cobbles and boulders, making changes in

channel morphology and sedimentation from livestock trampling unlikely. No critical habitat for

any fish species is present in Willow Creek. Under the proposed action, with less utilization and

intensity, the observed good conditions along Willow Creek would be maintained.

The proposed action would improve fencing across the allotment, controlling livestock access to

key riparian areas (such as Russell Spring and the unnamed spring), and two miles of fence

would be built to ensure that livestock have no direct access to Wet Beaver Creek, which would

improve conditions. The riparian restoration efforts at Russell Spring and the unnamed spring

would not have any effect since those riparian systems are too small to support fish.


78

Stock tanks would be constructed, providing potential habitat for non-native species. Therefore,

there is a potential for these non-native species to be washed out of the stock tanks and into the

streamcourses, where they would compete with native species. Routine monitoring of the

stocktanks would reduce this potential.

The following effects were reached:

Table 33: Effects to Fisheries Resource

Species Classification Determination

Colorado Pikeminnow Endangered No Effect

Razorback Sucker Endangered No Effect

Gila chub Endangered

May Affect but not Likely to Adversely Affect

Headwater chub Candidate

Roundtail chub Candidate

Desert sucker FS Sensitive

Sonora sucker FS Sensitive

Longfin dace FS Sensitive

Macroinvertebrates MIS

The conclusions in the table above are described in detail on pages 46-48 of the fisheries

specialist’s report. The conclusions were submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) for evaluation. The USFWS concurred with the findings in a letter dated December

20, 2010.

Under the no action alternative, there would no longer be any livestock-caused effects to fish and

macroinvertebrates on Walker Basin Allotment. Therefore, there would be No Effect to the

species listed in Table 31 under the no action alternative.


Although slightly different determinations were reached under each alternative, neither one

would contribute a discernible effect that could me measured. So, there would be no effect to

add to the effects of other actions for evaluation. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effect

contribution from either alternative.


Specific resource protection measures would be utilized to reduce and minimize impacts to the

fisheries resource. These criteria are listed in Appendix 5.


Neither alternative has a reasonable potential to result in adverse effects to any fish or

macroinvertebrate species.


79

3.3.10 Recreation Recreation in the project area includes camping, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, firewood

gathering, searching for shed antlers, hiking, off-road vehicle travel, and driving for pleasure.

Effects to recreating people from the two alternatives would be variable, depending on one’s

personal views on livestock grazing. Therefore, there is no practical way to gauge potential

effects for the two alternatives to recreating individuals. Therefore, this evaluation focuses on

whether livestock grazing is compatible with the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for

the area.


The Walker Basin Allotment contains the following five ROS classifications:

Non-Forest

Rural

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Livestock grazing and management of that livestock does not conflict with any of these

classifications.


Since livestock grazing and its associated management activities are not required under any of

the ROS classifications and grazing does not conflict with any of the ROS classifications, there

would be no effect from the proposed action.

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects to combine with the effects of other actions,

there would be no cumulative effect contribution.

There would be no effect to the ROS classifications from taking no action. Therefore, there

would be no cumulative effect contribution from the no action alternative.


No design criteria were developed for maintaining the ROS classifications because there would

be no effects to the ROS classifications.


Neither the proposed action, nor the no action alternative would affect the ROS classifications

for the area.

3.4 Cumulative Effects Summary

Although the cumulative effect contribution of the proposed action was discussed under each

resource, this section provides a summary of the effects that would be relevant for the

Responsible Official to consider in making a decision.


80

Table 34: Cumulative Effects Summary

Resource Proposed Action No Action

Rangeland Resource Would combine with weed treatment and

prescribed burn projects towards an upward trend

Same as proposed action, but likely at a faster rate

Upland Vegetation

Special Status Species

Same as Rangeland Same as proposed action, but likely at a faster rate

Soils Same as Rangeland, but would contribute

towards soil stabilization Same as proposed action, but

likely at a faster rate

Economic Social and Cultural

Contribute towards maintaining open space, habitat, viewsheds, and western

heritage in Coconino and Yavapai Counties

Increased chance of contributing towards the cumulative loss of

agricultural land in the west

Water Quality and Riparian

Same as Rangeland, but would contribute towards water quality improvements with

the stabilization of soils and improvements in vegetation

Same as proposed action, but possibly at a slower rate since the watershed improvement projects

would not occur.

Wildlife

Would combine with other habitat improvement projects due to the

watershed restoration activities and the lower grazing intensity and utilization.

Same as proposed action, but likely at a faster rate.

Invasives

Livestock and equipment would continue to contribute towards the spread of

invasives. There would also be more “eyes on the ground” for the identification

of infestations. Treatments would continue.

Livestock and equipment would continue to contribute towards the spread of invasives. There would

also be more “eyes on the ground” for the identification of infestations. Treatments would

continue.

3.5 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity (all resources)

The objective of the proposed action is to continue livestock grazing at levels that would ensure

the long-term productivity of the land.

If livestock grazing is removed from the allotment, it would result in the long-term productivity

of the upland vegetation on the allotment. However, continuing livestock grazing, using the

principles of adaptive management to respond to changing conditions would also allow for the

long-term productivity of the land.

There is no short-term use of the land under the proposed action or no action alternative that

would affect the long-term productivity.

3.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

This section describes those effects that cannot be alleviated through design criteria or

mitigations. There are two types, irreversible commitments of resources and irretrievable

commitments of resources.


81

3.6.1 Irreversible Commitments

Irreversible commitments are those that generally cannot be reversed, such as the extinction of a

species or the extraction of a mineral.

Under the no action alternative, there is a reasonable possibility the affected Permittee would not

be able to sustain operations. The most common loss of ranchland results from it being

converted into rural housing by developers. Once ranches are subdivided, they generally cannot

be restored. If it was to occur, the loss of the private ranch would be irreversible.

Under the proposed action, no irreversible commitments of resources would occur. All

management decisions made within the scope of this project would result in effects that could be

reversed with a change of decision.

3.6.2 Irretrievable Commitments

Irretrievable commitments are things that are lost for a period of time, but can be recovered. In

other words, the resource is irretrievable as long as the action is undertaken. An example is the

construction of a road through a field. The vegetation is lost as long as the road remains.

However, the vegetation can be restored if the road is removed.

Under the no action alternative, livestock grazing would no longer occur on Walker Basin

Allotment. The livestock grazing activity and its associated social and economic effects would

be irretrievable unless a decision to allow livestock grazing within the analysis area again is

made.

Under the proposed action, livestock grazing would continue within the analysis area. The

consumption of forage by the livestock and the space occupied by the livestock and management

structures (fences, stock tanks) would be irretrievable commitments of resources as long as

livestock grazing is allowed. If the livestock were not present, the forage and space within the

analysis area would all be available for wildlife use.

3.7 Any Other Relevant Disclosures

The Coconino Forest Plan is undergoing revision. When the revised plan is complete, it might

contain rangeland management requirements that differ from the current plan. If the proposed

action is approved, adaptive management would allow the Forest Service to make adjustments to

ensure compliance with the new plan. The website for the Coconino National Forest Plan

Revision is:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/plan-revision.shtml

4.0 Consultation and Coordination 4.1 Persons and Agencies Consulted Outside the Coconino National Forest

Allotment Permittee

Arizona Game and Fish Department

US Fish and Wildlife Service

State Historic Preservation Office


82

4.2 Core Interdisciplinary Team

Table 35: Core Interdisciplinary Team

Name Title Area of Responsibility for this Analysis

Janie Agyagos Wildlife Biologist General wildlife, TES Species, MIS,

Migratory Birds, USFWS consultation

Travis Bone Archaeologist

Cultural and Historical Resources

Tribal Contact

SHPO consultation

Mike Chaveas Acting District Ranger Responsible Official

(Summer 2010)

Mike Childs Fisheries Biologist Fisheries

USFWS consultation

Barbara Garcia Wildlife Biologist

General wildlife, TES species, MIS,

Migratory Birds

USFWS consultation

Robert Garcia Rangeland Management Specialist

Permittee Contact

Rangeland Data

Maps

Eric La Price Biological Scientist/NEPA Coordinator

ID Team Leader

NEPA Specialist, Writer/Editor

Socioeconomics and Cultural Lifestyle

Visuals and Recreation,

Climate Change

Laura Moser Botanist TES Plants

Invasive Species/Weeds

Heather Provencio District Ranger Responsible Official

Amina Sena Hydrologist Waterways, floodplains, wetlands,

watersheds, soils

4.3 Other Specialists Consulted

Table 36: Other Specialists Consulted

Name Title Area of Responsibility for this Analysis

Sarah Belcher Landscape Architect Input on Visuals

Iric Burden Rangeland Technician Input on Range

Jennifer Burns Recreation Staff Officer Input on Recreation

Polly Haessig

NEPA Coordinator, Mogollon Rim Ranger District

Previous ID Team Leader

Providing background information on the project

Colin Porter Rangeland Technician Input on Range

Laura Shaffer Landscape Architect Student Mapping Support


83

5.0 References Cited in this Environmental Assessment

This section does not contain the extensive citations that are found in each resource specialist

report that is in the file. Those reports and their references are part of a public record that can be

reviewed by any interested persons. Duplicating those citations and references in this document

would add unnecessary length and not contribute towards a decision. This section contains

resources that were directly cited in this EA.

American Farmland Trust, Strategic Ranchland in the Rocky Mountain West – Mapping the

Threats to Prime Farmland in Seven Western States.

American Farmland Trust, August 2007. Fact Sheet – Cost of Community Services Studies.

Anderson P.G., 1996. Sediment generation from forestry operations and associated effects on

aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference: Land Management Practices

Affecting Aquatic Ecosystems, Calgary, Alberta/

Archer, S. and F.E. Smeins. 1991. Ecosystem-Level Processes. P. 109-134. In: Grazing

Management: An Ecological Perspective. R.K. Heitschmidt and J.W. Stuth (eds.),Timber Press,

Portland, OR.

Argent, D.G. and P.A. Flebbe 1999. Fine sediment effects on brook trout eggs in laboratory

streams. Fisheries Research 39: 253-262.

Ball, Robert, BLM Rangeland Management Specialist. Personal Conversation

Baxter, C. 1977. A comparison between grazed and ungrazed juniper woodland. In: Aldon, E.F,

and Loring, T.J., tech. coords. Ecology, uses, and management of pinyon-juniper woodlands.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-39. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 25–27.

Bradford, David, et. al, 2002. Livestock Grazing on The National Forests-Why Continue to do

it?

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of Livestock Influences on Stream and

Riparian Ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

Volume 54, Number 1, pages 419-431.

Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:371-374.

Coconino County, 2003. Coconino County Comprehensive Plan.

http://www.coconino.az.gov/comdev.aspx?id=142

Courtois, D.R., B.L. Perryman, H.S. Hussein. 2004. Vegetation change after 65 years of grazing

and grazing exclusion. Journal of Range Management. 57: 574-582.

Dissmeyer, George E., Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands, GTR SRS-39, September,

2000).


84

Elmore, W. and B. Kauffman 1994. Riparian watershed systems: degradation and restoration.

Pages 211-232 in M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Piper, eds. Ecological implications of

herbivory in the West. Society of Range Management, Denver, CO.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America.

Conservation Biology 8(3):629-644.

Galt, D., F. Molinar, J. Navarro, J. Joseph, and J. Holecheck. 2000. Grazing Capacity and

Stocking Rate. Rangelands. 22(6):6-11.

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem

perspective of riparian zones; focus on links between land and water. Bioscience 41(8): 540.

Holechek, Jerry L. 1981. Livestock grazing impacts on public lands: A viewpoint. Journal of

Range Management. 34(3); 251-254.

Hudak, Mike. Cattle Grazing on Federal Public Lands Contributes to Global Climate Change.

2008.

Johnson, K.A and D.E. Methane Emissions from Cattle. 1995. Journal of Animal Science.

73:2483-2492

Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal

california. Water resources research 25(6): 1303-1319.

Loeser, M.R., T.E. Crews, and T.D. Sisk. 2004. Defoliation increased above-ground

productivity in a semi-arid grassland. Journal of Range Management. 56: 133-139.

Lovell, Tony and Bruce Ward. ww.soilcarbon.com.au/case_studies/pps/08TL_SCCPPP_En.pps

Miller, D.J. and L.E. Benda 2000. Effects of punctuated sediment supply on valley-floor

landforms and sediment transport. GSA Bulletin 112:1814-1824.

Pyke, Christopher R. and Jaymee Marty. 2005. Cattle Grazing Mediates Climate Change

Impacts on Ephemeral Wetlands. Conservation Biology 1619-1625.

Savory, A. 1988. Holistic Resource Management, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 545 pp.

Savory, A. and S.D. Parsons (1980) The Savory Grazing Method, Rangelands 2,234-2,237.

Taylor, David T., et al, 2004. The Economic Importance of Livestock Grazing on BLM Land in

Fremont County Wyoming.

Torell, Allen L., et al., 2001. The Lack of a Profit Motive for Ranching: Implications for Policy

Analysis.


85

US Forest Service, 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of

Noxious or invasive Weeds – Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino,

Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona.

US Forest Service, 1987. Coconino National Forest Plan.

US Forest Service 2005, Final Environmental Assessment for Walker Basin Allotment

Watershed and Wildlife Habitat Improvements.

Wood, P.J. and P.D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic

environment. Environmental Management 21(2):203-217.

Documents

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequencesa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences