Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
DECISION MEMO
Cedar Flat Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Enhancement Project
Red Rock Ranger District
Coconino National Forest
USDA Forest Service
1.0 Introduction
Various aspects of habitat, specifically the amount and type of cover and amount of
visual obstructions affect rangeland ungulate wildlife population dynamics. Additionally,
such habitat attributes as forage quantity and quality interact with cover to determine the
overall habitat suitability for these species.
Wildlife habitat between the Beaver Creek and Clear Creek watersheds in the Cedar Flat
area of the Walker Basin Allotment on the Coconino National Forest has experienced an
increase in juniper canopy cover. In the late 1960s, a huge effort was undertaken to
reduce this juniper encroachment and methods, including chaining, were used to reduce
the Juniper encroachment in the grassland and savanna habitats. The chaining decreased
the amount of juniper encroachment in these areas, which were beneficial to the
rangeland ungulates. Since the initial chaining in the 1960s, no maintenance treatments to
perpetuate the grassland have occurred.
2.0 Background and Location
The Cedar Flat Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Enhancement Project is located on
Coconino National Forest Land with no private inholdings. The project area is generally
along Forest Service road 214, off Forest Service road 618. The project is located in
Central Game Management Unit 6A in Central Arizona, within the Cedar Flat pastures of
the Walker Basin Allotment. See map. The project is located in: T.14N., R.7E., Sec. 2-11,
14-22, and 27-29 on the Buckhorn Mtn, Walker Mtn, Casner Butte and Apache Maid 7.5’
USGS Quadrangles.
Figure 1. Location, vegetation types and elevation of the Walker Basin Allotment.
2
The Cedar Flat project area is within the Pinyon-Juniper zone and has elevated plains at
5500-6000 feet. Slopes are mostly flat to moderate (10%) grade, with an average grade of
3 percent. Within the area there are some volcanic-origin high areas that have steep faces.
There is a mix of grassland, juniper savanna, and juniper-pinyon woodland ecosystem
types within this zone. The area for treatment functions as winter season elk range and
all-season habitat for pronghorn, antelope and deer. Forest Road 214 on the northwest
slope of Bald Hill accesses project boundary.
3.0 Purpose of and Need for the Project The purpose of this project is to perform maintenance work to restore grasslands to
ensure a vigorous understory of herbaceous vegetation can thrive in an area currently
being encroached upon by juniper trees.
In addition to the maintenance needed in chained areas, some areas that were never
chained are also going to be treated so that these areas more accurately reflect the
potential canopy as directed in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey for the Coconino
National Forest.
The project is needed because after the chaining in the 1960s, follow-up treatments to
restore the grasslands were not conducted. Over the decades, junipers have encroached
upon the grasslands. This loss of grassland has caused:
Decreases in the amount of herbaceous perennial grasses
Larger areas of exposed bare soil
Accelerating rates of erosion
Decreases in the overall watershed and soil function.
Vegetative treatments to reduce this encroachment will be beneficial. Overstory 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 increases.
Cutting juniper stimulates herbaceous plant recovery, improves infiltration capacity, and
protects the soil surface from even large thunderstorms (Pierson et al, 2007). Removal of
western juniper increases total grass cover, productivity, and reduces bare ground
(Coultrap, 2008).
The desired condition for the Pinyon-Juniper Grassland and Juniper Grassland includes
the following components:
The stand is generally uneven-aged and open in appearance. Trees generally occur
as individuals, but are sometimes found in smaller groups, and range from young
to old.
Trees of a diameter of 12 inches or greater are maintained where appropriate to
mimic the desired potential canopy as dictated by the Terrestrial Ecosystem
Survey (TES).
3
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 and climate variability.
Our objective is to remove variable densities of juniper trees to:
Increase the quantity and quality of forage plants available for elk, mule deer,
white-tailed deer, and pronghorn antelope.
Create additional sight lanes for pronghorn antelope travel corridors.
Enhance edge effect and thermal cover function.
Enhance soil conditions to help plant productivity and plant vigor.
This project will accomplish these objectives through:
Immediately reducing visual obstructions
Creating wider travel/escape lanes for the purpose of linking habitat blocks with
wildlife travel corridors
Releasing the grass/forb/shrub layer through the removal of junipers and thereby
creating areas of forage refugia around the tree removal sites.
Increasing the desired perennial herbaceous understory to: improve water
infiltration, decrease soil compaction, improve overall soil condition and optimize
hydrologic function of the project area
Increasing fine fuels so that natural fires will be an effective tool for maintenance
of savannah conditions
Improving habitat permeability by fence remediation.
4.0 Conformance with Land Management Plan I have determined that this decision is in compliance with the following Land
Management Plan:
Land Management Plan Conformance
Name of Plan Coconino National Forest Plan (Plan)
And Amendment 9
Date Published
1987(Plan)
Amendment 9 (1992)
Errata #1 (2008)
Page Replacement Page 22-1, Replacement Page 23
Page 74, Replacement Page 150
Type of Language Forest Goal for Wildlife and Fish
Specific Language
Manage habitat to maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish species and improve habitat for selected species
Support the Arizona Game and Fish Department in meeting its objectives for the state.
Maintain, or where needed, enhance soil productivity and watershed condition.
Implement resource improvement projects that are cost-effective and/or are beneficial for maintaining and
4
improving water quality, quantity and soil productivity. Priority is given to vegetative versus structural measures.
Where seral grasslands are maintained in the pinyon-juniper woodland, eliminate invading vegetation through
mechanical, chemical, or planned fire treatments…..”
5.0 Description of Decision and Rationale I have decided to implement the Cedar Flat Wildlife Habitat And Watershed
Enhancement Project to accomplish the objectives outlined in Section 3.0. My decision
specifically authorizes the following:
Implement juniper thinning and broadcast burning on 4,500 acres in the Cedar Flats area
to restore habitat and watershed conditions. Thinning will occur within the Walker Basin
Allotment, Cedar Flats Pastures A, B, C, D, E and F, which comprise a total of 8,222
acres. Project activities will include 1,007 acres of mechanical thinning using a rubber
tired Agra-Axe or similar machine, and thinning an additional 3,493 acres by hand. The
location of the 3,493 acres of hand thinning is not yet identified within the 8,222 acre
planning area and will be based on site-specific information such as monitoring which
shows there is evidence that encroaching junipers are limiting perennial grassland and
herbaceous growth and affecting soil function.
Slash will be lopped and scattered or chipped if a chipping head is used on the machine.
Most of this area has been chained in the last 60 years, although some unchained areas
may be treated. Broadcast burning (initial entry and maintenance burns) will be
conducted within both the mechanical and hand thinned areas. In addition, closure of
non-system, unauthorized roads and fence repair may occur across the entire 4,500 acre
project area.
Previous surveys in the project area covered 485.7 acres. Recent efforts covered 521.5
newly surveyed acres and 39.5 acres of resurvey. All areas proposed for initial
mechanical treatment have been surveyed. I am requiring that all sites that are eligible or
recommended eligible for NRHP listing, or are unevaluated that lie in the areas that will
be mechanically thinned be flagged and avoided.
Approximately 4,500 acres of vegetation treatment using hand cutting, mechanical
cutting, and prescribed fire methods will be used as follows:
Mechanical treatment will only be used in areas with 100% survey
Mechanical treatments may include but are not limited to using the Agra-axe
and mechanical chippers to remove encroaching junipers.
Mechanical treatment will avoid all archeological sites except for those
determined not eligible for the National Register. (Hand thinning may occur
within all sites to reduce fuel loading.)
Currently approximately 1,007 acres have been surveyed and are cleared for
mechanical treatment.
Archeological surveys have also been completed on portions of FS
roads 214, 9201J and 9236N. These road corridors surveys cover a
5
300 foot area on either side of these roads and will also be
candidates for mechanical vegetation treatment where practical.
Additional areas have been surveyed in several other small projects
and are included in the cleared mechanical treatment area.
Additional areas within the 4,500 acre project area may be identified for
mechanical treatment in the future. Any additional areas of mechanical treatments
will require additional archaeological survey and clearances before work may
commence. Such additional review and survey will be documented in a separate
clearance report.
Hand cutting (saw) removal of invasive junipers will occur in areas not treated
mechanically (including within site boundaries, following the Region 3 First
Amended PA, Appendix J, Section II) and areas not covered by existing
archaeological surveys.
The resulting slash will be lopped and scattered.
Large diameter juniper logs may be made available to the public or to commercial
operators through a permit system. If the wood is made available, no off-road
vehicle travel (by either the public or commercial operators) would be allowed to
collect the wood. All wood would be collected manually.
Prescribed fire will be used in conjunction with mechanical and hand treatments.
o This will be done as fuel loading/accumulation and grazing rotation allow.
o Both pile burning and broadcast burning may be used. Prescribed fire may
also be used to perform maintenance treatments on a regular rotation.
o Nearly 25% of the project area has been intensively surveyed. All
archaeological sites recorded in Cedar Flat and adjacent areas are non-fire-
sensitive (as defined in Section III of the Region 3 First Amended PA,
Appendix J). Survey results confirm the predicted low probability of fire-
sensitive sites. Sites that are determined to be non-fire-sensitive may be
burned over as per Region 3 First Amended PA, Appendix J (see
specifically Section II for site protection measures) without an adverse
effect on those sites. Consequently, prescribed fire (broadcast burning) may
be used within the entire 4,500 acre project area, with one exception.
A review of historic maps found one potential area for fire
sensitive sites, a homestead filed under the name of J. Albert
Steinhardt in T14N, R7E, Sections 16 and 17 that was never
patented. The area delineated in green on Figure 6 will be
surveyed 100% prior to any prescribed burning within the
homestead, and any fire sensitive sites in the area will be avoided
during burning operations. Results of such additional survey will
be documented in an addendum to this report if and when survey is
performed.
o Maintenance treatments are follow-up prescribed burn treatments. Re-
burning may occur every 5 to 15 years based on reseeding of juniper in
grassland areas.
o Any necessary fireline construction outside the completely surveyed area
where mechanical treatments may occur will require a separate survey and
clearance report.
6
Non-system roads in the 4,500 acre project area will be blocked and/or
decommissioned as opportunity allows. Non-system roads in areas with existing
100% survey may be blocked and/or decommissioned using hard (ground
disturbing) methods outside of site boundaries. Road segments within site
boundaries and all roads outside of areas previously surveyed 100% will be closed
utilizing soft (non-ground disturbing) closure methods
o Hard road closure methods may include:
Placement of boulders, mounds, and tank traps
Ripping, seeding, and mulching
Installation of fences, gates, and signs
o Soft road closure methods may include:
Placement of cut trees and vegetation to obscure the road.
Seeding and mulching
Existing fences in the project area will be brought up to current wildlife standards
using hand work only (restringing wire).
Species to be cleared would be juniper with an estimated diameter <12-inch DBH.
The juniper canopy would be cut back to TES proposed potential levels which
vary from 0-10 percent canopy depending on the TES unit being treated.
The majority of alligator bark juniper and healthy pinyon trees are to be retained.
The primary monitoring party will be the University of Arizona, but the AGFD and the
USFS will also conduct monitoring as follows:
(a) V-V Ranch/ University of Arizona – quantitative and qualitative response of
herbaceous vegetative to treatment.
(b) Arizona Game and Fish – game surveys.
(c) Coconino National Forest – vegetative and soil related assessments
7
8
The Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) for the project area is Moderate. There are three
concern Level 2 travel ways in the project area: FR9201J, FR9236N, and FR214. The
following design criteria applies to these travelways:
If piles of slash or firewood will be located within the immediate foreground of
noted travelways, limit the piles to an average of 4 feet of the ground when visible
within 300 feet on either side.
Stems are to be cut to within 6 inches of the ground in the immediate foreground
(300 feet from noted travelways).
Leave tree marking or unit boundary markings are not to be visible within 100
feet of noted travel routes.
Along designated camping corridors - retain additional trees around well-used
sites to maintain recreational and scenic quality. Designate for cutting only those
trees that have severe form defects, human-caused damage, poor crowns, and
insect and disease evidence.
Figure 2. Project Area Treatment Map
Soil type is generally Haplustalfs (volcanic origin) of loam and clay loam, most sites
moderately deep to deep. The treatment polygons coincide with soil that are described as
cobbly, very cobbly and very stony. Surface exposure of cobbles and stones favors hand
treatment over mechanical treatment. Cobbles and stones are of extrusive volcanic origin
9
(basalt). Some sites feature density and size of stones that preclude reasonable
mechanical treatment of trees.
The treatment polygon in the maps above show the area that has been 100 percent
surveyed within the Cedar Flats pasture A in a hatched color. Also previous archeological
surveys have been completed on portions of FS roads 214 and 9201J. These road
corridors will also be candidates for mechanical treatment where practical. Mechanical
treatment methods will avoid all archeological sites noted within clearance documents.
Mechanical treatments would include possible chipping, rubber tired agra-axe and other
mechanical techniques with prescribed fire options for future maintenance. The use of
prescribed fire will also be limited to areas with archeological survey and clearances in
place. Otherwise, the remaining acreage within Cedar Flats pastures B, C, D, E, and F
will all be limited to hand thinning unless future archeological surveys are done in these
pastures. Hand thinned pastures will be treated by hand crews using hand tools, until
additional archeological clearances and survey work can be funded and conducted for
additional mechanical treatments to take place under this proposed action.
6.0 Reasons for Categorically Excluding the Proposed Action
Based on the actions proposed, and my familiarity with projects similar in nature, I have
determined that this decision is categorically excluded from documentation in an
Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment under in 36 CFR
220.6(e)(6), which reads:
Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities which do not include the use
of herbicides or do not require more than one mile of low standard road construction
The categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because I have determined there
are no extraordinary circumstances potentially having effects which may significantly
affect the environment.
7.0 Scoping and Public Involvement
Scoping was conducted commensurate with the nature and complexity of the project.
Internal scoping was done by addressing each resource area in the Forest Service to
inform them of the project and get notification of any issues from key personnel. In
addition, the following potential partners were specifically notified during scoping:
Arizona Game and Fish Department-Lee Luedeker, Wildlife Manager, project
reconnaissance and planning, joint author, and project monitor.
Arizona Game and Fish Department- Steve Cassady, Landowner Incentive
Program Manager, project reconnaissance and planning.
Coconino National Forest- Red Rock Ranger District, Amina Sena and Janie
Agyagos – lead for FS NEPA requirements on the Red Rock District and project
monitors.
10
Coconino National Forest- Mogollon Rim Ranger District, Jeff Thumm –
potential labor contribution of fire crews.
University of Arizona- V-V Ranch- Doug Tolleson- Rangeland Management
Specialist, project planning and project monitor. Dave Schafer- V-V Ranch
Director, coordination with ranch operations to fit project goals
M Diamond Ranch- Peggy Ingham livestock permittee (future implementation
cycles).
Bar D Ranch- Bruce Johnson livestock permittee (future implementation cycles).
Natural Resource Conservation Service- Iric Burden, project planning.
Arizona Elk Society – Jim deVos, project monitor and volunteer coordinator.
Arizona Department of Transportation may also be a potential additional
partner due to their involvement in highway planning through the FH-3 corridor
for out-year efforts specifically habitat connectivity and linkages.
Salt River Project may also be a potential additional partner due to their linkage
with the project area as a watershed that contributes water to their operations.
No comments against the proposal were received.
8.0 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations
This action is consistent with the following legal requirements:
All management practices are consistent with the Coconino National Forest Land
and Resources Management Plan Standards and Guidelines.
A Cultural Resource Clearance was completed by the District Archaeologist and
this project will have no adverse effect to any of the sites when the specified
clearance recommendations are followed.
9.0 Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances The following is my evaluation of the resource conditions, identified in 36 CFR
220.6(b) that need to be considered in determining whether an extraordinary
circumstance exists.
1. Federally listed threatened or endangered species, or designated critical habitat,
species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest
Service Sensitive Species.
There will be no effect to Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive species, or any
species proposed to be on those lists. Additionally, there will be no effect to
designated or proposed critical habitat. A wildlife clearance form is in the project
file.
11
2. Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds:
There are no wetlands or municipal watersheds in the project area.
3. Congressionally Designated Areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or
national recreation areas:
None of the activities specified in this Decision memo are within Congressionally
Designated Areas.
4. Inventoried Roadless Areas or potential wilderness areas:
The trails are not within an inventoried Roadless Area and are not part of a
potential wilderness area.
5. Research Natural Areas:
The trails are not within or adjacent to a research natural area.
6. American Indians and Alaska Native Religious or Cultural Sites
No native religious or cultural sites are located within the project area.
7. Archeological sites, or historic properties or areas
Although archaeological sites are present within the project area, all sites would
be avoided unless they were determined to be not eligible for listing.
10.0 Administrative Review
This decision is not subject to administrative review and may be implemented
immediately.
11.0 Contact Information
For additional information concerning this decision please contact Amina Sena, District
Hydrologist, Red Rock Ranger District, P.O. Box 20429 Sedona, AZ 86341
[email protected], phone: 928-203-2907
12
12.0 Responsible Official’s Decision As the Responsible Official, it is my decision to implement the actions as described in
this Decision Memo for the Cedar Flat Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Enhancement
Project.
Based on clearances from resource specialists, the types the actions proposed, the areas
involved, and my familiarity with projects of a similar nature, I have determined that
there are no extraordinary circumstances related to this action that require documentation
in an EA or EIS.
__/s/_Nicole Branton__________________ _9/12/2014__________
Nicole Branton Date
Red Rock District Ranger
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex,
marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information,
political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any
public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with
disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,
large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and
TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)
720-6382 (TDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
13
Literature Cited
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.
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.
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, 1999. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper
Communities Within the Interior West. Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Proceedings RMRS-P-9