Environmental Analysis Report
Range Management (Five Year) Plan for the Walker Basin Allotment

Long Valley Ranger District, Coconino National Forest, Region Three

Prepared By: Donald A. Van Driel, Forester Date: 3/20/75
Recommended By: John D. Sims, District Ranger Date: 3/20/75
Approved By: Don D. Seaman, Forest Supervisor Date: 5/1/75

I. Environmental Setting

A. Geology

The allotment lies on top of the Mogollon Rim. Topography in general varies from flat to gently rolling with occasional rough and steep canyons or hillsides. Malapai rock outcroppings occur throughout the allotment.

B. Land Form

Other than lying on top of the Mogollon Rim, there are no special land forms.

C. Climate

The allotment lies at an elevation between 6,000 and 6,800 feet. At this elevation winters are cold (40( to -0() and snow packs sometimes exceed six feet in depth, whereas summers are mild (50( to 85(), and the summer rains make up approximately 50% of the total annual moisture. The useable period for this area is June through October.

D. Soils

The soils are derived from volcanic (basalt) parent material and are quite varied in composition. Most of the area is relatively rocky and soils are shallow. Lake deposits and other alluvial type soils can also be found. A comprehensive soils report has been made and is on file at the District Office (Long Valley Area, Arizona, June 1974).

E. Vegetation

Overstory species consist of Ponderosa pine and/or Pinyon-juniper. Understory species include a mixture of cool and warm season grasses and a varying assortment of forbes and browses.

F. Water

Water found on the allotment consists primarily of snow melt and run off from summer rains. This runoff is stored in earthen stocktanks to provide water for domestic stock and wildlife.

G. Air

Air quality at present is pure and relatively free from pollution.

H. Wildlife and Fish

Principle big game species found on the allotment are elk, deer, turkey and occasional antelope. Fisheries in the area are limited to a few earthen stocktanks which have mud catfish and/or blue gill. Abert squirrels are present in the Ponderosa pine type. A large variety of bird life is present on the allotment.

I. Natural Beauty

The natural beauty of the area has increased over the years as a result of improved range management, productivity of increased ground cover (forage) and higher quality improvement projects (stock water tanks, fence lines and right-of-ways, etc.).

J. Near Naturalness of the Land

Past use by man has; broken the area up by constructing logging roads, created earthen stocktanks, built allotment boundary and division fences and controlled juniper in invasion areas.

K. Socio-economics

The permittees entire livelyhood is dependent on the use of National Forest Land for the production of livestock, which is used to help meet the nations demand for red meat.

L. Non-renewable Resources

1. Antiquities

Prehistoric indian ruins could be found throughout the allotment but it is more likely that if present, they will be located in the west half.

2. Minerals

The allotment does not contain any areas of known mineral importance .

3. Wilderness

There are no existing or proposed wilderness areas within the allotment.

M. Critical Resources and Areas

1. High Slope Dynamics

There are areas within the allotment which have received excessive soil movement in the past and more than likely a contributing factor was over grazing which occurred in the early 1900's. Presently most areas appear to be fairly stable.

2. High Water Table

The water table in this country is basically well below the surface and past use has had a little or no effect. There are no wells on the allotment.

3. Historical Sites

There are no existing or potential historical sites within the allotment.

4. Indian Ceremonial Ground or Religious Shrines

None are known to exist within the area.

5. Key Wildlife Areas

There are areas within the allotment that are used as fawning grounds for both deer and elk as well as nesting areas for turkey. As for as designated "key areas," none exist.

6. Rare and Endangered Species Habitat

Eagles very possibly, could use most of the allotment for either perches around waters or nesting sites. No other species are known to inhabit the area. No eagle nests have been seen.

7. Riparian Sites

No reparian sites are known to exist within the allotment.

8. Sensitive Soils and Land

Most soils are of basaltic parent material and although not classified as sensitive, they have caused problems in the past as a result of heavy grazing during the early 1900's. Most areas have or are in the process of stabilization.

9. Unique Geological Features

No particular features of importance exist on the allotment.

N. People

The area in general receives light use by people. The permittee owns a small parcel of land in the southeast corner of the allotment where he spends a portion of the summer managing his livestock. Moderate to heavy big game hunting occurs during a short period on the fall and light tourist traffic result from people enroute to the trails leading into West Clear Creek. Other than the above use, the area sees few people.

O. Man's Present Use of the Land

1. Transportation

The area, as a result of past use, is well roaded with standards ranging from two laned gravel to one track jeep trails. Most system roads in the timber type will be upgraded as a result of future timber sales.

2. Livestock Grazing

The allotment numbers have recently been reduced to a level in line with estimated capacities. Although most of the area is still in poor condition. Grazing systems were geared to deferred rotation management which will improve distribution and result in an improved range condition. The area receives late spring - summer - early fall use each year.

3. Timber Harvest

Most of the area is planned for harvest within the next ten years. Harvest will consist of a sawtimber and pulp cut followed by pre-commercial thinnings.

4. Outdoor Recreation

Recreation in this area is primarily confined to big game hunting and sight seeing. In general, recreation use can be considered light.

P. Man's Past Use of the Land

1. Livestock Grazing

As stated before, livestock (sheep and cattle) use during the early 1900's left the area in very poor condition. Overgrazing as well as poor distribution were factors resulting in this condition. Since this period of heavy use, the area has received controlled grazing but again numbers were above capacities and distribution was poor.

2. Timber Harvest

The area received a light harvest in the mid 1950's. Numerous roads were constructed for access. The light cut did not open up the stands enough to be of much benefit to livestock and wildlife.

3. Mining

No mining as such has ever occurred within the allotment. There were, during the construction of FH-3, several borrow pits constructed are presently being used as livestock and wildlife waters.

4. National Known or Recognized Wildlife Habitat on Big Game Herds

Other than making up a portion of the big game summer range, including fawning and nesting areas, the allotment does not have any significant importance.

II. Proposed Action

A. Proposal Description

1. Proposal

The proper management of National Forest range lands is a continuing process. In order to achieve continuity, a Five-Year Grazing Plan is prepared for each allotment. Through this plan, an intensive system of management is achieved.

Intensive management is not solely concerned with the manipulation of livestock between grazing units. The construction and reconstruction of fences, building of stock tanks and the renewal of range grasses through improved management and type conversion projects are all intregally keyed to intensive management. The proposed range management plan for the Walker Basin Allotment is tailored to continued intensive management of National Forest Range Lands.

2. Demand or Relative Urgency

The allotment management plan is in need of revision due to the reduction in numbers and the need to provide rest in the Pine Unit and deferred rest in the remaining units. The range conditions and plant density will improve if the new plan is followed and the permittee works at distribution.

3. Multiple Use Management Zones and Management Units Involved

The Intermediate and Woodland Management Zones make up a major part of the allotment with the Travel Influence Zone of FH-3 lying along the east edge.

The only management unit involved is I-10 comparative unit, which is located in the extreme northeast corner of the allotment.

4. Location

Generally speaking, the allotment lies in the middle of the Long Valley District. See the attached allotment management map for specific locations.

5. Size

The total gross acreage within the allotment is approximately 24,062 acres of which 22,245 are National Forest, 1,582 acres are S.W.F.I. and the remaining 235 acres belong to the permittees.

6. Landownership and Status

National Forest land is the predominate landownership pattern, although several sections are in private ownership. A right-of-way on FH-3 also runs through the northeast corner of the allotment.

B. Environmental Impacts

1. Primary Impacts on the Environment

a) Renewable Resources

1) Air Quality

Construction of stocktanks and debris burning from type conversion projects will have a short term effect on air quality.

2) Natural Beauty

An overgrazed range or a badly eroded stocktank can detract from natural beauty. Landscape management employed in the design of juniper control projects can affect natural beauty. Fences, an integral part of livestock production and range management, and its right-of-way can affect natural beauty.

3) Vegetation

The application of a range management plan will affect both the quality and quantity of the range resources.

4) Water Quality and Quantity

The construction of stock tanks as well as the increase in plant density may have an effect on water quantity delivered to downstream users.

5) Wildlife

Range revegetation projects, fences and stock tanks will have some effect on wildlife. Livestock confined to one or two pastures could have some effect on wildlife using the area.

b) Non-Renewable Resources

1) Antiquities

Stock tank construction, juniper control projects and fence construction could effect prehistoric indian ruins.

2) Soils

Stock tanks, stock trails and livestock distribution/use could effect soil movement. Range revegetation projects could also have an effect on soils.

c) Uses

1) Forage for Livestock

Livestock forage vigor and density over most of the allotment needs improvement. Range improvement projects and pasture rotation will effect future forage supply.

2) Outdoor Recreation

Recreation, in general, is directed toward big game hunting. Light through traffic results from hikers enroute to the trails leading into West Clear Creek. In most cases, big game hunting occurs after the livestock have been moved to the lower winter country. Stock tank construction and revegetation projects will have an effect on recreational opportunities.

3) Timber

Pasture rotation schedules can effect timber harvest operations. Rested pastures depend on strong fences and closed gates. Concentrations of livestock could effect regeneration project success.

d) Activities

1) Economics

Considerable funds will be expended by both the Forest Service and the permittee on range improvement projects and maintenance of existing improvements. A sizable investment has already been made in management of the allotment.

2) Fire Management

Slash from type conversion projects could effect the fire activity by creating additional hazards. Branding and warming fires built by the permittee could effect fire risk.

3) Landownership Adjustment

A change in ownership of the Southwest Forest Industries land could have an effect on livestock rotation systems. Failure of the permittee to obtain a grazing lease on these lands could also effect rotation systems.

e) Critical Areas

1) Archeological Sites

Indian ruins could occur over most of the allotment but the west half is more likely to have had the major use. Revegetation projects, stock tanks and fence construction could effect these sites.

2) Key Wildlife Areas

Livestock and wildlife prefer the same key areas in many cases. These key areas are more important for wildlife than for cattle, especially when we talk about small parks, wet meadows, calving grounds, etc.

Salting, distribution of livestock and water developments can have an immediate impact on wildlife key areas. Revegetation projects may have a slower effect on key areas.

3) Rare and Endangered Species Habitat

There could be areas within the allotment that are used by eagles, the most common and possibly the only endangered species on the area. Eagles are commonly seen feeding around stock tanks, especially those tanks with snags around them or in the water. Hollingshead Butte, Banfield Mountain, Sams Butte and Snake Ridge could all be nesting sites for eagles. The removal of suitable perches around tanks may effect the eagle and raptor habitat. Heavy equipment working around nesting sites could effect egg survival.

2. Secondary Impacts on the Environment

Considering sound range management practices are implemented, stocking levels are within the capacity estimates and weather conditions permit, there will be an increase in the forage production which will result in an increase in the pounds of beef produced to help meet the increasing demand. The largest unknown is the probably necessity of allocating additional forage for big game animals. The impact of such a decision may outweigh the gains received from livestock management.

3. Favorable Environmental Effects

a) Natural Beauty

A productive, well grassed range is always pleasing to the eye, especially as compared to an overgrazed, eroded range. Stock tanks suitably located and constructed with quality is always a pleasing sight. Again, fences and waterlots suitably located and constructed to standard will blend into the surroundings.

Juniper control projects which are designed to enhance the landscape, including cleanup, will appeal to the eye. Size and shape of cleared areas are key factors.

b) Vegetation

A well designed pasture rest and deferred rotation of cool and warm season grasses will produce a positive effect on the quality and quantity of forage on the allotment. Areas currently understocked with forage will respond more rapidly with management. Stock tanks are designed to relieve livestock distribution problems. Juniper control projects will produce more forage for livestock and wildlife. Fences will control livestock and insure rest and rotation of pastures.

c) Wildlife

Benefits will occur through increased forage productivity and the opening up of new habitat resulting from type conversion projects. Additional waterings will result from stock tank construction.

d) Antiquities

Indian ruins will be protected by locating juniper control projects, stocktank sites and fence locations in areas found to have no archeological significances.

e) Soils

Stock tanks can be engineered for a minimum of soil loss. The construction of improvements and good livestock distribution will result in a reduction in areas of overuse.

Revegetation projects in Utah juniper stands will improve soil stability by increasing ground cover.

f) Outdoor Recreation

Many stock tanks are suitable for fish. Stocking these tanks will provide for additional recreation opportunities. Additional waters and increased forage will improve the possibilities of wildlife sightings.

g) Timber

Seedling success will possibly be improved as a result of deferred grazing in areas planned for regeneration.

h) Transportation

Cattleguards improve recreation access primarily through convenience.

i) Economics

Expenditures of range improvement funds on the land will result in improved land conditions and values.

j) Key Wildlife Areas

Impacts on key areas can be minimized through administration of good range management plans.

k) Rare and Endangered Species Habitat

Additional waterings will provide more habitat for eagles. Protection of snags around waterings will protect eagle habitat. Livestock use in eagle nesting areas is rare due to steepness and roughness of the terrain.

4. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided

a) Air Quality

Smoke from debris burning will have a short term impact on air quality.

Some dust and equipment smoke pollution can be expected from construction of stock tanks and type conversion projects.

b) Natural Beauty

Until type conversion debris has been cleaned up there will be a period of conflict with natural beauty.

Fences, regardless of layout, are always visible and a possible detraction.

c) Water Quantity and Quality

Stock tanks retain water that would otherwise go to downstream water users.

d) Wildlife

Fences create some problems in big game movement as deer and elk sometimes have difficulty getting under or over these fences. Confinement of livestock into smaller pasture units will release other areas of livestock/wildlife pressures but in turn will increase pressures in areas of use and could also effect wildlife calving.

e) Soils

Failure of revegetation projects and poorly construct stock tanks could result in movement of soil.

f) Outdoor Recreation

Some recreationists do not like livestock, range improvements or type conversion projects. Concentration of livestock in pastures and around stock tanks could be unpleasant to some people.

g) Timber

Concentration of cattle in areas being prepared for regeneration could increase success by reducing plant competition and scarifying the soil.

h) Fire Management

Slash from type conversion projects could increase the fire hazard in areas.

Increase in forage production and plant density could also result in an increased fire hazard.

Branding and warming fires could increase fire risk.

i) Landownership Adjustments

The ability of the permittee to obtain grazing leases from S.W.F.I. could cause problems in pasture rotations and livestock numbers.

j) Safety

Concentrations of livestock in smaller units will possibly increase public hazards on system roads.

k) Rare and Endangered Species Habitat

Removal of snags from around stockwaters will damage the eagle habitat, but policy prohibits such practice.

5. Alternatives to Proposed Action

a) Hold Management to Present Levels

The conditions and trend of the forage species has not made much recognizable improvement under present management but the past downward movement in trend appears to have been stopped and could possibly be slightly increasing. Leaving the allotment in a "status quo" state would not cause a noticeable impact for some years. The "sore spots" would probably continue to grow in size.

Proper management is based on improving management systems to produce a more productive range resource and maintaining a "status quo" would be improper management.

b) Improved Intensive Management

Increased productivity of the range resource can be accomplished through improve intensive management. Proper use management is the key to intensive management. An increase in consumer demand for beef and wildlife numbers can only be met by improving intensive management of the resources.

c) No Management

This is not a logical alternative because it is not proper land use management and will not be considered. The result of no management would be a loss of the range resource which would in turn adversely effect other resources.

6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Committment of Resource

There are no committments of the resource that are irreversible or irretrievable in the management proposal.

7. Management Requirements and Constraints

The following recommendations will be followed to insure a quality job of range resource management.

a) No environmental statement is needed for this plan.

b) All range improvement projects initiated between the permittee and the Forest Service shall be documented by a cooperative agreement and subject to the following pertinent recommendations.

c) Construction of fences shall conform to Regional fence standards for the elevation where the project is located. Fence specifications shall be included with cooperative agreements. Wildlife movement will be protected through fence height controls.

d) Stock tanks shall be constructed not to exceed Regional class C hazard constraints. Dam back slope will not exceed 2:1 and 3:1 on upstream face.

e) Type conversion projects will conform to Regional standards which provide for wildlife habitat. Landscape management will be used to layout project area to best conform to natural landscape and soil requirements. Slash will be disposed of as quickly as possible.

f) Seeding mixtures for revegetation projects will include species palatable for both wildlife and livestock. Provide for backup measures to insure success of revegetation projects.

g) Existing habitat for rare and endangered species will be protected or improved where possible. Snags in or near stock tank locations will be left.

h) Water development will have provisions for wildlife access.

i) Wildlife needs, such as nesting and fawning areas, will be considered in establishing rotation schedules of livestock.

j) Slash disposal burning will be done at such time as to obtain both good smoke dispersal and control of fire.

k) Restrict branding and warming fires to approved areas during high fire danger.

l) All range improvement projects will receive an intensive archeological examination and clearance prior to start of project.

m) Coordinate with timber management in regeneration efforts by providing grazing and scarification in areas planned for natural seedling establishment.

n) As range improvements are constructed, they will be added to the inventory of structural/non-structural range improvements.

Last Revised: 26 April 2000