Walker Basin Allotment Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
   
   1. Need for the proposal
   2. Issues and opportunities
   3. Physical setting
2. Alternatives
   1. Introduction
   2. Description of Alternatives
   3. Summary of the comparison of alternatives
3. Effects of Implementation
   1. A. General Effects
   2. Effects which are similar for all alternatives
   3. Effects which are not similar for all alternatives
4. List of Preparers
5. Consultation

Appendices

Appendix A - Allotment Map (not included online)
Appendix B - Recreation Report
Appendix C - Archaeological Report
Appendix D - Timber Report
Appendix E - Public Comments

• Ace H. Peterson, Arizona Wildlife Federation
• John Parsons

Appendix F - Watershed Report
Appendix G - Economic Analysis (not included online)

Walker Basin Allotment Plan Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Coconino National Forest, Beaver Creek Ranger District
March 1990

Responsible Official: Alan S. Defler, Forest Supervisor, Coconino National Forest
Prepared By: Michael A. Valdes, Range Conservationist, Beaver Creek Ranger District, HC 64 Box 240, Rimrock, Arizona 86335

I. Introduction

A. Need For The Proposal

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the present management strategy, and to evaluate alternative strategies for grazing cattle on the Walker Basin Cattle Allotment, and recommend a preferred alternative.

This analysis is initiated under Forest Wide Direction, page 67, D01, which states "Revise and update AMP's at least every 10 years to Regional Standards in FSH 2209.21."

The Environmental Assessment (EA) area encompasses the Walker Basin Cattle Allotment, Beaver Creek District, Coconino National Forest. See Allotment Map, Appendix A. Management Areas 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12, are within the boundaries of the Walker Basin Allotment. The majority of the allotment is in Management Area 7, pinyon-juniper on slopes less than 40 percent. Each of these areas emphasize livestock grazing as an activity compatible with other resources. Standards and guidelines therein will serve as qualitative and quantitative criteria to ensure integrated resource management.

B. Issues and Opportunities

This segment identifies the issues and opportunities related to the management of cattle on the Walker Basin Cattle Allotment, and each of the management alternatives will be compared to them. The alternatives presented in Section II have been developed from a combination of Forest and District objectives, and by the following issues and opportunities.

Issues:

The following issues were developed by Forest Service Resource Specialists and from written public comment.

Briefly the issues are:

1. Riparian Habitat Protection
   
2. Vegetation Management
3. Watershed Management
4. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Management
5. Dispersed Recreation

1. Riparian Habitat Protection

The scoping process identified a concern for the riparian zones in the Walker Basin Allotment including effects of cattle grazing, and maintaining three age classes of tree and shrub overstory, and monitoring of riparian condition.

Riparian zones within the Walker Basin Allotment make up a small portion of the overall vegetative types. One zone is Hance Spring and Hance Draw which provide water for cattle, and are essential sources on the winter Heifer pasture of the allotment. Another is Willow Valley Draw. These areas are less than five acres in total area. The interdisciplinary team in review of this issue determined that impacts to this resource will not be affected by cattle if these areas are fenced. Restricted cattle access would provide the necessary means to maintain riparian character and improve the age structure. Therefore, by fencing, no further consequences common to cattle impacts will be addressed.

2. Vegetation Management

The present management plan and direction for grazing cattle does not provide opportunities for needed additional structural improvements, and long-term goals and objectives. Reductions in cattle numbers in the 1960's and improved management, have lessened the impacts of grazing on the allotment overall, however, to meet present Forest Plan direction a new course of action is needed. Actions may include: pasture division fences, additional water developments and maintenance of existing pinyon-juniper treatments.

Livestock grazing has both short-term and long-term effects on vegetation. The immediate effects are removal of plant biomass. Long-term effect comes from successional changes in plant communities as well as effects to watershed, forage production, and wildlife habitat. A greater intensity of management of livestock and vegetation is desired.

3. Watershed/Water Quality

Most water courses within the allotment are ephemeral in nature. Although intermittant, significant amounts of runoff occur seasonally, which has created deep, and long gully cuts, specifically in Wickiup Draw. These cuts are of past disturbances dating back eighty years. Spring season range, such as the Cedar Flat area, has improved dramatically; through prescribed burning, seeding and pasture fencing. Summer season range areas show no evidence of inadequate watershed protection.

4. Wildlife

The Walker Basin allotment provides habitat for rocky mountain elk, Merriams turkey, white-tail deer, antelope, javelina, black bear and many other mammals, and is recognized for excellent hunting opportunities. In addition to the aforementioned species, many species of birds and small mammals rely on habitat found on the allotment. Habitat for big game species is provided on a year-long basis. Seasonal use, specifically in winter, is critical for the survival of these species.

The elk population on the Coconino National Forest has been increasing in recent years and in some cases, to the detriment of forage resources on the allotment. Inspite of improved range condition and livestock management, there are areas on the allotment where direct competition for forage is occurring. On summer grazing areas, elk use pastures early in the growing season. The time between this use and cattle use allows regrowth to occur, however, the use by cattle, is detrimental to the vigor and long-term production of forage plants. Elk use also follows cattle use, causing the same impact, Although forage production presently supports both elk and cattle, this balance may not be obtainable in the future.

Maintaining and improving Merriams turkey habitat is a concern and is found within the ponderosa pine areas of the allotment. Maintaining and/or improving this habitat is critical towards the stability of this species.

5. Dispersed recreation

Dispersed recreation occurs throughout the Walker Basin Allotment. Activities include hunting, mountain biking, hiking, camping and other activities. Construction of pasture division fences could impede dispersed recreation access to some areas of the allotment.

Opportunities:

1. Identify watershed restoration projects for inclusion to the Watershed restoration section of the Forest implementation schedule. (supplemental to Forest Plan).
2. Coordinate Timber related activities with range activities.
3. Coordinate prescribed fire projects with the District fire management program.
4. Improve watershed condition through road obliteration.
5. Maintain and improve wildlife habitat diversity concurrently with cattle grazing.

C. Physical Setting

1. Location and Allotment Status

The Walker Basin Allotment is located on both the Beaver Creek and Long Valley Districts, Coconino National Forest, Yavapai and Coconino Counties. Legal description is T.14N., R.5 through 10 E., and encompasses approximately 86,785 total acres. The allotment is grazed during two distinct seasons: winter and summer. The winter portion lies below the Mogollon Rim escarpment with the exception of the Cedar Flat and Twin Buttes pastures. The summer half lies above the Rim. There are two operating facilities on the allotment, which are used by the permittee: Shipping Corral and Mahan Park.

Grazing use involves one permittee, Ben Zink, who is permitted to graze 495 head of cattle, for a 12 month season. This amounts to 7,841 aum's.

a. Physiography

The winter portion is characterized by rolling hills dissected by draws with the exception of Cedar Flat. This area is relatively flat and has been treated to reduce the amount of pinyon and juniper dominance. The summer portion is characterized by plateau type land forms. Elevation ranges from 3,000 to 7,000 feet.

Wide ranges in elevation, precipitation, and aspect provide different physical environments within the allotment. These environments are reflected in numerous vegetative types or associations, which provide a diversity of vegetative types. There are four broad vegetative units within the allotment: 1) semi-desert grass/shrub, 2) pinyon-juniper woodlands, 3) ponderosa pine-gambel oak, and 4) riparian.

b. Wildlife Habitat and wildlife

The Walker Basin Allotment provides an outstanding diversity of habitat for wildlife. This diversity is enhanced by the changes in vegetation resulting from changes in aspect, elevation, and past management activities such as the increase of grassland openings within pinyon-juniper woodlands.

Big game animals such as elk, antelope, and white-tailed deer are directly affected by livestock grazing practices, and are inter-dependent on similar forage types. Both winter and summer forage is crucial to the survival of these animals. Merriams turkey nesting sites are found within the ponderosa pine communities of the allotment. Low cattle density within known nesting sites should not impact the reproduction of these birds.

There are no threatened or endangered animals, or plants classified as threatened or endangered, that are dependent on habitat within the Walker Basin Allotment. Bald eagles have been sighted within the allotment, especially near dead cattle, although no known nesting sites have been located.

c. Range and Livestock Grazing

The Walker Basin Allotment has a season of use that is year long for 495 head of cattle (7,841 AUMs). The winter season generally begins in November, when cattle move from summer ranges, and trail to the lower portions of the allotment below the Mogollon Rim. Grazing continues through March. Cattle then trail above the rim through the transition range on Cedar Flat. The summer range is generally ready to be grazed by early June. The semi-desert grassland within the winter range provide the bulk of the forage base.

Spring, and early summer rangelands are comprised of pinyon-juniper communities, and provide the bulk of the forage base. Summer range is comprised of both open canopy timber and mountain meadow types. The open timber type, through logging and subsequent seeding, provide productive understory forage, however, it's the grassland and meadow types that contribute the bulk of forage. Presently, pastures are large and moves between pastures are time consuming and labor intensive. New fence construction such as in the Cedar Flat area, has significantly improved cattle movement and forage use, in addition to range condition. On Cedar Flat, however, pastures sizes are still too large to achieve proper use, and key areas are being overgrazed.

d. Watershed

The allotment is located within the Wet Beaver Creek watershed and also covers portions of West Clear Creek watershed. Both drain into the Verde River. Wet Beaver Creek and West Clear Creek do not meet Arizona Department of Environmental Quality standards for turbidity and sediment. West Clear Creek also does not meet standards for bacteria levels. This means that the watersheds are only in partial support of non-point source pollution standards. Grazing along with recreational use, gravel mining and land development are the sources cited as contributing to the partial support rating in the West Clear Creek Watershed. Unsatisfactory watershed condition is also listed as a contributing factor in the Wet Beaver Creek watershed.

The winter allotment is part of the Coconino NF Land Management Plan management area 11, Verde Valley. The watershed management standards and guidelines for this management area concern improving watershed condition through the development and implementation of suitable projects. There are also small inclusions of riparian areas, MA 12. The watershed standards and guidelines for riparian areas concern protection and enhancement of this habitat.

Watershed condition analyses conducted in the late 1970's revealed that the West Clear Creek watershed was slightly below tolerance (decreasing resistance to erosion) and greatly below potential for vegetative cover. The major area of concern was the Wickiup Draw subwatershed which is located in the southwestern portion of the West Clear Creek drainage. The lower reaches of Wickiup Draw are located in the southwestern portion of the winter allotment. Review of aerial photos during the watershed condition analyses showed that over a 20 year span headcutting was occurring at the average rate of 22 feet per year. Many of the gullies are over 10 feet deep and there are extensive fingering headcuts off of the main channel especially in the lower reaches.

The same analysis rated the Wet Beaver Creek Watershed as further below tolerance than the West Clear Creek drainage and greatly below potential for vegetative cover. However the only area within the allotment that shows active erosion and headcutting is the Twin Buttes area. The gullying in this area is a result of old roads located within ephemeral draws. Vegetative cover within this allotment is presumably sufficient for the tolerance rating to be increased but is still below potential.

The summer allotment is located mainly in MA 3, Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifers, and appears to be in good watershed condition. The remainder of the allotment is located in MA's 7 and 10, Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands and Grasslands. These areas tend to be rocky and are above tolerance and near potential.

e. Vegetation

Wide ranges in elevation, precipitation, and aspect provide distinctly different physical environments within the Walker Basin Allotment. The environments, in turn, reflect numerous vegetative types. Major plant communities occurring on the allotment include semi-desert grasslands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, forested grassland and coniferous timber dominated by ponderosa pine. The semi-desert grasslands are comprised of grama grasses, three awn, tobosa grass, squirreltail, and in some areas muhly and sand dropseed. Shrubs include algerita, snake broomweed, mormon tea, four-wing saltbrush, creosote, and some rabbitbrush. In alluvial bottoms, mesquite has increased substantially, influenced by suppression of fire, and excessive grazing use, which occurred at the turn of the century. Productivity of forage species is low within these communities, due impart to low precipitation, shallow soils, and sparse ground cover. Pinyon-juniper woodlands within mid-elevations of the allotment provide a diversity of forage species resulting from past chainings and reseeding. Western wheatgrass, comprises approximately 75% of the forage species in these mudified areas. In the alligator juniper communities, fescues, grama grasses, squirreltail, three-awn, bluegrasses, and dropseeds, dominate. Juniper trees in these communities are mature and provide old-growth habitat for wildlife. The upper elevations consist of ponderosa pine and open grassland communities with mountain meadows dispersed throughout. Reseeded species, a result of previous timber harvests, include intermediate wheatgrass, orchard grass, pubescent wheatgrass, timothy, bluegrasses, western wheatgrass, and alfalfa and sweet clover. Shrubs include oaks, ceanothus, cliffrose, ribes, serviceberry, and wild rose.

Plant community diversity provides year-long grazing opportunities for both domestic livestock and big game species. Ecotones provide transition rangeland allowing a natural migration to and from winter portions of the allotment, all which occur on the allotment. Long-term trends in vegetative condition indicate that there is generally an overall improvement, with the potential to increase both condition and stocking rate of livestock on the allotment.

Timber sales are planned within the allotment include the Aztec sale, Spring in 1993; Bottle, Peck, and Rock in 1994; and Hollingshead in 1995. These sales only include part of the allotment. Large areas on the west side of Long Valley district are considered non-commercial for timber production. These acreages includes of approximately 7100 acres within the Walker Basin allotment and may be harvested for firewood use.

f. Dispersed Recreation

Recreation opportunities on the forest have been classified according to a producible range of recreational experiences. The Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications identified three on the allotment: RNA (roaded natural appearing), and SPM (semi-primitive motorized), and SPNM (semi-primitive non-motorized). The majority of the winter range is in SPM and SPNM with a small amount of RNA. The summer portion of the allotment is predominately in the RNA class with a small amount of SPM. Attractive features on the allotment include excellent hunting, hiking, motorized and non-motorized bike riding, scenic driving, camping, and general forest use such as firewood gathering. There are no developed campgrounds on the allotment. Winter use on the upper elevations include cross-country skiing, and snow mobiling.

II. Alternatives

A. Introduction

Four alternatives were developed during the initial scoping process, with each alternative addressing the specific issues. One alternative; season-long use, is not evaluated in detail within this assessment due to the following reasons:

1. A management concern occurring in some areas of the Walker Basin allotment is the over-use of preferred areas and subsequent reduction of cool season forage species. Season-long grazing will perpetuate this problem by design; a management goal is to achieve livestock control. Without the construction of pasture division fences to control livestock forage use, poor livestock distribution will result and which will perpetuate continued over-use/under-use problems.

2. Multiple use considerations will not be provided under this alternative since there is no attempt to rotate cattle. Continuous use will result in a decline in range condition effecting big game habitat and Merriams Turkey habitat.

3. This strategy is not adequate for Forest Plan objectives. Grazing in a manner that depletes vegetative vigor violates the principle of sustained yield, and will not foster satisfactory rangeland condition.

The major issues developed in Section I provide a basis for evaluating the remaining three alternatives. Due to the existing level of management, the range of alternatives is relatively narrow. The existing improvements, e.g., fences and water developments limit the degree of difference.

Management of elk is not within the scope of this assessment, however, suggestions of what changes may be necessary in the management of elk respective to the affects of each alternative will be provided.

B. Description of the alternatives

Alternative A

Alternative A, the no action alternative, would maintain the present management system, consisting of 21 pastures, including Montezuma winter pasture. Amount of percent forage use by cattle will vary between pastures and season of use, ranging from light use (0-20%) to heavy use (21-60%) of forage species. Generally, percent use will be greater in pastures during dormant periods and less when active growth is occurring. This alternative will continue to produce 7,841 AUM's of cattle use.

Maintain existing improvements with limited new investments to meet Forest Plan direction. All boundary fences will be reconstructed on an as-needed-basis. Existing improvements such as pinyon/juniper modifications will be maintained using prescribed fire as one method treatment. Project funding may be obtained through an array of sources not limited to RBRB funds, such as CWKV, NFWF, NFSW, and CWFS. Management of riparian habitat will be emphasized and fenced to restrict cattle access.

Monitoring will include long-term trend sampling, and evaluating 50% of pastures for use/distribution mapping as a means of determining carrying capacity for temporary and permanent increases in cattle and big game. (Minimum three years of data will be required for determining an average).

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat - - Alternative A would provide the existing forage base presently being consumed by big game. Maintenance of existing pinyon-juniper modifications will provide habitat diversity, and available forage. Low stocking density would have minimal impact to Merriams turkey nesting sites. Maintenance of existing water developments will continue to benefit wildlife.

Watershed Management - - Livestock would be managed to reduce impacts to existing problem areas.

Vegetation - - Management of forage species would be on a proper use basis to ensure recovery of plants by moving cattle when regrowth on grazed plants is observed. Proper use when in dormant conditions will be to not exceed 60 percent of standing biomass. Proper use during active growth will be to not exceed 50 percent. Diversity of pinyon-juniper communities would be maintained through continued retreatment of existing chainings and by designing treatments in which the ratio of age classes between saplings and mature trees is enhanced. Pasture rotations will be timed to minimize the frequency of grazing during critical growing periods of desirable forage species. Riparian habitat, which comprises less than five acres, will be fenced to restrict cattle.

Dispersed Recreation - - Improvements such as electric, barbed wire, and smooth wire fencing will be reconstructed under Regional and Forest Plan specifications, such as providing access gates at trail crossings, gates within a minimum of every half mile along a fenceline, cattle guards and other features to allow appropriate access. Supplement and salt block will be placed in areas that will best control cattle and reduce conflicts near known dispersed campsites. Movement of cattle along established trails would be accomplished as efficiently as possible to reduce conflicts with hikers.

Management Requirements:

• Obtain archaeological clearences for all surface disturbing activities
• Follow all Federal, Regional and Forest wide regulations
• Turkey nesting areas include the Heifer, Pine and Banfield units. Livestock use will be restricted from these units between May 15 and July 1.

Alternative B

This management strategy seeks to maximize livestock-big game forage production consistent with constraints of maintaining upward trends in vegetative condition and providing for other resource uses. This alternative is formulated to maximize forage production and use for both cattle and elk. To maximize forage use by cattle, excluding elk, does not comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for most Management Areas on the allotment, which emphasize management for watershed, wildlife, and livestock uses. This alternative will produce approximately 11,800 AUM's of forage capacity.

Alternative B features pasture divisions that will foster rest and deferment during active plant growth. These divisions will reduce the grazing time within pastures by approximately 20 percent. Montezuma winter range area will be fully integrated into the allotment rotation system. Twelve additional pasture divisions are proposed. Water developments will include pipelines, earthen tanks, and spring developments. See Appendix B for investment list by individual project. Pasture rotation may include double entry of a pasture, such as, grazing a pasture twice in one year, depending upon the type of treatment needed for each respective pasture. Grazing the second time during the year entry, will occur during plant dormancy. The amount of forage removal by cattle will vary between light (0-20%) and heavy grazing (21-60%) depending on the prescribed or desired effect of cattle on any given pasture. Season of use during initial entry will vary according to phenological development between summer and winter ranges. Pasture division fencing may consist of two-wire electric or three-wire barbed wire.

Maintenance of pinyon/juniper manipulations may be made through prescribed fire. Management of riparian habitat will be emphasized as in alternative A. Additional livestock will be permitted if conditions contribute to the overall allotment goals and objectives. Project funding may be obtained through an array of sources not limited to RBRB funds, such as CWKV, NFWF, NFSW, and CWFS. Development of the allotment will be accomplished as funding permits by both the Forest Service, Permittee, and other entities solicited during the developmental period of this alternative. Timing of cattle grazing will be implemented to integrate wildlife needs.

Monitoring will include long-term trend sampling, evaluation of all pastures during the "implementation" period, as a means of determining carrying capacity for temporary and permanent increases in cattle. (Minimum three years of data will be required to compute the average capacity).

Management Requirements:

Same as alternative A

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat - - Existing and future forage base sustaining big game populations would be available. Retreating pinyon-juniper communities will increase this forage base. Pasture rotations allowing for rapid forage recovery would benefit big game. Intensity of management of pasture rotation is intended to also manipulate big game use within pastures. Restricting cattle grazing in known Merriams turkey nesting areas will be implemented.

Watershed Management - - Livestock use within areas exhibiting gully cuts and surface erosion will be managed at the light use level. Through fencing, prescribed rest would be implemented if needed in areas where watershed treatment is initiated.

Vegetation - - Management of forage species would be managed to reduce the amount of grazing on regrowth to ensure recovery of plants. Diversity of pinyon-juniper communities would be maintained through continued retreatment of existing chainings and by designing treatments in which the ratio of age classes between saplings and mature trees is enhanced. Pasture rotations will be timed to minimize the duration of grazing during critical growing periods of desirable forage species. Riparian habitat, which comprises less than five acres, will be fenced to restrict cattle.

Dispersed Recreation - - Improvements such as electric, barbed wire, and smooth wire fencine will be constructed under Regional and Forest Plan specifications, such as providing access gates at trail crossings, constructing gates at a minimum every half mile along a fenceline, cattle guards or other features to allow appropriate access. Supplement and salt block will be placed in areas that will best control cattle and reduce conflicts near known dispersed campsites. Movement of cattle along established trails would be accomplished as efficiently as possible to reduce conflicts with hikers.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as B, with the exception of not providing rest during the active growing season of forage species on both the summer and winter ranges. Deferred rotation strategy will be applied. Management seeks maximum use of existing and future forage increases for livestock, while maintaining present elk habitat. The amount of forage removal by cattle will vary between light (0-20%) and heavy grazing (21-60%) depending on the prescribed or desired effect of cattle on any given pasture. The allotment range will be divided less intensively with 6 pasture divisions proposed. This alternative will reduce overgrazing during the active plant growing season and maintain the vegetative environment in satisfactory condition.

Management Requirements:

Same as alternative A

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat - - Existing forage production sustaining big game populations would be available. Retreatment of previous pinyon-juniper manipulation, in addition to reseeding within timber harvest areas, will maintain this forage base. Pasture rotations allowing for forage improvement would benefit big game. Intensity of management of pasture rotation is intended to also manipulate big game use within pastures. Pasture rotation will be coordinated to ensure livestock do not graze during seasonal nesting period within turkey nesting habitat.

Watershed Management - - Livestock use within areas exhibiting gully cuts and surface erosion will be managed at the light use level. Through fencing, prescribed rest would be implemented if needed in areas where watershed treatment is initiated.

Vegetation - - Management of forage species provided will include reducing the amount of grazing of regrowth to ensure plant recovery. Diversity of pinyon-juniper communities would be maintained through continued retreatment of existing chainings and by designing treatments in which the ratio of age classes between saplings and mature trees is enhanced. Pasture rotations will be timed to minimize the duration of grazing during critical growing periods of desirable forage species. Riparian habitat, which comprises less than five acres, will be fenced to restrict cattle.

Dispersed Recreation - - Improvements such as electrie, barbed wire, and smooth wire fencing will be constructed under Regional and Forest Plan specifications, such as providing access gates at trail crossings, constructing gates at a minimum every one half mile along a fenceline, cattle guards of other features to allow appropriate access. Supplement and salt block will be placed in areas that will best control cattle and reduce conflicts near known dispersed campsites. Movement of cattle along established trails would be accomplished as efficiently as possible to reduce conflicts with hikers.

C. Summary of the comparison of alternatives

The following tables display the differences between alternatives and the conditions created by each.

Table I Carrying Capacity of Allotment

* - An AUM is the quantìty of forage required by one mature cow and calf (1,000 pounds), or the equivalent, for 1 month.

** - The increase in capacity can be divided between elk and livestock. Alternative B only. All proposals to increase livestock numbers will be evaluated following the IRM process.

Table II displays the percentage of acres receiving improved distribution and use by livestock in addition to suitable rangeland presently under proper use.

Table II Comparison of Improved Distribution

Table III Comparison of Economic Effectiveness*

* The standard for analyzing effectiveness of allotment projects is the "wìth" and "without" project relationship. In this approach, the physical effect of what is expected to result "with" the project is compared to expect results "without" the project. The "No Action" alternative is the "without" project. Economic and environmental conditions are not static and changes are likely to occur even "without" a project. Benefits are derived from the amount of revenue gained from forage produced and consumed by livestock. Elk benefits are derived from the relationship of the increase in hunter days and increase in the number of elk. FSH 2209.11 - Range Project Effectiveness Analysis Procedures Handbook.

Table IV Number of Miles of Additional Pasture Division Fence

III. Effects of Implementation

This section describes the effects of implementing each of the alternatives. Thorough evaluation has been made of environmental consequences as they relate to specific issues ìdentified in the document (issues are identified by number). The issues that receive the same treatment for all alternatives are identified first. The issues that have differing effects by alternative are discussed in the following section. General effects include resources protected by Federal law.

A. General Effects

1. Cultural Resources

All proposed project activities will be evaluated to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 11593 of 1971, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment. However, since the amount of grazing disturbance varies with each pasture, the potential of disturbing unknown sites will vary. Assuming a direct relationship between ground disturbance and the possibility of cultural site disturbance, the potential for site disturbance would be greatest for alternatives B and C, folloued by alternative A.

2. Prime Farmland

There are no prime farmlands on the allotment; therefore, all alternatives are keeping with the intent of Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for prime farmlands without any special provisions.

3. Threatened and Endangered Species

None of the alternatives would have any effect on threatened and endangered species. There are no plants classified as threatened or endangered that occur on the Walker Basin allotment. There are no threatened or endangered animals known to exist on the Walker Basin allotment, however, the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are winter migrants near rivers and lakes, and are often observed forestwide in terrestrial habitat. Sightings have been made in the winter portions of the allotment, although birds have been transient. Animals and plants classified as sensitive that are known to occur on the allotment include: Mexican spotted owl, Ferruginous hawk, Willow flycatcher, Pine grosbeak, Northern goshawk, Sharp-Shinned hawk, Common ground dove, and Potentilla multifoliata. Implementation of the proposed alternatives will have no effect on sensitive species.

4. Wetlands and Floodplains

There are no floodplains associated with project activities, therefore, there will be no effect on these features.

Wetlands occur in the form of riparian areas, springs and seeps. All alternatives meet Forest direction for the management of riparian habitat. Encompassing less than five acres in total area, these areas will be fenced.

B. Effects which are similar for all alternatives

Issue 3 Watershed Management

Each alternative can provide the flexibility to accommodate watershed improvement project work requiring a rest from grazing within a specific pasture. Proper use guidelines in terms of percent removal of plant material are provided in alternatives B and C. These guidelines allow for accumulation of plant litter and subsequent increases in ground cover. Management of cattle within pastures exhibiting actìve gully cutting will include proper use guidelines to increase the potential to improve ground cover and range condition. Wickiup Draw will be submitted for inclusion to the Watershed restoration section of the Forest Plan implementation schedule.

Selection of the no-action alternative would not provide proper use guidelines since there presently are none.

Other activities such as timber harvest in the summer portion of the allotment should provide watershed protection measures, however, this activity could add to the potential impact on watersheds.

C. Effects which are not similar for all alternatives

Issue 2 Vegetative Management

In general, eliminating grazing impacts such as trampling soil surfaces tend to produce capped hard crust surfaces, which impedes seed germination of most grass species. Minor ground disturbance will have a tendency to favor wider plant spacing and more exposed soil. Community development in semi-arid environments respond favorably to surface disturbance which can be accomplished through livestock management.

An increase in middle to late seral species occuring on the allotment is desired. Since these species are continually being grazed, community structure may change towards unsuitable grazing types. Removal of plant material during active growth produces stress on root reserves and subsequent plant vigor. Alternatives that favor complete plant recovery; regeneration of root reserves, provide conditions for upward succession. Any removal of regrowth of forage following initial forage removal, by any animal, will reduce the regenerating capabilities of the plant. Both deferred (Alternative C), and deferred-rotation systems with rest (Alternative B) provide adequate plant recovery. Dual use by elk and iivestock has created a situation that is detrimental to the forage resource because a true rest or deferment cannot be achieved. See Issue 4.

Evidence of past grazing abuse of the forage resources is found throughout the winter and transitional areas of the allotment. Forest Plan guideline of improving suitable range to satisfactory condition is presently in effect on the allotment. Long term goals to improve the rangeland resource to conditions greater than satisfactory, however, is not. If the present situation, or no-action alternative is retained, several management concerns will prevail; many of the areas exhibiting excessive use will continue and many of the areas undergrazed will continue. The size of pastures on the allotment contribute to this problem. Grazing units like the wickiup pasture, which have preferred grazing areas along drainages will not be used to it's potential. Once these areas reach the heavy use allowance, few other areas in the unit will have been grazed. Constructing division fences to reduce the size of the unit and enhancing improved distribution of use will create an opportunity for an increase in available forage and the potential to improve the bottom land. Both alternatives B and C provide this opportunity.

Deferred rotation management schemes promote long-term recovery of depleted rangeland as does deferred rotation with periodic rest. In addition, deferred rotation schemes work well in areas where plants become too coarse or "oxidized" by grazing all pastures within a respective season and does not allow such range to become too coarse to graze. On rangeland where plants cure well on the ground such as on Cedar Flat and up through the summer range, periodic rest can be applied and not create the coarse, unpalatable forage.

Due to heavy grazing use by elk in the Cedar Flat and upper elevation rangelands, periodic rest of pastures may not ensure full recovery of forage species, but will periodically eliminate the dual impact by both elk and livestock. Thus, Alternative B clearly stands out as it provides both rest and deferment.

Cumulative affects of elk and livestock grazing is having a detrimental effect within the transitional and summer portions of the allotment. During the winter periods of the grazing season, use on shrub species is very heavy by both elk and livestock. Heavy use on herbaceous plants is also evident throughout the summer range by both elk and livestock. A reduction in the amount of total use is needed to enhance range improvement opportunities. Seeding is one method of improving rangeland over the short term, however unless management is applied in maintaining the established plants, the investment of seeding will be lost. Another solution is to reduce the elk herd population. This will lessen the amount of grazing and distribution of use by elk on the allotment overall. Another is to reduce livestock. However, historical records show livestock reductions in an effort to bring livestock numbers in line with capacity have been made over the last twenty years. Present estimates indicate an increase in elk numbers in excess of 6,000 head over the last ten years. Unless this growing trend is reduced, grazing management will not foster rangeland improvement.

All alternatives provide maintenence of previously treated pinyon-juniper communities, primarily through fire. Diversity within this community type is discussed in the following issue.

Issue 4 Wildlife amd Wildlife Habitat Management

The migration and habitat use patterns of elk, deer, and antelope which use the allotment vary by season. Most use by these animals occur above the Mugollon Rim from Cedar Flat through the transitional range in Twin Buttes to the upper elevations in the summer range. These areas have high forage quality and is considered a high quality habitat. Key reproductive areas are in the Cedar Flat-Twin Buttes areas. The current condition of these areas range between poor and excellent in terms of kind and amount of forage. The no-action alternative as it applies to the management of forage resources does provide allowances for present big game use. Regardless of how the allotment is managed, however, big game will make use of available forage. Observations made on the allotment does not indicate a social antagonism between big game and livestock. Both animals are often found grazing within the same pasture. If range deterioration occurs on a range where there is competition, as in Cedar Flat, Twin Buttes, and summer range, competition may increase due to the reduction in plant diversity. Periodic rest provides an advantage over deferment in that it will eliminate the competition for the entire rest year. Rest may also enhance the potential for range improvement, thus increase forage diversity and reduce must be in line with the capacity. Clearly, the numbers of big game must be controlled as well as livestock.

Restricting grazing from May to July 1 (all alternatives) will favor Merriams turkey nesting habitat.

Prescribed fire if used to maintain pinyon-juniper treatments will result in creating lush, palatable forage, and sustained production. Project design will emphasize diversity of age structure of pinyon and juniper species as well as stimulating sprouting of preferred browse. Diversity of age structure can be increased by 20 percent.

Wildlife use within the lower winter portions of the allotment consists of Javelina, deer, small mammals, and a variety of birds including quail. Water, or the availability of water appears to be the limiting resource for the survival of these animals. All alternatives recognize the need for additional water and include projects to increase water availability, and will maintain existing water throughout the year for wìldlife use.

Issue 5 Dispersed Recreation

All alternatives assure that ample opportunities for dispersed recreation are available. Fence construction will not change ROS classes occurring on the allotment. In the winter portions of the allotment, semi-primative motorized areas dominate. Appropriate access will be provided at trail or road crossings and along fencelines. Fencing may be beneficial by restricting off-road use in areas with non-motorized designation. In the summer portions of the allotment where roaded natural appearing areas dominate, fences will be marked to warn snowmobiles enjoying cross-country travel. Gates will be installed to provide appropriate access wherever trail or road crossings occur, also along fencelines.

The cumulative effect of additional fencing in relation to existing use does not appear to be significant. However, this does not preclude the potential for conflicts if dispersed recreation significantly increases.

IV. List of Preparers

Interdisciplinary Team

Anne Baldwin, Forest Archaeologist
Julie Tupper, Forest Hydrologist
Paul Boucher, Zone Wildlife Biologist
Tony Valdes, Range Conservationist - Team leader

Specialist Input

Gerald Mundell, Range, Supervisors Office
Debbie Steen, Recreation and Lands

Special Interest Participation

John Parsons, Ad Hoc
Ben Zink, Walker Basin Allotment Permittee

V. Consultation

On March 6, 1989 a letter was sent to interested persons requesting input to the analysis process for evaluating management alternatives for the Walker Basin allotment. This letter provided an opportunity to identify issues and offer comments specific to the analysis. Scoping was also requested from the Long Valley Ranger District, as it's boundary overlaps the allotment.

A scoping meeting to discuss the management of cattle on the Walker Basin allotment was conducted April 24, 1989 at the Beaver Creek District office. This meeting was attended by members of the ID team and allotment permittee to identify issues and opportunities. Letters received from interested individuals provided additional issues and opportunities. Of those contacted, comments were received from the Arizona Wildlife Federation and John Parsons.

On June 1, 1989 a meeting was held to review a brief of the scoping process and develop management alternatives. In attendance were members of the ID Team, and John Parsons, a resident of Camp Verde and a participant in the IRM process. The brief was presented to the Coconino National Forest staff on August 7, 1989 which provided additional issues and comment.

On August 25, 1989 a draft copy of the Walker Basin Environmental assessment was mailed to the ID Team for review.

Supervisor's Office Staff review was completed on November 6, 1989. The result of the review was the revision of the Effects of Implementation Section and clarification of cummulative effects.

Appendix B

Proposed Project List By Alternative

Appendix C

DRAFT      DRAFT     DRAFT

Walker Basin Allotment Plan
Archaeology Goals

The archaeology goal for the Walker Basin Allotment Plan is to minimize impacts to archaeological sites created by cattle grazing in the area.

The grazing area, extending over 85 square miles on Long Valley and Beaver Creek Districts, has been partially surveyed as a result of timber and fuelwood sales, range and special use projects. These projects have identified high site density areas. In areas where no archaeological survey has been completed, a model is used to determine expected site density. This site density predictive model was developed by the Archaeology Section in the early 1980' using topographic, elevational, environmental and resources date. Archaeological site density ranging from 10 to 60 sites per square mile are found north of Bald Hill, east of Walker Mountain, and around Cedar Mesa. Site types include artifact scatters (especially lithic scatters), fieldhouses and small pueblos. These areas roughly correspond to the relatively lower, 5600 to 6200 ft., elevations, whereas in the higher elevations, above 6200 to 7000 ft, prehistoric site density drops off, but cabins dating to the historic period are found near parks and springs--Mahan Park, Banfield Springs, Cabin #9 nearˇHollingshead Mountain.

Most potential impacts will be associated with structural range improvement activities such as construction of fences, pipelines, corrals, spring development projects, earthen dams or pit tanks. Archaeological survey is required for these projects. Any sites found during the survey will be avoided during these ground disturbing improvement activities.

Non-structural improvements-- seeding, prescribed burning, poison plant or rodent control are considered non-undertakings unless they areˇmechanized treatments. In the case of hand-built or re-built fences; archaeological clearance can be granted without archaeological survey (paper clearance) provided a map is submitted to the Archaeology Section.

Unless grazing activities are concentrated in one area (savory cells?) for an extended period of time, there should be no problem with impacts such as trampling. If cattle are concentrated in a high site density area for several days or weeks, the Archaeology Section will establish a monitoring schedule to evaluate impacts created by heavy grazing on archaeological sites. It has been demonstrated that intensive grazing on sites will break ceramic artifacts into small pieces, often pushing them into the ground. Heavy grazing can also modify lithic artifacts or features and redistribute scatters.

As requested, the Archaeology Section will also work with the District in planning future allotment improvements which might impact archaeological sites.

A.R. Baldwin
July 27, 1988

Appendix D

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Long Valley Ranger District, HC 31 Box 68, Happy Jack, AZ 86024

Reply to: 1950 Date: June 19, 1989
Subject: Timber input for Buckhorn and Walker Basin

To: Mike Howard, District Ranger

In reviewing the Walker Basin and Buckhorn Allotments, the following timber activities seem pertinent. The Iron Mine timber sale is currently active within both allotments and will probably be completed this year. The Banfield sale covers only a small portion of the Walker Basin area and will close soon.

Future sales within the Buckhorn allotment include Aztec planned for sale in 1990, Peck in 1994, Checker in 1995, and Clover in 1996. The Walker Basin allotment also includes the Aztec sale, Spring in 1993; Bottle, Peck, and Rock in 1994; and Hollingshead in 1995.

These sales only include part of the allotments. Large areas on the west side of Long Valley district are considered non-commercial for timber production. These acreages includes of approxinately 7100 acres within the Walter Basin allotment and 4100 acres in Buckhorn.

Of the planned sales only Aztec has an apporved EA. The planning proceas for Spring EA will begin in September and I welcome your participation in this process. EAs for the other sales will begin in FY '90. In the past we have not successfully included range concerns with our IRM process, but I hope to include Beaver Creek more effectively.

If additional information is needed, contact Jerry Gaither.

s/Bruce Greco

Bruce Greco

District Ranger

Appendix E

Arizona Wildlife Federation
5509 E. Burris Lane
Flagstaff, Arizona 86004

4/10/89

D.M. Howard
District Ranger
Beaver Creek Ranger District
HC 64
P.O. Box 240
Rimrock, Arizona 86335

Dear Mr. Howard:

We appreciate the oppourtunity to provide comment to the Buckhorn Allotment Plan. As this allotment is contiguous to the Walker Allotment of ICO's are essentially the same.

We would appreciate the oppourtunity to provide further comment when the E.A. becomes availiable.

Sincerely,

Ace H. Peterson
Conservation Chairman

cc. AWF
SO

Arizona Wildlife Federation
5509 E. Burris Lane
Flagstaff, Arizona 86604

4/10/89

D.M. Howard
District Ranger
Beaver Creek Ranger District
HC 64
P.O. Box 240
Rimrock, Arizona 86335

Dear Mr. Howard:

Enclosed are comments directed to the ICO's pertaining to the Walker Basin Cattle Allotment. The response represents the positions of the Arizona Wildlife Federation and the Coconino Sportsmen Club.

Our issues and concerns are listed below, though not in priority. We feel these will address most of these, however we may address these and others further when the Environmental Assessment becomes availiable.

1. The riparian scorecard needs to be completed and become part of the allotment plan and the E.A.
2. A range analysis needs to be completed addressing range condition, schedule of allotment analysis and allotment inspections and made part of the allotment plan and the E.A.
3. Riparian zones need to be addressed, along with implementation schedules for each area or zone.
4. Alternatives for riparian treatment and/or recovery need to address a broad range of alternatives including the exclusion of livestock.
5. Water clarity, silt analysis of existing running streams, and ponds needs to be completed and made part of the allotment plan and the E.A.
6. Winter range forage and browse conditions for Elk and Deer and Antelope need to be addressed.
7. Decadent PJ, and, manszinita treatments need to discussed and alternatives addressed.
8. The current AUM and past history of these should be made part of the E.A.
9. A map of the allotment depicting the allotment status in all classes of condition should be presented.
10. Soil condition classes and alternatives should be discussed and presented.
11. Timeing of livestock entry needs to be addressed to eliminate conflict with calving, fawning or nesting of wildlife species.
12. The allotment should be left in such a conition that the activities addressed in #11 have enough cover for those wildlife activities to occur.
13. The management of the Wilderness needs to be displayed and discussed in the plan and E.A.

We appreciate the oppourtunity to participate in this allotment plan and look forward to providing input of similiar projects.

Sincerely,

Ace H. Peterson
Conservation Chairman

cc. AWF
SO

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, 2323 E. Greenlaw Lane Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Reply to: 1950
Date: March 6, 1989

John Parsons
516 N. Leroux
Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Dear Management Participant:

The Beaver Creek Ranger District is exploring management alternatives for grazing livestock within the Walker Basin Cattle Allotment. The allotment Area is located in T14N, R5, 6, 7, 8, and 9E, and is delineated on the attached map. Management Areas 3, 7, 10-12 of the Coconino National Forest Plan are withìn the allotment area.

An interdisciplinary team of specialists will be assigned to the project in developing issues, concerns and opportunities. If you have any issues, concerns, and/or opportunites you would like to have included in the analysis process, please submit them by April 15, 1989. Your input is important to the process and we appriciate your response.

If you have any questions regarding the Walker Basin Allotment, or analysis process, please contact Tony Valdes at the Beaver Creek District Office, HC 64 P.O. Box 240, Rimrock, AZ 86335, or by telephone at (602) 567-4501 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Thank you for your interest.

D.M.Howard
District Ranger

enclosures
cc: Long Valley RD
SO: Kathy Farr

Appendix F

Watershed Affected Environment for the Walker Basin Allotment

The winter allotment is located primarily within the Wet Beaver Creek watershed but also covers portions of the Verde River and West Clear Creek watersheds. The summer allotment is located within the West Clear Creek Watershed. Both Wet Beaver Creek and West Clear Creek do not meet Arizona Department of Environmental Quality standards for turbidity and sediment. West Clear Creek also does not meet standards for bacteria levels. This means that the watersheds are only in partial support of non-point source pollution standards. Grazing along with recreational use, gravel mining and land development are the sources cited as contributing to the partial support rating in the West Clear Creek Watershed. Unsatisfactory watershed condition is also listed as a contributing factor in the Wet Beaver Creek watershed.

The winter allotment is part of the Coconino NF Land Management Plan management area 11, Verde Valley. The watershed management standards and guidelines for this management area concern improving watershed condition through the development and implementation of suitable projects. There are also small inclusions of riparian areas, MA 12. The watershed standards and guidelines for riparian areas concern protection and enhancement of this habitat.

Watershed condition analyses conducted in the late 1970's revealed that the West Clear Creek watershed was slightly below tolerance (decreasing resistance to erosion) and greatly below potential for vegetative cover. The major area of concern was the Wickiup Draw subwatershed which is located in the southwestern portion of the West Clear Creek drainage. The lower reaches of Wickiup Draw are located in the southwestern portion of the winter allotment. Review of aerial photos during the watershed condition analyses showed that over a 20 year span headcutting was occurring at the average rate of 22 feet per year. Many of the gullies are over 10 feet deep and there are extensive fingering headcuts off of the main channel especially in the lower reaches.

The same analysis rated the Wet Beaver Creek Watershed as further below tolerance than the West Clear Creek drainage and greatly below potential for vegetative cover. However the only area within the allotment that shows active erosion and headcutting is the Twin Buttes area. The gullying in this area is a result of old roads located within intermittent and ephemeral draws. Vegetative cover within this allotment is probably sufficient for the tolerance rating to be increased but is still below potential.

The summer allotment is located mainly in MA 3, Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifers, and appears to be in good watershed condition. The remainder of the allotment is located in MA's 7 and 10, Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands and Grasslands. These areas tend to be rocky and are probably above tolerance and near potential.

Last Revised: 26 April 2000