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

asena@fs.fed.us, 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