united states soil and water agriculture specialist’s...

Fossil Creek Range Allotment Soil and Water Specialist Report

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Prepared by: Sara Amina Sena, Soil and Water Specialist,

Red Rock Ranger District

Signature: Sara Amina SenaSara Amina SenaSara Amina SenaSara Amina Sena Date: 03/19/2013 Updated 5/16/2013

Soil and Water Specialist’s Report

Fossil Creek Range Allotment

Red Rock District, Coconino National Forest Yavapai County, Arizona


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1

EXISTING CONDITION ..............................................................................................................2

CLIMATE .......................................................................................................................................2

Climate Change .......................................................................................................................5

WATERSHED CONDITION .............................................................................................................8

Woody Species Encroachment of Grasslands ........................................................................11

SOIL CONDITION ........................................................................................................................15

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Background Information ........................................................15

SOIL EROSION RATES .................................................................................................................23

SPRINGS, WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION CONDITION ...............................................31

PERENNIAL STREAMS AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................34

DESIRED CONDITION ..............................................................................................................35

WATERSHED CONDITION ...........................................................................................................36

SOIL CONDITION ........................................................................................................................36

SOIL EROSION RATES .................................................................................................................38

SPRINGS, WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION CONDITION ...............................................39

PERENNIAL STREAMS AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................40

MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................40

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................42

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES..................................................................................56

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................56

Watershed Condition .............................................................................................................56

Soil Condition ........................................................................................................................57

Soil Erosion Rates..................................................................................................................61

Springs, Wetlands and Riparian Vegetation Condition .........................................................61

Perennial Streams and Water Quality ...................................................................................62

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................63

Past Actions ...........................................................................................................................63

Present Actions ......................................................................................................................65

Future and Foreseeable Actions ............................................................................................66

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ........................................71

Watershed Condition .............................................................................................................71

Soil Condition ........................................................................................................................72

Soil Erosion Rates..................................................................................................................73

Springs, Wetlands and Riparian Vegetation Condition .........................................................73

Perennial Streams and Water Quality ...................................................................................74

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................74

METHODOLOGY, DEFINITIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF DATA ..................................75

EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...........................................................79

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................80

APPENDIX I: ARIZONA WATER QUALITY RESULTS .....................................................85

Fossil Creek range Allotment Soil and Water Specialist Report

ii

APPENDIX II: DROUGHT MONITORING DATA ............................................................... 87

APPENDIX III: MANAGEMENT AREAS AND EMPHASIS ............................................... 95

APPENDIX IV: COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 96

APPENDIX V: SOIL CONDITION ACRES BY TES UNIT ................................................ 101

APPENDIX VI: SOIL CONDITION ACRES BY PASTURE .............................................. 102

APPENDIX VII: TES UNIT ACRES AND PERCENT OF TOTAL ALLOTMENT ........ 106

APPENDIX VIII: VEGETATIVE GROUND COVERS BY TES MAP UNIT ................... 107

APPENDIX IX: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY COMPARISON OF CANOPY COVER .... 111

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Climate information for Western Regional Climate Center station located at the Childs AZ ... 3 Table 2. Precipitation data from the Callaway Butte weather station ........................................................ 4 Table 3. Watershed Condition and Indicator ratings ................................................................................ 10 Table 4. Acres of each Potential Natural Vegetation Type on the Fossil Creek allotment .................... 10 Table 5. Change in soil condition from 2007 to 2012 in the Fossil Creek allotment .............................. 19 Table 6. Soil Condition class and slope classes on the Fossil Creek allotment .................................... 20 Table 7. Acres of Unsatisfactory soil condition and corresponding vegetative ground covers. ......... 23 Table 8. Soil erosion rates under current conditions in tons/acre/year .................................................... 26 Table 9. Riparian conditions on the Fossil Creek Range allotment ........................................................ 31 Table 10. Pasture location and condition of springs of the Fossil Creek Range allotment .................. 32 Table 11. Average e Coli results from summer 2012 Friends of the Forest sampling ........................... 35 Table 12. Pastures with vegetative proposed treatments in the Fossil Creek alottment ...................... 47 Table 13. Management Evaluation Points and Adaptive Management Options ..................................... 51 Table 14. Fires occurring within the last 15 years within the cumulative effects boundary. ................ 64 Table 15. List of past actions other than grazing occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area. .............................................................................................................................................................. 64 Table 16. List of present grazing actions occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area. ....... 65 Table 17. List of present actions other than grazing occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area. .............................................................................................................................................................. 66 Table 18. List of future and foreseeable actions occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area. .............................................................................................................................................................. 66 Table 19. Amount if Current Forest-wide Sediment Leaving Road Buffer on Forest Land/Jurisdiction Roads from TMR .......................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 20. Road Sediment Delivery at Perennial Stream Crossings for Fossil Creek-Lower Verde Watershed .................................................................................................................................................... 70 Table 21. Summary of the Management Areas and Emphasis for the Fossil Creek Range allotment. 95 Table 22. Summary of the Coconino National Forest Plan for the Fossil Creek allotment ................... 96 Table 23. Soil Condition on the Fossil Creek allotment by TES unit ..................................................... 101 Table 24. Soil Condition Acres by Slope Unit by Pasture ...................................................................... 102 Table 25. TES Unit Acres and Percent of Total allotment Area ............................................................. 106 Table 26.Vegetative Ground Covers by TES Map Unit in the Fossil Creek allotment .......................... 107


iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Watershed Condition Indicators ................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2. Mud Tanks pasture aerial photo from 1946 ............................................................................... 14 Figure 3. Mud Tanks Pasture aerial photo in 2012 .................................................................................... 15 Figure 4. Soil Conditions of the Fossil Creek Range allotment, updated copy February 2013 ............ 21 Figure 5. Riparian stream reaches and functional class within the Fossil Creek allotment ................. 34 Figure 6. Fossil Creek Allotment Pastures and Waters ............................................................................ 53 Figure 7. Water Quality results for Fossil Creek ....................................................................................... 85 Figure 8. Water Quality results for Verde River from West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek ...................... 86 Figure 9. Standardized Precipitation Index 12 month Long Term Conditions, updated January 2013 87 Figure 10. Palmer Drought Index Long Term Conditions, updated October 27, 2012 ........................... 88 Figure 11. Palmer Drought Index Long Term Conditions, updated January, 2013 ................................ 89 Figure 12. U.S. Drought Conditions for the West, October 30, 2012 ....................................................... 90 Figure 13. U.S. Drought Conditions for the West, February 19, 2013 ..................................................... 91 Figure 14. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Map November 1, 2012 ........................................................ 92 Figure 15. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Map February 7, 2013 .......................................................... 93 Figure 16. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Map February 21, 2013 ........................................................ 94 Figure 17. Aerial photo above Boulder Pasture in 1946 ......................................................................... 111 Figure 18. Aerial photo above Boulder Pasture in 2012 ......................................................................... 112 Figure 19. Aerial photo above Ernie's Tank in 1946 ............................................................................... 113 Figure 20. Aerial photo above Ernie's Tank in 2012 ............................................................................... 114 Figure 21. Aerial photo above Sally May Pasture in 1946 ...................................................................... 115 Figure 22. Aerial photo above Sally May pasture in 2012 ...................................................................... 116 Figure 23. Aerial photo of Tanque Aloma pasture in 1946 ..................................................................... 117 Figure 24. Aerial photo from 2012 in the Tanque Aloma pasture .......................................................... 118

Note about Acreage: All acreage figures shown in this report are approximate and

were determined using GIS software (ArcMap 10.0). Minor differences in the

acreage displayed may occur due to “floating point rounding errors” in Excel

spreadsheets and/or the data accuracy of the various GIS databases accessed.


1

INTRODUCTION This specialist report analyzes the existing and desired conditions of soil and water

resources in the Fossil Creek allotment and the effects of the Proposed Action and the No

Action alternatives compared to the existing condition of the allotment.

This report includes detailed information and analysis, which is used to inform the Fossil

Creek Allotment Environmental Assessment (EA). In some situations, the EA presents the

information in a slightly different manner. In these situations, the EA was the instrument

used to inform the decision-making process. Specialist reports, including this report, are

important reference sources for more detailed information on affected environment,

methodology, and analysis that was not included in the EA. This is based on the Council for

Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations (Section 1508.9), which identifies and

Environmental Assessment as a “concise public document” to include “brief discussions” of

the proposal, alternatives, environmental impacts of the alternatives, and a listing of agencies

and persons consulted.

The Fossil Creek Allotment is located on the Red Rock Ranger District approximately five

miles southeast of Camp Verde. The allotment is roughly bounded by Highway 260 on the

north and Fossil Creek on the east (Figure 1).

Elevations range from approximately 3,000 feet to 6,300 feet and vegetation is typical for the

area: ponderosa pine is present at the highest elevations, pinyon-juniper woodlands and

chaparral dominate the mid-elevations, and semi-desert grassland/desert scrub vegetation is

found at the lower elevations. The area within the allotment boundary is referred to as the

project area in the EA. Much of the analysis in this document extends beyond the project

area to take into account and disclose the effects of the alternatives to watershed areas

outside the allotment, interconnected upland and riparian areas that function together as an

ecological unit, wildlife habitat outside of the allotment that is important to species that occur

within the allotment, and surrounding areas that are culturally and economically affected by

activities that occur within the allotment.

This analysis replaces a 2009 Environmental Assessment completed for the reauthorization

of the term grazing permit for the Fossil Creek Allotment. The 2009 Environmental

Assessment and a 2009 decision to reauthorize the term grazing permit were litigated in

Arizona District Court. The Judge ruled that the 2009 Environmental Assessment

inaccurately disclosed the environmental impacts of the proposed action to unsatisfactory

soils on the allotment. This was due to an error that stated a 2/3 effective ground cover soil

objective would meet soil tolerance levels and thus prevent soil loss. To address this error,

the soil objective has been revised in this EA to be based on soil tolerance. The proposed

action in this EA also includes a number of differences than the proposed action analyzed in

the 2009 EA, including:

• The Stehr Lake Pasture is identified for trail through only instead of including proposals for

the construction of two water gap lanes on Fossil Creek.

• There is a proposal to complete juniper removal treatments on up to 1,200 acres in pastures

with high amounts of impaired and unsatisfactory soils.


2

• Adaptive management scenarios are more specific and include detailed evaluation points.

• There are provisions to include exclusion fencing around riparian areas where riparian

utilization standards are not being met and to install exclusion fencing at occupied earthen

stock tanks where occupied by the Chiricahua leopard frog.

• There is proposal to make modifications to the Divide Tank to address invasive crayfish and

make the tank suitable habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog.

These changes in the proposed action, a detailed description of the purpose and need, desired

conditions and issues are defined in more detail in Chapter 1 of the EA.

EXISTING CONDITION This section details the affected environment for the soil and water resources in the Fossil

Creek allotment. Soil and water resources analyzed include; watershed condition, soil

condition and productivity, riparian area extent and condition, wetland extent and condition,

seeps and springs extent and condition, perennial stream extent and water quality.

� Soil Condition

• 5,294 acres of Satisfactory soils or 12.57 percent of the allotment

• 9757 acres of Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable soils or 23.17 percent

• 26384 acres of Impaired soils or 62.64 percent of the allotment

• 26 acres of Not applicable soils or 0.06 percent of the allotment � These 26 acres refer to the old lake bed of Stehr Lake which is now drained

• 659 acres of Unsatisfactory soils or 1.56 percent of the allotment

� Wetlands

• Currently no wetlands are known to occur on the Fossil Creek allotment

according to the Coconino National Forest Inventory GIS database.

� Riparian areas

• 21.3 miles or riparian stream according to the Coconino NF Inventory

• 332.7 acres including all stream, seeps and springs according to the

Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVT) layer from the Coconino NF

� Springs and Seeps

• Twenty springs and/or seeps identified within the Fossil Creek allotment

� Perennial Streams

• 2.08 miles of perennial stream reaches, all on Fossil Creek

� Water Quality

• The ADEQ 2010 305B report continues to identify Fossil Creek as category

1 (Attaining all Uses) and lists the Verde River as category 1 also.

Climate Climate conditions are a major contributing factor affecting range condition and trend in the

southwestern United States. Climate on the Fossil Creek allotment is characterized by a

bimodal precipitation pattern with about 60 percent of precipitation occurring as frontal


3

systems in the winter from December to March and about 40 percent occurring as monsoons

in the summer from July to September. Summer storms are generally more intense than

winter storms but are of shorter duration and smaller aerial extent.

Elevations run from approximately 3,000 feet to 6,300 feet and vegetation adheres to typical

elevation regimes; ponderosa pine stringers are present at the highest elevations,

pinyon/juniper woodlands and chaparral dominate the mid-elevations, and semi-desert

grassland/desert scrub vegetation types are at the lower elevations.

The Western Regional Climate Center station located at the historical Childs site is the

Arizona monitoring station number 021614, which was monitored from 1915 to2005. The

Childs station is located in the Fossil Creek Watershed in Yavapai County at Latitude

34°20'59", Longitude 111°41'55" and is 2,720 feet above sea level. Mean annual

precipitation is 18.11 inches and snow fall total is 0.9; for monthly averages, refer to Table 1.

Table 1. Climate information for Western Regional Climate Center station located at the Childs AZ

In Inches Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average

Total

Precipitation

1.95 1.89 1.74 0.97 0.39 0.35 1.97 2.65 1.72 1.20 1.28 2.01 18.11

Average

Total Snow

0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9

The data available from the Childs station is representative of past precipitation patterns

occurring on the lower elevations on the Fossil Creek allotment. This precipitation data has a

period of records that extends back to 1915 but because the period of record ended in 2005,

this data cannot be used to determine current trends in precipitation occurring within the

Fossil Creek allotment.

The most recent data for the Fossil Creek allotment is available from the Callaway Butte rain

station from the Yavapai Flood Alert system. This precipitation gage is adjacent to the

northern boundaries of the Fossil Creek allotment and was installed in March of 2000. The

Callaway Butte rain station from the Yavapai Flood Alert system monitors station number

490, which was monitored from March 2000 to the present. The Callaway Butte rain station

is located in the West Clear Creek Sub basin of the Verde River Watershed in Coconino

County at Latitude 34°31'57", Longitude 111°29'08" and is 6,667 feet above sea level.

Mean annual precipitation is 20.13 inches, with no available snow fall data.

Table 2 shows the monthly averages for the period of record available at this site and also

shows water years 09/10, 10/11, and 11/12. Annual totals for water years 09/10 exceeds the

annual average precipitation, and water years 10/11 and 11/12 are close to this annual

average precipitation.


4

Table 2. Precipitation data from the Callaway Butte weather station

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec An

nu

al

Average Total

Precipitation (in.) 1.89 1.94 1.37 0.84 0.56 0.21 3 3.6 1.63 1.65 1.39 2.07 20.13

Water Year 09/10 5.63 2.05 2.05 0.79 0.08 0.43 5.08 3.43 0.43 0.04 0.20 1.22 21.42

Water Year 10/11 0.31 2.36 1.18 0.55 0.79 0.00 3.03 2.20 2.48 2.13 0.87 3.58 19.49

Water Year 11/12 0.63 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.35 0.55 1.61 2.56 2.36 17.13

Watershed Climate conditions are a major contributing factor affecting range condition and

trend in the southwestern United States. Large year-to-year differences in rainfall and forage

production are characteristic of southwestern ranges (Martin 1974). Climate model

projections for the southwest United States predict average temperatures will continue to rise

as will the potential for an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events (Crimmins et al.

2007).

The NOAA U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook dated November 1, 2012 indicates that drought

development is likely to persist for the fall season of 2012 in the vicinity of the Fossil Creek

allotment (Figure 14, Appendix II: Drought monitoring ). The NOAA U.S. Seasonal Drought

Outlook dated February 7, 2013 indicates that drought development is ongoing with some

improvement (Figure 15, Appendix II: Drought monitoring ) and the most recent U.S

Seasonal Drought Outlook dated February 21, 2013 indicates that drought development is

likely (Figure 16, Appendix II: Drought monitoring ). The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook

figures depict large scale trends based on subjectively derived probabilities guided by short

and long range statistical and dynamical forecasts (NOAA, 2013).

The NOAA U.S. Drought Monitor for the West which focuses on broad scale conditions

(dated October 30, 2012) indicates that the area is in moderate drought intensity (Figure 12,

Appendix II: Drought monitoring ). The most recent NOAA U.S. Drought Monitor for the

West (dated February 19, 2013) indicates that the area is in the lowest Intensity Class of

abnormally dry (Figure 13, Appendix II: Drought monitoring ). This data depicts a recent

improvement in drought conditions in the area around the Fossil Creek allotment.

The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) was developed by Thomas McKee, Nolan

Doesken and John Kleist of the Colorado Climate Center in 1993 and has been embraced by

the Western Regional Climate Center as a statistical method from assessing rainfall. In

calculating the SPI rainfall data, values are fitted to a gamma distribution and are then

transformed to a Gaussian distribution to standardize the results. All of the above steps make

the SPI independent of both the location and the range in values so that the different seasons

and climate areas are represented on an equal basis (WRCC, 2013). The purpose is to assign

a single numeric value to the precipitation which can be compared across regions with

markedly different climates (WRCC, 2013). The latest 12- month Standardized Precipitation

Index through the end of January 2013 shows all of the regions mapped near the Fossil Creek

allotment to be in near normal condition (Figure 9, Appendix II: Drought monitoring data).


5

The Palmer Drought Se verity Index (PDSI) was one of the first procedures to demonstrate

success at quantifying the severity of droughts across different climates (Wells, 2004).

Instead of being purely based on precipitation, the PDSI is based upon a primitive water

balance model and has been used for approximately 40 years to quantify the long-term

drought conditions.

The NOAA Palmer Drought Se verity Index Long Term meteorological conditions dated

October 27, 1012 show the area near the Fossil Creek allotment to be in a severe drought

(Figure 10, Appendix II: Drought monitoring I), but the most recent NOAA Palmer Index

Long Term meteorological conditions dated January, 2013, shows a marked improvement

with all regions near the Fossil Creek allotment to be in mid-range (Figure 11, Appendix II:

Drought monitoring I). Drought Monitoring data and forecasts are always changing and are

useful tools for looking at short term and long term forecasts.

Site Specific data for the Fossil Creek allotment shows, as stated above, that annual

precipitation totals for water years 09/10 exceeds the annual average precipitation, and water

years 10/11 and 11/12 are close to this annual average precipitation.

There was a substantial drought between the years of 1998 and 2006. As a response to this

drought the Forest Service reduced authorized numbers and season of use in 2002 through

2006. Livestock was then completely removed from the allotment in response to conditions

from June 20, 2002 to February 28, 2003 and from October 31, 2004 to October 31, 2006.

Data shows conditions began to improve after drought conditions subsided, even with

continued grazing. To manage for drought cycles that change over time it is important to rely

on adaptive management measures that adjust changes needed, including but not limited to

authorized numbers and season of use, during drought conditions and have the flexibility to

make these management changes.

Climate Change

Climate conditions are a major contributing factor affecting range condition and trend in the

southwestern United States. Large year-to-year differences in rainfall and forage production

are characteristic of southwestern ranges (Martin 1974). Climate model projections for the

southwest United States predict average temperatures will continue to rise as will the

potential for an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events (Crimmins et al. 2007).

Regional models have shown temperatures increasing from 2 to 20 degrees on average over

the next 50 years (Smith,2010 and TACCIMO, 2012). Changes in precipitation are less

predictable, with some models calling for increases of 5 percent and other models calling for

decreases of varying degree from 3 to 40 percent over the next 50 years (Smith,2010 and

TACCIMO, 2012). Other models suggest that an average annual precipitation in the

Southwest will likely decrease 6 to 12 percent by 2100 (USDA, 2012). Fire frequency and

severity will likely increase as temperatures rise and precipitation decrease (USDA, 2010) .

Changes in climate may affect the vitality and productivity of rangeland plants, and thus the

overall conditions of both wildlife habitat and range conditions (USDA, 2010) . Increased

temperatures combined with decreased precipitation would lead to lower plant productivity

and cover, which in turn would decrease litter cover. The reduction in plant and litter cover


6

would make the soils more susceptible to wind and water erosion. Drought will likely

increase and the increase will likely intensify as temperature increases ( USDA, 2012).

Climate change will likely increase the establishment of invasive plants in the U.S. Forests

(USDA, 2012.)Timing of moisture can lead to shifts in dominance from warm to cool season

plant species or vice-versa. Currently we are observing a shift to warm season species

dominance in many areas of northern Arizona as a result of lower winter moisture and higher

summer moisture. Shifts in forage productivity and the presence of exotic plant species in

grasslands will likely affect forage quality and fire frequency (USDA, 2010).

Coupled with poor forage conditions, there may be a general scarcity of water for cattle

(USDA, 2010). Water supplies are projected to become increasingly scarce and seasonal as

snowmelt occurs earlier in the year. The Colorado River, Rio Grande, and several other

southwestern rivers have streamflows that appear to be peaking earlier in the year, suggesting

that the spring temperatures in these regions are warmer than in the past, causing snow to

melt earlier. While the Southwest is expected to become warmer and drier, it is likely to

experience more flooding (USDA, 2010). Some of the most notable observed effect of

climate change occur in the Western United States and include an increase in the size and

intensity of forest fires, bark beetle outbreaks killing trees over enormous areas, accelerated

tree mortality from drought, and earlier snowmelt and runoff (USDA, 2012).

Regional trend and projections of changing climatic conditions for the West include lower

precipitation in Arizona. More frequent rain on snow flooding in some areas, decreased soil

productivity, reduced vegetative cover and a highly variable climate with exceptionally wet

and dry periods (USDA, 2010).

Some ranchers rely on well water, but often ranchers use stock tanks (dirt tanks) to capture

summer monsoon rainfall and use this water for their cattle over the winter (USDA, 2010).

During the recent droughts, these dirt tanks dried prematurely, making many pastures useless

for cattle even though forage was still available (Conley et al. 1999). Ranching is in a

vulnerable position, especially when viewed against a backdrop of changing climate,

economic structure, urban expansion, increasing population, fluctuating market conditions,

and environmental protection measures (Sprigg et al. 2000).

According to NOAA National Climatic Data Center, there has been a marked upward trend

in the globally averaged annual mean surface temperature since the mid-1970s (NOAA,

2012). Models used by Seager et al. (2007) to predict how climate change will affect the

southwestern United States indicate that the current drought will intensify and continue for

years to decades. However, the models are too broad-scale to predict how climate change

might affect specific areas or the summer monsoons, which contribute a large portion of the

precipitation on the Fossil Creek allotment. Up to 50% of the annual rainfall in Arizona and

New Mexico occurs as monsoonal storms from July through September (Sheppard et al.

2002). It is difficult to predict how global warming might affect the Fossil Creek allotment

specifically, but it could become warmer and dryer.

We know climate changes occur. There are many factors which affect Earth’s global

climate, including the 11 and 22 year solar cycles. The cycle includes a solar maximum,


7

when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity, and puts out

more radiation. It is followed by a solar minimum, a relatively quiet time when the sun’s

radiation output is less. These cycles affect how much radiant energy from the sun is

received by Earth, called the Total Solar Irridiance (TSI). The TSI interaction with the

Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate

(NASA, 2003).

Changes in climate affect the environment in various ways. For example, the Medieval

Warming Period (AD 950-1250) was a period of global warming, during which Greenland

was not frozen and the Viking civilization there flourished. In contrast, the Little Ice Age

(AD 1450-1850) was a period of global cooling during which Greenland became

inhospitable. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age, known as the Maunder Minimum was a

70-year period during which little sunspot activity occurred and North America and Europe

were subjected to intense winters (Phillips, 2013). Many scientists believe the prolonged

solar minima and its corresponding decrease in solar energy is what caused Earth to cool

(Fox, 2011). The current Solar Cycle (number 24) is the weakest in more than 50 years,

suggesting we may be on the verge of another period of global cooling (Phillips, 2013).

In recent decades, there has also been much discussion and debate over the possible impacts

of human influences on climate, especially in regards to greenhouse gasses. Bruce Wielicki,

Senior Earth Scientist at NASA Langley, says that carbon dioxide acts as a blanket and helps

trap heat in the atmosphere (NASA, 2011).

It is difficult to conclude whether recently observed trends or changes in ecological

phenomena are the result of human caused climate change, climatic variability, or other

factors (USDA, 2012). As documented in the U.S Climate Change Science Program

Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (Backlund et al. 2008), climate change is occurring

and we are observing many effects on forests. A growing body of science has demonstrated

that the Earth’s climate warmed rapidly during the 20th

century (USDA, 2010).

Regardless of the causes of climate change, our responsibility is to determine effective

ways to respond to changes and manage the land effectively. One of our identified goals is

maintaining and improving watershed health. Healthy, resilient watersheds are more likely

to support desired ecological services in the face of climate change (Furniss, 2010).

Climate changes in the future would also affect the allotment. Some climate model

projections for the southwest United States predict average temperatures will continue to rise

as will the potential for an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events (Crimmins et al.

2007). Fires are burning hotter and covering larger areas. The resulting changes in

vegetation cover and soil characteristics can dramatically increase flooding and mass

wasting, with severe impacts to downstream infrastructure and aquatic ecosystems (Furnas et

al, 2010). Consequently, these extremes may pose additional risk to vegetation and soil

productivity from decreased cover that may result in higher risk of accelerated erosion and

sediment delivery. There is greater probability of flooding that could require additional creek

access trail maintenance. Therefore, it is critical to reduce overall soil disturbance by

implementing appropriate resource protection measures including soil and aquatic BMPs.


8

The adaptive management strategies utilized by the Forest Service allow the landscape to

be managed in a way that sustains ecological functions, reduces the impact of existing

ecological stressors, maintain or enhance species and structural diversity, increase

ecosystem resiliency across the landscape and respond to disturbance (USDA, 2012). The

adaptive management strategies and use of best management practices allows for the

flexibility to manage the land in a way that enhance the resiliency of resources to the

potential impacts of climate change.

Watershed Condition

In 1987, the USGS published a set of hydrologic unit maps with numerical codes for

designating river basins within the United States. The purpose of these maps and the

associated coding system was to standardize the compilation and sharing of hydrologic data

among water-resources organizations. This system subdivides river basins into successively

smaller hydrologic units which are classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions,

accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic units are nested within each other,

from the smallest subdivision (cataloging units) to the largest division (regions). In the

original mapping effort, each hydrologic unit was identified by a unique hydrologic unit code

(HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the

hydrologic unit system. This system is in wide use today with hydrologic units mapped at

even finer resolution with 6th

-level HUCs mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 and identified by

twelve digit codes.

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500, Watershed and Air Management, establishes national

policy concerning watershed protection and management (USDS Forest Service, 2004).

Chapter 2521 of FSM 2500 identifies the requirement for assessing the condition of Forest

Service watersheds with the objectives of evaluating long term watershed trends associated

with land use practices, assessing changes in watershed ability to produce resource outputs

brought about by changes in watershed condition, and to inform land management decisions

using consistent and scientific approaches that assess, protect, and restore watershed

conditions. Overall watershed condition is based on evaluation of the soil, aquatic and

riparian systems as prescribed by the watershed classes defined in Forest Service Manual

2520 (USDA 2004).

To assess and prioritize watersheds in a consistent fashion, the Forest Service developed the

Watershed Condition Framework (WCF). The WCF establishes a reconnaissance-level

approach for classifying watershed condition, using a comprehensive set of 12 indicators that

are surrogate variables representing the underlying ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic

functions and processes that affect watershed condition (USDA Forest Service, 2011). The

indicators include aquatic physical, aquatic biological, terrestrial physical, and terrestrial

biological categories with attributes for each category (see Figure 1).

The WCF assessment process involves classification of all 6th

-level Hydrologic Unit Code

(HUC) watersheds on National Forest lands into one of three watershed condition classes:

Class 1—Functioning Properly; Class 2—Functioning at Risk; Class 3—Functionally


9

Impaired. Each indicator attribute such as Soil Productivity under the Soils indicator is

assigned a numerical score from 1 to 3 with 1 equating to good condition and 3 to poor

condition. Attribute scores for each indicator are averaged to give an overall indicator score,

and indicator scores under each indicator category are averaged to give an overall indicator

category score. Averaging of indicator category scores provides an overall watershed score

and takes into consideration that not all categories are weighted equally. The terrestrial

biological category makes up only 10% of the total watershed score, and the remaining

categories making up 30% each of the total score.

Figure 1. Watershed Condition Indicators

Based on these watershed condition indicators the Proposed Action of grazing could

potentially affect water quality, riparian vegetation condition, soil productivity and soil

erosion rates, as well as rangeland vegetation indicators. The Fossil Creek Range allotment

planning area is located within the Fossil Creek-Verde River 5th

code watershed. The Fossil

Creek Range allotment planning area also includes portions of eight 6th

HUC watersheds

nested within the larger Fossil Creek-Verde River 5th

code watershed. The 6th

HUC

watersheds within the Fossil Creek Range allotment planning area are listed in Table 3. The


10

existing watershed condition and indicator ratings that could be affected under the Proposed

Action for theses 6th

HUC watersheds are also given in Table 3. For a complete listing of all

the watershed indicators for each watershed as well as a description of why the watershed

was rated a specific rating please refer to the following website for detailed information

(http://apps.fs.usda.gov/WCFmapviewer).

Watershed function in the Lower Fossil Creek 6th

HUC watershed is rated as Functional at

risk due primarily to high amounts of impaired soil conditions, riparian condition in less than

functional condition, and presence of invasive and nonnative aquatic species (Lower Fossil

Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan, Steinke et. al. 2013).

Table 3. Watershed Condition and Indicator ratings

HU

C1

2_

Na

me

Wa

ters

he

d

Co

nd

itio

n

Ind

ica

tor

1 -

Wa

ter

Qu

ali

ty

Ind

ica

tor

5 -

Rip

ari

an

/

We

tla

nd

Ve

ge

tati

on

Ind

ica

tor

7 -

So

ils

Ind

ica

tor

10

-

Ra

ng

ela

nd

Ve

ge

tati

on

Gap Creek-Verde River Functioning At Risk good fair poor Good

Chasm Creek – Verde River Functioning At Risk fair good fair Poor

Lower Fossil Creek Functioning At Risk good fair poor Good

Lower West Clear Creek Impaired Function good good poor Good

Middle West Clear Creek Functioning At Risk good good poor Good

Mud Tanks Draw Functioning At Risk fair good poor Fair

Sycamore Canyon Functioning At Risk good fair good Good

Upper Fossil Creek Functioning At Risk fair good poor Fair

According to the Coconino National Forest database the Potential Natural Vegetation Types

(PNVT) occurring within the Fossil Creek allotment vary from Semi-Desert Grassland and

Pinyon Juniper Woodlands to Ponderosa Pine at the highest elevations. Twelve different

PNVT categories occur within the Fossil Creek allotment and the acres of each PNVT are

listed in Table 4. Acres of riparian vegetation including Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest,

Mixed Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane Willow Riparian Forest total 332.7 acres.

Table 4. Acres of each Potential Natural Vegetation Type on the Fossil Creek allotment

PNVT Sum of

Acres

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 121.0

Desert Communities 0.4

Great Basin/Colorado Plateau Grassland and Steppe 541.3

Interior Chaparral 0.2

Madrean Encinal Woodland 95.4

Mixed Conifer Forest 9.6


11

Mixed Deciduous Riparian Forest 205.7

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 6.0

Pinyon Juniper Woodland 39719.9

Ponderosa Pine Forest 1100.9

Semi-Desert Grassland 333.1

Water (Stehr Lake) 26.5

Grand Total 42160.0

Woody Species Encroachment of Grasslands

One of the many contributing factors to watershed function, soil condition and rangeland

health is the encroachment of increasing canopy from juniper and shrub species. Productive

grasslands and open pinyon juniper woodlands with a healthy understory component have

been altered over time by the encroachment of small junipers and woody shrubs which

decreases herbaceous perennial grasses, exposes larger areas of bare soil, and accelerates

rates of erosion and decreases overall watershed and soil function. This loss of perennial

vegetative ground cover is primarily due to the increase in canopy cover which suppresses

understory vegetation.

Archer (1994) provided an extensive review of the causes of encroachment of grasslands by

woody species. The encroachment of grasslands by woody species is a global phenomenon

that has been attributed to atmospheric enrichment with CO2, climate change, livestock

grazing, and/or lack of fire. In some environments, the shift to woody species has been

accompanied by increased erosion where woody species compete directly with grasses for

limited soil moisture and nutrients (Wilcox and Davenport, 1995). This shift from grasslands

to woodlands or shrublands, therefore, has the potential to impact soil productivity and, by

extension, water quality.

The apparent coincidence, or at least, acceleration of this phenomenon with European

settlement of the North American southwest has led some to suggest a cause-effect

relationship particularly because the preferential removal of graminoids by livestock can

favor woody species either through reduced competition for soil moisture and nutrients or

through reduced opportunity for fire from this selective removal of fine fuels. There is,

however, controversy over the causes of this shift in plant species dominance of grasslands

particularly becasue it has been reported to occur under natural conditions and has been

observed on some landscapes and not others. The regional distribution of plant communities

is a function of the prevailing climate with larger scale (smaller area) spatial variability

superimposed on the landscape from the influence of slope, aspect, soils, and elevation.

These numerous abiotic factors affecting the landscape along with disturbance from native

herbivores and other animals and insects make it challenging to partition effects attributable

to livestock.


12

It has been hypothesized that atmospheric enrichment of CO2 since the beginning of the

industrial revolution may have favored the growth of woody species with a C3 photosynthetic

pathway over grasses with a C4 photosynthetic pathway (typically, warm season, perennial

grasses). Archer (1994), however, questions the role of this mechanism in woody species

encroachment because it is not universal (i.e., C4 grasses have persisted in some landscapes

and not others despite similar soils and climate), some landscapes dominated by C3 grasses

have also experienced woody species encroachment, and woody species encroachment was

already underway when atmospheric enrichment of CO2 attributable to industrialization was

first noted.

As noted earlier, the regional distribution of plant communities is generally influenced by the

prevailing climate, however, the variable longevity of species and biological inertia suggests

that a lag may occur between climate change and plant distribution. Biological inertia is the

tendency of plants to persist through climate variability such that plants found in a particular

ecosystem may not be in equilibrium with current climatic conditions. Archer (1994)

suggests that the shift from grasslands to shrub- or woodland communities may at least, in

part, reflect natural, long-term climatic fluctuations. Other climatic determinants of the shift

to woody species in grasslands may include short-term or long-term fluctuations in climate

that favor woody species over grasses. These include a shift in seasonal precipitation such

that less soil moisture is available to grasses during their growing period and more is

available to deeper rooted woody species. A shift in precipitation from predominantly

summer rains to winter rains would favor woody species by allowing deeper percolation of

moisture beyond the rooting depths of grasses while still accessible to woody plants.

Periodic drought may also affect the shift to woody species by reducing the continuity of fine

fuels and hence, the frequency of fire and also, by influencing the subsequent recruitment of

woody species in gaps formed by grass mortality. The ability of mesquite to draw moisture

from variable portions of the soil profile confers significant advantages for drought survival

over grasses that can only exploit near-surface soil moisture.

Herbivory by livestock is a disturbance superimposed on a vegetative community that exists

under the influence of climate, soils, and topography and other abiotic factors as well as

native herbivory and other agents of disturbance. The impacts to soils and water resources

from uncontrolled grazing that occurred prior to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934) are well

documented and were widespread throughout western North America. In terms of livestock

influences on the expansion of woody species, several mechanisms have already been

mentioned including reduced competition for soil moisture and nutrients through selective

herbivory of graminoids as well as reduced fire frequency from a decrease in these fine fuels

across the landscape. Grazing can cause decreases in plant basal area, increased plant

mortality, and reduced seed production giving a competitive edge to woody species

competing for the same moisture and nutrient resources Gaps left behind from plant mortality

are often colonized by woody species in a uni-directional fashion not easily reversed. In

addition, livestock have been identified as effective agents of woody species seed dispersal.

Under good livestock management and by complying conservative utilization rates, reduction

in plant basal area, mortality, and reduced seed production should be minimized. This would


13

help slow further juniper canopy encroachment, but areas that are already dominated by

juniper need the canopy to be reduced before grasslands can function properly.

In summary, the expansion of woody species coincident with European settlement of the

North American west may reflect a natural process that occurred in response to long-term

climate change initiated long before European settlement . In addition temporal changes in

climate (such as seasonality of precipitation and drought) that favor deep-rooted woody

species over shallow-rooted grasses, may reflect herbivory by native species and livestock

that selectively graze graminoids giving non-palatable woody species access to increased

moisture and nutrients, and/or may reflect the reduced presence of fire that would sustain

grasslands and remove encroaching junipers. Whatever the cause, this phenomenon has

important consequences to soil productivity and water quality because encroachment of

woody species into grasslands frequently is preceded by an increase in bare soil and

consequent increase in erosion.

One way to address the high juniper canopy cover is to plan vegetative treatments to reduce

this canopy cover where issues are impacting perennial vegetation and soil condition. Over

story removal in the Utah juniper subtype will result in a several fold increase in in herbage

production (USDA, 1974 ). Tree control practices that leave downed trees and debris in place

and increase interspace vegetation may help save such sites from permanent degradation

(USDA, 1999). Soil condition can improve as infiltration capacity and vegetative ground

cover increase. Cutting juniper has stimulated herbaceous plant recovery, improved

infiltration capacity, and protected the soil surface from even large thunderstorms (Pierson et

al, 2007). Removal of western juniper increased total grass cover, productivity, and reduced

bare ground (Coultrap, 2008).

Semi-dessert grasslands and juniper-pinyon woodlands should be managed towards desired

conditions that improve vegetative, soil, and watershed conditions. Pictured below is an area

in the Mud Tanks Pasture within the Fossil Creek allotment taken in 1946. It clearly shows a

grassland dominated area with a few Juniper and Pinyon trees mostly in the drainages.


14

Figure 2. Mud Tanks pasture aerial photo from 1946

The aerial photo in Figure 3 was taken from current Google earth imagery in 2012 and shows

an increase in canopy cover from the 1946 aerial. Canopy cover is certain sections of these

aerial photos have increased from 1-5 percent in 1946 to more than 30 percent pinyon-juniper

in 2012. An increase in the percent of juniper canopy cover has reduced the herbaceous

understory and increased offsite erosion.


15

Figure 3. Mud Tanks Pasture aerial photo in 2012

The encroachment of juniper and pinyon in the Mud Tank pastures is evident in these aerial

images. To see more comparisons between 1947 aerial photos and 2012 aerial photos for

different pastures across the Fossil Creek allotment please refer to Appendix IX: Aerial

Photography Comparison of Canopy.

Soil Condition

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Background Information

The description of existing conditions of soils resources including limitations associated with

their management and land use activities relies largely on information published in the

Coconino National Forest (CNF), Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) (Miller, et. al. 1995).

Forest Service policy dictates that ecological units be used in natural resource inventory,


16

monitoring, and evaluation; in land management planning; and in making predictions and

interpretations for management of National Forest System lands (Winthers, et.al. 2005).

The TES is the result of systematic analysis, mapping, classification and interpretation of

terrestrial ecosystems also known as terrestrial ecological units. It is the only seamless

mapping of vegetation and soils available across the Forest that includes field visited,

validated and correlated sites with a stringent regional and national protocol stemming from

decades of work. Major field work for the Coconino TES was completed by qualified Soil

Scientists and Ecologists during the period of 1987 through 1991. Soil names and

descriptions were approved in 1992. Map units are identified by numbers ranging from 11 to

850. TES delineates ecosystems into components and larger map units according to their

climate, geology, soils, and potential natural vegetation. Components with similar

appearance and attributes are grouped into map units. Map units with a single component are

called consociations and those with two or more components are referred to as complexes, if

components are too intermingled or small to be shown separately at the TES map scale, or

associations if use and management does not justify separation of components.

Mapping of terrestrial ecosystems (ecological units) was initially done by stereoscopic

examination of 1:24,000 aerial photographs. Three levels of field documentation were

collected including observations, transects and detailed site description characterizing the

soil, vegetation, geology and climate. More detailed site descriptions were developed from at

least one 375 square meter field plot established at reference sites for each component of each map

unit. The site description includes general setting information, lithology, stratigraphy, geomorphic

classification, a complete soil pedon description, a listing of plant species occurring on the plot,

ground surface cover, and other attributes relating to site biomass. These plots were established in

areas exhibiting little or no anthropodic impacts under contemporary disturbances and/or were

identified as diverse, stable and functioning reflective of map unit potential. In addition, there were

at least three transects established for each map unit to determine map unit composition and

variability. Site descriptions plot data form the basis of potential natural vegetation

descriptions for each map unit component whereas transects across map units form the basis

for descriptions of current vegetation and ground cover conditions.

The CNF TES followed National Cooperative Soil Survey Standards similar to soil surveys

conducted by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. There was strict quality assurance

including project leader field reviews, regional office reviews, with initial, progressive,

annual and final field reviews to approve map unit design and mapping.

In addition to the aforementioned data acquired as part of the survey effort, TES also presents

important properties pertaining to the natural, physical, and behavioral characteristics of the

terrestrial ecosystems and provides the background for making interpretations.

Interpretations based upon TES incorporate 1) soil physical and chemical properties, 2)

climatic considerations, 3) topographic position and slope, 4) vegetation and anthropogenic

influences as well as animal impacts, 5) productive and successional potentials, and 6)

geologic influences.1 As such TES can form the ecological basis for describing existing

conditions for resource areas including watershed, wildlife, fire, and timber. Specifically,


17

TES provides suitability, limitation, and erosion hazard ratings that facilitate adjustments to

land management actions and potentials including plant communities, site index, fuelwood

and vegetation.

Because of the mapping scale, TES survey limitations, and the intermingling of map unit

components, variation can occur within a TES map unit or within the components which

make up the map units. This spatial variability presents some challenges when presenting

TES survey results and interpretations at the project level. To overcome this limitation, TES

survey results and interpretations are presented for a single map unit component taken to be

representative of the larger TES map unit for those map units identified as complexes or

associations. Representative map unit components for a complex or association were

generally selected based on their dominance within a map unit. Interpretation can vary by

map unit components. Depending on aerial extent and project purpose and need, the

component with the most conservative or restrictive value may be used in soil interpretations.

For example, a map unit component with a higher soil erodability rating would typically be

selected to represent soil erodability for a complex.

Project specific field data, where different from TES, is considered to supersede TES data

and is presented herein as noted. It is also important to note that TES information represents

a snapshot in time and place and conditions today, particularly ground cover, may differ

substantially from conditions when TES data was collected.

TES includes an evaluation of soil condition and places all soils into one of four condition

classes based on soil condition ratings: Satisfactory, Impaired, Unsatisfactory or Satisfactory

but Inherently Unstable. The soil condition ratings are based on interpretations of the three

primary soil functions: soil hydrologic function, soil stability and nutrient cycling.

Hydrologic function of the soil is based on indications of infiltration. Hydrologic function

decreases with a loss of soil aggregate stability as evidenced by platy structure. Soil stability

is generally assessed through visual inspection of the soil surface for evidence of erosion

including rilling, pedestaling (i.e., plants or rock fragments elevated above surrounding soil),

and soil displacement.

Nutrient cycling is generally assessed by visual observation of surface litter (distribution and

depth), composition and distribution of perennial vegetation, presence of coarse woody

material, and root distribution within the surface soil horizons. Effective vegetative ground

cover is defined as the aerial coverage in percent of vegetative ground cover with litter

greater than 1.25 cm in depth plus plant basal area. Soil condition may vary within the same

map unit across the landscape due to differences in disturbance.

Most Satisfactory soils have high amounts of effective ground cover that protect the soil from

accelerated erosion. Satisfactory soils occur where all three soil functions- the ability of the

soil to resist erosion, infiltrate water and recycle nutrients, respectively, are properly

functioning. These soils are fully capable of supporting livestock grazing and still allow for

maintenance of soil productivity when utilization guidelines are not exceeded.


18

Impaired soils generally occur in Pinyon-Juniper woodlands in Juniper-Semidesert grassland

transitional areas and Semidesert Grassland/Shrublands. These soils have reduced nutrient

cycling functions resulting from canopy encroachment which has reduced species

composition, diversity, effective vegetative ground cover, or signs of accelerated erosion.

These soils are potentially capable of supporting livestock grazing under conservative

allowable use.

Areas of Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable soils (portions above 40 percent slope)

currently do not have the capacity for grazing without risking loss of long-term soil

productivity. Though incidental use may occur, by assigning no capacity to these soils,

grazing capacity will be reduced and the impacts will be minimized to allow for soil

conditions to improve.

The approach taken in assigning capability and capacity based on soil condition rating is

summarized below. Please note that capability and capacity are calculated using slope

reduction factors and other information described in the Range Specialist Report also

available in the Project Record.

� Satisfactory soils

o Full capability

o Assign capacity

� Impaired Soils

o Potential capability

o Conservative/ reduced capacity

� Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable Soils (as verified by field visits)

o No capability

o No capacity

� Unsatisfactory (soil loss is greater than tolerance (Current Soil Loss >Tolerance Soil Loss)):

o Potential capability

o No capacity assigned

� Capacity could be increased after Unsatisfactory soils have been

shown to move towards an improved soil condition class and have

more than 100 lbs/acre of forage.

� Would set a soil condition objective and monitoring protocol

A combination of TES modeled soil condition ratings as well as validated and refined

condition ratings were used to establish existing condition report On-site soil condition

assessments were made from 2002-2012 to refine soil conditions.; copies of data sheets are

available in the Project Record. On-site investigation is recommended to validate soil

condition or rate soil condition including all three-soil functions. For soil condition classes by

TES unit within the Fossil Creek allotment please refer to Table 23 in Appendix V. For soil

condition classes by Pasture within the Fossil Creek allotment please refer to Table 24 in

Appendix VI: Soil Condition Acres by Pasture For acres of each TES unit and the percent of

the Fossil Creek allotment that each TES unit represents, please refer to Table 25 in

Appendix VII: TES unit Acres and Percent of Total allotment.


19

Soil conditions are dynamic like the ecosystems they reside within. Soil condition ratings

from early 2002 were taken in the middle of severe drought conditions. These drought

conditions, coupled with higher utilization rates that livestock were managed at in 2002,

showed areas in Fossil Creek allotment that were need of improvement. Recent climate

conditions have changed and precipitation has not been as scarce as it was in 2002. Also,

since the 2009 EA was first implemented, management has reduced utilization rates and

improvements on the ground have been documented in range and soil conditions. There has

been an apparent shift of acres into improved soil condition classes. Since soil condition

assessments were made in 2007, the percentage of Satisfactory soil on the Fossil Creek

allotment has increased from 4 percent to 12.57 percent. The acres of Unsatisfactory soil

condition also decreased during this time period. The changes in soil condition classes are

not all improvements; some changes represent better available site specific data that was not

previously available. For changes in other soil condition classes refer to Table 5. For a

breakdown of soil condition in each pasture by slope class refer to Table 24 in

Appendix VI: Soil Condition Acres by Pasture.

Table 5. Change in soil condition from 2007 to 2012 in the Fossil Creek allotment

SO

IL

CO

ND

ITIO

N

C

LA

SS

20

07

AC

RE

S

20

07

RE

LA

TIV

E

PE

RC

EN

T

20

12

AC

RE

S

20

12

RE

LA

TIV

E

PE

RC

EN

T

20

13

AC

RE

S

20

13

RE

LA

TIV

E

PE

RC

EN

T

Satisfactory 1,525 4% 5294 12.57% 5294 12.57%

Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable 16,872 40% 16663 39.56% 9757 23.17%

Impaired 20,669 49% 19479 46.24% 26384 62.64%

Unsatisfactory 3,067 7% 659 1.56% 659 1.56%

None (Stehr Lake) 26 0% 26 0.06% 26 0.06%

Another change in soil condition class occurred in regards to the TES unit 430 and 350 which

are both rated as Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable soils. On map unit 430, slopes range

from 40-120%, but when these map units were delineated for the Fossil Creek allotment

using 1:24,000 aerial photographs, areas of slope inclusions are apparent in TES units 430

below 40 percent slope. TES unit 430 comprises many acres on the Fossil Creek allotment

with a total of 16543.69 acres and comprises 64.56% of the total allotment (Appendix VII:

TES unit Acres and Percent of Total allotment). The portion of this TES unit that occurs on

slopes below 40 percent (about 6797 acres) was verified in the field as Impaired. On the

ground evidence showed that these soils do not become unstable until above 40 percent slope

and lesser slopes are not unstable but are more accurately rated as Impaired (6797 acres, see

Table 6). These areas less than 40 percent slope are located on the foot slopes of hills and

mountains and are capable of supporting livestock grazing, while still allowing for

maintenance of soil productivity. These soils were previously rated as Impaired and this

difference in acres is represented in Table 5.


20

TES mapping of unit 350 also includes some areas that are less than 40 percent slope.

Accelerated erosion occurs above these slopes and is probably correctly modeled as

Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable above these slopes. Only 11 acres of the 119 total acres

of TES Map unit 350 was modeled to be above 40 percent slope. The vegetation ground

cover levels on Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable soils are not capable of producing

tolerable ground cover levels and so the 11 acres was assigned no capacity. Map unit 350 on

slopes from 15 – 40% are capable of supporting livestock grazing while still allowing for

maintenance of soil productivity when utilization guidelines are not exceeded.

Observations from Rory Steinke and Gary Hase indicate that grazing occurs up to about 40%

slopes and seldom on steeper slopes due to high amounts of rock fragments and steep slopes

(personal com. Gary Hase, 2/8/2012). Where occasional grazing does occur on steeper

slopes, utilization and disturbance has been observed to be very low (personal com. A.

Roesch, 2/9/2012). See Table 6 for the breakdown of the portion of Satisfactory but

Inherently Unstable TES units that are below 40 percent slope and capable of supporting

livestock grazing. Note that out of 16,663 acres of Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable

modeled by TES only 9,757 acres are above 40 percent slope. The remaining acres below 40

percent slope were added to the Impaired soil condition category in all further analysis within

this report.

Table 6. Soil Condition class and slope classes on the Fossil Creek allotment

Row Labels Total Acres Percent of allotment

Impaired 19479 46.24%

>40% 1443 3.43%

0-15% 11970 28.42%

15-40% 6065 14.40%

Not applicable 26 0.06%

>40% 0 0.00%

0-15% 25 0.06%

15-40% 2 0.00%

Satisfactory 5294 12.57%

>40% 122 0.29%

0-15% 4059 9.64%

15-40% 1113 2.64%

Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable 16663 39.56%

>40% 9757 23.17%

0-15% 864* 2.05%

15-40% 6041* 14.34%

Unsatisfactory 659 1.56%

>40% 40 0.09%

0-15% 260 0.62%

15-40% 360 0.85%

Grand Total 42121 100.00% *The acres highlighted in bold red were found to be below 40 percent slope and in Impaired soil condition, not in

Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable condition as previously modeled by TES.


21

Figure 4 below, display the soil condition map by pasture for the Fossil Creek Alottment.

Figure 4 replaced the Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable soils below 40 percent slope that

were verified to be in Impaired soil condition according to the best available and site specific

data. Overall the allotment is predominately Impaired.

Figure 4. Soil Conditions of the Fossil Creek Range allotment, updated copy February 2013

Additional soil condition assessments have been made in soil units that were previously

unexamined in the field. Because these units were not initially verified in the field, the results

of the 2009 EA just showed modeled TES conditions. The changes in soil condition classes

are therefore not all improvements; some are just a representation of better available site

specific data that was not previously available. On-site soil condition assessments were made


22

in 2012, in addition to soil condition assessments already done, and the collected data sheets

area available in the Project Record. These soil condition assessments found several areas

that had been modeled by TES with Unsatisfactory soil condition in 2009, upon examination

of these soils in the field in 2012 they were reclassified as Impaired. The 7 percent

Unsatisfactory soil was recently verified to include Impaired soils and so this site specific

data was used in place of the modeled TES information, changing the amount of

Unsatisfactory soil to 1.56 percent of the Fossil Creek allotment.

Soil condition in TES unit 404 in Boulder Pasture was listed as Satisfactory based solely on

soil erosion modeling but the latest soil condition assessment in 2012 found these soils to be

Impaired with vegetative ground cover adequate to protect against accelerated erosion. .

Nutrient cycling was evident and current vegetative ground covers were greater than

tolerance vegetative ground covers. Map unit 404 in Boulder Pasture had soil loss rates

below tolerance and exhibited no surface crusting or subsurface compaction. Similarly, TES

unit 402 in Stehr pasture was modeled and reported as Unsatisfactory in the 2009 Fossil

Creek Range EA, but 2012 data shows this soil unit to be Impaired. Current vegetative

ground covers were noted above tolerance vegetative ground covers with good nutrient

cycling and no visible signs of erosion or exposed rills. Map unit 402 appeared similar to 404

from a vegetation and nutrient cycling condition and there were no visible signs of

accelerated erosion, or rills exposing roots. Where the Unsatisfactory TES units were verified

in the field to be Impaired, those TES units in that pasture were updated to reflect the most

accurate existing condition.

Most Unsatisfactory soils (TES 401, 402, 420) occur on flat slopes (less than about 10%

slopes) and have visible signs of compacted soil surfaces, and reduced nutrient cycling. The

majority of Unsatisfactory soils are not connected to Fossil Creek. They are all well buffered

and drain towards the Verde River.

TES unit 401 has current vegetative ground covers less than tolerance vegetative ground

covers, and therefore probably has accelerated erosion. The 133 acres of TES unit 401 are

minor in extent and are well buffered and slope towards the Verde. TES 402 is

Unsatisfactory due to compaction which has reduced infiltration. Also TES unit 402

exhibited poor distributions of litter and herbaceous composition, reducing soil nutrient

cycling.

TES 420 occurs on hills with slopes ranging from 15-40 percent and portions have current

vegetative ground covers less than tolerance vegetative ground covers. Current vegetative

ground covers on portions were documented at 15 percent and tolerance vegetative covers

are 20 percent and therefore current soil loss is greater than tolerable soil loss. These soils are

Unsatisfactory, due to reductions in the protective vegetative ground cover, resulting in

inadequate protection against accelerated erosion posing risk to soil productivity. A

compacted surface crust, pedestalling and small gullies were all noted on site

Because Unsatisfactory soils are at a higher risk of further losing long-term soil productivity,

these soils are assigned no grazing capacity. Though incidental use may occur, by assigning

no capacity to these soils the impacts would be minimized to allow for soil conditions to


23

improve. See Table 7 for current, tolerance and natural vegetative ground covers for

Unsatisfactory soils on the Fossil Creek allotment.

Table 7. Acres of Unsatisfactory soil condition and corresponding vegetative ground covers.

Unsatisfactory Acres Percent

allotment

Current

Vegetative

Ground

Cover

Tolerance

Vegetative

Ground

Cover

Natural

Vegetative

Ground

Covers

401 132 0.31% 10 15 20

402 222 0.53% 15, 17 15,15 20

420 305 0.72% 10, 15 20 20 *Values in bold red were values ascertained in the field.

Biological Soil Crusts (also called Microphytic soil crusts or crytogamic crusts) have the

potential to occur on most soil units within the Fossil Creek allotment. As noted in the Field

Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of Western U.S Drylands, “Biological Soil Crusts are found

on almost all soil types (Rosentreter, 2007). In rangelands, biological soil crusts function as a

living mulch by retaining soil moisture, discouraging annual weed growth, reducing wind

and water erosion, fixing atmospheric nitrogen and contributes to soil organic matter (Belnap

et al., 2001). Other functions noted of biological soil crusts include nutrient contributions to

plants, soil- water relations, infiltration, seedling germination, and plant growth (NRCS,

1997). Soil biological crusts are predominately composed of lichen and moss rhizines,

fungal hyphae, and cyanobacterial filaments that form a matrix that binds soil particles

together (Belnap, 1995). By binding together soil particles biological soil crusts play an

important role in preventing soil erosion and also help facilitate soil accretion over time. The

cyrptogamic crusts of semi-arid and arid regions of the world may be critical to the

environments in which they occur (Johansen, 1993).

Soil Erosion Rates

TES also provides predictions of annual soil loss under various ground cover conditions

including natural vegetation cover (cover conditions reflecting the potential plant

community), current cover conditions, potential cover conditions assuming all ground cover

is removed, and tolerance cover conditions taken to be the vegetative ground cover

conditions necessary to limit soil loss to levels that sustain inherent site productivity also

called soil loss tolerance. Annual soil loss estimates were made for each TES map unit using

the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) with average values for each of the USLE variables

(refer to Wischmeir and Smith, 1978). USLE variables include a topographic factor called

the slope/length (LS) factor that combines the effects of slope gradient and overland flow

length, a soil erodability (K) factor that quantifies the relative susceptibility of the soil to

sheet and rill erosion, a rainfall erosivity (R) factor dependent on total rainfall kinetic energy

and rainfall intensity, a land cover factor dependent on the vegetative ground cover, and a

conservation practices factor, which is assumed to be one where no specific soil conservation

measures are employed. USLE soil loss estimates represent average annual rates of soil loss

for the TES map unit component as a whole and do not necessarily reflect actual conditions


24

found throughout the map unit components. These annual soil loss estimates allow one to

compare soil loss estimates predicted under various land management actions to determine

potential impacts to soil productivity and sediment yield.

TES defines soil loss as the predicted net average annual soil loss from a site due to erosion.

The soil loss rates used in TES should not be considered as absolute values but are useful as

an index for references between different sites and for the same site under different

vegetative conditions. Soil losses are predicted for four following categories:

• Potential Soil Loss is the rate of soil loss that would occur under complete removal

of vegetative ground cover and represents the maximum rate of soil loss.

• Natural Soil Loss is the rate of soil loss that would occur under conditions associated

with a climax class and represents the minimum rate of soil loss. Our ecosystems

would never be completely within a climax class condition due to natural

disturbances including but not limited to fire and flooding that keep our landscapes in

a mosaic of different climax classes, but it is still a useful reference.

• Current Soil Loss is the rate of soil loss occurring under existing vegetative ground

cover conditions.

• Tolerance Soil Loss is the maximum rate of soil loss that can occur while sustaining

inherent site productivity.

Satisfactory soil conditions signify that current erosion rates are less than the soil tolerable

threshold. Soil tolerable threshold values vary by soil type and roughly equate to the point

where annual soil renewability or soil productivity is sustained. Erosion rates higher than

tolerable cause a loss of soil surface horizons and soil productivity. Conversely, erosion rates

less than tolerable allow for the soil to naturally regenerate enough and do not cause a loss of

soil productivity. Satisfactory soil conditions signify that erosion occurs at a rate less than

annual soil renewability levels known as tolerable and therefore represent maintenance of

soil productivity. Unsatisfactory soil conditions signify that a high level of erosion is

occurring is more than tolerable and therefore represents a net loss of soil and productivity.

TES units identified as Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable have natural erosion above

tolerable (thresholds) regardless of natural or anthropogenic disturbances. Therefore,

modeling indicates the soils are not capable of producing adequate vegetative ground cover

to prevent accelerated erosion, due to step slopes and other soil characteristics and therefore

tolerable thresholds are naturally exceeded in these Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable

units. TES map units 350 and 430 are rated as Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable on the

Fossil Creek allotment and these soils above 40 percent slope are naturally going to erode at

a rate above tolerable thresholds.

It is important to understand the erosional processes occurring within the Fossil Creek

allotment. Prediction of soil erosion by water is a common practice for natural resource

managers for evaluating impacts of upland erosion on soil productivity and off site water


25

quality (Elliot, 2001). Model predictions are used as an index and compared with on-site field

observations to support and validate soil [site] stability and associated erosional processes.

Erosion prediction modeling has been used to understand erosion rates on the Fossil Creek

allotment. In the original Environmental Assessment for the reauthorization of grazing on the

Fossil Creek allotment in 2009, erosion modeling was calculated using data from previous

TES assessments and generated predicted erosion off site in terms of sediment yield in tons

using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). The USLE and its revision the RUSLE is an

erosion prediction technology that has served well, but due to its empirical nature, however,

it has proven difficult to apply in some cases, particularly in off site cases (Laflen, 1994).

The USLE is not intended to be a tool to determine sediment yield and delivery into streams.

Sedimentation is a natural product of forestland, where in proper amounts, is essential to the

well being of stream ecosystems. It provides a rooting medium for aquatic plants, spawning

gravel for fish, shelter for small aquatic plants, and conveys nutrients into streams necessary

by all biota (Patric,1982).

In the original USLE modeled predictions for the Fossil Creek allotment used in 2009,

assumed that off site erosion results could be tied to stream water quality and sedimentation.

Assuming that 25 percent of the soil that is lost on-site is delivered to streams was not ground

verified or based on any cited literature in the scientific community. As stated in the original

2009 Soil and Water specialist report “The model probably overestimates the total soil loss

because natural soil loss rate as a background rate may be too high since all soils have some

kind of disturbance and will usually erode above natural soil loss rates”. Thirty-five percent

above background was a flawed conclusion. The analysis used a 35% sediment delivery

ratio of total hillslope erosion as a rule of thumb which is higher than generally accepted in

the SW and not the best available science available (Van Haveren, 1986). In fact, (Loomos

and Steinke, 2013) used a 10% DR in the Fossil Creek affected watersheds for the CRMP

analysis. Furthermore, the original analysis calculated potential as background and the

potential plant community under an edaphic climax is defined as the ultimate plant

community (Miller, 1995 ) that can exist and is generally in the late seral stage climax class

under conventional disturbances.

This would mean that the entire potential plant community in the Fossil Creek watershed was

in is a late seral stage climax class, and this is an unreasonable and inaccurate representation

of landscape ecology and background levels of erosion. Natural background includes

disturbances such as drought, fire and flood that keep the landscape in a mosaic of different

climax classes and consequently, a multitude of vegetative ground covers and erosion rates.

The USLE modeling used to characterize background sediment delivery did not accurately

account for the multitude and mosaic of successional stages and along with the assumption of

35% sediment delivery, inaccurately and over-quantified background sediment delivery into

Fossil Creek. The original analysis did not use the best available science, was inaccurate, was

not site specific enough and was not relevant for management changes.

The Water Erosion Prediction Project model was intended to replace the Universal Soil Loss

Equation for predicting soil loss (Laflen, 1994). With reasonable parameterization, the WEPP

interface provides a predicted erosion rate within an acceptable margin of error (Elliot,


26

2001). The WEPP model is a physically-based soil erosion model that can provide estimates

of soil erosion and sediment yield considering the specific soil, climate, ground cover, and

topographic conditions.

It was developed by an interagency group of scientists including the U.S. Department of

Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Forest Service, and Natural Resources

Conservation Service; and the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management

and Geological Survey. At best, watershed analysis models present an approximation.

Actual sediment yields for individual years may vary from modeled values by an order of

magnitude or more because of climate variables including precipitation timing and amount.

Results of the model are considered accurate at the Forest, landscape and overall range

allotment scale.

Table 8 shows the Disturbed WEPP results for sediment leaving profile averaged across three

slope classes. This information is included in the analysis to determine which slope classes

allotment-wide are predicting the highest amounts of soil loss. WEPP modeling (Appendix

A, B) show that the vast majority of hillslope sediment erosion comes from slopes greater

than about 40%.

According to WEPP, current soil loss rates averaged across the entire Fossil Creek allotment

is 0.17 tons/acre/year and the steepest slopes (Map units 350 and 430) have the greatest soil

loss of all soils. As was already mentioned these soils are inherently unstable and are

functioning properly and normally to the best of their natural ability. Therefore, they are not

eroding above natural limits and not contributing above natural levels of sediment into

connected stream courses including Fossil Creek. Current soil loss represents the rate of soil

loss occurring under existing conditions of effective ground cover (Miller, 1995).

These WEPP derived values are not site specific to the ecological unit level whereas the TES

soil loss rates listed in table 12 are and should be considered the most accurate and best

available science to quantify soil loss at the map unit level.

These WEPP results are inconclusive from a water quality standpoint as it does not reveal

how much of this sediment would reach the creek in any sort of a timeframe. Also since the

water quality of Fossil and the Verde River are both attaining all uses it can be concluded

that present management has not cause a rate of soil erosion great enough to impair total

suspended sediment water quality standards. In addition, under this new Proposed Action

improvements in rotation and other adaptive management measures should improve the

vegetative ground covers and therefore reduce current rates of erosion.

Table 8. Soil erosion rates under current conditions in tons/acre/year

Slope Class

Sediment Leaving

Profile in

tons/acre/year Acres in allotment

Total Sediment Leaving Profile

in tons/acre/year

0-15% 0.045 17247 776

15-40% 0.178 13554 2413

40% and Steeper .360 11357 4089


27

Total 42158 7278

Average in

tons/acre/yr 0.17

Table 12 displays TES current, tolerable, and natural soil loss rate4s and their corresponding

vegetative ground covers and highlights which units have soil productivity maintained

Aside from map units 350 and 430, all TES map units have current soil loss less than

tolerable soil loss and therefore soil productivity is maintained except portions of map units

420 and 401. As mentioned, map units 350 and 430 are inherently unstable, have current

vegetative ground covers equal to natural and are functioning to the best of their ability.

Therefore, soil productivity is maintained within natural limits.


28

Table 12. TES Soil Loss Rates and Vegetative Ground Covers

Terrestrial

ecological

map unit #

Current &

Refined

(Observed)

vegetative

ground cover %

in allotment

Current TES

and Refined

Modeled Soil

Loss in

tons/ha/year

Tolerable

(threshold)

vegetative ground

cover (%) From

Coconino TES

Tolerable

Soil Loss in

tons/ha/year

Natural

Vegetative

Ground

Cover

Natural Soil

Loss in

tons/ha/year

Current Soil Loss <

Tolerable Soil Loss

(CVGC = NVGC for

350 & 430)

Is Soil Productivity

Maintained From

Erosion Standpoint?

Acres

33 10 .1 10 6.7 30 <.1 Yes 107

34 25 .3 10 6.7 25 .2 Yes 13

350 20 5.8 25 (not

achievable)

4.5 20

5.8 Yes

119

382 20 1.6 5 6.7 30 .9 Yes 132

383 15 1.1 5 6.7 30 .6 Yes 65

401 10 6.4 5-15 4.5 20 3.4 No 133

402 17 < 2.2 10-15 2.2 20 1.7 Yes 401

403 15 2.5 10 6.7 25 1.4 Yes 88

404 25 < 6.7 15 6.7 30 3.4 Yes 440

417 10 5.9 10 6.7 20 4.0 Yes 451

420 15-22 5.1 20 4.5 20 4.1 No 1724

430 22 8.4 20-30 (30 not

achievable)

6.7 20

8.4 Yes

16,872


29

Terrestrial

ecological

map unit #

Current &

Refined

(Observed)

vegetative

ground cover %

in allotment

Current TES

and Refined

Modeled Soil

Loss in

tons/ha/year

Tolerable

(threshold)

vegetative ground

cover (%) From

Coconino TES

Tolerable

Soil Loss in

tons/ha/year

Natural

Vegetative

Ground

Cover

Natural Soil

Loss in

tons/ha/year

Current Soil Loss <

Tolerable Soil Loss

(CVGC = NVGC for

350 & 430)


Maintained From

Erosion Standpoint?

Acres

45 35 .2 20 6.7 60 .1 Yes 87

457 20 2.1 10 6.7 25 1.7 Yes 208

458 20 4.8 15 6.7 25 3.8 Yes 12

46 60 <.1 25 6.7 70 <.1 Yes 204

462 25 1.6 10 6.7 25 1.3 Yes 3607

463 25 5.1 10 6.7 30 .3. Yes 5807

466 20 1.5 10 6.7 20 1.0 Yes 541

492 20 1.1 10 2.2 25 .6 Yes 9714

493 15 3.1 10 4.5 30 2.0 Yes 592

520 35 1.0 10 6.7 65 .3 Yes 97

530 45 4.2 30 6.7 75 1.1 Yes 460

555 80 1.8 55 6.7 85 1.3 Yes 9

572 65 .3 10 6.7 80 .3 Yes 542


30

Terrestrial

ecological

map unit #

Current &

Refined

(Observed)

vegetative

ground cover %

in allotment

Current TES

and Refined

Modeled Soil

Loss in

tons/ha/year

Tolerable

(threshold)

vegetative ground

cover (%) From

Coconino TES

Tolerable

Soil Loss in

tons/ha/year

Natural

Vegetative

Ground

Cover

Natural Soil

Loss in

tons/ha/year

Current Soil Loss <

Tolerable Soil Loss

(CVGC = NVGC for

350 & 430)


Maintained From

Erosion Standpoint?

Acres

Total 42,428

Soil loss rates are for major soil component. Soil condition assessments on TES map unit 402, 404 identify vegetative ground covers

are greater than tolerable vegetative ground covers which is the amount necessary to protect against accelerated soil erosion. Therefore

modeling is not required and the result is listed as current soil loss < the tolerable soil loss and soil productivity is maintained.


31

Springs, Wetlands and Riparian Vegetation Condition

� Wetlands

• Currently no wetlands are known to occur on the Fossil Creek allotment

� Riparian areas

• 21.3 miles or riparian stream according to the Coconino NF Inventory

• 332.7 acres including all stream, seeps and springs according to the Coconino NF

Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVT) database

� Springs and Seeps

• Twenty springs and/or seeps identified within the Fossil Creek allotment

Currently no wetlands are known to occur on the Fossil Creek allotment according to the

Potential Natural Vegetation Type data from the Coconino NF database. There are

approximately 21.3 miles of riparian stream courses with in the Fossil Creek allotment (Table

9). Proper functioning condition assessments were completed in 1998 and 2010 using

protocol set forth in the BLM’s Riparian Proper Functioning Condition Assessment (Prichard

et al, 1998) on a majority of the pastures. Fossil Creek is the only perennial stream bordering

the allotment. Fifty-five percent of the stream is in Proper Functioning Condition, with

21.7% in unknown (unsurveyed) condition (Table 12)Total acres of riparian occurring within

the Fossil Creek allotment, according to the Coconino National Forest Potential Natural

Vegetation Types (PNVT) database, is 332.7 acres. This includes Cottonwood Willow

Riparian Forest, Mixed Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane Willow Riparian Forest.

Table 9. Riparian conditions on the Fossil Creek Range allotment

Row Labels Sum of Length

AT RISK 4.889

Fossil Creek (Reach 4) * 1.054

Lower Boulder 2.534

Sally May Wash 1.297

Sycamore Canyon 0.005

PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION 11.775

Fossil Creek (Reaches 1-3 and 5)* 4.660

Lower Mud Tank Draw 2.217

Sandrock Canyon 0.156

Tin Can Draw 1.156

Sycamore Canyon 1.774

Upper Boulder 1.553

Stehr Lake Wash 0.260

UNKNOWN 4.621

Sycamore Canyon headwaters 0.126

Sycamore Canyon above springs 3.244

Sycamore Canyon headwaters 1.250


32

Grand Total 21.285

* Fossil Creek is not grazed except for at the Boulder Water Gap.

The only livestock access on the Fossil Creek allotment is at the Boulder Water Gap. Sally

May Wash is an intermittent drainage and is rated as Functional At-Risk, primarily from a

lack of woody vegetation. Fossil Creek (Reach 4) is rated Functional At-Risk primarily due

recreational impacts. Lower Boulder Canyon, and Sycamore Canyon are also intermittent in

nature, and riparian vegetation is associated with springs. The entire reach lengths are not

riparian in nature, only small portions of each reach. The condition of these portions is tied

to spring condition, which is primarily in Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) to

Functional, At-Risk, depending on grazing pressure. Non–riparian streams cannot be

analyzed as PFC due to a lack of riparian species. The non-riparian streams flow only in

response to moisture events. Figure 5 displays the location and PFC conditions of streams

within the analysis area.

Twenty springs exists within the allotment and their condition is listed in Table 10. Pasture

location and condition of springs of the Fossil Creek Range allotment Nine springs were

located using the Coconino National Forest GIS database and additional ten were found

using on the ground, Proper Functioning Condition assessments, and using old topographical

survey maps. Table 10 shows the 9 locations on the GIS database and the additional ten

locations were located on older range maps with locations available in the Project Record.

Sally May Springs has been historically negatively affected by grazing activities through

biomass removal and trampling as noted in 1999 surveys. The three springs in Sycamore

Creek (Sycamore Spring and two unnamed springs) were functional in 1999. A visit in

January of 2007 notes that Sycamore Spring has little evidence of trampling or grazing of

riparian vegetation.

No cattle exclosures are currently in place around springs on the Fossil Creek allotment. All

springs have the potential for livestock access but many of these springs are located in

remote and rugged areas that may be inaccessible.

Table 10. Pasture location and condition of springs of the Fossil Creek Range allotment

PASTURE_NAME SPRING NAME PFC rating Cattle Access

Chalk Springs Burnt Springs Access Unknown

Chalk Springs Nonfunctional 2 Cattle Access

Kneecap Spring #1 Unknown Access Unknown

Kneecap Spring #2 Unknown Access Unknown

Shinbone Spring Unknown Access Unknown

Lower Wilderness

Indian Camp Spring Unknown Access Unknown

Mud Seep

Proper Functioning Condition

Access Unknown

Unnamed Spring East (Section 15)


Access Unknown

Unnamed Spring West (Section 15)


Access Unknown

Grass Patch Boulder Spring Proper Too rugged for cattle


33

PASTURE_NAME SPRING NAME PFC rating Cattle Access

Functioning Condition

to access

Sally Mae Cimmaron Springs Unknown Access Unknown

Sally May Springs Nonfunctional Access Unknown

Willow Seep Spring Unknown Access Unknown

Surge Quail Springs Nonfunctional 2 Access Unknown

Sycamore Sycamore Springs


Cattle access

Unnamed in Sycamore Canyon


Too rugged for cattle to access

Unnamed in Sycamore Canyon


Too rugged for cattle to access

13 mile Spring


No sign of cattle access

Boulder Eds Point Spring


Access Unknown

Stehr Pasture 502 Roadside Spring

Functional At Risk

1, 3 Access off the 502 road while trailing through but use would be limited to 3 days a year

1This spring is going to be restored under the Fossil Comprehensive River Management Plan

2 These springs are turned into watering troughs and water rights are tied to livestock use

3 The main disturbance is a road in close proximity to the spring altering riparian function

Riparian reaches are also accessible to livestock grazing. The roughly 1.5 miles of riparian

vegetation on Fossil Creek alongside the Stehr Pasture would not be grazed as this pasture is

a trail through pasture only. See Figure 5. Riparian stream reaches and functional class within

the Fossil Creek allotment for additional locations where riparian occurs. This riparian is

potentially accessible to livestock where the terrain does not restrict livestock access.

Riparian areas that are not in Proper Functioning Condition need to improve and move

towards desired conditions showing an upward trend. Baseline conditions would be

determined where unknown and monitoring would be done at all riparian locations to

determine the trend. Practices to move towards or meet desired condition include but are not

limited to; meeting utilization guidelines, rest rotation, pasture deferral, not grazing during

the growing season or fencing. Riparian photo points would be established and would be

updated on a timely schedule to monitor conditions.


34

Figure 5. Riparian stream reaches and functional class within the Fossil Creek allotment

Perennial Streams and Water Quality

� Perennial Streams – 2.08 miles of perennial stream reaches all on Fossil Creek

� Water Quality

• The most recent draft ADEQ 2010 305 B report continues to identify Fossil

Creek as category 1 (Attaining all Uses) and lists the Verde River, from West

Clear Creek to Fossil Creek, as category 1 (Attaining all Uses).

Fossil Creek is within the Fossil Creek allotment and the Verde River is close on the

southwest end of the allotment. These two streams are the only perennial streams near or

within along the allotment and are the only streams that have water quality measurements by

the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Fossil Creek has been designated Tier III Outstanding Arizona Waters (OAW), which are

subject to special protection and standards and specifically the Antidegradation Standard

applies to this stream. Fossil Creek was also designated as a wild and scenic river in 2009


35

and one of the core requirements of a wild and scenic river is that existing water quality be

maintained or improved.

The most recent ADEQ 2010 305 B report continues to identify Fossil Creek as category 1

(Attaining all Uses) and proposes to delist the Verde River because latest monitoring does

not show exceedences. Taking these water quality results into consideration shows that

current management is not contributing adverse amounts of sediment to Fossil Creek.

This reach of the Verde River was originally listed for turbidity, and the TMDL was

completed in 2002. The 2002 Turbidity TMDL was calculated based on data collected from

the USGS Gage near Clarkdale (094504000) located in Verde River segment 15060202-025.

Arizona repealed the turbidity water quality standard in 2003 and replaced it with a

suspended sediment concentration (SSC) standard. There are no median value exceedances

of the SSC standard within the previously Impaired reaches of the Verde River and therefore

all reaches included in the 2002 TMDL are being delisted (ADEQ, 2010).

In 2012 the Forest Service began a new pilot program in cooperation with the Friends of the

Forest Water Sampling Committee and Slide Rock State Park to initiate a water sampling

protocol at Fossil Creek. This effort began an investigation into the water quality in Fossil

Creek specifically looking for exceedances in E. coli. Sampling occurred in June through

August of 2012 at three sites along Fossil Creek and results are averaged in Table 11. A

single sample maximum of 235 cfu/100ml, is the water quality standard set by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality for full body contact. Results did not approach the

state standard. Additional sampling is needed to accurately determine trend.

Table 11. Average e Coli results from summer 2012 Friends of the Forest sampling

Date Ecoli

Standard

Site Average

CFU

12-Jun PASSED Bridge 12.7

12-Jun PASSED Irving 6.1

12-Jun PASSED Purple Mountain 31.42

10-Jul PASSED Purple Mountain 15.6

15-Aug PASSED Bridge 8.32

15-Aug PASSED Irving 8.38

15-Aug PASSED Purple Mountain 27.76

DESIRED CONDITION Based on Forest Plan guidance and site-specific knowledge of the allotments, the following

constitute the desired condition for the Fossil Creek allotment. The overall desired condition

is maintenance of sustainable ecosystems in which livestock grazing, range improvement

construction and maintenance, and range/livestock management do not impair important

ecosystem functions, such as maintaining watershed condition, soil stability and productivity,

riparian condition, and water quality.


36

Watershed Condition

The watershed condition indicators that the Proposed Action of grazing could potentially

effect include water quality, riparian vegetation condition, soil productivity and soil erosion

rates, as well as rangeland vegetation indicators. The desired condition for all of these

indicators would be good where it is currently fair to poor. The desired condition for the

overall watershed conditions would be Functioning properly where currently Functioning at

Risk and Impaired Function.

Specifically, the majority of the watershed exhibits moderate to high geomorphic,

hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition. Portions of the

watershed do exhibit unstable drainage networks. The soil, aquatic and riparian systems

range from dysfunctional (smallest aerial extent) to predominantly functional (largest acreage

extent) with significant areas at risk of being able to support beneficial uses.

allotment-wide there is an increase in the abundance of desired perennial native upland and

riparian species. This would improve the health and vigor of vegetation to maintain a stable

and desired plant community. Watersheds and soils are improved towards or maintained in

Satisfactory condition. Maintaining or improving water quality to the state standards.

This leads to:

o Increases in the perennial cool and warm-season herbaceous basal vegetation

o Reductions of annuals and non-natives, improving nutrient cycling, forage

production, and fish and wildlife habitat.

o Improved watershed condition

o Riparian areas, stream reaches and springs are in Proper Functioning

Condition or are trending towards PFC.

o Maintaining a viable livestock operation.

Then desired condition for the Pinyon-Juniper Grassland and Juniper Grassland are

generally uneven-aged and open in appearance. Trees occur as individuals, but occasionally

in smaller groups, and range from young to old. Scattered shrubs and a dense herbaceous

understory including native grasses, forbs and annuals are present to support frequent surface

fires. Snags are scattered across the landscape. The composition, structure, and function of

vegetative conditions are resilient to the frequency, extent and severity of disturbances (e.g.

insects, diseases, and fire) and climate variability. Fires are typically low-severity.

Soil Condition

Forest management and watershed function depend on productive, porous soils (USDA,

2010). Desired condition for soils as stated in the Forest Service Manual – Watershed and Air

Management Chapter 2550 states that the desired condition for soils is for physical, chemical

and biological properties support the productive capacity of the land, its ecological

processes, that is, hydrological function of watersheds, and the ecosystem services identified

in land management plans.


37

Manage livestock grazing at an intensity that would maintain or improve effective ground

cover. Effective ground cover is defined as the aerial coverage in percent of vegetative

ground cover with litter greater than 1.25 cm in depth plus plant basal area. Improve

vegetative ground covers toward vegetative ground cover tolerance thresholds on

Unsatisfactory soils, thereby improving long-term soil productivity. Manage livestock

grazing to move towards Satisfactory soil conditions on all Impaired and Unsatisfactory soil

conditions to improve and maintain long-term soil productivity. There is a desired condition

to maintain satisfactory soils and improve unsatisfactory and impaired soils using appropriate

management techniques.

In the 2009 Fossil Creek Range EA the soil condition objective was to manage soils

towards 2/3 of Natural Vegetative Ground Cover. A footnote in the 2009 EA erroneously

stated that a 2/3 effective vegetative ground cover objective met soil loss tolerance

thresholds for all soil units. This means there would be enough vegetative ground cover to

prevent erosion from exceeding natural rates of formation. The error is that the 2/3

vegetative ground cover objective does not meet soil loss tolerance thresholds in five TES

Units (Units 350, 401, 402, 420, and 430), which comprise about 45 percent of the

allotment. These five exceptions were identified in the soil specialist’s report during the

analysis, but were not carried forward into the EA. Because of the erroneous footnote, the

EA was required to be redone.

Therefore, this Environmental Assessment identifies a soil condition objective where

vegetative ground cover would be equal to or greater than soil loss tolerance threshold

ground covers for Unsatisfactory soils and therefore protect and maintain soil productivity

within the allotment. These are areas where management actions can affect change.

The older soil condition objective would be replaced with this new soil condition objective.

The soil condition objective would improve and protect soil productivity consistent with

forest plan, and manage the soils towards stated desired conditions. To help improve and

protect the Unsatisfactory soils on the Fossil Creek allotment the following soil condition

objective would be in place:

• Manage Unsatisfactory soils (401, 402, 420) toward natural vegetative ground cover

levels with a minimum equal to or greater than tolerable vegetative ground cover

levels (15%, 15%, and 20% respectively) within 10 years. Tolerable vegetative

ground cover levels are the minimum levels required to maintain long-term soil

productivity where current soil loss is less than soil renewability levels.

• Baseline monitoring in 2009 and 2010 occurred in pastures with high amounts of

Unsatisfactory soil conditions establishing a baseline current vegetative ground cover.

Monitoring would be repeated to inform vegetative ground cover trend. If monitoring

indicates that soil conditions are not improving towards Satisfactory conditions and

ground cover objectives are not being met, then current livestock grazing strategy

would be adjusted using adaptive management.


38

• These adaptive management practices are not limited to but may include:

o A given pasture may either be rested, grazed at lighter intensity, or the use

period could be shortened.

o The season of use or timing of grazing the next year may be changed.

o The permittee would be required to distribute use better (Ex. Riding and

herding, salting, etc.).

o Monitoring would inform the grazing strategy and would be adjusted if soil

condition objectives are not met.

Changing the soil condition objective vegetative ground cover from 2/3rds of natural ground

cover to tolerable ground cover and managing grazing intensity accordingly would better and

more adequately protect long-term soil productivity on Unsatisfactory TES map units in

question (401, 402 and 420). Managing grazing intensity toward natural vegetative ground

cover levels with a minimum equal to or greater than tolerable vegetative ground cover levels

listed in Table 7 should adequately protect long term soil productivity. The vegetative ground

cover is adequate (at or above tolerable threshold values) to maintain soil stability, soil and

vegetative productivity where naturally possible considering slope.

The desired condition for biological soil crust communities are those that are helping

improve soil condition characteristics including reducing erosion, improving soil infiltration

and improving nutrient cycling on site.

Soil Erosion Rates

The desired condition of maintenance of soil productivity necessitates soil erosion rates to be

below tolerance thresholds for all TES units except Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable units

where natural rates of erosion exceed tolerable thresholds. All other TES units except

portions of 420, and 401, comprising about 1% of allotment (See table 7 and Appendix VIII)

have current vegetative ground covers equal to or greater than tolerance vegetative ground

cover levels and therefore, soil productivity from an erosion standpoint is maintained.

TES map units 430 and 350 are inherently unstable and naturally erode faster than they can

renew themselves and are vegetative ground cover is not inherently achievable. Based on

field assessments, these soils currently have vegetative ground covers equal to natural

vegetative ground covers and therefore are functioning properly and normally and to the best

of their ability.

Soil erosion, fugitive dust and sedimentation of downstream water bodies is minimized by

maintaining a stable to upward trend toward Satisfactory soil condition and maintaining or

improving the vegetative ground cover.

Managing grazing intensity to move toward natural vegetative ground cover levels on

Unsatisfactory soils with a minimum equal to or greater than tolerable vegetative ground


39

cover would adequately protect long term soil productivity and annual erosion would be less

than soil renewability levels. Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable soils would continue to

naturally erode at rates above tolerance soil loss. Based on current vegetation ground cover

conditions, these inherently unstable soils are functioning properly and normally. These soil

desired conditions and soil management objectives would allow for managing the grazing

intensity and protect long-term soil productivity. Accelerated erosion would not occur and

excessive sediment would not be delivered to connected stream courses as a result of

livestock management.


Riparian areas, stream reaches, wetlands and springs are in Proper Functioning Condition or

making improvements towards Proper Functioning Conditions. Springs and wetlands are

showing improvement, with healthy and vigorous riparian vegetation. Woody vegetation and

other riparian plant species along stream reaches and springs are increasing towards potential

based on each site potential. All three functions including the hydrology, vegetation, and

erosion deposition are in Proper Functioning Condition or making improvements towards

Proper Functioning Condition.

There is a desired condition to move riparian areas, stream reaches, and springs to proper

functioning condition or make improvements toward proper functioning condition where not

currently properly functioning. Possible management tools such as adaptive management

and exclosure fencing may be used to help riparian areas move towards properly functioning

condition.

Desired conditions for critical reaches include both short-term and long-term timeframes. The most

important short-term desired conditions are to:

• Maintain residual herbaceous vegetation along the greenline or streambanks

• Minimize the annual impacts to seedling and sapling riparian woody species; and

• Limit physical impacts to alterable streambanks and greenlines.

• Reduce sedimentation

The most important long-term desired conditions are to:

• Optimize riparian tree and shrub establishment

• Increase the density, vertical and horizontal canopy cover of woody riparian tree species;

• Increase the proportion of obligate and facultative riparian species;

• Maintain or increase canopy cover of herbaceous species

• Optimize the establishment of floodplains and streambanks; and

• Improve stream channel function and stability.

Reaching desired conditions for riparian areas and stream channels would depend not only on

management activities, but on climatic events. Both drought and floods have the potential to


40

affect riparian areas. The recovery of riparian vegetation is essential for attainment of

stability or Proper Functioning Condition for many stream types. Riparian habitats are among

the most critical elements of biodiversity within the landscape. In Arizona and New Mexico,

80 percent of all vertebrate species use riparian areas for at least half their life cycles, and

more than half of these are totally dependent on riparian areas (Chaney et al. 1990).

According to the Arizona Riparian Council 60 to 70 percent of the state’s wildlife species

depend on riparian areas to sustain their populations, even though riparian habitats occupy

less than half a percent of the land area (Arizona Riparian Council 1995).


Fossil Creek and the Verde River water quality is maintained and are able to provide for

those designated beneficial uses.

There is a desired condition to maintain water quality in Fossil Creek and the Verde River to

continue meeting Arizona state water quality standards.

There is a desired condition to maintain or move watershed condition to properly functioning

where currently functioning at risk or impaired function.

MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Relevant goals from the Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan (1987, as

amended):

• Maintain or, where needed, enhance soil productivity and watershed condition. Put all

areas in a Satisfactory watershed condition by 2020.

• Maintain a high quality sustained water yield for Forest users and others.

• Identify and protect wetlands and floodplains.

• Consider air quality during prescribed fires especially Class I areas over wildernesses

• Accomplish eighty percent of the riparian recovery by 2030. The remaining 20

percent would be significantly improved, but would not have all of the characteristics

of a fully recovered riparian area, such as 3 age classes of woody vegetation.

• Cooperate with Arizona Game and Fish Department to achieve management goals

and objectives in the Arizona Cold Water Fisheries Strategic Plan.

• Manage mountain grasslands to achieve 90 percent of potential ground cover to

prevent accelerated surface erosion and gully formation

Both in Appendix IV: Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan and


41

Appendix III: Management areas and emphasis, contains language from the Coconino

National Forest Land Management Plan direction for soil and water standards and guidelines.

Other regulatory or legal requirements:

The authorities governing Forest Service soil management are:

1. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 473-475). Authorizes the Secretary

of Agriculture to establish regulations to govern the occupancy and use of National Forests

and “…to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing

favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use

and necessities of citizens of the United States.”

2. Bankhead-Jones Act of 1937. The Secretary is authorized and directed to develop a

program of land conservation and land utilization, in order thereby to correct maladjustments

in land use, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion (reforestation), preserving natural

resources, (protecting fish and wildlife, developing and protecting recreational facilities),

mitigating floods, (preventing impairment of dams and reservoirs, developing energy

resources), conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the watersheds of

navigable streams, and protecting the public lands, health, safety, and welfare.

3. The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C.

528-531). States that the National Forests are to be administered for outdoor recreation,

range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. This Act directs the Secretary to

manage these resources in the combination that would best meet the needs of the American

people; providing for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and

onditions; and harmonious and coordinated management of the resources without impairment

of the productivity of the land. Sustained yield means achieving and maintaining into

perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of renewable resources without

impairment of the productivity of the land.

4. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 4321). Declares it

is the policy of the Federal Government to create and maintain conditions under which man

and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other

requirements of present and future generations of Americans. The Act requires agencies to

analyze the physical, social, and economic effects associated with proposed plans and

decisions, to consider alternatives to the action proposed, and to document the results of the

analysis.

5. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (16

U.S.C. 1600-1614) (as amended by National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976

(16 U.S.C. 472a). This Act States that the development and administration of the renewable

resources of the National Forest System are to be in full accord with the concepts for multiple

use and sustained yield of products and services as set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained

Yield Act of 1960. The Act requires the maintenance of productivity of the land and the

protection and, where appropriate, improvement of the quality of the soil and water

resources. The Act specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of productivity must


42

be avoided and has far-reaching implications for watershed management in the National

Forest System. This Act as amended contains the following sections and provisions pertinent

to maintaining a sound soil management program:

a. Section 3 paragraph 6b. This section directs the Secretary of Agriculture to

make, and keep current, a comprehensive survey and analysis of conditions of,

and requirements for, forest and rangelands of the United States, including a

determination of the present and potential productivity of the land.

b. Section 5. This section directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and

maintain on a continuing basis, a comprehensive and appropriately detailed

inventory of all National Forest System lands and renewable resources.

6. The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977 and 1982

The primary objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation’s

waters. This objective translates into two fundamental national goals: 1. Eliminate the

discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters, and 2. Achieve water quality levels that are

fishable and swimable. This Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally

proposed projects. All proposed alternatives have been evaluated for consistency with the

Clean Water Act and associated State of Arizona Anti-degradation policy and determined to

be fully consistent.

7. MOU with ADEQ

The Memorandum of Understanding between the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service

and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (MOU dated 12-15-08) requires the

USDA Forest Service to provide ADEQ with an annual general assessment of water quality

accomplishments, monitoring results, problems and priorities.

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 No Action

A no action alternative is required by NEPA to be developed as a benchmark against which

the agency can evaluate the proposed action. No action in livestock management planning

equates to no permitted livestock grazing (FSH 2209.13, Ch. 90). This is because no action

would be taken to renew the TGP. The TGP would expire and livestock grazing would no

longer be authorized. The livestock would be removed and no new range improvements

would be constructed.

Selection of this alternative would not mean that livestock grazing could not be authorized on

this allotment sometime in the future. The allotment and pasture fences and all other

structural range improvements would remain in place. A separate analysis and coordination

with adjacent permittees and other agencies would be necessary to determine whether to

remove or maintain these improvements.

Alternative 2 The Proposed Action

Under the proposed action, livestock grazing would continue on Fossil Creek Allotment

under a deferred rotational grazing system, which includes conservative forage utilization


43

guidelines. Additionally, there are specific rangeland improvements, specific restoration

projects, and specific management alternatives to implement based on adaptive management

scenarios.

The permittee has used forms of adaptive management over the years, including the

adjustment of livestock numbers to address resource needs. This proposed action would

continue and expand the use of adaptive management by identifying specific scenarios and

the possible management responses.

The proposed action is based on a grazing intensity that is light to moderate (0-50 percent)

and a conservative utilization (30-40% forage utilization as measured after the end of the

growing season).

Pasture rotations would be planned in the spring and fall, and documented in the AOIs, but

they could be modified later in the season to respond to environmental changes and/or

monitoring results.

The Proposed Action consists of five components: Authorization; Improvements;

Monitoring; Adaptive Management; and Resource Protection Measures. The proposed

action follows current guidance from Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 90 (Grazing

Permit Administration; Rangeland Management Decision Making).

Authorization

The RRRD of the Coconino National Forest proposes to continue to authorize livestock

grazing for Fossil Creek Allotment under the following terms:

• The estimated livestock capacity based on full capacity acres would be 5,800 AUMs. This

number was calculated using a full capability condition on the allotment that could be

achieved if all the soils in impaired and unsatisfactory condition were improved to

satisfactory condition if the desired soil and vegetative cover conditions are reached.

However, current conditions cannot support 5,800 AUMs. The estimated livestock capacity

on the allotment based on the current conditions (current capability) is 3,600 AUMs year-

long.

• The Term Grazing Permit (TGP) would be issued for 3,600 AUMs or 300 AUs.

• Annual authorized livestock numbers would be based on existing conditions, available water

and forage, and predicted forage production for the year. Adjustments to the annual

authorized livestock numbers and AUMs (increase or decrease) may occur during the grazing

year, based on conditions and/or range inspections.

• The permitted season of use would be yearlong.

• Grazing would occur through a rotational management system (deferred rotational grazing)

which would allow for plant growth and recovery.

• Permittee is requested to leave any available water in earthen stock tanks for wildlife use after

domestic livestock have been removed from the grazing unit. Important earthen stock tanks

for wildlife include: Herbies, Hogback, Natural, Mail Trail Tank #2, Pine, Tanque Aloma, and

any other earthen stock tanks identified as being occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs.

These would be identified in the AOIs based on most recent Chiricahua leopard frog

monitoring, and updated annually.


44

• Stehr Lake Pasture would be utilized as a trail-through pasture only. Livestock use would be

limited to a three day period when trailing through this pasture. The livestock would not be

authorized access to the riparian area (Fossil Creek) to graze or water.

At the onset of a grazing period (3/1 to 2/28), livestock numbers would be based on water

availability and range readiness. Within season adjustments may occur based on resource

conditions that are evaluated through monitoring. Authorized livestock numbers have

historically been and would continue to be adjusted to meet resource and other objectives

based on changing conditions.

The Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) would state the planned graze period for each

pasture for each grazing year. However, the actual grazing period within each pasture would

depend on current growing conditions and the need to provide for plant recovery following

grazing. The length of the grazing period within each pasture would also be dictated by the

allotment-wide allowable use guidelines.

Drought Strategy

Following FSH 2209.13, the Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, the Standardized

Precipitation Index (SPI), combined with site-specific information, would be used to assess

moisture conditions. Using the SPI as a baseline and combining it with site-specific

information, a determination for drought would be made, and adaptive management

alternatives would be evaluated. Some of the indicators used for drought evaluation include

leaf size and color, flower and seed production, and root mass. Site-specific information may

include Arizona drought status guidelines as established by the Arizona Department of Water

Resources. These guidelines break precipitation amounts into categories to assess stages of

drought.

Region 3 and Coconino National Forest drought management policies recommend resting

pastures from grazing as a method for mitigating grazing effects during drought. When a

pasture would be rested and for how long it would be rested would depend on conditions.

These decisions would be made by the Responsible Official after consulting the Range

Specialist and the permittee.

Management

The grazing system would consist of a deferred rotation to facilitate soil and vegetative

improvement.

Pasture rotations would be planned at the onset of spring and fall season, but may be

modified later in response to environmental changes, such as range readiness, drought, fire,

or a wet season.

Grazing rotations would be prescribed to address early-spring growth, late-spring growth,

and seed-shatter periods in different pastures. For example, if a pasture is grazed during the

late-spring growth period one year, it would not be grazed during the late-spring growth

period the next year.


45

Allotment-Wide Allowable Use Guidelines (Intensity/Utilization Guidelines)

Grazing intensity is defined as the amount of herbage removed through grazing or trampling

during the growing period. Grazing intensity would be managed to allow for the

physiological needs of plants.

Utilization monitoring would occur at the end of the growing season within each of the main

grazing pastures. Utilization is defined as the proportion or degree of current year’s forage

production that is consumed or destroyed by animals (including insects). Utilization is

measured at the end of the growing season when the total annual production can be

accounted for and the effects of grazing in the whole management unit can be assessed.

Utilization measurements would be taken in key areas which reflect grazing effects within an

entire pasture. A minimum of one key area would be established within each main grazing

pasture, at existing long-term monitoring sites if possible, to represent overall pasture

utilization. Utilization guidelines are not intended as inflexible limits. Utilization

measurements can indicate the need for management changes prior to this need being

identified through long-term monitoring. Utilization data would not be used alone, but

would be used along with reporting of the number of AUMs grazed (actual use), climate and

condition/trend data, to determine stocking levels and pasture rotations for future years.

If monitoring shows that the utilization guideline was exceeded in a pasture, the grazing

schedule and/or cattle numbers would be adjusted for the following year. If utilization is

exceeded after these adjustments are made, then changes would be made to the grazing

management system.

Grazing Intensity (excluding riparian areas)

Management guidelines of: • Light levels (0-30%) during the late-spring growth period of plants when the potential for

plant recovery is limited due to moisture potential and life cycle stage.

• Moderate levels (40-50%) in the early-spring period and early-summer period when sufficient

opportunity exists for plant recovery.

• Conservative levels (30-40%) during mid/late summer to the dormant period when the

potential for plant recovery is limited.

Forage Utilization (excluding riparian areas)

Forage utilization would follow a management guideline of conservative utilization, which is

30-40 percent. This utilization level would be used to: • Maintain the satisfactory soils

• Improve the impaired and unsatisfactory soils

• Maintain or Improve rangeland vegetative ground cover and long term soil productivity

The intensity and utilization levels would be used to move towards the desired condition.


46

Utilization and Intensity Criteria for Riparian Areas (Excluding Boulder Water Gap2)

• Utilization would not exceed 20 percent on the key woody vegetation (trees and shrubs such

as cottonwood and willow).

o This number (20%) does take into account the cumulative browsing effects of

wildlife and livestock.

• To protect the riparian vegetation, maintain a minimal stubble height of four inches of

herbaceous vegetation. The stubble height requirement may be adjusted as appropriate for

each site-specific location as additional data is collected.

Soil Objectives

Manage soils classified as unsatisfactory soil condition (terrestrial ecosystem units 401, 4023

and 420) toward natural vegetative ground cover levels with a minimum cover equal to or

greater than tolerable vegetative ground cover levels (15% , 15% and 20% respectively)

within 10 years.

Pasture Grazing Period

The scheduled grazing period per pasture would typically be 5-35 days, but depends on

factors including: pasture size (AUMs), grazing capacity, weather/climate conditions,

current forage production, the opportunity for plant recovery following grazing, number of

head, and allowable intensity and utilization guidelines. Other factors that may occasionally

affect the grazing period include drought and wildfires.

All pastures would be grazed once per grazing period unless authorized by the Responsible

Official when conditions warrant. Any need to re-use pastures would be considered, such as

in the case of variable drought conditions or wildfire.

Second entries into above-mentioned pastures or extensions to the migration time would be

allowed only if the following criteria are met:

• Grazing intensity in the pasture was not exceeded already that year

• The end of the year utilization for the pasture was not exceeded the year prior

Invasive Species

Where high priority invasive plants are present, restrictions on livestock numbers or timing

may be used in conjunction with treatments. Treatments would be performed in accordance

with procedures and BMPs identified in the EIS for invasive weed treatments.

2 Boulder Water Gap would not be subject to riparian standards because the purpose of the water gap is to allow cattle

access to a 40-foot section along Fossil Creek while excluding livestock access to the rest of the stream bank in the Boulder

Pasture. Water gaps have been illustrated to be an effective method for limiting stream and riparian impacts in grazed areas

(Clawson 1993, Nader et al. 1998, Miller et al. 2010, Sewards and Valett 2006).

3 Portions of TES map unit 402 have been surveyed and re-classified as impaired soils. These areas re-classified as impaired

soils would not be subject to this part of the proposed action. See the Affected Environment portion of the soils analysis for

more detail on this subject.


47

Structural Range Improvements

The following structural improvement would decrease impacts to wildlife and help to

maintain/improve desired condition.

Divide Tank is infested with crayfish and the crayfish are a threat to the endangered

Chiricahua leopard frog. Methods for addressing this situation would include either:

• Replacing Divide Tank with a water collection, storage, pipeline, and trough system that does

not provide suitable habitat for crayfish

• Replacing Divide Tank with fabricated troughs and having the permittee haul water to the

troughs as needed.

Further coordination between agencies (USFS, AGFD, USFWS) and the permittee is

necessary to determine which of the above methods would be used.

Livestock exclosure fencing would be installed in earthen stock tanks occupied by

Chiricahua leopard frog and/or riparian areas in the allotment if monitoring determines that

livestock grazing is resulting in direct impacts, which were not addressed through other

adaptive management methods (changes in grazing period, utilization, and rotation).

All Range Improvements would follow the Construction Guidelines provided by the USFS.

Vegetation Treatments

Vegetation treatments on up to 1,200 acres within the 42,000 acre allotment are included as

part of the proposed action to help improve soil and overall watershed conditions. These

treatments would include up to 100 acres of juniper removal in pastures with 70 percent or

more impaired soils.

These treatments would be accomplished using only crews with chainsaws hand cutting and

lopping and scattering. Where treatments occur upstream of earthen stock tanks, mitigation

measures including the use of wattles, one rock check dams and other standard practices to

reduce erosion and promote restoration would be used.

Twelve pastures on the Fossil Creek allotment were found to have soils with 70 percent or

more in impaired condition. Under the proposed action approximately 100 acres in each of

these pastures would be treated with a total of 1,200 potential acres for vegetative treatment

that could occur anywhere within the pasture. Treatment areas would be prioritized according

to where on the ground observations have shown canopy cover to be impeding herbaceous

understory growth (generally >10 percent canopy), where erosion issues upstream from

earthen stock tanks occupied by Chiricahua leopard frog have been identified as an issue, and

where treatment efforts have the highest potential for success.

Table 12. Pastures with vegetative proposed treatments in the Fossil Creek alottment

PASTURE TOTAL ACRES IN

PASTURE

PERCENT OF PASTURE IN

SOIL CONDITION CLASS

Barry 157


48


PASTURE



Impaired 148 94%

Satisfactory, but Inherently

Unstable 9 6%

Bull 2167

Impaired 1971 91%

Satisfactory 22 1%


Unstable 98 5%

Unsatisfactory 75 3%

Dorens Defeat 1503

Impaired 1295 86%


Unstable 208 14%

Grass Patch 1173

Impaired 1109 95%


Unstable 64 5%

Heifer 579

Impaired 470 81%

Satisfactory 42 7%


Unstable 10 2%

Unsatisfactory 57 10%

Hog Back 1533

Impaired 1437 94%

Satisfactory 24 2%


Unstable 73 5%

Lower Eds Point 815

Impaired 704 86%

Satisfactory 101 12%


Unstable 10 1%

Mud Tank 2202

Impaired 2201 100%

Satisfactory 1 0%

Pine 1745

Impaired 1607 92%

Satisfactory 122 7%


Unstable 16 1%


49


PASTURE



Shipping 1 715

Impaired 715 100%

Stehr Lake 1581

Impaired 1186 75%

Not applicable 26 2%

Satisfactory 9 1%


Unstable 359 23%

Tanque Aloma 800

Impaired 632 79%

Satisfactory 168 21%

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

The proposed action includes adaptive management; a strategy that considers numerous

management actions that could be employed to modify the grazing system due to information

obtained from monitoring that indicates the grazing strategy is not meeting desired

conditions.

At the onset of a grazing period (3/1 to 2/28), livestock numbers would be based on water

availability and range readiness. Within season adjustments may occur based off resource

conditions that are evaluated through monitoring. Livestock numbers within the permitted

amount have historically been and would continue to be adjusted to meet resource and other

objectives based on changing conditions.

Implementation monitoring would occur at the end of the growing season within each of the

main grazing pastures by measuring grazing utilization or through the assessment of range

improvements. Utilization is defined as the proportion or degree of current year’s forage

production that is consumed or destroyed by animals (including insects). Utilization is

measured at the end of the growing season when the total annual production can be

accounted for and the effects of grazing in the whole management unit can be assessed.

Utilization and intensity measurements would be taken in key areas which reflect grazing

effects within an entire pasture. A minimum of one key area would be established within

each main grazing pasture, at existing long-term monitoring sites if possible, to represent

overall pasture utilization. Utilization guidelines are not intended as inflexible limits.

Utilization measurements can indicate the need for management changes prior to this need

being identified through long-term monitoring. Key areas would be monitored for intensity to

determine when cattle should be moved to prevent over use. A planned grazing system is

designed to promote flexibility in the grazing program and to buffer the adverse effects of

drought (FSH 2509.22). Utilization data would not be used alone, but would be used along

with actual-use, climate and condition/trend data, to determine stocking levels and pasture

rotations for future years.


50

If monitoring shows that the utilization guideline was exceeded in a pasture, the grazing

schedule and/or cattle numbers would be adjusted for the following year. If utilization is

exceeded after these adjustments are made, then changes would be made to the grazing

management system.

Effectiveness Monitoring is used to assess long term condition and trend in achieving desired

objectives. This monitoring may include, but is not limited to measurements to track upland

vegetative conditions and soil condition towards achievement of the objectives. Example

methods for effectiveness monitoring may include, but are not limited to dry weight rank,

pace transects, pace quadrat frequency, Parker 3-step, and ground cover. Effectiveness

monitoring should occur within key areas on permanent transects at an interval of 5 to 10

years to evaluate the success of management in achieving the desired objectives.

Monitoring frequency of vegetation and soil condition and trend would be accomplished

collaboratively by Forest Service personnel, permittee, and cooperating agencies as funding,

personnel, and time are available. Typically trend data is collected within a five to ten year

period to reflect the greatest amount of change/trend. Both qualitative and quantitative

monitoring methods would be used in accordance with the Interagency Technical References,

Region 3 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide, and the Region 3 Allotment

Analysis Handbook.

Monitoring of soil conditions is another monitoring strategy to provide information about the

effectiveness of grazing management as well as juniper treatments.

• Monitor vegetative ground cover in vegetation treatment areas before and within one year

after treatment and monitor trend as funding, personnel, and time are available.

• Baseline monitoring in 2009 and 2010 occurred in pastures with high amounts of

unsatisfactory soil conditions establishing a baseline current vegetative ground cover.

Monitoring would be repeated to inform vegetative ground cover trend. If monitoring

indicates that soil conditions are not improving towards Satisfactory conditions and ground

covers are not adequate to maintain soil productivity, then current livestock grazing strategy

would be adjusted using adaptive management. These adaptive management practices are not

limited to but may include:

o A given pasture may either be rested, grazed at lighter intensity, or the use period

could be shortened.

o The season of use or timing of grazing the next year may be changed.

o The permittee would be required to distribute use better (Ex. riding and herding,

salting, etc.).

These modifications are evaluated in this EA; if needed, they would be implemented through

the AOIs.

Adaptive management would also allow for the construction of fencing or exclosures in

riparian areas, if they are determined through monitoring as necessary to move the allotment

toward desired conditions. Monitoring of riparian vegetation would focus in those areas

where previous assessments have identified that riparian vegetation is not in proper

functioning condition and there is evidence of livestock access. The six springs on the

allotment that have not yet been assessed would also be assessed for proper functioning


51

condition, but are of a lower priority since these springs generally support very little riparian

vegetation or are located in very rough or steep terrain.

Table 3, below, identifies several management evaluation points and management options to

describe scenarios when adaptive management will be used under the implementation of the

10-year term grazing permit.

Table 13. Management Evaluation Points and Adaptive Management Options

Management Evaluation Point

The “If” Statement

Adaptive Management Response Options

The “Then” Statement

If end of season grazing utilization is in

compliance with the 30-40% guideline Continue current management system.

If end of season grazing utilization is NOT in

compliance with the 30-40% guideline

The strategy for that pasture the following year

may be either be to rest it, graze it at lighter

intensity, or shorten the use period.

The season of use or timing of grazing the next

year may be changed

The permittee would be required to distribute

use better (Ex. Riding and herding, salting, etc.)

If seasonal grazing intensity is NOT in

compliance with the 0-50% guideline.

Livestock might leave that pasture early


may be to rest it, graze it at lighter intensity, or

shorten the use period.


year may be changed


use better.

If in a 5 year period guidelines have been

exceeded twice or if guidelines are exceeded

in two consecutive years.

We have the option to reduce AUs or apply

other adaptive management actions, such as

resting pastures.

If wildfires and/or prescribed burning occur in

pastures.

Based on the intensity of the fire and the

condition of the vegetation (range ready)

afterwards, resting pastures may be considered.

If we see utilization on woody vegetation

exceeding Forest Plan guidelines (20%) at all

Livestock management changes would be used

to reduce utilization. If management does not


52

Management Evaluation Point

The “If” Statement

Adaptive Management Response Options

The “Then” Statement

riparian areas. work, fences and exclosures may be used.

If assessment as evaluated through PFC shows

that livestock grazing is contributing towards a

decline in riparian condition.


to improve condition. If management does not

work, fences and exclosures may be used. The

exception to this is for springs (Chalk springs

and Quail Springs) where the water rights

and/or claims are tied exclusively to livestock

use in Arizona Department of Water Resources

records.

Should other seeps and springs (not already

identified) that have the potential to support

willow be found to be lacking a willow

component.

Pole plantings and fencing would be considered.

If Chiricahua leopard frogs are found to be

occupying any tanks in the future that have not

already been identified.

Wedge fencing would be considered to protect

frog habitat.

If existing improvements and erosion control

measures around stocktanks for improving soil

and vegetative conditions are in disrepair or

are determined to be outdated.

Improvements and erosion control measures

would be maintained, repaired or upgraded as

needed.

If monitoring shows that livestock grazing is

negatively impacting occupied Fossil

springsnail habitat at any seeps or springs.


to improve condition. If management does not

work, fences and exclosures may be used.

If monitoring shows that unsatisfactory soils

are not improving towards vegetative ground

cover tolerance thresholds.


may be either be to rest it, graze it at lighter

intensity, or shorten the use period.


year may be changed.


use better (Ex. riding and herding, salting, etc.)


53

Figure 6. Fossil Creek Allotment Pastures and Waters

Resource Protection Measures

The following measures would be implemented under the proposed action. These have been

used on previous projects and are considered to be effective at avoiding or reducing

environmental impacts. They are consistent with applicable Forest Plan standards and

guidelines, and the terms, conditions and conservation measures of existing biological

opinions.

Range Management

• During drought conditions, and in periods of drought recovery, adjust grazing timing,

intensity, frequency, numbers, and the management system as necessary to protect the upland

vegetation resource.

• The District Range Staff would monitor compliance with the Allotment Management Plan

throughout the grazing period of each year for the life of the Permit. Compliance with the

terms and conditions of the livestock grazing permit will be strictly enforced including

livestock grazing scheme, contingencies for drought conditions, and monitoring agreements.

Wildlife, Fisheries and Rare Plants

• Survey areas containing proposed structural improvements before construction for TES plants

and noxious or invasive weeds before construction of improvement. Identify populations and

mitigate impacts of management actions if needed.


54

• Management practices that tend to concentrate livestock, such as placement of salt, will be

located away from sensitive wildlife areas such as known raptor nesting sites.

• Avoid TES plants (if found during survey) during the construction of structural

improvements.

• All open storage tanks and drinkers will be constructed with entry and escape ramps for

wildlife. These ramps would be built to the current Bat Conservation International

Specifications.

• In order to minimize the risk for introducing and spreading disease among aquatic systems,

approved protocols will be followed when conducting work in earthen livestock tanks. This

protocol will be attached to the AOI.

• When maintaining earthen stock tanks that are suitable habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs

o Refer to the document “Hygiene Protocol for Control of Disease and Aquatic

Organism Transmission” for specific prevention and equipment cleaning guidelines

to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive nuisance species and pathogens.

o At least 60 days prior to maintaining or cleaning out earthen stock tanks, the

permittee shall inform the Coconino of planned activities. The permittee is

responsible for submitting a proposal that details when the work is to be completed,

who and contact information for who will be conducting the work, details about what

work is to be completed, and a list of all equipment that will be used.

o Authorized personnel shall assess and evaluate the need to survey the tank for

leopard frogs. If Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to occur or found during

surveys, the Forest and permittee shall work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) to develop and implement a plan to minimize take of frogs. Plans to

minimize take shall be approved by the USFWS. If other leopard frog species are

found, a plan to minimize impacts will be developed and implemented. Measures to

minimize take should include salvage and temporary holding of frogs, limiting

disturbance and work areas to the minimum area practicable, leaving stands of

emergent vegetation in place, and/or measures to minimize the likelihood of disease

transmission.

o All ranch hands, construction personnel, and others implementing the maintenance

shall be given a copy of these terms and conditions, and informed of the need to

comply with them. These instructions will be given to workers carrying out the

maintenance in advance so that the appropriate equipment (screens for pump tanks,

off-site water, disinfecting solution and sprayer, etc.) can be secured and brought out

to the site.

o For tanks occupied by frogs (including those dry tanks that could have frogs

persisting in moist cracks in the tank bottom or along the tank berms) it is required

that a representative from one of the agencies (USFWS, Forest Service, or Game and

Fish) be present to monitor tank cleaning or repair efforts.

• Live fish, crayfish, bullfrogs, leopard frogs, salamanders, or other aquatic organisms shall not

be moved among earthen tanks or other aquatic sites.

• If a site is identified as occupied by leopard frogs, water shall not be hauled to the site from

another aquatic site or tank that supports leopard frogs, bullfrogs, crayfish, or fish. When

water is needed, such as for bentonite application, all precautions shall be taken (use of fish

screens of 1/8 inch or smaller mesh and adding bleach if water is used from another tank or

municipal water source) to ensure that fish, bullfrogs, and their tadpoles, and crayfish are not

moved among tanks.


55

• For situations that require water to be pumped from a tank with frogs, the following

mitigations apply:

o Use of tank water will be judicial and if the water level is low, it may be required that

water be hauled in.

o Mesh filters of 1/8 inch will be used to avoid sucking up eggs, tadpoles or juvenile

frogs. Pumps will be placed as far away from the water as possible.

o Pumps will be moved during refueling in order to avoid contaminating the tank water

and vegetation immediately around the tank.

Soil, Watershed and Fisheries Resources

• Work on all projects (earthen stock tanks, pipelines, trick tanks, fences, power line, roads, etc.

may only be conducted when soils are dry enough to support heavy equipment without

creating compaction, ruts, or erosion.

Cultural and Historic Resources

• All of the new ground disturbing activities that are planned to be implemented within two

years and can be identified on the ground have been surveyed and will be cleared prior to

authorizing grazing on the allotment as per Section 93.2 of the Region 3 Issuance Forest

Service Handbook 2209.13, Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, Chapter 90,

Rangeland Management Decisionmaking, and following the First Amended U.S.D.A., Forest

Service, Region 3 Programmatic Agreement Regarding Cultural Property Protection and

Responsibilities, dated Approved September 27, 2007.

• Before initiating any of the ground disturbing activities that are part of this project, the

District Archaeologist will be notified to ensure the proposed activities have cultural resource

clearance and project personnel are aware of the conditions specified in the final Fossil Creek

Range Allotment Cultural Resource Clearance Report. Any additional ground disturbing

activities that are proposed in the future must receive archaeological clearance prior to

implementation.

• Located sites will be marked for avoidance and will be avoided during construction. If any

new sites are discovered during construction activities, they are to be reported to the district

or forest archeologist and ground-disturbing work halted.

• Management practices that tend to concentrate livestock, such as placement of salt,

construction of fences, etc., will be located away from cultural resources.

Visual Resources

• When making modifications to Divide Tank or when replacing other existing range

infrastructure on the allotment, use various camouflaging techniques, such as using self-

weathering steel or painting improvements flat, non-reflective colors that blend with the

landscape. We would favor dull, rust-colored materials, and avoid bright or galvanized

materials to ensure improvements blend with the natural landscape character.


56

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action

Watershed Condition

Watershed conditions have improved over the last five years from the data collected in 2006

to present. The three key area range plots that were read in 2012 and compared to the data in

2006 showed an increase in frequency of grass species, forbs, and shrubs. This improvement

could be attributed to the change in livestock numbers and use levels. As vegetation

condition continues to improve under the Proposed Action alternative watershed condition

indicators including water quality, riparian vegetation condition, soil productivity and soil

erosion rates, as well as rangeland vegetation indicators should continue to improve towards

good condition where it is currently fair to poor. The overall watershed condition is

improving towards Functioning Properly where currently Functioning at Risk and Impaired

Function and under the Proposed Action this improving trend would continue.

Watersheds must remain resilient to adapt to land use and climate change, rebound from

disturbances and adjust to new conditions (USDA, 2010) As a way to increase the resiliency

of the Fossil Creek allotment vegetative treatments were planned as part of the Proposed

Action. Vegetation treatments would restore and maintain savannah-like grasslands in

pinyon-juniper vegetation types, where soils indicate historic grasslands and meadow-like

conditions occurred. Vegetation treatments would be done in a mosaic pattern across the

landscape. Juniper treatments would leave slash in place and lop and scatter rather than

piling and burning which would result in less ground disturbance and soil disturbance. Slash

would be scattered into interspaces between trees to provide ground cover, distribute

nutrients, provide shade, and minimize moisture loss.

These treatments would reduce the competitive tree over-story and distribute branches and

limbs on bare soil areas to help increase the nutrient cycling. This would also increase the

cover of perennial grasses; increase effective litter, decrease soil moisture, increase the

overall hydrologic function of the soils by increasing infiltration, decrease soil compaction,

and decrease erosion on these treatment areas, and decreasing rainfall impact on bare soil.

These treatments would include crews with chainsaws hand cutting and lopping and

scattering. This would move us towards achieving our vegetation and soil objectives.

Long term effect of the lopped material is that as it breaks down into organic matter the soils

nutrient cycling ability improves. As perennial grasses become more of a dominate feature on

the landscape more organic material is again made available for absorption in to the A

horizon of the soil profile and soil productivity would increase. Yields of understory

vegetation increased from 223 pounds per acre, including 50 pounds of perennial grasses, to

981 pounds per acre including 193 pounds of perennial grasses after juniper over-story was

removed in Northern Arizona (Clary, 1972).


57

This long term improvement in site productivity would improve watershed and soil

conditions on the Fossil Creek allotment. Implementing restoration actions that maintain or

improve conditions is key to providing resilient watersheds (USDA, 2010). The vegetative

treatments are part of this overall adaptive management approach that can improve the

resiliency of the landscape under the Proposed Action. These actions help ensure the forage

productivity but more importantly the ecosystem resiliency and watershed stability.

Soil Condition

For the Proposed Action, grazing would occur at a rate that is less than historic amounts,

under a rotational management system (either deferred or rest-rotation grazing), which would

allow for plant growth and recovery. For above ground litter production, lower utilization

levels should increase litter over time only if precipitation is available to produce plant

biomass.

The number of acres in the Impaired or Unsatisfactory category has been decreasing and

there has been an appreciable shift of acres into the Satisfactory category. Since soil

condition assessments were made in 2007, the percentage of Satisfactory soil on the Fossil

Creek allotment has increased from 4 percent to 12.57 percent.

The allotment would continue to move towards desired conditions under the Proposed Action

by implementing the utilization levels and grazing system of this alternative. This alternative

would maintain and improve water quality and quantity, reduce accelerated soil erosion, and

maintain or improving soil condition and long-term soil productivity for sustainability of the

resource.

The canopy cover issue would continue to remove understory vegetation through competition

for moisture over the next 10-50 years and under the Proposed Action this problem would be

addressed. By reducing canopy cover and reintroducing perennial grasses while sustainably

grazing, fine fuels would increase in grasslands and savannahs, leading to a possible return of

more natural fire frequencies. This process would prevent the future encroachment of trees

and shrubs into areas where they were not naturally dominant (e.g., grasslands). In grasslands

and savannahs the soil would maintain a higher grass cover and would be more resistant to

erosion. Soils and nutrient cycling may also be more productive as a result of having

continuous inputs of grass litter as opposed to juniper litter.

Under the Proposed Action, Stehr Lake Pasture would be a trail through pasture and so no

livestock grazing would occur in this pasture. Soils in Stehr Lake pasture should improve as

vegetative ground cover improves and increase on site soil nutrient cycling and productivity.

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would occur and as a result, there would be direct

and indirect effects from cattle grazing on upland vegetation. Adaptive management and

monitoring would be used to mitigate the direct and indirect effects. Grazing and browsing

by animals and insects is a natural process in all ecosystems. Generally, soils would not be

damaged by periodic removal of a slight to moderate amount of vegetative cover and litter.

However, it is important to maintain a moderate amount of cover and litter all year in order to


58

promote nutrient cycling, soil fertility, soil structure, water infiltration, water holding

capacity, aeration, and resistance to erosion.

Grazing beyond the capability of the soil decreases the standing vegetative cover. It also

reduces the amount of continuous plant litter. Grazing animals trample vegetation and

damage soil surfaces by pulverizing soil aggregates. Although trampling may increase the

speed at which organic matter (litter, manure, and woody debris) is incorporated into the soil

and expose surface soils to improve seed germination and plant establishment, it can also

increase soil compaction, decrease aggregate stability, and increase the risk of wind and

water erosion in areas where livestock concentrate, especially when soils are saturated.

Compaction reduces the infiltration rate, water-holding capacity, and aeration of the soil

which leads to losses in plant productivity and sheet erosion.

Soil is affected by the livestock walking on the soil and consuming forage. This may result

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.

• 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 and loss of soil productivity.

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

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

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

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

would be available for litter.

a. 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.

C. 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, 1988).

Livestock grazing effects to vegetation occur through a reduction in plant height and cover

and are primarily managed through forage utilization and grazing intensity. There is a

potential for plant height and cover to recover from cattle grazing if pending climate is

favorable. This alternative would have short-term direct effects to understory plants by

reducing plant height and canopy cover. This could lead to a decrease in plant diversity,


59

canopy cover, abundance, production, and ground cover over the short term. Under this

alternative, through effective monitoring and adaptive management and with the

implementation of vegetative treatments, upland vegetation condition and trend is expected

to continue to move upward.

The conclusion is that soil condition and productivity would improve with implementation of

the Proposed Action Alternative’s scenario of improved rest rotational grazing, conservative

utilization , and intensity and identified resource protection measures, monitoring and

subsequent adaptive management compared to current conditions because vegetative ground

cover conditions are expected to improve on Unsatisfactory and Impaired soils. Vegetative

ground covers on Impaired and Unsatisfactory soils are expected to increase thereby better

protecting the soil against erosion and improving soil infiltration and nutrient cycling

functions. and improve infiltration. There would be greater improvement in soil condition

during wet cycles because litter creation would increase with wetter conditions. There would

be greater improvement in soil condition where vegetative treatments have been

implemented, by improving vegetative ground cover and increasing the organic matter

available on site. The use of Adaptive Management principles, especially decreasing

utilization and stocking numbers during and immediately after drought, would improve or

maintain vegetative conditions that would also in turn improve soil conditions. Overall,

improved soil condition equates to improved soil productivity and watershed condition, and

thus this alternative would move towards desired condition and the Forest Plan standard and

guideline for improving watershed condition by the year 2020, although it may not be fully

attained by this time if drought conditions persists

Map unit 430 and 350 are not grazed except on a very low impact and limited occurrence

above 40 percent slope, and grazing these areas does not affect soil condition, soil

productivity or connected water quality. Where grazing does occur in Satisfactory, but

Inherently Unstable soil units (350 and 430), grazing intensity is expected to maintain current

vegetative ground covers at the natural ground cover of 20%, assuring soil productivity is

maintained. On map unit 430, slopes range from 40-120% and grazing does not occur except

on a very low impact and limited occurrence above 40 % slope therefore, proposed grazing

does not appreciably reduce vegetative ground cover or impact the soils.

Satisfactory and Impaired soils current vegetative ground covers are above tolerance

vegetative ground cover and therefore have adequate effective vegetative ground cover and

nutrient cycling function to protect soil productivity from accelerated erosion and

compaction. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Action, resource protection

measures with adaptive management is expected to maintain soil productivity on Satisfactory

soils and improve soil productivity on Impaired soils.

Managing grazing intensity on Unsatisfactory soils toward natural vegetative ground cover

levels with a minimum equal to or greater than tolerable vegetative ground cover should

adequately protect long term soil productivity for all Unsatisfactory soils. Vegetative ground

covers would increase and contribute to improve soil infiltration and nutrient cycling

functions. Grazing capacity has not been assigned to these Unsatisfactory soil units reducing

overall stocking rate and pressure on the soil. The Unsatisfactory soils in TES unit 401 that


60

are eroding above tolerance rates are not connected to Fossil Creek and therefore do not

contribute sediment or water quality impairment in Fossil Creek. They are well buffered and

drain towards the Verde River. Both Fossil Creek and the Verde River reach adjacent to the

Fossil Creek allotment are attaining all uses. Monitoring would inform soil condition trend in

pastures with high amounts of Unsatisfactory soils and grazing strategy or intensity would be

adjusted if soil condition objectives are not met.

For Unsatisfactory and Impaired soils, implementation of the PA including a trail through

only in Stehr Pasture and resource protection measures would reduce utilization of plants to a

conservative level allowing improved vegetative ground cover that would better protect the

soil from accelerated erosion, trampling and subsequent compaction. In addition, improved

time controlled (rest) grazing would also reduce the direct trampling effects on the soil

associated with higher intensity grazing and improve soil nutrient cycling over time. When

utilization levels are adjusted for drought and wet cycles, the net effect would move Impaired

and Unsatisfactory soils towards Satisfactory condition over time in the Proposed Action.

Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable soils currently are functioning properly and normally to

the best of their inherent capability. Implementation of the Proposed Action with identified

resource protection measures and adaptive management is expected to keep these soils in

Satisfactory, inherently unstable condition and maintain soil productivity that is inherently

possible.

Maintaining current vegetative ground covers at natural vegetative ground covers would

maintain long-term soil productivity and improve wet cycles. When utilization levels are

adjusted for drought and wet cycles, then I believe the net effect would move Impaired soils

to Satisfactory over time in the Proposed Action. Unsatisfactory soils would be much slower

to display improvement, but should slowly improve over the long run. Additional

monitoring of Unsatisfactory soils would be necessary to examine the effects of the Proposed

Action on soil condition on these soils.

Monitoring would inform soil condition trend in pastures with high amounts of

Unsatisfactory soils and grazing strategy or intensity would be adjusted if soil condition

objectives are not met.

Overall, improved soil condition equates to improved watershed condition, and thus this

alternative would move towards desired conditions and the Forest Plan standard and

guideline for improving watershed condition by the year 2020, although it may not be fully

attained by this time if drought conditions persists

Under implementation of the Proposed Action and including recommended monitoring and

resource protection measures and for all soils, the desired condition of moving towards

Satisfactory soil conditions and maintenance of soil productivity would be met.

Cattle do not directly graze the biological soil crusts found on the Fossil Creek allotment, but

they may trample biological soil crusts when grazing through an area. Soil and plant

characteristics of low and mid elevation arid and semi-arid ecosystems in North America

west of the Rocky Mountains indicate that these ecosystems evolved with low levels of soil


61

surface disturbance (Belnap et al., 2001). Limited water availability would have restricted

use of lower elevations to winter seasons, as is seen today (West, 1988). In general managing

livestock grazing for healthy biological soil crusts, light to moderate stocking in early to mid

wet season is recommended (Belnap et al., 2001).Under the Proposed Action a management

guideline of conservative use (30-40% forage utilization as measured at the end of the

growing season) would be employed to maintain or improve rangeland vegetation and long

term soil productivity and should adequately protect biological soil crusts according to

recommendations. The use levels under the Proposed Action and timing of this use would

approximate historical disturbance to biological soil crusts and dispersal of livestock

throughout the useable portions of the pastures would also be emphasized to reduce potential

impacts.

Through identified monitoring, resource protection measures and adaptive management soil

condition is expected to improve and soil productivity would be maintained during the 10

year life of the permit.

Soil Erosion Rates

Under the Proposed Action, by including a conservative utilization rate at 30 to 40 percent,

and by improving rotations and water distribution over the Fossil Creek allotment,

Vegetative Ground Covers on Unsatisfactory soils 401 and 420 are predicted to improve and

soil erosion rates decline to levels within threshold limits and therefore, soil productivity

should improve and be maintained within the 10 year permit timeframe. Soil erosion rates on

all other Unsatisfactory and Impaired soils are also expected to be below threshold levels and

consequently soil productivity would be maintained or improved.


Riparian areas, with their high species diversity and structural complexity, provide critical

terrestrial and aquatic habitat to wildlife. Cattle tend to congregate in many riparian areas.

They favor riparian forage and water availability, shade in warm months and gentle

topography. Excessive grazing and trampling impacts can destabilize and break down stream

banks, cause mechanical damage to shrubs and small trees, reduce or eliminate woody

seedlings and saplings, expose soils, eliminate or shift native herbaceous species to weedy or

exotic species with reduced root systems, and cause widening or incision of stream channels

(Trimble and Mendel 1995, Clary and Kruse 1995). Native obligate riparian plants are

extremely important to many streams because of their resistance to the erosive energy of

flowing water (Clary and Kruse 1995). Herbaceous riparian vegetation is especially

important to stabilizing stream bank, point bar and floodplain deposits, critical to the channel

restoration process (Clary and Kruse 1995). One of the most important factors influencing

riparian conditions is utilization (Clary and Kruse 1995).

The riparian utilization guidelines were developed to maintain or increase existing riparian

vegetation, defined as having adequate cover and/or density to meet the sampling protocols.

If riparian area utilization guidelines are followed and cattle are moved when use guidelines

are met, the negative, direct effects of grazing would be minimized, and riparian areas and

stream channels would continue to improve.


62

Riparian conditions on woody vegetation is controlled by utilization standards of 20% use on

woody vegetation and grazing along all stream reaches when woody vegetation is dormant.

When this is attained, woody riparian vegetation should have little effect from grazing. The

access to Fossil Creek is limited to lanes that would limit grazing impacts to the creek. Sally

May wash is currently at-risk, with grazing being a major stressor. Maintaining woody

utilization at a low 20% should assist with riparian woody riparian plant regeneration.

There would be some bank trampling along Fossil Creek at designated watering sites but it

would be limited to designated watering sites. For the reach as a whole, this would provide

little negative effect to Fossil Creek. Some trampling would occur at springs also. The 1999

field visit to Sally May Springs noted heavy use at the site and sedimentation at the spring

and corresponding outflow. The springs primarily have a grass component and some small

amount of woody vegetation. The recommendation to maintain a stubble height of at least 10

centimeters on riparian grasses and grass-like plants would aid in maintaining filtering from

plants (Clary and Leininger, 2000). It is expected that riparian conditions are expected to

show slight improvement over current conditions due to the 20% utilization standard.

The roughly 1.5 miles of riparian vegetation on Fossil Creek alongside the Stehr Pasture

would not be grazed as this pasture is a trail through pasture only. Cattle would trail though

using the 502 road and would not be in the riparian area and would therefore not impact

riparian in this pasture.


Cattle can directly have a variety of effects to water quality including bacterial contamination

from cattle waste, including fecal coliform, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Salmonella

(Belsky et al 1999). The occurrence of these pathogens increases with an increase in cattle

intensity (numbers and duration). Grazing ungulates can also increase the sediment load and

suspended solids resulting in turbidity. This is accomplished through trampling, disturbance

and erosion from denuded streambanks, and reduced sediment trapping by streambank

vegetation that has been removed by grazing. These factors all come into play when grazing

intensity is high, which does at the water gaps along Fossil Creek.

A recent report from Northern Arizona University indicates that E. faecalis in Fossil Creek

water quality testing results for 2010 indicated elevated E. faecalis levels at each sampling

date with lower levels in late spring and early autumn and higher levels in mid-summer

(Adams, 2011). All E. Coli sampling effrots have shown no exceedances in Arizona State

Water quality standards.

One BMP in particular that would help address issues with livestock grazing and water

quality is the use of improved grazing management systems (e.g., herding) to reduce physical

disturbance of soil and vegetation and minimize direct loading of animal waste and sediment

to sensitive areas. Installation of alternative drinking water sources and use of exclusionary

practices, such as fencing would also be used as appropriate. This BMP would help filter

sediments, maintain bank stability, improve riparian function and improve water quality.

As vegetative ground cover improves, erosion would be reduced along with sediment

delivery to connected stream courses indirectly maintaining or improving water quality. It is


63

important to realize under current management, the most recent ADEQ 2010 305 B report

continues to identify Fossil Creek and the Verde River as category 1 indicating water quality

is attaining all beneficial uses including for warm water fish and aquatics. That indicates

current management including grazing may not be contributing adverse amounts of sediment

into Fossil Creek or this stretch of the Verde River.

Improved soil conditions following soil condition objectives should reduce soil loss hence;

water quality should remain attaining all uses in Fossil Creek and the Verde River. Limited

watering of cattle at the Fossil Creek water gap in Boulder may have a site-specific, short-

term impact of water quality at the watering sites; however, this would be short-term and not

expected to impair water quality of Fossil Creek. The Proposed Action would not be

increasing sediment yields over a six month period which is defined as short term in the

Antidegradation clause. The Proposed Action has been evaluated for consistency with the

Clean Water Act and associated State of Arizona Anti-degradation policy and determined to

be fully consistent.

Cumulative Effects of Proposed Action Alternative

The cumulative effects boundary for soil and watershed resources effected under this

Proposed Action is the Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River 5th

code watershed (HUC

1506020304). About 99% of the allotment is in the Fossil Creek-Lower Verde 5th code

watershed. The Fossil Creek allotment at 42,091 acres, falls almost entirely within the Fossil

Creek – Lower Verde 5th code watershed (totaling about 191,700 acres) with an insignificant

acreage of only 67 acres in the West Clear Creek 5th

code watershed (HUC 1506020301).

An analysis of the West Clear Creek 5th

code watershed was not performed because of the

small amount of acreage of project located in the watershed (67 out of approximately

191,000 acres—less than 1% of the watershed).

Past Actions

Past actions include livestock grazing for the past 100 to 125 years on a variety of allotments

on the three National Forests that occur within the watershed. Cattle numbers were very high

at the turn of the 20th

century and have decreased to present numbers for approximately the

last 20-30 years. The Hackberry/Pivot Rock allotment is also applying lower utilization

standards than historically and using adaptive management with a goal to improve condition.

Other past activities include diversion of water from Fossil Creek, wildfires and limited

pinyon-juniper clearing through the use of fire, and sediment reduction projects on tank sites

in the Fossil Creek allotment.

From 1909 to 2005, most of the base flow was diverted by the Childs-Irving Hydroelectric

Project at the Fossil Springs diversion dam, approximately 14 miles upstream from the Fossil

Creek / Verde River confluence and just below Fossil Spring. The diversion dam (a 25-foot

high concrete structure) removed most of the base flow discharged from Fossil Springs,

leaving only approximately 1.5 cfs of seepage flow in the 3.8-mile stream reach between the


64

dam and the Irving Power Plant. After passing through the Irving Power Plant,

approximately 5.5 cfs of water was returned to the Fossil Creek stream channel, while an

estimated 36 cfs of the spring discharge was diverted through another series of flumes and

pipes to Stehr Lake, a regulating reservoir for the Childs Power Plant. From Stehr Lake, the

spring water was piped down to and through the Childs Power Plant and then discharged into

the Verde River. With the decommissioning of the flume and power plant in 2006, the return

of full base flow (~ 43 cfs) to Fossil Creek has occurred.

Approximately six large fires have occurred over the past 10 years within the cumulative

effects watershed area totaling about 1,900 acres. There have been multiple small fires

within the watershed boundary, burning a total of about 250 acres. Almost all of the fires

within the watershed have been lightning caused. Pre-treating juniper woodlands and then

burning to remove juniper did occur on the Fossil Creek allotment in the early 1990’s.

Table 14. Fires occurring within the last 15 years within the cumulative effects boundary.

Fire Name Forest Year Acres

Five Mile Coconino 2002 379

Backbone Coconino 2003 16

Cedar Bench Prescott 2004 71

Bull Run Coconino 2005 884

Black Tonto 2005 293

Towel Coconino 2006 278

Total 1,921

Additional past activities not including grazing are included in Table 15 below.

Table 15. List of past actions other than grazing occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area.

Project Name Forest Description

Dispersed

Recreation

Coconino,

Prescott,

Tonto

Non-developed recreation activities including: hunting,

fishing, camping, driving for pleasure, hiking, biking,

bird-watching etc.

Road

maintenance

Coconino,

Prescott,

Tonto

Only occurring on main roads on each forest

Pivot Rock-

Hackberry Range

allotment EA

Coconino Authorize livestock grazing

Decommissionin

g/restoration

activities

Coconino Removal of Childs/Irving Power plant infrastructure.

Completed to date summarized in Childs-Irving

Hydroelectric Project 2005 – 2006 Decommissioning

Progress Report

(http://www.aps.com/images/CI/2006_Progress_Report.p

df)


65


Coconino Sediment reduction activities at Sycamore Basin and

Buckskin tanks. PJ lop and scatter on small acreages and

installed erosion control filter sox around erosive soils on

both tanks for frog sediment control.

Present Actions

Ongoing activities that may have cumulative effects to Fossil Creek include high recreation

use, road maintenance, and use on user created roads. Road maintenance can be an acute

source of sediment into aquatic systems (Ziemer et al. 1991). User-created routes that do not

have BMPs in place for water diversion are additional sources of sediment to streams. The

effects of these ongoing activities are likely to increase sediment production into Fossil

Creek. Recreation use affects riparian vegetation by creating areas of bare soil that without a

protective layer of vegetation can easily erode. Recreation also increases the likelihood of

toxic materials entering the stream (i.e. abandoned cars, batteries, oil from cooking, ant killer

and human waste) that can have negative impacts on water quality. Recreational pressures

would still exist as well as pressures of grazing on riparian ecosystems.

The Verde River watershed upstream of the project area is approximately 4,645 square miles

in size; the primary cumulative impact to the Verde River is increased groundwater pumping

(Barnett and Hawkins 2002). Other ongoing activities affecting the Verde River include

urbanization and development, range management, vegetation management, fire and fuels

management, transportation and recreation, and water management structures (Barnett and

Hawkins 2002).

Present grazing actions that are occurring within the analysis area in addition to the Fossil

Creek allotment include cattle grazing within the Walker Basin, Thirteen-Mile,

Hackberry/Pivot Rock, Baker Lake/Calf Pen, Ike’s Backbone Range allotments on the

Coconino National Forest; Bald Hill, Brown Springs, Copper Canyon, Horner Mountain,

Squaw Peak, Sycamore, and Young allotments on the Prescott National Forest; and Cedar

Bench, Deadman Mesa, Hardscrabble, Pine and Skeleton Ridge allotments on the Tonto

National Forest (see Table 16). Approximately 7% of the watershed boundary is not grazed

by cattle. In addition, wildlife have access to graze the entire watershed area.

Table 16. List of present grazing actions occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area.

Allotment Name Forest Acres % of Watershed

No Grazing Coconino 11,036 6%

Walker Basin Coconino 2,700 1%

Thirteen-Mile Rock Coconino 8,477 4%

Hackberry/Pivot Rock Coconino 29,280 15%

Baker Lake/Calf Pen Coconino 10,764 6%

Fossil Creek Coconino 42,091 22%

Ikes Backbone Coconino 3,187 2%

Bald Hill Prescott 2,711 1%

Brown Springs Prescott 16,148 8%


66

Allotment Name Forest Acres % of Watershed

Copper Canyon Prescott 7,993 4%

Horner Mountain Prescott 669 0%

Squaw Peak Prescott 11,216 6%

Sycamore Prescott 1,434 1%

Young Prescott 964 1%

No Grazing Prescott 384 0%

Cedar Bench Tonto 11,328 6%

Deadman Mesa Tonto 16,846 9%

Hardscrabble Tonto 1,114 1%

Pine Tonto 2,818 1%

Skeleton Ridge Tonto 8,797 5%

No Grazing Tonto 2,282 1%

Additional actions that are currently occurring in the cumulative effects boundary area

include developed and dispersed recreation, road maintenance, fire suppression, permitted

hunting, and special uses. Specific projects that are ongoing are listed within Table 17.

Table 17. List of present actions other than grazing occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area.


Deadman Mesa

Grassland

Maintenance CE

Tonto Cut junipers less than 8" diameter

using a hydraulic cutting device and

chainsaws to maintain grassland

vegetation type on 350 acres

Dispersed Recreation Coconino, Prescott,

Tonto

Non-developed recreation activities

including: hunting, fishing, camping,

driving for pleasure, hiking, biking,

bird-watching etc.

Road maintenance Coconino, Prescott,

Tonto

Only occurring on main roads on each

forest

Wild animal grazing Coconino, Prescott, and

Tonto

Grazing by wild animals

Coconino National

Forest Travel

Management Plan EIS

Coconino Designate a system of roads, trails,

and areas that will be open to public

motorized use on the Coconino

National Forest.

Future and Foreseeable Actions

The following future and foreseeable actions that are proposed to occur within the analysis

area have been taken from the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Coconino,

Prescott, and Tonto National Forests.

Table 18. List of future and foreseeable actions occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area.


Repatriation of Native

Fish to Fossil Creek

Coconino

Tonto

As determined in the Fossil Creek Fisheries Restoration

EA and Decision Notice the primary purpose of the


67


project was to protect existing native species and to

repatriate extirpated threatened and endangered species

including spikedace, loach minnow and Gila

topminnow.

Integrated Treatment

of Noxious and

Invasive Weeds

Tonto Eradication or control of noxious weed and invasive

plant species forestwide using an integrated approach.

Treatment methods may include cultural, physical,

mechanical, biological, or chemical control measures.

Personal Use Small

Forest

Products Program CE

Tonto Annually occuring program for the personal cutting

and/or gathering of forest products. Products include,

but are not limited to: Christmas trees, mistletoe, posts,

poles, manzanita, wildlings, etc.

Fossil Creek Wild and

Scenic River

Comprehensive River

Management Plan EA

Coconino

Tonto

Creation of a Comprehensive River Management Plan

for Fossil Creek as

described in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The

project is on both the Coconino National Forest

and the Tonto National Forest.

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project

=27457

Glen Canyon to

Pinnacle Peak

Transmission Line

Vegetation

Management EA

Coconino Continue vegetation management, including tree

removal, within a 420-foot corridor for the existing

345kV line traversing the Coconino National Forest.

Purpose is to increase transmission line reliability per

the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project

=35015

Plan Revision for the

Coconino National

Forest EIS

Coconino Revision of the Coconino National Forest's Land and

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest

Plan guides the management activities on the Coconino

NF such as recreation and the maintenance and

improvement of ecosystem health.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coconino/landmanagemen

t/planning/?

Prescott National

Forest Revision of

Land and Resource

Management Plan EIS

Prescott The Prescott National Forest will be revising its land

and resource management

plan.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/plan-

revision/index.shtml

Tonto National Forest

Motorized Travel

Management EA

Tonto The Tonto National Forest is in the process of

implementing the Travel Management Rule which calls

for establishing a system of roads, trails, and areas

designated for motorized vehicle use and determining

suitable locations for dispersed camping.

http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/fs-

usda-pop.php?project=28967


68

Other general reasonably foreseeable future activities considered in the cumulative effects

analysis include: firewood gathering, commercial logging, invasive and noxious weeds

treatments, wildfires and pinyon-juniper clearing, sediment reduction projects on tank sites,

road use and maintenance, prescribed fire, wildlife browsing and recreational activities.

Recreational activities include, but are not limited to: hiking; viewing wildlife; hunting;

dispersed car-camping; backpack camping; orienteering; horseback riding, caving, rock

climbing, photography, picnicking; taking scenic drives; bicycling; shooting; and gathering

in family or social groups. Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use has increased dramatically in

the last several years as neighboring Forests implement tighter restrictions on the use of

jeeps, 4x4’s and “quads”. Family-oriented groups tend to gather at dispersed campsites, and

explore from their campsite along old roads or off through the forest, making their own trails.

All these activities can directly and indirectly affect wildlife species as well as cause

destruction or modification to wildlife and plant habitat.

Cumulatively, this action adds an increased sediment load across the watershed. Table

19shows the range of average annual sediment leaving road buffer for a 200 foot cross drain

or at stream intersection for stream crossing sediment delivery values by road type. A range

is listed to include all types of possible roads encountered on the Coconino National Forest.

Table 19. Amount if Current Forest-wide Sediment Leaving Road Buffer on Forest Land/Jurisdiction Roads from TMR

Road Type Traffic

Road Segment length (ft)

Range of Average annual sediment leaving road

buffer/200 ft cross drain (lb)

Native level 0, 1 and 2 (now closed) None 200 23-147

Native level 2 and 1, and non-system (includes those that are

not designated in action alternatives) Low 200 38-236

Native, level 2 and 1 High 200 76-518

Improved, graveled, level 3, 4 and 5 None 200 44-147

Improved, graveled, level 3, 4 and 5 Low 200 57-195

Improved, graveled, level 3, 4 and 5 High 200 92-306

Table 19 shows the amount of road sediment delivery at perennial stream crossings for Fossil

Creek-Lower Verde Watershed and provides a summary of sediment delivery at all road

stream crossings on the Coconino National Forest with Perennial Streams for TMR

alternative 3 (which is the selected alternative which represent current conditions).


69

In the Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River HUC 5 under the Alternative 3 Total Sediment

Delivery in tons/watershed at all stream crossings on all road types is 3-14 tons/watershed.

The wide range is due to the wide range in different road types and the various erosion rates

that are possible under these different road types. A well vegetated now closed road has an

erosion rate much less than a native level 2 road with high amounts of use and this is only

one example of the different erosion rates that result from different road types, thus the wide

range of sediment yield possible.

The FSWEPP soil erosion model for roads is used to analyze and estimate sediment delivery

occurring on native (Forest level 1 and 2) and improved (Forest level 3) roads by road type

and traffic use level (high, low, none), at stream crossing interactions in the Fossil Creek-

Lower Verde River 5th

HUC watershed and only on forest lands. The model was run based

on the assumption that soil erosion from Forest roads is primarily a function of traffic

intensity and road maintenance level (Grace and Clinton 2007).

WEPP is difficult to apply, however, because of the amount of input data required. To

simplify the application of WEPP to forest roads anywhere in the U.S., a custom interface

was developed for the road/buffer template. Soil properties are based on research findings.

The road is assumed to be free of vegetation, the fillslope to be covered with sufficient

vegetation to give about 50 percent ground cover, and the buffer surface covered with litter

from a 20-year old forest, generally 100 percent. Climates with less than 500 mm of

precipitation may have somewhat less cover, as drought conditions would limit vegetation.

WEPP simulates the conditions that impact erosion--such as the amount of vegetation

canopy, the surface residue, and the soil water content for every day in a multiple-year run.

For each day that has a precipitation event, WEPP determines whether the event is rain or

snow, and calculates the infiltration and runoff. If there is runoff, WEPP routes the runoff

over the surface, calculating erosion or deposition rates for at least 100 points on the

hillslope. It then calculates the average sediment yield from the hillslope.

Sediment delivery is only modeled at stream crossings since this is the portion of soil that is

most likely directly transported into stream courses. WEPP modeling on all forest roads

through buffers outside of stream crossings is not included in this analysis although it is

certain roads outside of stream crossings contribute some amount of sediment indirectly to

stream crossings across vegetated buffer zones.

Forest level 4 and 5 (paved roads) are not included in the model outputs because paved roads

do not erode or deliver significant amounts of sediment because they are armored. It is

assumed that traffic use on native level 1, 2 and user-created routes are low and traffic on

improved level 3 roads is generally high.


70

Table 20. Road Sediment Delivery at Perennial Stream Crossings for Fossil Creek-Lower Verde Watershed

HU

C 5

Wa

ters

hed

Na

me

Str

eam

Cro

ssin

gs

on

Na

tiv

e

Clo

sed

ro

ad

s

Sed

imen

t D

eliv

ery

In t

on

s/w

ate

rsh

ed

on

Na

tiv

e,

Clo

sed

R

oa

ds*

Str

eam

Cro

ssin

gs

on

Na

tiv

e

des

ign

ate

d r

oa

ds*

Sed

imen

t D

eliv

ery

In t

on

s/w

ate

rsh

ed

on

Na

tiv

e,

Op

en

Ro

ad

s*

Str

eam

Cro

ssin

gs

on

Imp

rov

ed,

Lev

el 3

Ro

ad

s*

To

tal

Sed

imen

t D

eliv

ery

(H

igh

Tra

ffic

)

In t

on

s/w

ate

rsh

ed

on

Imp

rov

ed,

Lev

el 3

Ro

ad

s

To

tal

Sed

imen

t D

eliv

ery

in

ton

s/w

ate

rsh

ed a

t a

ll S

trea

m

Cro

ssin

gs

on

All

Ro

ad

Ty

pes

Fossil Creek –

Lower Verde

River

169 3 - 14 123 2 - 14 10 1 - 2 6 - 30

* Values for Sediment delivery in watershed are rounded to the nearest ton and are a range of all road conditions and assume

low use for native roads and high use for improved roads. Sedimentation values are the same as those used /200 foot segment in

table 3 of the main report. Paved roads are not considered in this analysis because they generally do not deliver significant

sediment into connected stream courses. For Coconino NF, Alternative 3, TMR Selected Alternative, for Prescott NF and Tonto

NF is current condition, before TMR decision.

Closed roads receive no or very limited administrative traffic resulting in less soil

disturbance and less sediment delivery into connected streams than open roads. Under no

traffic conditions, roadbed and road ditches tend to revegetate resulting in greater protective

surface cover that reduces water flow, erosion and sediment delivery into connected streams.

Closed roads (level 0 and 1) still deliver sediment at stream courses in the short-term and

reduce delivery in long-term. Closed roads receive no or very limited administrative traffic

resulting in less soil disturbance and less sediment delivery into connected streams. Under no

traffic conditions, roadbed and road ditches tend to revegetate resulting in greater protective

surface cover that reduces water flow, erosion and sediment delivery into connected streams.

Continued traffic use would directly disturb designated road surfaces causing soil detachment

and indirectly affect water quality following storm and runoff events that carry sediment into

stream crossings. This sediment could be deposited directly into stream courses and

following storm events and has the potential to be transported downstream into perennial

waters reducing and Impaired water quality.

The Travel Management Rule has limited the amount of open roads and has reduced off-road

travel for all forests within the watershed boundary. This should decrease the amount of

sediments produced from roads that are going to be closed. This may also limit vehicle use

near Fossil Creek that may reduce sediments produced over time as roads heal The Red

Rock Ranger District is also doing road closures to close and rehabilitate roads slated for

closure under TMR. Implementation of this project is currently ongoing. Changes in road

management and OHV use through the Travel Management Plan would cumulatively lessen

the impact to the upland vegetation across the Fossil Creek allotment.


71

The implementation of the Travel Management Rule (TMR) would eventually decrease the

amount of direct sediments at stream crossings from roads that are scheduled to be closed or

decommissioned. In addition, the management of road travel under TMR would be

decreased near Fossil Creek and some of the impacts from recreation may be diminished.

The 708 and 502 roads likely cause an accelerated rate of sediment to discharge in to Fossil

Creek. Currently under the Comprehensive management plan several alternatives are begin

analyzed that would decommission roads and reduce the overall amount of sediment coming

off roads into Fossil Creek and the Verde River. The Comprehensive River Management

Plan currently has a potential alternative that include 13.5 miles and if this alternative if

selected these roads being decommissioned would reduce sediment loading into Fossil Creek.

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would have direct effects to understory plants by

reducing plant height and canopy cover. When the effects from cattle grazing are added to

the effects from the other activities, the overall cumulative effect of cattle grazing on upland

plant height and canopy cover is more than the No Action Alternative. Cumulatively,

condition and trend for upland vegetation is expected to remain static or move upward with

cattle grazing additive to other activities and natural events. This alternative does not

cumulatively result in a decline of vegetative condition or trend. The lower utilization

standards and adaptive management that are being proposed within this Proposed Action, are

designed to improve current soil conditions.

In summary, the actions within the Fossil Creek Range allotment would maintain current soil

conditions and with proper management in drought and wet cycles, are designed to improve

soil conditions over current conditions within the allotment. The rate of improvement would

be dependent on adaptive management and the timing and amount of precipitation, but

vegetation and litter components should improve in the short-term and long term.

Monitoring of grazing Unsatisfactory soils would be used to inform adaptive management

strategies for grazing Unsatisfactory soils. With the gradual improvement in soil condition

over time with the 30-40% utilization rate and implementation of vegetative treatments,

ground cover would improve. Improved soil condition equates to improved watershed

condition, and thus this alternative would move towards the Forest Plan standard and

guideline for improving watershed condition by the year 2020.

Managing woodly riparian utilization at 20% and by using adaptive management are

designed to maintain or improve riparian conditions. The rate of recovery would be

dependent on timing and duration of use. Riparian function would improve over time and

that reaches that are currently in PFC would maintain this status and reaches that are not in

PFC would move towards PFC. An exception to this may be the at-risk reach of Fossil Creek

that has heavy recreation impacts that are affecting functionality of the reach.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative

Watershed Condition

The No Action Alternative eliminates the direct and indirect effects of cattle grazing. Under

this alternative there would be no direct effects from removal of biomass. Standing crop


72

would increase where canopy cover does not impede herbaceous understory, and no

compaction would occur from cattle grazing. The amount and probability of improved

effective ground cover would be dependent on precipitation and wildlife grazing utilization,

but is expected to be at a faster rate than the Proposed Action. This statement would only be

true in areas of the allotment where soil and watershed conditions are being impacted by

livestock use and would not be true in areas where Impaired or Unsatisfactory soils are

largely driven by canopy encroachment that is inhibiting understory herbaceous vegetative

growth. Improved soil condition equates to improved watershed condition, and thus this

alternative would move towards the Forest Plan standard and guidelines for improving

watershed condition by the year 2020 at a faster rate than the Proposed Action, although it

may not be fully attained by this time if drought conditions persists.

Watershed conditions have improved over the last five years from the data collected in 2006

present. The three plots that were read in 2012 and compared to the data in 2006 showed an

increase in frequency of grass species, forbs, and shrubs. This improvement could be

attributed to the change in livestock numbers and use levels. Under the No Action alternative

watershed condition indicators including water quality, riparian vegetation condition, soil

productivity and soil erosion rates, as well as rangeland vegetation indicators would continue

to improve towards good condition where it is currently fair to poor at a faster rate than under

the Proposed Action alternative except for areas where the soil condition is Impaired or

Unsatisfactory due to juniper encroachment. Under the No Action alternative these areas

would not be treated and would not improve as they would under the Proposed Action

alternative. The overall watershed condition should continue to improve towards Functioning

properly where currently Functioning at Risk and Impaired Function.

Soil Condition

There would be no direct effects from grazing livestock under the No Action Alternative as

grazing would not occur. There would be no direct effects from removal of biomass; the

standing crop should increase in the short term and no compaction should occur from

livestock grazing. Precipitation, timing and amount, would be the largest driving factor in

the amount and extent of vegetative ground cover that occurs on the allotment. Grazing by

wild animals would be the only agent causing direct and indirect effects to soil condition.

The indirect effects of canopy closure over time would continue with this alternative.

Soil disturbance from grazing livestock would be eliminated, resulting in improved

vegetative ground cover and litter except in areas where over story species limit

improvement potential. The indirect effects of canopy closure over time would continue with

this alternative. Where Unsatisfactory and Impaired soil conditions are related to juniper

and woody shrub encroachment, improvement would be at a slower rate under the no action

alternative than they would under the Proposed Action alternative, which includes vegetative

treatments that would address the encroachment issue. Locations where the driving cause of

the soil condition impairment is due to high canopy tree and shrub encroachment would

improve at a slower rate under the no action alternative in comparison to the Proposed Action

alternative. These areas would not improve until the issue of encroachment has been

addressed, which is included under the Proposed Action. Fine fuels would also increase in

areas adjacent to dense unhealthy juniper stands, leading to a higher risk of high intensity fire


73

in those areas. These hot fire conditions can destroy much of the plant community within the

forest stand, consume the plant litter, expose soil, sterilize soils, and create hydrophobic soils.

By removing livestock, upland utilization would be reduced but would still occur with elk

and deer grazing. Vegetative composition and diversity (including an increase in perennial

graminoids), and vegetative ground cover (litter and basal area) would improve at a faster

rate than under the Proposed Action.

The no action alternative would lead to the most improvement in plant canopy cover, basal

cover, litter cover, soil condition, soil productivity, and watershed condition especially in in

the flat grasslands and savannahs with reduced nutrient cycling function. This increase would

be dependent upon the weather patterns and the size of the local wildlife populations.

Drought combined with maintenance of large elk populations would reduce some of the

gains expected from removal of livestock grazing. Nutrient cycling would occur at more

consistent rates across the landscape. Water infiltration, water retention, aeration, and

resistance to erosion would also improve. Under the No Action alternative no livestock

trampling would occur on biological soil crusts. Compaction may be reduced around water

developments, pasture gates, and fence lines where livestock concentrated. Soil structure and

the ability of the soil to infiltrate water would improve very slowly under this alternative but

faster than the Proposed Action. The soil would stabilize and maintain productivity faster

under this alternative than the Proposed Action.

All of these factors would reduce erosion rates and thus decrease sediment loads. The rate of

decreased sediment loads would be faster under the No Action Alternative in comparison to

the Proposed Action.

Soil Erosion Rates

For soils that have current soil loss equal to or less than tolerable soil loss amounts (table 12)

soil productivity would be maintained and improve. For Unsatisfactory soils 401 and 420,

where current soil loss I greater than tolerable amounts, vegetative ground cover is expected

to increase to tolerable covers quicker than the Proposed Action and therefore, soil erosion

would be reduced quicker and soil condition and productivity would improve and be

maintained faster than the Proposed Action.

For Inherently Unstable soils (350 and 430) since current vegetative ground covers are equal

to natural amounts and could not inherently be improved, soil erosion and productivity would

be about the same amount as the no grazing alternative.


There would be no livestock access in any riparian area under the No Action Alternative and

so riparian condition would improve at a faster rate than the Proposed Action Alternative.

Riparian reaches that are currently in Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) would maintain

this status and reaches that are not in PFC would move towards PFC. Riparian Proper

Functioning Condition would have livestock removed as a source of site impact, however,

elk would continue to graze negatively affecting riparian vegetation (Haines, 1993).


74

The No Action Alternative usually provides the most rapid increase of upland vegetative

cover, species diversity, and improvement of Impaired and Unsatisfactory condition soils.

These changes reduce surface runoff, dampen peak flows, and decrease the probability of

channel adjustments, impacts to riparian vegetation and loss of channel function.

Implementation of this alternative would maintain or improve the existing condition of the

upper watersheds. Riparian areas are generally regarded as having high inherent potential for

recovery from disturbance (Milchunas, 2006). The most rapid recovery can be expected in

small watersheds, with perennial flow, an existing source of riparian vegetation, and

availability of fine sediments.

Riparian species diversity, woody species age class diversity and overall vegetative biomass

would increase in both the short term and long term. As vegetation increases, stream channel

shape would also begin to change. Sediment would be trapped by the vegetation, building

floodplains. In the long term, width/depth ratios would decrease, and sediment transport

capacity would become more effective. The effects of rest from grazing would be beneficial,

and facilitate the most rapid recovery of riparian areas to functioning condition.

The riparian would improve with rest from livestock use but the overall recreational

pressures in the Fossil Creek allotment would still impact these riparian areas.


There are no direct effects to water quality from cattle grazing in this alternative because no

cattle grazing would occur. No sedimentation attributable from livestock grazing would be

eroding off the watershed and be deposited in perennial streams. Similar to the Proposed

Action, water quality is expected to be maintained at Category 1 for Fossil Creek and the

Verde River.

Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative

The cumulative effect boundary and duration of the effects are the same as the Proposed

Action. The lists of projects of past, present, and future and foreseeable projects are the same

as the Proposed Action. Under this alternative, there would be no cattle grazing. As a result,

there would be no direct or indirect effects caused by livestock management or utilization

within the allotment. A more rapid improvement in watershed and soil condition in locations

currently being impacted by cattle grazing would be the cumulative effect of the no impact

alternative.

Riparian conditions would not be affected by livestock grazing and streams with PFC should

be remaining in PFC. Removal of cattle should maintain stream PFC and improve at-risk

reaches through removal of cattle grazing stressor. This alternative would have the quickest

rate of improvement and the highest probability of effectiveness for improving riparian

condition. The at-risk reach of Fossil Creek would not be affected by grazing, but would

probably not improve until recreation impacts are minimized.


75

The No Action Alternative within the Fossil Creek Range allotment would maintain or

improve current soil conditions over time with increased effective vegetative ground cover

and litter due to no livestock grazing. The amount and probability of success of improved

effective ground cover would be dependent on timing and amount of precipitation, but is

expected to be quicker and have a higher probability of success than either of the grazing

alternatives. Improved soil condition equates to improved watershed condition, and thus this

alternative would move towards the Forest Plan standard and guideline for improving

watershed condition by the year 2020, although it may not be fully attained by this time if

drought conditions persists.

High elk utilization and juniper encroachment also have the potential to contribute to a

downward trend in soil and water conditions. Under the Proposed Action the increase in

canopy cover would be addressed whereas under the No Action alternative this problem

would continue to out compete herbaceous understory, which exposes more bare ground and

creates a situation where soils are more prone to accelerated rates of erosion.

As explained in great detail under the cumulative effects section for the Proposed Action

alternative, in the Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River HUC 5 under the Alternative 3 Total

Sediment Delivery in tons/watershed at all stream crossings on all road types is 3-14

tons/watershed. This effect would still occur under the Proposed Action alternative.

Climate model projections for the southwest United States predict average temperatures

would continue to rise as would the potential for an increase in the frequency of extreme heat

events (Crimmins et al. 2007). Increased temperatures combined with decreased

precipitation would lead to lower plant productivity and cover, which in turn would decrease

litter cover. Some plants would become less resilient and more susceptible to mortality,

leading to a downward trend in vegetative ground cover. The reduction in plant and litter

cover would make the soils more susceptible to wind and water erosion. If vegetative ground

cover decreases, there would be an increase in soil erosion and sedimentation of water

bodies.

METHODOLOGY, DEFINITIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF DATA

This report was prepared considering the Best Available Science and locally gathered data.

Field assessments for soil condition in the Fossil Creek allotment were completed by Soil

Scientist Rory Steinke and Watershed Specialists Amina Sena and were used to summarize

soil conditions for this report. These Field assessments are included in the Project Record.

Field riparian conditions for Proper Functioning Condition were completed by Rory Steinke

and Amina Sena. Field assessments are the basis for the existing condition and for validating

affects on-site.

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) Map Units

The TES was used as a basis for delineating map units and soil condition. Soil condition

assessments were made to help determine range capability and are used as a tool to assist in the

determination of range capacity by the IDT Range Conservationist.


76

The TES for the Coconino National Forest (Miller, 1995) are the basis for soil condition

assessments (USDA, 1985). The soil condition ratings are based on interpretations of the

three primary soil functions: soil hydrologic function, soil stability and nutrient cycling. The

Coconino National Forest TES based soil condition primarily on quantitative on-site erosion

rates (stability) measured and predicted by the Universal Soil Loss Equation, (USLE). Since

its publication in 1995, a new approved soil condition protocol was developed in R3 (FSH

2509.18-99-1) assessing three soil functions including the ability of the soil to resist erosion,

infiltrate water and recycle nutrients.

Soil Conditions Definitions:

Unsatisfactory: Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation of vital

soil functions result in the inability of the soil to maintain resource values, sustain outputs or

recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are candidates for improved management practices

or restoration designed to recover soil functions. These soils have potential capability but

currently do not provide much forage and should not be counted in range capacity calculations.

Impaired: Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to function

properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to

degradation. An Impaired category indicates there is a need to investigate the ecosystem to

determine the cause and degree of decline in soil functions. Changes in land management

practices or other preventative measures may be appropriate. These soils have potential

capability and could considered in capacity determinations under conservative allowable use or

other appropriate grazing strategy

Satisfactory: Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning

properly and normally. The ability of the soil to maintain resource values and sustain outputs

is high. These soils have full capability and could be considered as full capacity in range

capacity calculations.

Satisfactory but Inherently Unstable: These soils have natural erosion exceeding tolerable

limits. Based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) these soils are eroding faster than

they are renewing themselves but are functioning properly and normally. These soils have no

capability for grazing and should not be counted in range capacity calculations.

Soil condition stability ratings are one of three soil functions used in assessing overall soil

condition. Satisfactory soil stability conditions signify that current erosion is less than the soil

tolerable (T) threshold and therefore represent maintenance of soil productivity.

Unsatisfactory soil conditions signify a high level of erosion is occurring and is more than

tolerable threshold and therefore represents continued loss of soil and productivity.

Threshold values vary by soil type and roughly equate to the point where annual soil

renewability or soil productivity is sustained. Erosion rates higher than T cause a loss of soil

surface horizons and soil productivity. Conversely, erosion rates less than T allow for the

soil to naturally regenerate enough and do not cause a loss of soil productivity.

Soil loss rates were determined using FSWEPP model, (Elliot et. al 1999) states that the

model has limitations of plus or minus 50% but FSWEPP interfaces provide predicted


77

erosion rates and for comparison purposes between alternatives are within an acceptable

margin of error. It is important to realize that although the numbers may not be highly

accurate, the model outputs can be used to compare magnitude of erosion and sedimentation

by road type and traffic use at stream crossings across alternatives and offers the best

available science for estimating sediment delivery from uphill slopes and roads over a large

scale area like the 42,200 acre Fossil Creek allotment.

TES defines soil loss as the predicted net average annual soil loss from a site due to erosion.

The soil loss rates used in TES should not be considered as absolute values but are useful as

an index for references between different sites and for the same site under different

vegetative conditions. Soil losses are predicted for four following categories:

• Potential Soil Loss is the rate of soil loss that would occur under complete removal

of vegetative ground cover and represents the maximum rate of soil loss.

• Natural Soil Loss is the rate of soil loss that would occur under conditions associated

with a climax class and represents the minimum rate of soil loss. Our ecosystems

would never be completely within a climax class condition due to natural

disturbances including but not limited to fire and flooding that keep our landscapes in

a mosaic of different climax classes, but it is still a useful reference to compare

against.

• Current Soil Loss is the rate of soil loss occurring under existing vegetative ground

cover conditions.

• Tolerance Soil Loss is the maximum rate of soil loss that can occur while sustaining

inherent site productivity.

Perennial Stream and Springs Extent, Riparian Areas and Condition

The Forest GIS stream and waterpoints layer was used to identify perennial stream and

spring extent. The 1989 Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation System (USDA, 1989) survey

was used to identify riparian areas in the allotment. During the RASES survey, Forest

riparian areas were visited in the field and mapped into the Forest GIS. The RASES survey

is considered an accurate geographic and morphological representation of Forest riparian

areas.

Also used to identify locations of riparian was the Regional Riparian Mapping Project

(RMAP) that developed a riparian corridor map for the Southwestern Region. The RMAP

project provided planning teams with spatial data on riparian features sufficient to complete

ecological sustainability analyses and planning at landscape scales (1:24,000 scale and

greater). The riparian map would reflect a second generation data set, at the target scale of

1:12,000, on all 5th-code HUC watersheds that intersect US Forest Service lands of the

Region. Wetlands were identified and characterized using the National Wetland Inventory

database, excluding listed stock tanks.

The rationales for not including stock tanks as wetlands are as follows:

� Intent of stock tanks is for livestock and wildlife watering, not as habitat.

� Size of most stock tanks is very small (less than ½ acre on the average).

� Many of the Cowardin et al wetlands are palustrine intermittent wetlands, which NWI states


78

may not be wetlands.

� The US Army Corps of Engineers excludes “artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating

and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such

purposes as stock watering…”4 as waters of the United States.

� Arizona Revised Statutes excludes “ponds used for watering livestock and wildlife” in ARS

49-250 B (4) for aquifer protection permits.

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments were subsequently made by Sena during

2008 – 2012 for riparian areas using the 1998 Riparian Area Management TR 1737-9 Process

for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition, U.S. Department of the Interior BLM.

PFC lotic (streams) classes are defined as follows:

Unknown: Riparian-wetland areas that managers lack sufficient information on to make any

form of determination.

Nonfunctional: Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation,

landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, and

this are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc.

Functional: At Risk: Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition, but an existing

soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation.

Proper Functioning Condition: Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:

• dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, thereby reducing erosion

• filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid in floodplain development

• improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge

• develop root masses that stabilize streambanks

• develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide habitat

Water Quality

Water quality is routinely assessed for Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Water quality is assessed by comparing existing conditions (State Water Quality Category 1

– 5) with desired conditions set by the State, under authority of the Clean Water Act. Waters

that are either not attaining or not Impaired (those not on 303 (d) list or Category 4 or 5) are

providing beneficial uses identified for that stream, and can be considered in a desired

condition. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the regulating

authority for water quality in Arizona.

The general classification used for surface water quality by ADEQ is Attaining, Impaired,

and Inconclusive/Not Assessed for the identified uses. The classification designates each

waterbody in one of five categories.

The categories are defined as follows:


79

Category 1: Attaining All Uses – All designated uses assessed as “attaining”

Category 2: Attaining Some Uses – At least one designated use assessed as “attaining” and

all other uses are assessed as “inconclusive”

Category 3: Inconclusive – All designated uses are “inconclusive” (be default, any surface

water not assessed due to lack of credible data is actually included in this category)

Category 4: Not attaining – At least one designated use is “not attaining” and no designated

use is “Impaired”

Category 5: Impaired – At least one designated use was assessed as “Impaired”

EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Sara Amina Sena is a hydrologist with the USDA Forest Service and serves as the watershed

specialist on the Red Rock Ranger District. She received a Bachelor of Science in Watershed

Management and a Master of Life Science with a concentration in Natural Resources

Management from New Mexico Highlands University. Her experience with the US Forest

Service began over four summers as a SCEP student on the Red Rock Ranger District before

2008, and then as a permanent employee since August of 2008.

Mrs. Sena has experience in an integrated approach to watershed health including water

quality analysis, riparian health assessments, as well as soil condition assessments. She has

collected data and designed best management practices for projects that have the potential to

impact watershed functions across the Red Rock Ranger District. Mrs. Sena understands the

practices of water rights application in regards to in stream flow. Her education and

experience has given her a broad background of skills in GIS mapping, riparian restoration,

and water quality analysis, identifying benthic macroinvertebrates, surveying the stream

corridor, and integrating these biological, chemical, and geomorphologic characteristics into

holistic land management recommendations.


80

LITERATURE CITED Adams, Kenneth, Brenda Harrop, Michele James and Jane Marks. 2012. Riparian Vegetation

and Water Quality Monitoring: Middle Fossil Creek Riparian Habitat Protection and

Restoration Project, 2011 Annual Report: Monitoring Data and Analysis. Arizona Water

Protection Fund Grant No. 09-162WPF., Northern Arizona University, Marks Lab of

Aquatic Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences. 40 p.

ADEQ. 2010. DRAFT 2010 Status of Surface Water Quality in Arizona Arizona’s Integrated

305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. Publication Number EQR 12-01. Available

online at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/assess.html

Arizona Riparian Council. 1995. Fact Sheet #1. Arizona State University. Center for

Environmental Studies. Tempe, AZ. 4 pp.

Backlund, P; Janetos, A; Schimel, et al. 2008. The effects of climate change on agricultural,

land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. Final Report,

synthesis, and assessment product 4.3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of agriculture.

362 p.

Belnap, Jayne, and K.T Harper. 1995. Influence of cryptobiotic soil crusts on elemental

content of tissue in two desert seed plants. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 9: 107-

115

Belnap, Jayne, Julie Hilty Kaltenecker, Roger Rosentreter, John Williams, Steve Leonard,

and David Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. Bureau of

Land Management Publication Management Distribution Service, Technical Reference

1730-2

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.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian

Areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Eagle, Idaho. 45 pp.

CLIMAS - Climate Assessment for the Southwest: http://www.climas.arizona.edu/Miller,

G.N. Ambos, P.Boness, D. Reyher, G. Robertson, K. Scalzone, R. Steinke, and T.

Subirge. 1995. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Coconino National Forest. USDA

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 405 pp.

Clary W.P. 1972. Effects of Utah Juniper Removal on herbage yields from Springerville

soils. Journal of Range Management.pp.373-378

Clary W. P. 1995. Vegetation and soil responses to grazing simulation on riparian meadows.

Journal of Range Management. 48::18–25.


81

Clary, W.P. and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian

areas. J. Range Manage. 53:562–573.

Crimmins, Michael A., George Zaimes, Niina Haas, Christopher K. Jones, Gregg Garfin, and

Theresa M. Crimmins. 2007. Changes on the Range: Exploring Climate Change with

Range Managers. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 36 (2007), pp. 76-86.

Conley, J., H. Eakin, et al. (1999). CLIMAS Ranching Case Study: Year 1. Tucson, AZ,

Institute for the Study of the Planet Earth, Arizona State University.

Coultrap, D. E., K. O. Fulgham, D. L. Lancaster, J. Gustafson, D. F. Lile, and M. R. George

(2008) Relationships Between Western Juniper (Juniperus Occidentalis) and

Understory Vegetation. Invasive Plant Science and Management: January 2008, Vol.

1, No. 1, pp. 3-11.

Elliot, W.J., Tysdal, L.M., 1999. Understanding and reducing erosion from in-sloping

roads. J. Forum 97, 30–34.

Elliot, W.J., Foltz, Meg. 2001. Validation of the FS WEPP Interfaces for Fores Roads and

Disturbances. ASAE paper number 01-8009, presented at the 2001 ASAE Annual

International Meeting sponsored by American Society of Agricultural Engineers,

Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento, California, USA, July 30—August1, 2001

ASAE—2001: An Engineering Odysssey. Technical Session 21: Forest soil erosion and

water quality. St Joseph, MI: ASAE. 16 p

Haines, W.T. 1993. Watershed condition assessment of the Kehl, Leonard Canyon and Upper

Willow Creek sub-watersheds of the East Clear Creek watershed on the Apache-Sitgreaves

and Coconino National Forests. Hydro Science. Davis, CA. Contract for Coconino

National Forest, Contract # 43-8167-2-0500

Johansen, Jeffrey. 1993. Cyrptogamic Crusts of semi arid and arid landscapes of North

America. Journal of Phycology, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 140-147.

Laflen, John M., Dennis C. Flanagan, James C Ascough, Mark Weltz, and Jeffry Stone.

1994. The WEPP Model and Its Applicability for Predicting Erosion on Rangelands. Soil

Science of America, SSSA Special Publication, pp 11-21

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.

Loomis, Grant 2013. Fossil Creek CRMP Water Resources Specialist Report, Coconino and

Tonto National Forests, USDA Forest Service


82

Martin, Samuel Clark and Dwight R. Cable. 1974. Managing semidesert grass-shrub ranges:

vegetation responses to precipitation, grazing, soil texture, and mesquite control. U.S.

Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 1480. 45 pp.

Milchunas, Daniel G. 2006. Responses of plant communities to grazing in the southwestern

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p.

Miller, Greg, N. Ambos, P.Boness, D. Reyher, G. Robertson, K. Scalzone, R. Steinke, and T.

Subirge. 1995. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Coconino National Forest. USDA

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 405 pp.

NASA,2003. “NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate”,

NASA Goddard Space Center News Release

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

NASA, 2011. “Langley Climate Scientist Tackles Hot Topic”. NASA Langley Research

Center News Release

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_wielicki2011_prt.htm

NOAA, 2013. National Weather Service Forecast Office, Phoenix, AZ

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr/climate/drought/DroughtPage.php

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 1997. Introduction to Microbiotic Crusts.

USDA Soil Quality Institute, Grazing Lands Technology Institute, pp 8

Patric, H.P. 1982. Erosion on forestland and the Universal Soil Loss Equation, from a

perspective on soil loss from forestland. USDA Forest Service National Bulletin No. 190-

2-18. Forest Environmental Research Staff, Washington, D.C. 18pp.

Phillips, Tony J. “Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate.” 2013. NASA.

Pierson, Frederick B. , Jon D. Bates, Tony J. Svejcar, and Stuart P. Hardegree (2007) Runoff

and Erosion After Cutting Western Juniper. Rangeland Ecology & Management: May

2007, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 285-292.

Prichard, D., H. Barrett, J. Cagney, R. Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhart, Dr. P. L. Hansen, B.

Mitchell, , D. Tippy. 1998. Riparian Area Management TR 1737-9 Process for Assessing

Proper Functioning Condition. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land

Management—Service Center GTR 1737-9. 57 pp.

Rosentreter, R., M. Bowker, and J. Belnap. 2007. A Field Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of

Western U.S. Drylands. U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, Colorado

Savory, A. 1988. Holistic Resource Management, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 545 pp.


83

Seager, et al. 2007. Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in

Southwestern North America. Science 316, 1181

Sheppard, P. R., A. C. Comrie, et al. (2002). "The climate of the US Southwest." Climate

Research 21(3): 219-238.

Sprigg, W. A., T. Hinkley, et al. (2000). Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change: Southwest. A Report of the

Southwest Regional Assessment Group. U. of. A. The Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth. Tucson, AZ, US Global Change Research Program: 66.

Smith, Edward; Cross, Molly; Garfin, Gregg; McCarthy, Patrick ; Gori, Dave, Robles,

Marcos; Enquist, Carol. 2010.

Steinke, Rory, 2013., Fossil Creek CRMP Soils Specialist Report, Coconino and Tonto National

Forests, USDA Forest Service, 84 p.

Steinke et. al. 2013. Lower Fossil Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan.

Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options (TACCIMO),

2012. TACCIMO Climate Report: Coconino National Forest. January 2012

Trimble, S.W. and A.C. Mendel. The cow as a geomorphic agent-a critical review.

Geomorphology. 13 233-253.

USDA Forest Service, 1974. Effects of Pinyon-Juniper Removal on Natural Resource

Products and Uses in Arizona. Fort Collins, Colorado Research Paper RM-128

USDA Forest Service, 1987. Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan. Southwestern Region On file at Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office,

Flagstaff, AZ.

USDA Forest Service, Forest Service Handbook 2509.18-SOIL MANAGEMENT

HANDBOOK, R3 Supplement No. 2509.18-99-1, 1999.

USDA Forest Service, 1999. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper

Communities Within the Interior West. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Proceedings

RMRS-P-9

USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. Moscow, Idaho.

WEPP:Road (Draft 12/1999) Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and

Sediment Delivery, Technical Documentation Website at

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html. Elliot, Hall, Scheele,

December, 1999. Also USDA, 1996 WEPP website interface at

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/

USDA, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Tech Center. 2000. WEPP Technical

Documentation also at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html


84

USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. Moscow, Idaho.

Water Erosion Prediction Project Website at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. Elliot

et. al. 9/22/2006.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Handbook 2500. On file at Coconino National

Forest Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.. Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air

Management, November, 2010.

USDA Forest Service, 2010. Water, Climate Change, and Forests; Watershed Stewardship

for a Changing Climate Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report

PNW GTR-812

USDA Forest Service. May, 2011. FS-977. Watershed Condition Framework Implementation Guide.

Available at http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/wfw/watershed/watershed-classification.html. 34 pages.

USDA Forest Service. July, 2011. FS-978. Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification

Technical Guide. Potyondy. Geier et. al. Available at

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/wfw/watershed/watershed-classification.html. 49 pages.

USDA Forest Service, 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest

Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector. Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

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

Planning 2010, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM

U.S. Drought Monitor. 2013 http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

Wells, Nathan, and Michael J Hayes. June 2004. A Self Calibrating Palmer Drought Severity

Index. American Meteorology Society, Journal of Climate, pp 2335-2351

West, N.E. 1998. Intermountain deserts, shrub steppes, and woodlands. In Barbour, M. G.,

and W. D. Billings, eds. North American Terrestrial Vegetation. Cambridge University

Press, New York. Pages 201-320

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2013 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/spi/spi.html

Winthers, E.; Fallon, D.; Haglund, J.; DeMeo, T.; Nowacki, G.; Tart, D.; Ferwerda, M.;

Robertson, G.; Gallegos, A.; Rorick, A.; Cleland, D. T.; Robbie, W. 2005. Terrestrial

Ecological Unit Inventory technical guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination

Staff. 245 p.


85

APPENDIX I: ARIZONA WATER QUALITY RESULTS

Figure 7. Water Quality results for Fossil Creek


86

Figure 8. Water Quality results for Verde River from West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek


87

APPENDIX II: DROUGHT MONITORING DATA

Figure 9. Standardized Precipitation Index 12 month Long Term Conditions, updated January 2013


88

Figure 10. Palmer Drought Index Long Term Conditions, updated October 27, 2012


89

Figure 11. Palmer Drought Index Long Term Conditions, updated January, 2013


90

Figure 12. U.S. Drought Conditions for the West, October 30, 2012


91

Figure 13. U.S. Drought Conditions for the West, February 19, 2013


92

Figure 14. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Map November 1, 2012


93

Figure 15. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Map February 7, 2013


94

Figure 16. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook Map February 21, 2013


95

APPENDIX III: MANAGEMENT AREAS AND EMPHASIS

Table 21. Summary of the Management Areas and Emphasis for the Fossil Creek Range allotment.

MA DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS ACRES

1 Wilderness

Emphasize wilderness recreation and watershed condition while maintaining wilderness resource values. Manage grazing under Congressional guidelines for grazing in wilderness. Livestock grazing presently occurs in portions of all the wildernesses except Strawberry Crater. (FP, amendment 3, page 105) 3,399

2 Verde Wild and Scenic River

Maintain the Wild & Scenic River outstandingly remarkable values (ORV’s) for scenic, fish, wildlife, and historic and cultural values, while also protecting the river’s free-flowing character. The CRMP describes in further detail the Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation and the details of the ORV’s for this River. The Act also requires that the Wild & Scenic River must first be administered in such a manner as to protect and enhance the river’s values, and second to allow other uses that do not interfere with public use and enjoyment of those river values. Protection and enhancement of the specific outstandingly remarkable values and water quality within the VWSR provides the foundation upon which all management actions and authorizations of uses are based.(FP, amendment 19, page

113-114) 293

4 Timber lands on greater than 40% slope

Emphasize wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and dispersed recreation. Management intensity is low. (FP, amendment 15, replacement p139) 133

6 Unsuitable timber lands

Emphasize a combination of wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and livestock grazing. Other resources are managed in harmony with the emphasized resources. (FP, amendment 12, replacement p145) 135

7 Pinyon-juniper lands on less than 40% slope

Emphasize firewood production, watershed condition, wildlife habitat, and livestock grazing. Other resources are managed in harmony with the emphasized resources. (FP, amendment 12, replacement p148) 11,081

8 Pinyon-juniper lands on greater than 40% slope

Emphasize wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and dispersed recreation. Management intensity is low. (FP, amendment 15, replacement p139) 143

10

Transition grassland and pinyon-juniper above the Mogollon Rim

Emphasize range management, watershed condition, and wildlife habitat. Other resources are managed to improve outputs and quality. Emphasis is on prescribed burning to achieve management objectives. (FP, amendment 11, replacement p162) 5,727

11 Verde Valley

Emphasize watershed condition, range management, wildlife habitat for upland game birds, and dispersed recreation. 21,162

12 Riparian Areas

Emphasize wildlife habitat, visual quality, fish habitat, and watershed condition on the wetlands, riparian forest, and riparian scrub. Emphasize dispersed recreation, including wildlife and fish recreation, on the open water portion. (FP, amendment 11, replacement p172) 72


96

APPENDIX IV: COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 22. Summary of the Coconino National Forest Plan for the Fossil Creek allotment

MANAGEMENT AREAS (MA)

DESCRIPTION Standards and Guidelines FLMP page

Forest-wide Forest-wide Ensure compliance with PL 92-500 "Federal Water Pollution Control Act" and Arizona Water Quality Standards through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) to prevent water quality degradation.

Amendment 3, replacement page 72

Forest-wide Forest-wide Maintain current Satisfactory watershed conditions and improve Unsatisfactory conditions to Satisfactory by the year 2020.

Page 74

Forest-wide Forest-wide Plan projects, parts of projects, and/or management practices for soil and water resources improvement where watershed condition is Unsatisfactory. Incorporate plans for soil and water improvements into project planning for other resources


Forest-wide Forest-wide In MSO restricted habitat and northern goshawk habitat areas: Riparian Areas: Emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy riparian ecosystems through conformance with forest plan riparian standards and guidelines. Management strategies should move degraded riparian vegetation toward good condition as soon as possible. Damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and channels should be prevented.

Forest Plan – Amendment No. 11 Replacement New Page 65-5 and New Page 65-7.

Forest-wide Forest-wide The riparian standards apply to areas meeting the riparian definition even though the sites may not have been large enough to be mapped as a discrete unit.

Forest Plan – Amendment No. 11 Replacement Page 64

Forest-wide Forest-wide Salt is used to help achieve proper livestock grazing distribution. Permanent salt is not placed within 1/4 of a mile of the edge of any riparian area or tree plantation. Temporary salting may be approved if it will help to achieve a specific management objective for enhancement of riparian areas.

Forest Plan page 68

Forest-wide Forest-wide Establish woody riparian vegetation as defined in FSH 2509.23 in wet meadows and other riparian areas. Control livestock grazing through

Forest Plan – Amendment No. 20


97



management and/or fencing to establish vegetation and eliminate overuse.

Replacement Page 69

Forest-wide Forest-wide Use project monitoring information to evaluate BMP'S currently used to reduce nonpoint pollution from activities on the Forest. BMP'S include project planning as well as on the ground measures. By 1995, develop guidelines for implementation of BMP'S on the Forest. In the interim period, a general list of BMP'S has been included below. Apply these practices, depending on individual project and site requirements, to reduce nonpoint source pollution and protect riparian areas.

Forest Plan - Amendment No. 3 Replacement Page 71

Forest-wide Forest-wide Accomplish eighty percent of the riparian recovery by 2030. The remaining 20 percent will be significantly improved, but will not have all of the characteristics of a fully recovered riparian area, such as 3 age classes of woody vegetation.

Forest Plan – Amendment No. 20 Replacement Page 23

Forest-wide Forest-wide Inventory riparian communities and areas capable of supporting riparian species by the end of the first decade. Channel condition and aquatic habitat condition will be included in the survey. Plan and design projects in areas of Unsatisfactory or degraded condition to promote channel and streambank stability and to improve flow and timing of water. Meet or exceed eighty percent of Regional requirements above the Rim and ninety percent below the Rim by 2030. Manage to achieve at least 25 percent of the currently Unsatisfactory riparian areas will be in Satisfactory condition by 2000.

Forest Plan, Page 73

6 7

10

11

Unproductive Timber Land Piñon-Juniper Woodland less than 40% slopes Grassland and Sparse Piñon-Juniper Woodland Above the Rim Verde Valley

Identify each terrestrial ecosystem and assess soil properties to determine:

• Soil limitations for soil scarification purposes.

• The method of soil scarification best suited for the soils of the project area.

• Soil potential for revegetation - Identify soils that are suitable or unsuitable for successful revegetation.

Erosion hazard and on-site soil loss - Soils with a potential erosion hazard rating of severe will require specific resource management activities in order to avoid severe impairment of soil productivity.

Forest Plan, p 146 Amendment 3, replacement page 150 Forest Plan, P 165 Forest Plan, p 169

6 Unproductive During the first decade, identify each terrestrial Forest Plan,


98



Timber Land ecosystem and assess soil properties to determine: Whether soils are suitable, unsuitable, or unproductive for timber management. Provide detailed soils input to administrative study plans for reforestation.

p 146

9 Mountain Grassland

The Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan states a guideline to “Manage mountain grasslands to achieve 90 percent of potential ground cover to prevent accelerated surface erosion and gully formation” (Appendix III). Livestock management should strive to improve mountain grasslands conditions, which include montane meadows, with appropriate levels of utilization to contribute towards an improving trend in ground cover of desired vegetation. Other impacts are occurring to these mountain grassland systems and these impacts include, but are not limited to, grazing from elk and deer, dispersed recreation, as well as drought. The presence of elk, recreational impacts and frequent drought conditions limits the ability of the Forest Service to achieve the above mentioned guideline. During drought, these effective ground covers will be difficult to attain but livestock grazing should not contribute to a declining trend for effective ground cover. Elk use is particularly limiting the ability of the Forest Service to maintain the above mentioned guideline. Although this decision has no influence over elk use and is only a range decision, the Forest Service will continue to collaborate with other agencies including Arizona Game and Fish Department as well as US Fish and Wildlife service to try and recommend elk herd reductions when and where needed. With all the management mechanisms that the Forest Service has control over this guideline will be sought after and monitoring will be used to try and achieve an improving trend.

Forest Plan, P 160

11 Verde Valley Where watershed condition is Unsatisfactory plan, design, and implement projects by the end of the second decade following watershed condition inventory and subsequent prioritization. Evaluate soils to determine suitable species that would provide maximum soil stabilizing benefits on each of the various soil parent materials. Establish a cost effective monitoring program to determine trends in watershed condition.

Forest Plan, p169

12 Riparian and Open Water

Meet the following Riparian Standards in the Regional Guide for 80 percent of riparian areas

Forest Plan, P 174


99



above the Rim and 90 percent below the Rim by the year 2030:

• Maintain at least 80 percent of the potential overstory crown coverage.

• Maintain at least three age classes of woody riparian species, with at least 10 percent of the woody plant cover in sprouts, seedlings, and saplings.

• Maintain at least 80 percent of the potential stream shading from June to September along perennial cold and cool water streams.

• Maintain at least 80 percent of the potential shrub cover in high elevation areas.

• Maintain at least 80 percent of the potential emergent vegetation cover from May 1 to July 15 in key wetlands.

• Maintain at least 80 percent of the spawning gravel surface free of inorganic sediment.

• Maintain at least 80 percent of streambank total linear distance in stable condition.

• Retain snags in riparian areas that are not a safety hazard.

Measures such as fencing to exclude livestock, vegetation projects, and special management prescriptions will be undertaken until the affected areas are brought into Satisfactory riparian condition.

In addition, the remainder of the Forest's riparian areas will have some of these characteristics, but not all of them by 2030.


Favor the establishment of woody riparian vegetation, where potential natural vegetation has been determined through an interdisciplinary process to include woody riparian species. Control livestock grazing through management and/or fencing to allow for adequate establishment of vegetation and the elimination of overuse. Evaluate seeding projects for effects on concentrating livestock use in riparian and other sensitive areas.

Conduct an on-site soil investigation where needed to identify soil properties of riparian sites not delineated in the T.E.S. inventory due to mapping scale and inclusions such as soils with

Forest Plan, Amendment No. 1 Replacement p 176


100



aquic subgroups, aquic soil moisture regimes,

and poorly drained properties.


Through coordination with other disciplines, maintain or improve, where necessary, riparian vegetation along streams for moderating water temperature and protecting bank stability. Accomplish promptly after the inventory phase is completed. Investigate and implement where necessary, cost effective structural measures to control channel erosion.

Forest Plan, P 177


Plan for suitable filter strips between streamcourses and disturbed areas and/or road locations. See Filter Strip Table in Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines under Watershed/Soil/Air, F2. Plan for suitable filter strips between stream courses and ground disturbing activities including roads.



No precommercial thinning or piling slash in riparian areas or areas that have riparian characteristics.



101

APPENDIX V: SOIL CONDITION ACRES BY TES UNIT

Table 23. Soil Condition on the Fossil Creek allotment by TES unit

Soil Condition Class

TES UNITS

Sum of Area Percent of allotment

Impaired 26384 62.64%

33 107 0.25%

34 13 0.03%

350 108 0.26%

382 132 0.31%

383 22 0.05%

402 179 0.42%

403 88 0.21%

404 440 1.05%

417 428 1.02%

420 1420 3.37%

430 6797 16.14%

457 208 0.49%

458 12 0.03%

462 3339 7.93%

463 5158 12.25%

466 461 1.09%

492 7472 17.74%

Not applicable 26 0.06%

Lake 26 0.06%

Satisfactory 5294 12.57%

383 42 0.10%

417 22 0.05%

45 87 0.21%

46 204 0.48%

462 268 0.64%

463 649 1.54%

466 80 0.19%

492 2241 5.32%

493 592 1.41%

520 97 0.23%

530 460 1.09%

555 9 0.02%

572 542 1.29%

Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable 9757 23.17%

350 11 0.03%

430 9747 23.14%

Unsatisfactory 659 1.56%

401 132 0.31%

402 222 0.53%

420 305 0.72%

Grand Total 42121 100.00%


102

APPENDIX VI: SOIL CONDITION ACRES BY PASTURE Table 24. Soil Condition Acres by Slope Unit by Pasture

Pasture Soil Condition

Total Acres Percent Pasture in allotment Percent Soil Class in Pasture

13 Mile Ridge 553.58 1.31%

Impaired 376.77 68.06%

Satisfactory, but Inherently Unstable 176.81 31.94%

Barry 156.97 0.37%

Impaired 147.90 94.23%


Basin 1464.63 3.48%

Impaired 930.55 63.53%


Boulder 2679.27 6.36%

Impaired 1593.71 59.48%

Satisfactory 47.01 1.75%


Buckskin Waterlot 0.70 0.00%

Impaired 0.70 100.00%

Bull 2166.74 5.14%

Impaired 1971.47 90.99%



Unsatisfactory 74.89 3.46%

Buzzard Waterlot 1.60 0.00%

Impaired 1.60 100.00%

Cedar Waterlot 3.77 0.01%

Impaired 3.77 100.00%

Chalk Springs 2689.66 6.39%

Impaired 1351.95 50.26%



Charleys Waterlot 3.86 0.01%


Childs Holding 37.87 0.09%

Impaired 37.87 100.00%


Divide Waterlot 6.06 0.01%

Impaired 6.06 100.00%

Doe Skin 392.77 0.93%

Impaired 154.56 39.35%



103


Doe Skin Waterlot 1.61 0.00%


Dorens Defeat 1502.99 3.57%

Impaired 1294.93 86.16%


Eds Waterlot 7.06 0.02%

Impaired 7.06 100.00%

Ernies Waterlot 2.44 0.01%


Funnel 845.82 2.01%

Impaired 559.66 66.17%


Gnat Waterlot 3.10 0.01%

Impaired 1.25 40.30%


Good Enough Waterlot 1.74 0.00%

Impaired 1.74 100.00%

Grass Patch 1173.08 2.79%

Impaired 1109.05 94.54%


Heifer 578.84 1.37%

Impaired 469.93 81.19%




Herbies Waterlot 1.49 0.00%


Hog Back 1533.25 3.64%

Impaired 1436.67 93.70%



Hogback Waterlot 18.10 0.04%

Impaired 18.10 100.00%

House 1537.63 3.65%

Impaired 927.37 60.31%


Lower Eds Point 814.93 1.93%

Impaired 703.78 86.36%



Lower Wilderness 1217.39 2.89%

Impaired 500.06 41.08%



Manzanita 1047.73 2.49%


104

Impaired 166.91 15.93%



Middle Waterlot 3.12 0.01%

Impaired 3.12 100.00%

Mud Tank 2201.54 5.23%

Impaired 2200.63 99.96%


Mud Waterlot 6.38 0.02%

Impaired 6.38 100.00%

Natural 723.40 1.72%

Impaired 312.28 43.17%



Natural Waterlot 2.79 0.01%

Impaired 1.73 61.94%


Needed Waterlot 3.45 0.01%

Impaired 3.45 100.00%

Ninemile Waterlot 1.18 0.00%

Impaired 1.18 100.00%

Oak Waterlot 1.92 0.00%

Impaired 1.92 100.00%

Peak Waterlot 3.72 0.01%

Impaired 3.72 100.00%

Petes Waterlot 1.91 0.00%


Pine 1745.42 4.14%

Impaired 1606.77 92.06%



Pine Waterlot 3.00 0.01%

Impaired 3.00 100.00%

Rafter Holding 126.21 0.30%

Impaired 126.21 100.00%

Road Waterlot 4.12 0.01%

Impaired 4.12 100.00%

Sally Mae 3644.43 8.65%

Impaired 1855.60 50.92%




Salmon Lake 804.16 1.91%


Sheep Corral Waterlot 1.16 0.00%

Impaired 1.16 100.00%


105

Shipping 1 714.77 1.70%

Impaired 714.77 100.00%

Stehr Lake 1581.10 3.75%

Impaired 1186.04 75.01%

Not applicable 26.44 1.67%



Surge 1381.55 3.28%

Impaired 921.83 66.72%



Sycamore Basin Waterlot 2.44 0.01%

Impaired 2.44 100.00%

Sycamore Canyon 2206.84 5.24%

Impaired 836.22 37.89%



Tanque Aloma 799.80 1.90%

Impaired 631.85 79.00%


Tin Can 1633.91 3.88%

Impaired 390.22 23.88%



Upper Eds Point 1399.80 3.32%

Impaired 766.35 54.75%



Upper Wilderness 2678.47 6.36%

Impaired 1029.47 38.43%



Grand Total 42121.24 100.00%


106

APPENDIX VII: TES UNIT ACRES AND PERCENT OF TOTAL ALLOTMENT Table 25. TES Unit Acres and Percent of Total allotment Area

TES Unit Total Acres Percent of allotment

33 107.04 1.42%

34 13.36 0.16%

350 118.91 0.39%

382 131.70 0.51%

383 64.23 0.09%

401 132.22 0.29%

402 401.24 0.91%

403 87.53 0.34%

404 440.19 0.91%

417 450.26 0.74%

420 1724.47 5.84%

430 16543.69 64.56%

45 86.74 0.40%

457 207.83 0.27%

458 12.41 0.12%

46 203.57 2.71%

462 3606.62 3.24%

463 5807.42 12.70%

466 540.94 0.42%

492 9713.50 1.84%

493 592.18 0.56%

520 97.29 0.09%

530 460.39 0.60%

555 9.06 0.18%

572 542.01 0.69%

Lake 26.44 0.03%

Grand Total 42121.24 100.00%


107

APPENDIX VIII: VEGETATIVE GROUND COVERS BY TES MAP UNIT Table 26.Vegetative Ground Covers by TES Map Unit in the Fossil Creek allotment

Terrestrial

ecological map

unit #

Current &

Refined

(Observed)

vegetative

ground cover

% in allotment

Tolerable

(threshold)

vegetative ground

cover (%) From

Coconino TES

Natural

vegetative

ground cover

(%) From

Coconino TES

Predicted vegetative ground cover

% under the Proposed Action (PA)

rounded to 1

No Grazing or

Approximate

Background

vegetative ground

cover %

Acres

33 10 10 30 13 15 107

34 25 10 25

25 (cannot achieve more than

natural)

25 (cannot

achieve more

than natural)

13

350 20 25 20

20 (can only achieve natural or

20%, at NVGC already)

20 (can only

achieve natural or

20%)

119

382 20 5 30 25 28 132

383 15 5 30 19 23 65

401 10 5-15 20 13 15 133

402 17 10-15 20

20 (cannot achieve more than

natural)

20 (cannot

achieve more

than natural)

401


108

Terrestrial

ecological map

unit #

Current &

Refined

(Observed)

vegetative

ground cover

% in allotment

Tolerable

(threshold)

vegetative ground

cover (%) From

Coconino TES

Natural

vegetative

ground cover

(%) From

Coconino TES



rounded to 1

No Grazing or

Approximate

Background

vegetative ground

cover %

Acres

403 15 10 25 19 23 88

404 25 15 30

27 (Near NVGC already. Do not

expect to get to natural with all

disturbances, grazing, rec,

drought)

28 440

417 10 10 20 13 15 451

420 15-22 20 20 20 (at NVGC already) 20 1724

430 22 20-30 20 20 (at NVGC already) 20 16,872

45 35 20 60 44 53 87

457 20 10 25

21 (Near NVGC. Do not expect to

get to natural with all disturbances,

grazing, rec, drought)

23 208

458 20 15 25




drought)

23 12

46 60 25 70 65 (Near NVGC already. Do not


68 204


109

Terrestrial

ecological map

unit #

Current &

Refined

(Observed)

vegetative

ground cover

% in allotment

Tolerable

(threshold)

vegetative ground

cover (%) From

Coconino TES

Natural

vegetative

ground cover

(%) From

Coconino TES



rounded to 1

No Grazing or

Approximate

Background

vegetative ground

cover %

Acres


drought)

462 25 10 25 25 (at NVGC already) 25 3607

463 25 10 30




drought)

28 5807

466 20 10 20 20 (at NVGC) 20 541

492 20 10 25




drought)

23 9714

493 15 10 30 19 23 592

520 35 10 65 44 53 97

530 45 30 75 56 67 460

555 80 55 85 82 (near NVGC already. Do not



83 9


110

Terrestrial

ecological map

unit #

Current &

Refined

(Observed)

vegetative

ground cover

% in allotment

Tolerable

(threshold)

vegetative ground

cover (%) From

Coconino TES

Natural

vegetative

ground cover

(%) From

Coconino TES



rounded to 1

No Grazing or

Approximate

Background

vegetative ground

cover %

Acres

drought)

572 65 10 80

75 (near NVGC already. Do not



drought)

78 542

Total 42,428

Proposed action VGCs are predicted with 25% increase over CVGC and Background/no grazing at 50% increase over CVGC.

Source: USLE data in table 3 for each soil map unit-Coconino National Forest Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (Miller et al, 1995).

Current ground covers adjusted for on-site refined soil condition assessments.


111

APPENDIX IX: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY COMPARISON OF CANOPY COVER

Figure 17. Aerial photo above Boulder Pasture in 1946


112

Figure 18. Aerial photo above Boulder Pasture in 2012


113

Figure 19. Aerial photo above Ernie's Tank in 1946


114

Figure 20. Aerial photo above Ernie's Tank in 2012


115

Figure 21. Aerial photo above Sally May Pasture in 1946


116

Figure 22. Aerial photo above Sally May pasture in 2012


117

Figure 23. Aerial photo of Tanque Aloma pasture in 1946


118

Figure 24. Aerial photo from 2012 in the Tanque Aloma pasture

united states soil and water agriculture specialist’s...

Documents