range specialist’s reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · ·...

1

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Date: December 10, 2013

Prepared By: Gary Hase, Jr., District Range Staff,

Flagstaff Ranger District

Signature: Gary Hase, Jr.

Range Specialist’s Report

Windmill West Range Allotment

Flagstaff and Red Rock Ranger Districts, Coconino National Forest

Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS __________________________

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Analysis Area .............................................................................................................................. 4

Grazing History and Management .............................................................................................. 5

Existing Condition ........................................................................................................................ 10

Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 12

Grazing Capability .................................................................................................................... 13

Range Condition and Trend ...................................................................................................... 16

Range Condition ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.17

Summary of Range Condition .............................................................................................. 22

Range Trend Data ................................................................................................................. 23

Summary of Range Trend ..................................................................................................... 27

Estimated Grazing Capacity for the Windmill West Allotment ............................................... 28

Summary of Estimated Grazing Capacity ................................................................................. 30

Desired Condition ......................................................................................................................... 30

Ground Cover, Species Richness and Species Composition .................................................... 31

Soil condition ............................................................................................................................ 31

Management Framework .............................................................................................................. 31

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................... 32

No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 32

Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................................... 32

Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 34

Modified Proposed Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 36



Modified Proposed Action with South Gyberg Pasture Alternative ......................................... 44



Comparison of Alternatives……………………………………………………………………...45

Preparation of Report .................................................................................................................... 48

3

Education and Professional Experience .................................................................................... 48

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 49

APPENDIXES .............................................................................................................................. 53

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

using GIS software (ESRI ArcGIS). Minor differences in the acreage displayed may occur due to “floating

point rounding errors” in Excel spreadsheets and/or the data accuracy of the various GIS databases accessed.

4

Introduction The Flagstaff Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest proposes to continue to

authorize livestock grazing on Windmill West Allotment in a manner that maintains

resource conditions where allotment conditions are satisfactory, or moves resource

conditions towards meeting Forest Plan objectives and desired on-the-ground conditions

where allotment conditions are unsatisfactory. The Flagstaff District Ranger is the

Responsible Official for this project.

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

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

in a slightly different manner. In these situations, the EA was the instrument used to inform the

decision-making process. Specialist reports, including this report, are important reference

sources for more detailed information on affected environment, methodology, and analysis that

was not included in the EA. This is based on the Council for Environmental Quality’s NEPA

regulations (Section 1508.9), which identifies an Environmental Assessment as a “concise public

document” to include “brief discussions” of the proposal, alternatives, environmental impacts of

the alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.

Analysis Area

The Windmill West Allotment is located on the Flagstaff and Red Rock Ranger Districts of the

Coconino National Forest, and is administered and managed by the Flagstaff Ranger District.

The allotment is generally located southwest of Flagstaff and west of Sedona; roughly bounded

by Highway 89A to the east, the city of Cottonwood to the south, the Coconino National Forest

Boundary to the west, and Interstate 40 to the north (Figure 1). The Mogollon Rim bisects the

allotment delineating the summer range to the north and winter range to the south. Elevations

range from 3,300 feet in the winter range on the Red Rock Ranger District to 7,500 feet in the

summer range on the Flagstaff Ranger District. Vegetation communities adhere to typical

elevation regimes: ponderosa pine, mountain meadows and mixed conifer forests are present in

the higher elevations (summer range); pinyon/juniper woodlands, chaparral, semi-desert

grasslands and desert scrub are typical at the mid to lower elevations (winter range).

The Windmill West allotment is approximately 154,000 acres in size. Land ownership within

the Windmill West allotment includes approximately 140,500 acres of National Forest System

lands and approximately 13,500 acres of either Arizona State Trust land or private land. The

Coconino National Forest only has management jurisdiction over National Forest System

acreage, the remaining acreage is managed either by the Arizona State Land Department or

private land owners. Of the 140,500 acres managed by the Coconino National Forest,

approximately 32,400 acres have not been actively grazed in the past 10 years.

5

Figure 1: Vicinity Map of the Windmill West Allotment on the Coconino National Forest

Grazing History and Management

Livestock grazing has occurred in

the area since the mid-1860s below

the rim and the late-1870s above the

rim. By the 1890s domestic

livestock numbers had reached about

4.5 million in Arizona. Overgrazing

combined with fire suppression and

drought resulted in a reduction in

herbaceous plant cover and species

diversity, and an increase in woody

species (Finch, 2004; Baker et al.

1988). Accounts of widespread

livestock death from this time are

attributed to the reduction in forage

(Baker et al. 1988).

With the establishment of the Forest

Reserves in 1891 (becoming the

Forest Service in 1905), land

managers and ranchers began

addressing the concerns of

overgrazing and overall ecosystem

health (Baker et al. 1988). A permit

system was established in 1908, requiring ranchers to pay for livestock grazed on Forest Service

lands. With decreasing livestock numbers and changes in management, trends in herbaceous

ground cover have generally improved in areas where tree and shrub density does not limit

recovery (Moore et al 2004, Arnold 1950, Cooper 1960, Pearson and Jameson 1967).

No specific documentation is available regarding the type and number of livestock grazed in the

early years on an individual allotment, but information does exist for the Coconino National

Forest. The grazing history of Windmill West allotment most likely reflects the Coconino

National Forest trends, starting with high numbers and dropping to current levels. Tables 1 and 2

represent livestock numbers on the Coconino National Forest from 1910 to 2010.

Table 1: Cattle and Horses on the Coconino National Forest, 1910-2010.

Year Permitted Number Permitted Head

Months

Actual Head Months

1910 33,200 247,000 239,000

1920 49,106 427,000 400,000

1930 19,088 149,000 142,000

1940 19,500 144,992 139,835

Late 40’s-50 19,000 137,589 132,639

1960 18,000 138,906 131,018

6

1970 19,000 138,688 123,611

1980 17,350 134,589 112,713

1990 17,540 136,160 96,118

2000 16,271 126,684 88,801

2010 16,318 112,947 75,715

Table 2: Sheep and Goats on the Coconino National Forest, 1910-2010

Year Permitted Number Permitted Head

Months

Actual Head Months

1910 89,550 360,000 300,000

1920 95,090 420,000 350,000

1930 63,080 240,000 200,000

1940 50,000 188,237 153,966

Late 40’s-50 24,000 112,827 94,594

1960 17,000 73,554 66,512

1970 15,000 57,742 53,993

1980 10,000 41,565 13,666

1990 2,670 14,747 12,002

2000 2,670 14,747 10,227

2010 2,670 12,038 12,038

The current Windmill West allotment is the result of several historical allotment combinations

and splits. By 1987 the Windmill, Roger’s Lake, Winter Cabin, Black Springs, and Barney

allotments were combined with the Foxboro, Munds Pocket, Indian Gardens, Geronimo, and T-

Six allotments to form the Windmill allotment. That same year the Black Springs pasture was

removed from the Windmill West allotment through a permit modification. In 2009 the

Windmill allotment was split into what are currently the Windmill and Windmill West

allotments. As a result of these allotment combinations and splits, two periods exist for the

recent grazing history and management of the area currently within the boundaries of the

Windmill West allotment: prior to February, 2009 and after February, 2009.

Prior to the February, 2009 split of Windmill allotment, cattle were managed on the Windmill

allotment in three separate herds; the Munds Park herd, the Foxboro herd, and the Mill Park

herd. Each herd was grazed separately on different areas of the allotment. The Munds Park herd

and the Foxboro herd grazed pastures on what is now currently the Windmill allotment. The

Mill Park herd grazed pastures on what is currently the Windmill West allotment plus the White

Flat, Well, Holly Springs, Sheepshead, Cornville, and State pastures of the current Windmill

allotment. Permitted livestock numbers for the Mill Park herd portion of the Windmill allotment

were 7,164 AUMs until 2009; 3,003 for the summer range and 4,161 for the winter range. The

Mill Park herd was managed using a deferred rest rotation grazing strategy which had been used

since 1995. Under this grazing system, two to three pastures from the winter range and two to

three pastures from summer range of the allotment were rested each year.

With the split of Windmill allotment in February, 2009, the Mill Park Herd was restricted to

grazing solely on what became the Windmill West allotment. The Windmill West allotment

does not include six main grazing pastures that were historically used by the Mill Park herd

7

during the winter grazing period: White Flat pasture, Well pasture, Holly Springs pasture,

Sheepshead pasture, Cornville pasture, and the State pasture. The loss of these six pastures

changed livestock management, reduced acreage available for use by the Mill Park herd, reduced

the number of pastures that could be rested in the winter range and reduced permitted livestock

numbers.

The Windmill West allotment is divided into 33 main grazing pastures and three smaller

livestock management pastures; the livestock management pastures are all approximately 200

acres is size or less. Of the 33 main grazing pastures, 27 are currently used; and of the 3 small

livestock management pastures, 1 is currently used. Five pastures (North Sycamore, South

Sycamore, Winter Cabin, Loy Canyon, and Secret Mountain) and two small management

pastures (#51 and #60) are no longer grazed due to the difficulty of managing livestock in these

pastures, a decision reached by both the Forest Service and the permittee. South Gyberg pasture

has not been grazed in about 10 years due to the presence of the Arizona Cliffrose, an

endangered species.

Main grazing pastures are generally separated by fencing, but topography does function as

pasture boundaries in some locations. Permitted livestock are typically run in two herds; a cow

herd, and a bull herd. For a controlled breeding season, bulls are placed with the cow herd in

mid-March and separated again in early June.

The current season of use is yearlong. Use of the summer range typically occurs from June 1

thru October 31 (5 months) and use of the winter range typically occurs from November 1 thru

May 31 (7 months). The current permitted livestock numbers are 565 head of adult cattle, which

equates to 6,780 Animal Unit Months (AUMs), 2,842 AUMs for the typical summer use period

and 3,938 AUMs for the typical winter use season.

Actual use on the Windmill West allotment over the past twelve years is shown in Figures 2 and

3 and Tables 3 and 41. For the summer grazing season actual use averaged 558 AUMs per

grazing season less than permitted numbers, and for the winter grazing season actual use

averaged 873 AUMs per grazing season less than permitted.

1 Permitted and authorized numbers for 2000 to 2009 reflect the number of cattle on the pastures that are

associated with the current Windmill West allotment boundary. At the time, these cattle were authorized

under one permit for this area and the current Windmill Allotment.

8

Figure 2: Windmill West Allotment Actual Use and Permitted Use in AUMs: 2000 to 2012,

Summer Pastures

Table 3: Actual use numbers compared to permitted use number in AUMs: 2000 to 2012,

Summer Pastures

Grazing

Year

Actual

Use

Permitted

Use

Percent of Permitted

Numbers Authorized

2000 2,575 3,003 85.7%

2001 2,575 3,003 85.7%

2002 2,072 3,003 69.0%

2003 1,921 3,003 64.0%

2004 1,886 3,003 62.8%

2005 2,414 3,003 80.4%

2006 2,691 3,003 89.6%

2007 2,324 3,003 77.4%

2008 2,364 3,003 78.7%

2009 2,842 2,842 100.0%

2010 2,842 2,842 100.0%

2011 2,842 2,842 100.0%

2012 1,786 2,842 62.8%

Average 2,395 2,953 81.1%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

An

imal

Un

it M

on

ths

Grazing Season, June 1-October 31 Actual Use Permitted Use

9

Figure 3: Windmill West Allotment Actual Use and Permitted Use in AUMs: 2000 to 2012,

Winter Pastures

Table 4: Actual use numbers compared to permitted use number in AUMs: 2000 to 2012,

Winter Pastures

Grazing Year Actual

Use

Permitted

Use

Percent of Permitted

Numbers Authorized

2000 3,262 4,161 78.4%

2001 3,624 4,161 87.1%

2002 2,871 4,161 69.0%

2003 3,269 4,161 78.6%

2004 3,882 4,161 93.3%

2005 3,861 4,161 92.8%

2006 2,049 4,161 49.2%

2007 3,206 4,161 77.0%

2008 4,056 4,161 97.5%

2009 3,617 3,938 91.8%

2010 3,422 3,938 86.9%

2011 2,307 3,938 58.6%

2012 2,418 3,938 61.4%

Average 3,219 4,092 78.7%

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

An

imal

Un

it M

on

ths

Grazing Season, November 1-May 31

Actual Use

Permitted Use

10

Current grazing management for Windmill West allotment uses a deferred, rest-rotation

management strategy. For the summer range, at least two pastures are rested each grazing

season. Livestock use of pastures in the winter range is deferred each grazing season and, if

possible, a pasture may be rested. The decision to rest a pasture is based on stocking levels,

forage production and plant dormancy during winter. The number of planned days each pasture

is grazed varies due to current year’s stocking rate, existing and predicted forage production, and

past year’s utilization. The actual number of days each pasture is grazed is dependent on

stocking rate, forage production and grazing intensity. Due to plant dormancy during winter,

pastures grazed during winter months typically have a longer graze period than pastures grazed

during summer months.

Grazing intensity levels, the amount of herbage removed or trampled during the grazing season,

are managed at the light to moderate level (21 to 50%) for both the summer range and the winter

range. Utilization levels, measured at the end of the growing season, are managed at the

conservative level (35%) for herbaceous and non-riparian woody vegetation in the summer range

and at the moderate level (50%) for herbaceous and non-riparian woody vegetation in the winter

range.

Cattle are moved between the summer range and winter range via the Historic Mooney Livestock

Trail. The Mooney Trail stretches about 4.5 miles, from Section 35, T19N, R4E on the Flagstaff

Ranger District south to Sec29 T18N R4E on the Red Rock Ranger District, and is located

within the Black Tank pasture. About ½ mile of the trail on the Red Rock District is located on

private land. The Mooney trail has been used to drive cattle between the summer and winter

ranges since the early 1900’s.

Existing Condition

Detailed existing condition data, except for Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVTs), is only

provided for areas that are being considered for the authorization of livestock grazing in the

range of alternatives. It is assumed that areas that have not been grazed for the past 10-15 years

and are proposed to be removed from the allotment and closed to grazing would have no

difference in effects by the alternatives. Therefore, detailed existing condition data is not needed

for those areas to support the effects analysis.

Climate

Climate on the Windmill West allotment is characterized by a bimodal precipitation pattern with

about 60 percent of precipitation occurring as frontal systems in the winter from December to

March and about 40 percent occurring as monsoons in the summer from July to September. The

summer period (July-September) is characterized by localized high intensity, short duration

thunderstorms. The winter period (December-March) is characterized by frontal activity

resulting in widespread gentle rains in the lower elevations and snow in the higher elevations.

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

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

11

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

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

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

There are six weather stations that approximate the climate of the allotment. Data from two

stations, Williams, AZ and the Sedona Ranger District stations, are derived from the Western

Regional Climate Center; while data from the remaining four stations, Woody Mountain, Red

Hill, Dry Creek Levee and Cottonwood Public Works Yard, are derived from Yavapai County

Government Rainfall Data. Table 5 displays the historical precipitation data for the five sites.

Graphs depicting 8 to 20 year precipitation trends for each gauge can be found in Appendix B,

Figures 1 thru 6.

Table 5: Precipitation data from 6 stations within or adjacent to the Windmill West

grazing allotment

Site Location

Years Read Mean Annual

PPT. (in)

Max. PPT.

(in) (Year)

Min. PPT.

(in) (Year)

Williams, AZ* Sec32

T21N R2E,

13 miles

west of

Roger’s

Lake

pasture

1897-2011 20.42 39.93(1965) 2.19(1903)

Sedona Ranger

District*

Sec7 T17N

R6E,

Junction of

89A and

179

1943-2010 17.95 33.16 (1965) 7.79 (1956)

Woody Mt** Sec10

T20N R6E,

2 miles east

of Roger’s

Lake

pasture

1993-2010 14.23 33.07 (2005) 3.82 (2002)

Red Hill** Sec5, T19N

R5E,

Lockwood

Springs

pasture

1993-2010 17.34 36.22 (2005) 5.59 (1994)

Dry Creek

Levee**

Sec19

T17N R5E,

within or

just SE of

Greasy East

pasture

2001-2012 10.88 17.56(2010) 6.61(2009)

Cottonwood Sec4 T15N 2001-2010 9.97 17.99 (2005) 7.05 (2006)

12

Public Works

Yard**

R3E, 2

miles south

of South

Gyberg

pasture

*Data from Western Regional Climate Center

**Data from Yavapai County Government Rainfall Data

Vegetation

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

(PNVT) occurring within the Windmill West allotment vary from Semi-Desert Grassland and

Pinyon Juniper Woodlands at the lower elevations to Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer at the

highest elevations. Acres of each PNVT that are within the analysis area are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Acres of each Potential Natural Vegetation Type within the current Windmill

West allotment boundary

Potential Natural Vegetation Types Sum of

Acres Percentage

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 110 0.1%

Desert Communities 11,839 8.4%

Gallery Coniferous Riparian Forest 2 0.0%

Interior Chaparral 20,432 14.5%

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 469 0.3%

Mixed Conifer with Aspen 0 0.0%

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 1,561 1.1%

Montane Subalpine Grassland 1,337 1.0%

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 67 0.0%

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 23,015 16.4%

Pinyon Juniper Woodland (Persistent) 2,015 1.4%

Ponderosa Pine 48,753 34.7%

Semi-Desert Grassland 30,875 22.0%

Wetland or Cienega 89 0.1%

Total 140,564

One of the many contributing factors to rangeland condition and trend is the encroachment and

increasing canopy of juniper and shrub species. Productive grasslands and open pinyon juniper

woodlands with a healthy understory component have been altered over time by the

encroachment of juniper and woody shrubs which decreases the herbaceous perennial grasses,

exposes larger areas of bare soil, and accelerates rates of erosion and decreases overall watershed

and soil function. This loss of perennial vegetative ground cover is primarily due to the increase

in canopy cover which suppresses understory vegetation. Table 6 shows that approximately 40%

of the Windmill West allotment is in potential vegetation types for pinyon juniper and semi-

desert grasslands which are the vegetation types most likely to experience tree and shrub

encroachment.

13

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

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

that’s been attributed to atmospheric enrichment with CO2, climate change, livestock grazing,

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

increased erosion where woody species compete directly with grasses for limited soil moisture

and nutrients (Wilcox and Davenport, 1995). This shift from grasslands to woodlands or

shrublands, therefore, has the potential to impact rangeland condition and trend.

Grazing Capability

Grazing capability of a land area is dependent upon the interrelationship of the soils, topography,

plants and animals. Grazing capability is a qualitative expression of the inherent ability of an

ecosystem to support grazing use by various classes of livestock on a sustained yield basis.

Grazing capability is expressed as one of three capability classes: Full Capability, Potential

Capability, and No Capability (Region 3 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide;

July, 1999; 2.8-2.10), which are defined as:

Full Capability - Full Capability areas are those which can be used by grazing animals under

proper management without long-term damage to the soil resource or plant communities.

Typically, this land is stable. Vegetative ground cover is maintaining site productivity and

producing a minimum of 100 pounds of dried forage per acre per year. Soil loss as judged by

available techniques is within tolerance. Potential Capability - : Areas which could be used by grazing animals under proper management but where soil stability is impaired, or range improvements are not adequate under existing conditions to obtain necessary grazing animal distribution. The area is not capable of being fully or adequately utilized by grazing animals. Generally, this land has impaired soil stability, lack of water, steep terrain, lack of access and/or there is insufficient vegetative ground cover to protect the soil, but if treated, developed, or properly managed, could become Full Capability. When determining grazing capacity in the Potential Capability class, conservative allowable use assignments must be made. Rationale for assigned allowable use will be documented. No Capability - No capability areas are those which cannot be used by animals without long-term damage to the soil resource or plant community, or are barren or unproductive naturally. These areas are not capable of being grazed by domestic livestock under reasonable management goals. Grazing capacity will not be assigned to these areas, even though light livestock use may occur.

The analysis of grazing capability on the Windmill West Allotment indicates that the major

factors in determining and classifying capability are soil condition, slope, and site productivity.

Table 7 displays a summary of the criteria used for determining Grazing Capability

classifications for the Windmill West allotment. Table 8 displays soil condition and slope acres

for the areas of the Windmill West allotment that are being considered for the re-authorization of

grazing. Table 9 displays soil condition and slope acres for the South Gyberg pasture. Table 10

displays grazing capability acres for the areas of the Windmill West allotment that are being

14

considered for the re-authorization of grazing and Table 11 displays grazing capability acres for

the South Gyberg pasture.

Table 7: Criteria and Grazing Capability Determinations for the Windmill West Allotment

SOIL CONDITION SLOPE FORAGE

PRODUCTION

GRAZING

CAPABILITY CLASS

Satisfactory Less than 40% Greater than 100#/acre Full Capability

Satisfactory Less than 40% Less than 100#/acre No Capability

Satisfactory Greater than 40% Not a Factor No Capability

Impaired Less than 40% Greater than 100#/acre Potential Capability

Impaired Less than 40% Less than 100#/acre No Capability

Impaired Greater than 40% Not a Factor No Capability

Unsatisfactory Less than 40% Greater than 100#/acre Potential Capability

Unsatisfactory Less than 40% Less than 100#/acre No Capability

Unsatisfactory Greater than 40% Not a Factor No Capability

Satisfactory, but

Inherently Unstable Less than 40% Not a Factor No Capability

Satisfactory, but

Inherently Unstable Greater than 40% Not a Factor No Capability

Table 8: Soil Condition and Slope Acres for the Windmill West Allotment; area being

considered for re-authorization of grazing.

Soil Condition and Slope

Summer

Pasture

Acres

%

Winter

Pasture

Acres

% Allotment

Total %

Satisfactory

Less than 40% slope 38,993 88.5% 5,409 8.4% 44,402 41.1%

Greater than 40% slope 2,881 6.5% 247 0.4% 3,128 2.9%

Total 41,874 95% 5,656 8.8% 47,530 44%

Impaired

Less than 40% slope 1,286 3% 44,202 69% 45,488 42.1%

Greater than 40% slope 0 0% 994 1.5% 994 0.9%

Total 1,286 3% 45,196 70.5% 46,482 43%

Unsatisfactory

Less than 40% slope 87 0.2% 6,578 10.3% 6,665 6.2%

Greater than 40% slope 0 0% 88 0.1% 88 0.1%

Total 87 0.2% 6,666 10.4% 6,753 6.3%

Satisfactory, but

Inherently Unstable

Less than 40% slope 231 0.5% 1,710 2.7% 1,941 1.8%

Greater than 40% slope 563 1.3% 4,852 7.6% 5,415 5.0%

Total 794 1.8% 6,562 10.3% 7,356 6.8%

Acres Total 44,041 100% 64,080 100% 108,121 100%

15

Table 9: Soil Condition and Slope Acres for the South Gyberg Pasture

Soil Condition and Slope Acres %

Satisfactory

Less than 40% slope 634 32.4%

Greater than 40% slope 0 0%

Total 634 32.4%

Impaired

Less than 40% slope 1249 63.8%

Greater than 40% slope 3 0.2%

Total 1252 64%

Unsatisfactory

Less than 40% slope 0 0%

Greater than 40% slope 0 0%

Total 0 0%

Satisfactory, but

Inherently Unstable

Less than 40% slope 0 0%

Greater than 40% slope 71 3.6%

Total 71 3.6%

Acres Total 1,957 100%

Table 10: Grazing Capability Classification Acres for the Windmill West Allotment; area

being considered for re-authorization of grazing.

Grazing Capability

Classification

Summer

Pasture Acres

Winter

Pasture Acres

Allotment

Total Description

Full Capability 36,726 5,173 41,899 Sat. Soil Condition and

<40% Slope

Potential Capability 1,373 45,759 47,132 Impaired and Unsat. Soil

Condition and <40% Slope

No Capability 5,942 13,148 19,090

Slopes >40%; areas with

<100# forage prod./acre;

Sat., but Inherently Unstable

soil condition <40% slope

Total 44,041 64,080 108,121

16

Table 11: Grazing Capability Classification Acres for the South Gyberg Pasture

Grazing Capability

Classification Acres Description

Full Capability 240 Sat. Soil Condition and

<40% Slope

Potential Capability 539 Impaired and Unsat. Soil

Condition and <40% Slope

No Capability 1,178

Slopes >40%; areas with

<100# forage prod./acre;

Sat., but Inherently Unstable

soil condition <40% slope

Total 1,957

Range Condition and Trend

Range condition and trend are assessed at permanent monitoring locations and, if necessary, at

additional inventory locations. Pace-Frequency and 1/10 acre ocular macroplot cover methods

are used on the Windmill West allotment.

Twenty seven permanent monitoring plots were established on the allotment between 1952 and

1964; 11 on winter pastures and 16 on summer pastures. Data was collected from these plots

using the Parker 3-Step method through 1990. In 2000, 24 of the original 27 plots were

converted to the Pace-Frequency and 1/10 acre ocular macroplot cover methods. In 2008, 9 plots

from the winter pastures were read using the Pace-Frequency and 1/10 acre ocular macroplot

cover methods, and in 2009 11 of the plots in the summer pastures were read using the Pace-

Frequency and 1/10 acre ocular macroplot cover methods. In 2013, Pace-Frequency and 1/10

acre ocular macroplot cover data was collected from an additional 9 inventory locations in the

winter pastures. Inventory plots were not established to be long term monitoring plots.

Data from a total of 20 long term monitoring plots and 9 inventory locations were used in this

analysis. Inventory plots and long term monitoring plots are located in key areas, the criteria for

which include slopes less than 40%. The Windmill West allotment permanent monitoring plots

and inventory plots are located on 15 of 30 TEUs or TEU groups. These 15 TEUs or TEU

groups represent approximately 91,000 acres (84%) of the Windmill West allotment (see Table

12).

17

Table 12. Monitoring and Inventory Plots by TEU/TEU Groupings

TES Unit/Groupings Ac. < 40% Ac. > 40% Ac. < 40% Ac. > 40%

33 0 0 50 33 83 0% 0% 0 0

45 0 0 329 14 343 0% 0% 0 0

50 87 0 0 0 87 0% 0% 0 0

55 1,286 0 0 0 1,286 1% 1% 1 1,286 1,286

280 0 0 14 0 14 0% 0% 0 0

350 0 0 4,383 788 5,171 5% 4% 3 5,171 4,383

381, 385 0 0 8,417 8 8,425 8% 9% 3 8,425 8,417

383 0 0 136 0 136 0% 0% 0 0

402, 403, 404 0 0 7,328 44 7,372 7% 7% 1 7,372 7,328

414, 417 0 0 5,728 7 5,735 5% 6% 2 5,735 5,728

416 0 0 3,278 190 3,468 3% 3% 0 0

418 0 0 4,937 87 5,024 5% 5% 1 5,024 4,937

420, 430 0 0 3,978 1,089 5,067 5% 4% 3 5,067 3,978

447 0 0 1,833 4 1,837 2% 2% 1 1,837 1,833

448 0 0 1,847 77 1,924 2% 2% 0 0

457, 458 0 0 10,960 397 11,357 11% 11% 1 11,357 10,960

462, 463, 495 0 0 3,187 107 3,294 3% 3% 3 3,294 3,187

471 231 563 1,171 3,113 5,078 5% 1% 0 0

492 0 0 84 0 84 0% 0% 0 0

493 0 0 184 0 184 0% 0% 0 0

536, 546, 549 13,296 451 3 13 13,763 13% 14% 4 13,763 13,299

555 1,810 1,850 52 210 3,922 4% 2% 0 0

550, 582, 584, 585 17,365 322 0 0 17,687 16% 18% 2 17,687 17,365

565 131 0 0 0 131 0% 0% 0 0

567, 578, 579 934 5 0 0 939 1% 1% 2 939 934

572 457 25 0 0 482 0% 0% 1 482 457

575 45 61 0 0 106 0% 0% 0 0

586 3,556 6 0 0 3,562 3% 3% 1 3,562 3,556

595 45 0 0 0 45 0% 0% 0 0

650, 651, 654 1,354 161 0 0 1,515 1% 1% 0 0

TOTAL 40,597 3,444 57,899 6,181 108,121 100% 99% 20 9 91,001 87,648

84.2% 89.0%

Ac. with

Existing Cond.

Data

Ac. < 40% with

Existing Cond.

Data

44,041 64,080

Summer Pastures Winter PasturesTotal Ac.

% of

Allot.

Acres

% of

Graze

Acres

Mon.

Plots

Total Summer Pastures Total Winter Pastures

Inven.

Plots

Range Condition

The following represents a summary of the existing range conditions on the Windmill West

allotment based on data collected in 2008, 2009, and 2013. Since monitoring plots were

established prior to the publication of TES, not all TEUs are represented by long term

monitoring. While we cannot extrapolate existing condition data to TEUs that do not have

monitoring plots, we can determine, based on professional opinion, that conditions observed at

long term monitoring plots and inventory plots are characteristic for all TEUs in both the winter

and summer ranges of the Windmill West allotment. Complete data and monitoring/inventory

forms are located at the Flagstaff Ranger District.

Winter Pastures

TEU 350 (5,171 acres)

Data collected at three inventory plots show that three to five grass species were recorded with

cool season species comprising 0-20% and warm season species comprising 80-100% of the

species composition. Grass canopy cover ranged 11-20%. Four to eight species of forbs were

recorded with a range of 1-2% canopy cover. Nine to ten shrub species were recorded ranging

from 14-17% canopy cover. One to two tree species were recorded ranging from 6-36% canopy

cover. Percent ground cover for bare soil ranged from 11-13%, rock ranged from 58-72%, basal

vegetation ranged from 6-11%, litter greater than 0.5” was recorded at 0% and effective ground

cover ranged from 6-11%.

18

Canopy cover, species richness and species composition for all functional groups (perennial

grass, forbs, shrubs and trees) above fall within the desired conditions for this TEU. Current data

show that effective ground cover should be increased to meet desired conditions.

TEUs 381 and 385 (8,425 acres)

Data collected at three long term monitoring plots show that 2-3 grass species were recorded

with cool season species comprising 0-35% and warm season species comprising 65-100% of the

species composition. Grass canopy cover ranged from 5-30%. Two to four species of forbs

were recorded totaling 1% canopy cover. Ten shrub species were recorded totaling 9% canopy

cover. No trees were recorded in the plots. Percent ground cover for bare soil ranged from 39-

87%, rock ranged from 0-10%, basal vegetation ranged from 4-8%, litter greater than 0.5”

ranged from 0-56% and effective ground cover ranged from 4-64%.

Canopy cover, species richness and species composition for all vegetation groups above, fall

within the desired conditions for this TEU grouping. Effective ground cover meets the desired

conditions for this TEU grouping.

TEUs 402, 403 and 404 (7,372 acres)

Data collected at one long term monitoring plot show that four grass species were recorded with

cool season species comprising 0% and warm season species comprising 100% of the species

composition. Grass canopy cover totaled 15%. Five forb species were recorded totaling 6%

canopy cover. Three shrub species were recorded totaling 1% canopy cover. No trees were

recorded in the plot. Percent ground cover for bare soil totaled 57%, rock totaled 28%, basal

vegetation totaled 7%, litter greater than 0.5” totaled 0% and effective ground cover totaled 7%.

Canopy cover and species richness for all vegetation groups above fall within the desired

conditions for this TEU grouping. Cool season species composition should be increased to meet

desired conditions, (see write up about cool season species). Effective ground cover should be

increased to meet desired conditions.


Data collected at two long term monitoring plots show that five to six grass species were

recorded with cool season species comprising 0-33% and warm season species comprising 65-

100% of the species composition. Grass canopy cover ranged from 2-20%. Five to nine forb

species were recorded ranging from 10-26% canopy cover. Eight shrub species were recorded

ranging from 20-23% canopy cover. No trees were recorded in the plot. Percent ground cover

for bare soil ranged from 23-74%, rock ranged from 5-33%, basal vegetation ranged from 8-

10%, litter greater than 0.5” ranged from 0.3-1% and effective ground cover ranged from 8-11%.

Canopy cover, species richness and species composition for all vegetation groups above fall

within the desired conditions for this TEU grouping. Effective ground cover should be increased

to meet desired conditions.

19

TEU 418 (5,024 acres)

Data collected at one long term monitoring plot show that seven grass species were recorded

with cool season species comprising 14% and warm season species comprising 85% of the

species composition. Grass canopy cover totaled 23%. Five forb species were recorded with 1%

canopy cover. Seven shrub species were recorded with 16% canopy cover. One tree species was

recorded with 7% canopy cover. Percent ground cover for bares soil totaled 40%, rock totaled

30%, basal vegetation totaled 6%, litter greater than 0.5” totaled 0% and effective ground cover

totaled 6%.

Canopy cover and species richness for all vegetation groups above, fall within the desired

conditions for this TEU. Warm season species composition for grasses should be reduced to

meet desired conditions. Effective ground cover should be increased to meet the desired

conditions for this TEU.


Data collected at three inventory plots show that 3-5 grass species were recorded with cool

season species comprising 0-25% and warm season species comprising 75-100% of the species

composition. Grass canopy cover ranged from 4-26%. Four to six for species were recorded

ranging from 0.5-2% canopy cover. Six to eight shrub species were recorded ranging from 6-

17% canopy cover. One to two tress species were recorded ranging from 5-10% canopy cover.

Percent ground cover for bare soil ranged from 5-28%, rock ranged from 45-56%, basal

vegetation ranged from 8-12%, litter greater than 0.5” ranged from 1-3% and effective ground

cover ranged from 9-15%.




TEU 447 (approx. 1,837 acres)

Data collected at one long term monitoring plot show that three grass species were recorded with


composition. Grass canopy cover totaled 23%. Seven forb species were recorded totaling 2%

canopy cover. Two shrub species were recorded totaling 5% canopy cover. No tree species

were recorded in this plot. Percent ground cover for bare soil totaled 63%, rock totaled 22%,

basal vegetation totaled 6%, litter greater than 0.5” totaled 1% and effective ground cover totaled

7%.




TEUs 457 and 458 (11,357 acres)

Data collected at one long term monitoring plot show that two grass species were recorded with


composition. Grass canopy cover totaled 17%. Two forb species were recorded totaling 7%

canopy cover. Seven shrub species were recorded totaling 10% canopy cover. Two tree species

20

were recorded totaling 9% canopy cover. Percent ground cover for bare soil totaled 3%, rock

totaled 73%, basal vegetation totaled 12%, litter greater than 0.5” totaled 10% and effective

ground cover totaled 22%.


within the desired conditions for this TEU grouping. Cool season species composition should be

increased to meet desired conditions, (see write up about cool season species). Effective ground

cover meets desired conditions fort his TEU group.

TEUs 462, 463 and 495 (3,294 acres)

Data collected at three inventory plots show that 4-6 grass species were recorded with cool

season species comprising 16-25% and warm season species comprising 75-84% of the species

composition. Grass canopy cover ranged from 4-17%. Three to seven forb species were

recorded ranging from <0.5-0.7% canopy cover. Five to eight shrub species were recorded

ranging from 11-21% canopy cover. One to two tree species were recorded ranging from 13-

20% canopy cover. Percent ground cover for bare soil ranged from 12-21%, rock ranged from

28-55%, basal vegetation ranged from 6-12%, litter greater than 0.5” ranged from 1-10% and

effective ground cover ranged from 7-22%.


within the desired conditions for this TEU grouping. Effective ground cover meets desired

conditions fort his TEU group.

Summer Pastures

TEU 55 (1,286 acres)

Data collected at one long term monitoring plot show that five grass species were recorded with


composition. Grass canopy cover totaled 39%. 16 species of forbs were recorded with a total

canopy cover of 37%. No shrubs or trees were recorded in this plot. Percent ground cover for

bare soil was recorded at 49%, rock totaled 4%, basal vegetation totaled 25%, litter greater than

0.5” totaled 1% and effective ground cover totaled 26%.


within the desired conditions for this TEU grouping. Current data show that effective ground

cover meets desired conditions.

TEUs 536, 546 and 549 (approx. 13,763 acres)

Data collected at four long term monitoring plots show that 4-9 grass species were recorded with

cool season species comprising 75-80% and warm season species comprising 20-25% of the

species composition. Grass canopy cover ranged from 2-32%. Three to ten forb species were

recorded ranging from 1-11% canopy cover. No shrub species were recorded in these plots. One

tree species was recorded ranging from 3-45% canopy cover. Percent ground cover for bare soil

ranged from 1-13%, rock ranged from .33-11%, basal vegetation ranged from 2-10%, litter

greater than 0.5” ranged from 17-46% and effective ground cover ranged from 19-56%.

21

Canopy cover, species richness and species composition for all vegetation groups above, except

shrubs, fall within the desired conditions for this TEU grouping. Effective ground cover meets

desired conditions fort his TEU group.

TEUs 550, 582, 584 and 585 (17,687 acres)

Data collected at two long term monitoring plots show that 6-10 grass species were recorded

with cool season species comprising 60-83% and warm season species comprising 17-40% of the

species composition. Grass canopy cover ranged from 7-28%. Four to seven forb species were

recorded ranging from 1-11% canopy cover. Zero shrub species were recorded. One to two tree

species were recorded ranging from 22-45% canopy cover. Percent ground cover for bare soil

ranged from3-31%, rock ranged from 0.1-2%, basal vegetation ranged from 3-8%, litter greater

than 0.5” ranged from 18-25% and effective ground cover ranged from 21-31%.




TEUs 567, 578 and 579 (939 acres)

Data collected at two long term monitoring plots show that six grass species were recorded with


composition. Grass canopy cover ranged from 14-86%. One to five forb species were recorded

with 0.5-3% canopy cover. Zero to five shrub species were recorded with 0-1% canopy cover.

Three tree species were recorded with 7-54% canopy cover. Percent ground cover for bare soil

ranged from 2-19%, rock ranged from 2-15%, basal vegetation ranged from 2-18%, litter greater

than 0.5” ranged from 13-63% and effective ground cover ranged from 15-81%.




TEU 572 (482 acres)

Data collected at one long term monitoring plots show that 8 grass species were recorded with


composition. Grass canopy cover was 15%. Five forb species were recorded with 5% canopy

cover. Zero shrub species were recorded. Three tree species were recorded with 21% canopy

cover. Percent ground cover for bare soil was 31%, rock was 6%, basal vegetation was 4%, litter

greater than 0.5” was 13% and effective ground cover was 17%.



to meet desired conditions for this TEU group.

TEU 586 (3,562 acres)

Data collected at one long term monitoring plots show that 11 grass species were recorded with


composition. Grass canopy cover was 24%. Eight forb species were recorded with 17% canopy

22

cover. Zero shrub species were recorded. Two tree species were recorded with 18% canopy

cover. Percent ground cover for bare soil was 7%, rock was 19%, basal vegetation was 18%,

litter greater than 0.5” was 9% and effective ground cover was 27%.



to meet desired conditions for this TEU group.

Summary of Range Condition

Table 12 compares the most recent long term monitoring data with the desired conditions for

various range condition attributes. The comparison between existing conditions and desired

conditions are organized by the TEU, or TEU groupings, that occur within areas of the Windmill

West allotment that are being considered for the re-authorization of grazing.

Table 13. Comparison of long term monitoring data and Range Desired Conditions by

TEU

TEUs

Do Existing Conditions Meet Desired Conditions

Perennial grass

canopy cover

Number of

Perennial Grass

Species

Effective

Ground Cover

Composition of

cool and warm

season grasses

Winter Range

350 Yes Yes No Yes

381, 385 Yes Yes Yes Yes

402, 403, 404 Yes Yes No Yes

414, 417 Yes Yes No Yes

418 Yes Yes No No

420, 430 Yes Yes No Yes

457, 458 Yes Yes Yes No

447 Yes Yes No Yes

462, 463, 495 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Summer Range

55 Yes Yes Yes Yes


550, 582,

584,585 Yes Yes Yes Yes

572 Yes Yes Yes Yes


586 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Perennial grass canopy cover: All TEU groups in the summer range and winter range show

existing percent canopy cover of perennial grass species to be within the range for the desired

condition.

Number of Perennial Grass Species: All TEU groups in the summer range and winter range

show existing numbers of perennial grass species to be within the range for the desired condition.

23

Effective Ground Cover: Effective ground cover for existing conditions is the sum of litter >0.5”

in depth and vegetation basal area. Effective ground cover for desired conditions is greater than

or equal to the percent tolerable vegetation cover (Tol.) found in table three of TES for each TEU

or TEU group. Tolerance soil loss rate is the rate of soil loss that can occur while sustaining

inherent site productivity. The tolerable vegetation cover value (Tol.) listed in table three of TES

indicates the percentage of effective ground cover necessary to meet the tolerance soil loss rate.

All TEUs and TEU groups in the summer range meet the desired conditions for effective ground

cover. For the winter range, three out of nine TEUs or TEU groups meet the desired condition

for effective ground cover. For the six TEUs or TEU groups that do not meet desired condition

for effective ground cover one is within three percentage points of the desired condition (TEU

447), two are within 10 percentage points of the desired condition (TEU groups 402,403,404 and

414,417) and three are within 20 percentage points of the desired condition (TEU 350, TEU 418,

and TEU group 420,430).

It is impossible to determine why some TEU groups are not meting desired conditions for

effective ground cover based on monitoring data. However it is likely that these TEUs and TEU

groups have been impacted by historic land management (i.e. fires suppression, livestock

overstocking rates), wildlife grazing, shrub and tree encroachment and climate.

Composition of cool and warm season grasses

Data from the most currently read 10th

acre canopy cover plots was used to determine existing

species composition and the ratio of cool to warm season grasses. This data was compared to the

natural composition determined by TES.

All TEU groups in the summer range currently meet the desired conditions for the ratio of cool

to warm season grasses determined in TES. Seven out of nine TEU groups in the winter range

currently meet the ratio of cool to warm season grasses determined in TES. However the

absence in the long term monitoring plots of some species listed in TES can be attributed to the

natural percent canopy cover determined in TES. Plants listed as trace (T) or present (P) in

Table 2 of TES (where T=<0.01% canopy cover, and P=present in the area, but not recorded in

the plot) have a possibility of not being recorded in the long term monitoring plots due to limited

and sporadic occurrences within the area.

Range Trend Data

The following discussion reflects ground cover trend using data collected from the permanent

monitoring plots between the 1950s and 2009. Since monitoring plots were established prior to

the publication of TES, not all TEUs are represented by long term monitoring. While we cannot

extrapolate trend data to TEUs that do not have monitoring plots, we can determine, based on

professional opinion, that trends observed at long term monitoring plots are characteristic for all

TEUs in both the winter and summer ranges of the Windmill West allotment.

24

Summer Pastures

TEU55

Roger’s Lake (C1): Ground cover data show an increase in total basal vegetation, bare soil, and

a decrease in litter cover between 2000 and 2009. Canopy cover data show an increase in total

canopy cover for perennial grass between 2000 and 2009. Photo points taken at this location

between 1961 and 2009 for transects 1 and 3 show an increase in vegetation cover between 1961

and 1985; conditions between 1985 and 2009 were static. Transect 2 showed an increase from

1961-1985, a decrease from 1985-2000, and an increase from 2000-2009.

TEUs 536, 546, 549

Barney (C1): Ground Cover data show an increase basal vegetation cover, and a decrease in

litter cover and bare soil between 2000 and 2009. Canopy cover data show an increase in all

functional groups from 2000 to 2009. Photo points for Transect 1 show an increase in cover

from 1958 to 1975, a decrease in cover from 1975 to 2000, and no change from 2000 to 2009.

Transect 2 shows static conditions from 1958 to 1957, a decrease in cover from 1975-2000 and

no change from 2000 to 2009. Transect 3 shows an increase in cover from 1958 to 1957, a

decrease in cover from 1975 to 2000, and no change from 2000 to 2009.

Roger’s Lake (C4): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation cover and an

increase in litter cover between 2000 and 2009. Bare soil remained static between 2000 and

2009. Canopy cover trend shows an increase in perennial grass and total vegetation cover; and a

decrease in tree cover between 2000 and 2009. Photo points for transect 1 show a decrease in

cover from 1961 to 1985, and increase in cover from 1985 to 2000, and static conditions between

2000 and 2009. Transects 2 and 3 show static conditions from 1961-1985 and an increase in

cover from 1985 to 2000. Photos from 2009 for transects 2 and 3 are of poor quality and cannot

be qualitatively analyzed.

Roger’s Lake (C6): Ground cover data show that basal vegetation cover was static, bare soil

decreased and litter cover increased between 2000 and 2009. Canopy cover data show a

decrease in all functional groups between 2000 and 2009. Photo points from this location show a

static trend in cover from 1961 and 2009 for transect 1. For transects 2 and 3 cover was static

from 1961 to 1985, decreased from 1985 to 2000, and was static from 2000 to 2009.

Roger’s Lake (C10): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation cover and bare soil

and an increase in litter cover from 2000 to 2009. Canopy cover data show that perennial grass

cover was static from 2000 to 2009 while tree and total plant cover decreased. Photo points for

transect 1 show an increase in cover from 1961 to 1985 and a decrease in cover from 1985 to

2000. The photo quality from the 2009 photo is too poor to use. Transect 2 shows static

conditions from 1961 to 2000 and a decrease in cover from 2000 to 2009. Transect 3 shows

static conditions from 1961 to 20009.

TEU 550, 582, 584, 585

Roger’s Lake (C7): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation and litter cover, and

an increase in bare soil from 2000 to 2009. Canopy cover data show increase in perennial grass,

25

tree and total plant canopy cover from 2000 to 2009. Photo points for transect 1 show a decrease

in cover from 1961 to 1985, and increase from 1985 to 2000 and static condition from 2000 to

2009. Transect 2 shows static conditions from 1961 to 2000 and a decrease in cover from 2000

to 2009. Transect 3 shows static conditions from 1961 to 2009.

Roger’s Lake (C11): Ground cover data show basal vegetation cover to be static, an increase in

litter cover, and a decrease in bare soil between 1985 and 2009. Canopy cover data show an

increase in perennial grass cover and a decrease in tree and total plant cover. Photo points for all

three transects (except the 2009 photo for Transect 1), show a decrease in cover from 1961 to

1985, a further decrease in cover from 1985 to 2000, and static conditions from 2000 to 2009.

TEU 567, 578, 579

Barney (C2): Ground cover data show an increase in basal vegetation cover and a decrease in

bare soil and litter cover from 2000 to 2009. Canopy cover data show an increase in perennial

grass and total plant canopy cover, and a decrease in shrubs and tree canopy cover from 2000 to

2009. Photo points for transect 1 show an increase in cover from 1958 to 2000 and no change

from 2000 to 2009. Transect 2 shows an increase in cover from 1958 to 1975 and no change

from 1975 to 2000 (the photo quality from the 2009 photo was too poor to make any

interpretations). Transect 3 shows an increase in cover from 1958 to 1975 and a decrease in

cover from 1975 to 2000 (the photo quality from the 2009 photo was too poor to make any

interpretations).

Barney (C5): Ground cover data show that vegetation basal area, litter and bare soil have been

static since 1959. Canopy cover has increased for perennial grass, trees and total plant canopy

cover since 2000. Photo points for transect 1 show an increase in vegetation cover from 1959 to

1976, no change in vegetation cover from 1976 to 2000 and no change in cover from 2000 to

2009. Photos for transect 2 show no change in ground cover from 1959 to. Photos for transect 3

show no change in ground cover from 1959 to 1976, and an increase in vegetation basal cover

from 1976 to 2000 and no change in ground cover from 2000 to 2009.

TEU 572

Winter Cabin (C1): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation cover and an

increase in bare soil and litter cover from 2000 to 2009. Canopy cover data show an increase in

perennial grass, tree, and total plant cover and a decrease in shrub cover from 2000 to 2009.

Photo points for transect 1 show no change from 1963-1978, an increase in cover from 1978 to

2000 and no change from 2000 to 2009. Transect 2 shows a decrease in cover from 1963 to

1978, and increase from 1978 to 2000 and a decrease from 2000 to 2009. Transect 3 shows a

decrease in cover from 1963 to 1978 and no change from 1978 to 2000 (the photo quality from

the 2009 photo was too poor to make any interpretations).

TEU 586

Roger’s Lake (C3): Ground cover data show an increase in basal vegetation cover and bare soil,

and a decrease in litter cover between 2000 and 2009. Canopy cover data show an increase in

perennial grass and total vegetation canopy and a decrease in shrub and tree canopy. Photo

points for transects 1 and 2 show and increase in cover between 1961 and 1985; and static

conditions from 1985 to 2009. Transect 3 shows a static condition between 1961 and 2009.

26

Winter Pastures

TEU 381, 385

Duff Mesa (C3 – Black Mountain): Ground cover data show an increase in basal vegetation

cover and bare soil and a decrease in litter cover between 2000 and 2008. Canopy cover data

show a decrease in all functional groups from 2000 to 2008. Photo points for Transect 1 show an

increase in cover from 1958 to 1976, no change from 1976 to 2000, and a decrease in cover from

2000 to 2008.

Duff Flat (C5): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation and litter cover, and an

increase in bare soil between 1990 and 2008. Canopy cover data show a decrease in perennial

grass and total plant canopy cover, and an increase in shrub canopy cover. Photo points for

Transect 1 show no change in cover from 1963 to 1972, an increase in cover from 1972 to 1990,

no change from 1990 to 2000, and a decrease in cover from 2000 to 2008.

Dutch Kid (C4), Read annually since 2007: Ground cover data show an overall decrease in basal

vegetation cover and bare soil, and an increase in litter cover from 2007 to 2011. However data

collected annually during this time period shows a fluctuation in basal cover on a yearly basis.

Basal vegetation cover decreased from 1990 to 2011 with yearly fluctuations observed from

2007 to 2011. Bare soil decreased from 1990 to 2011 with yearly fluctuations observed from

2007-2011. Litter increased from 1990 to 2011 with yearly fluctuations observed from 2007-

2011.

Canopy cover data show that perennial grass and total plant canopy cover decreased from 2000

to 2011. However data collected annually since 2007 shows a fluctuation in canopy cover on a

yearly basis. Shrub canopy cover increased from 2000 to 2011, with yearly fluctuations

observed from 2007 to 2011.

The 2011 reading shows a large decrease in basal vegetation cover but not in canopy cover. The

basal cover values deviate from the year to year fluctuation which was typically within 10%, and

can possibly be attributed to observer error.

Photo points for Transect 1 show no change in cover from 1963 to 1972, an increase in cover

from 1972 to 1990, no change from 1990 to 2000, a decrease in cover from 2000 to 2008 and no

change in cover from 2008 to 2011.

TEU 418

Black Tank (C2-Cox Ranch): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation cover and

an increase in litter cover and bare soil between 1990 and 2008. Canopy cover data show an

increase in perennial grass and trees and a decrease in shrub and total plant between 2000 and

2008. Photo points from Transect 1 show an increase in cover from 1963-1990, no change from

1990 to 2000, and an increase in cover from 2000 to 2008. Transect 2 shows no change from

1963 to 1972, a decrease in cover from 1972 to 2000, and a decrease in cover from 2000 to 2008.

Transect 3 shows an increase in cover from 1963 to 1990, no change from 1990 to 2000, and a

decrease in cover from 2000 to 2008.

27

TEU 457, 458

Greasy East (C7): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation cover and soil and an

increase in litter cover between 2000 and 2008. Canopy cover data show an increase in

perennial grass cover and a decrease in shrub, tree and total plant cover from 2000 to 2008.

Photo points from Transect 1 show a decrease in cover from 1963 to 1972, an increase in cover

from 1972 to 1990, a decrease in cover from 1990 to 2000 and no change from 2000 to 2008.

TEU 402, 403, 404

Malpais (C3): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation and litter cover and bare

soil from 2000 to 2008. Canopy cover data show a decrease in all functional groups from 2000

to 2008. Photo points from Transect 1 show and increase in cover from 1963 to 1990, no change

from 1990 to 2000, and a decrease in cover from 2000 to 2008. Transect 2 shows an increase in

cover from 1963-2000 and a decrease in cover from 2000 to 2008. Transect 3 shows an increase

from 1963 to 1972, a decrease in cover from 1972 to 1990, an increase in cover from 1990 to

2000, and a decrease in cover from 2000 to 2008.

TEU 414, 417

Robber’s Roost (C1 – Black Tank): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation

cover and an increase in litter cover and bare ground between 2000 and 2008. Canopy cover

data show an increase in perennial grass and tree canopy cover, and a decrease in shrub and total

plant canopy cover. Photo points from Transect 1 show no change in cover from 1963 to 1972

and a decrease in cover form 1972 to 2008. Transects 2 and 3 show no change from 1963 to

1972, a decrease from 1972 to 1990, and increase from 1990 to 2000 and a decrease in cover

from 2000 to 2008.

Grindstone (C1): Ground cover data show an increase in basal vegetation and litter cover and

bare soil between 1976 and 2008. Canopy cover data show a decrease in perennial grass, tree,

and total plant canopy cover, and an increase in shrub canopy cover. Photo points from Transect

1 show no change from 1957 to 1964 and a decrease in cover from 1964 to 2008. Transects 2

and 3 show an increase in cover from 1953 to 1964, and a decrease in cover from 1964 to 2008.

TEU 447

Skeleton Bone (C6 – Duff Flat): Ground cover data show a decrease in basal vegetation cover

and bare soil and static numbers for litter cover between 1990 and 2008. Canopy cover data

show a decrease in perennial grass, tree, shrub and total plant canopy cover. Photo points from

Transect 1 show no change from 1963 to 1972, and increase in cover from 1972 to 1990 and no

change from 1990 to 2000, (there is no photo from 2008). Transect 2 shows no change from

1963 to 1972 and an increase in cover from 1972 to 2000, (there is no photo from 2008).

Transect 3 shows no change from 1963 to 1972, an increase in cover from 1972 to 2000 and a

decrease in cover from 2000 to 2008.

Summary of Range Trend

Trend data collected between the 1950s and 2009 show variations in ground cover and canopy

cover over time, these variations are further emphasized by the annual data collected between

2007 and 2011 at the Dutch Kid C4 plot. Four summer and two winter TEU groups are showing

28

an upward trend for basal vegetation cover. Four summer and seven winter TEU groups are

showing a downward trend for basal vegetation cover. Three winter TEU groups are showing

static trends for basal vegetation cover. Five summer and five winter TEU groups show an

upward trend for litter cover. Five summer and three winter TEU groups show a downward

trend for litter cover. One summer and one winter TEU group show static trends for litter cover.

Precipitation strongly influences plant yield, and “even the slightest reductions from normal

precipitation can cause severe reductions in plant yield” (Holechek et al, 1989), this combined

with changing temperatures can lead to decreased plant productivity, decreased vegetation cover

and decreased litter cover. Comparing vegetation trend data to precipitation trend data shows

that variations in cover for the plots discussed above can be partly attributed to the variable

precipitation.

Estimated Grazing Capacity for the Windmill West Allotment

Grazing capacity is a function of grazing capability, forage production, topography, allowable

use, and the level of management that may be applied. A computer spreadsheet-based analysis

used grazing capability, forage production, topography, and an appropriate allowable use to

determine the estimated grazing capacity. The following describes these factors and their

implications on the calculation of estimated grazing capacity:

1. Grazing Capability: Grazing capability classifications have been determined for the

Windmill West allotment and are described in the Grazing Capability section on pages 13

through 16.

2. Forage Production: Forage production was stratified by TEU.

a. TES units with forage production data: Forage production data collected in 2011 was

used for the forage production values in these TEUs. Forage production was

averaged for TES units with multiple forage production data collections.

b. TES units without forage production data: Forage production estimates (Forg) from

Table 3 of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Coconino National Forest

(1995) were used for the forage production values of these TEUs. Where multiple

forage production values were provided in TES for a single TEU, or in the case of

TEU groups, the smallest forage production value was used. Forage Maximum

(ForgM) figures were not used because they are estimates based on the total annual

yield of native forage plants after elimination of non-forage species.

3. Topography: Adjustments in the grazable land area were made to account for slope. The

following factors were used for topography adjustments on the allotment:

Class 1 - 0 to 10% Slope; No reduction in estimated grazing capacity

Class 2 - 11 to 30% Slope; 30% reduction in estimated grazing capacity

Class 3 - 31 to 40% Slope; 60% reduction in estimated grazing capacity

Class 4 - >40% Slope; 100% reduction in estimated grazing capacity

29

Sources: 1) Region 3 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide; June, 1997;

2.8-2.10. 2) J.L. Holechek, 1988. An approach to setting the stocking rate. Rangelands

10:10-14, Table 3.

4. Allowable Use: Allowable use was established at 35%. This value represents the mid-

point of conservative use (30-40% forage utilization) and represents the combined

utilization level of both livestock and wildlife. Allowable use and therefore grazing

capacity, were assigned only to the following:

a. Acres classified as Full Capability and less than 40% slope.

b. Acres classified as Potential Capability and less than 40% slope.

5. Only the main grazing pastures were used to determine the estimated grazing capacity.

Management pastures (used for gathering, holding, shipping, etc.) less than 200 acres in

size and waterlots were not included in the calculations.

6. Estimated grazing capacity is expressed in Animal Unit Months (AUMs). An Animal

Unit Month is defined as the amount of forage required by an animal unit (mature cow

with or without a nursing calf) for one month; approximately 800 pounds of forage per

AUM (Manske 1998).

Carrying capacity estimates are conservative because they are based on the average forage

production of perennial grasses only. Annual plant species and browse species can make up a

large part of cattle diets in a given year. Using the average forage production data based only on

perennial grass species, underestimates the total forage available for livestock use. This results in

a conservative estimate of the livestock carrying capacity for the allotment.

Estimated Grazing Capacity and relationship to Coconino National Forest Plan

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for the Coconino National Forest Plan (as amended)

require that livestock “Permitted use and capacity are assigned based on full capacity range only”

(page 67). The Coconino National Forest Plan (as amended) identifies three Range Capacity

Levels; Full Capacity, Potential Capacity, and No Allowable Capacity. Full Capacity is defined

as “Lands that are presently stable because effective ground cover is holding soil loss to an

acceptable level and are, therefore, suited for grazing and can support a livestock operation”

(page 260).

Determining factors in the Coconino National Forest Plan definition of Full Capacity Range are

“effective ground cover” and “holding soil loss to an acceptable level”. Effective ground cover

is the sum of the basal area of vegetation and litter greater than 0.5” in depth. An acceptable

level of soil loss is achieved when effective ground cover exceeds the tolerable ground cover

level.

Utilizing the criteria identified above for determining effective ground cover and an acceptable

level of soil loss, there are 93,559 acres of Full Capacity Range as defined by the Coconino

National Forest Plan on the Windmill West allotment. The Estimated Grazing Capacity for the

Windmill West allotment assigned capacity to 87,303 acres. The Estimated Grazing Capacity

30

for the Windmill West allotment assigned capacity to 6,256 acres less than the Coconino

National Forest Plan Full Capacity acres.

Permitted use is defined as the number of animals, period of use, and location of use specified in

the term grazing permit (FSM 2230.5). The modified Proposed Action proposes to authorize 565

head of adult cattle for a yearlong period of use on the Windmill West allotment.

565 hd. of cattle yearlong = 6,780 AUMs

Estimated grazing capacity for Windmill West = 9,395 AUMs

Est. grazing capacity is based on assigning capacity to 87,303 acres; this is 6,256 acres

less than the calculated Coconino NF Plan Full Capacity acres (93,559 acres).

Proposed permitted use (6,780 AUMs) is less than the estimated grazing capacity (9,395

AUMs).

Capacity was assigned to fewer acres than Forest Plan Full Capacity acres; permitted use is

based on the assignment of capacity; proposed permitted use is less than the estimated grazing

capacity. Therefore, permitted livestock use is proposed for fewer acres than Forest Plan Full

Capacity acres.

Summary of Estimated Grazing Capacity

Based on the factors used in this analysis, the estimated grazing capacity for the Windmill West

allotment is approximately 4,597 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) in the summer pastures;

approximately 4,673 AUMs in the winter pastures, and approximately 125 AUMs for the South

Gyberg pasture. Total estimated grazing capacity for the Windmill West allotment is 9,395

AUMs (See Appendix D; Tables 1-4). The estimated grazing capacity represents the ability of

the Full Capability lands within the Windmill West allotment to provide forage for wildlife and

livestock use. When elk use2 is estimated and accounted for, the portion of the estimated grazing

capacity that is available for livestock use is greater than the forage that would be utilized by the

maximum permitted livestock (See Appendix D; Tables 5 and 6 for assumptions and associated

calculations).

Desired Condition Allotment-wide there is an increase in the abundance of desired perennial native upland and

riparian species. Allotment-wide, try to maintain species richness, species composition and

percent canopy and ground cover in areas that meet desired conditions; try to move toward

desired conditions in areas where these conditions are not being met. This would help support a

stable and desired plant community. Watersheds and soils are improved towards or maintained in

2 Estimated elk use on the Windmill West allotment is approximately 1,450 AUMs; between 649 and 780

AUMs in the summer pastures and between 685 and 803 AUMS in the winter pastures. Estimated use

based on estimated elk population numbers provided by Arizona Department of Game and Fish.

31

satisfactory condition. Canopy cover has been reduced where canopy encroachment had been

out-competing the herbaceous understory. We are maintaining or improving water quality to the

state water quality standards.

This leads to:

Increases in the perennial herbaceous basal vegetation

Reductions of annuals and non-natives, improving nutrient cycling, forage

production, and fish and wildlife habitat.

Improved watershed condition

Riparian areas, stream reaches and springs are in Proper Functioning Condition or

are trending towards PFC.

Maintaining a viable livestock operation.

Ground Cover, Species Richness and Species Composition

Desired conditions for percent ground cover, species richness and species composition for the

portion of the Windmill West allotment that is being considered for the re-authorization of

grazing are shown in Appendix E; desired conditions are displayed by TEU or TEU group. For

TEUs or TEU groups that are currently meeting desired conditions, the long term goal is to

maintain or improve this condition. For TEUs or TEU groups that are not currently meeting

desired conditions, the long term goal is to move towards desired conditions. If implementation

of the selected alternative is not meeting or moving towards these desired conditions, adaptive

management will be used to adjust grazing management in order to achieve these desired

conditions.

Soil condition

Soil condition ratings are based on a set of three main criteria; nutrient cycling, hydrologic

function and soil stability. Ground cover and species composition are two variables that affect

nutrient cycling and hydrologic function. By meeting or moving towards the desired conditions

for these two variables we are moving towards improving soil condition. However ground cover

and species composition do not affect all criteria associated with soil condition. Therefore it is

possible to meet the desired conditions for ground cover and species composition and still not

detect improvement in soil condition.

Management Framework The Taylor Grazing Act (1934) and FLPMA provide the underlying direction for livestock

grazing on Forest Lands. FLPMA directs that Forest Service Lands, not otherwise designated

would be managed on a basis of multiple use principles and for the purpose of sustained yield.

The Windmill West allotment is scheduled for an environmental analysis of grazing use on the

Coconino National Forest as required by the Rescission Act (Burns Amendment 1995). An

analysis of Forest Plan compliance for all resources can be found in Appendix B of the

Environmental Assessment.

32

Environmental Consequences This section describes the environmental consequences to vegetation found in the uplands,

woodlands, and grasslands. This section does not include detailed information on vegetation in

riparian areas. Information specific to grazing effects on riparian vegetation can be found in the

Soil and Water Specialist Report.

The effects described in this section apply to the no action alternative, the modified proposed

action alternative, and the modified proposed action with South Gyberg pasture alternative as

described in the EA. Unless noted otherwise, effects described in this section for the various

alternatives are effects that would occur on National Forest system lands.

No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would not occur and as a result, there would be no direct

or indirect effects from cattle grazing on upland vegetation. Wildlife would continue to graze on

lands within the project area, creating localized impacts and potentially creating areas of

excessive utilization.

Vegetation Height and Canopy Cover

Livestock grazing reduces plant height and canopy cover as a result of livestock consumption or

trampling; however this is only a temporary reduction because those plants will recover under

favorable climatic conditions. Under this alternative, seasonal reductions in vegetation height

and canopy cover resulting from livestock grazing would not occur. Seasonal reductions in plant

height and canopy cover would continue in localized areas as a result of wildlife use. Within

these localized areas, recovery of plant height and canopy cover is expected under favorable

climatic conditions except in areas that are continuously grazed by wildlife.

Vegetation Diversity and Density

Changes in range condition and trend, as measured by changes in vegetation density (number of

plants per unit area) and vegetation diversity (number of different plant species present in a given

area) may be observed under this alternative. The degree to which those vegetative changes

would occur, in the absence of livestock grazing are debatable. Scientific studies report a wide

range of outcomes resulting from the absence of livestock grazing. Courtois, et al (2004) found

few differences in species composition, cover, density, and production in comparing 16 long-

term livestock exclosures (65 years) with adjacent areas that had been moderately grazed.

Baxter (1977), however, reported greater species diversity and less bare ground in a comparison

between a relict area (an area that has not been impacted by human activity; including livestock

grazing), an area that has been continuously grazed, and an area that has been grazed under a

rest-rotation management strategy in North-central Arizona. Loeser, et al (2006) found that cattle

removal resulted in little increase in native plant cover and reduced plant species richness

relative to the moderate grazing control in an 8 year study in north-central Arizona.

Due to their palatability and early season availability, cool-season plant species would continue

to receive a disproportionate share of the grazing by wildlife under this alternative. This could

affect the vegetative diversity within portions of the analysis area as cool-season plants are either

allowed to recover from the effects of wildlife grazing or they are continually grazed. In the case

33

of continual grazing, the eventual result may be a reduction in cool-season species which would

reduce plant species diversity (Archer and Smeins 1991; Briske D.D. 1991; Szaro, et al 1999;

Vavra, et al 1994).

Under this alternative, range condition and trend (as measured by changes in vegetation density

and vegetation diversity) within most of the analysis area is expected to remain static or move

upward during periods of favorable climatic conditions. The exception to this would occur in

areas where over story species limit the improvement potential of understory species or in areas

that are continuously grazed by wildlife; range condition and trend in these areas would likely

remain static or continue to decline during periods of favorable climatic conditions. During

periods of unfavorable climatic conditions, range condition and trend is expected to decline at all

locations within the analysis area. Under this alternative, the ability for improvement in range

condition and trend would be most affected by climatic conditions (Sprinkle, et al, 2007).

Vegetation Production and Quality

Changes in vegetation production (amount of plant biomass above ground produced in a given

year) and vegetation quality (the nutritional value and palatability of plant biomass) of forage

species (herbaceous and woody palatable plant species available for food to herbivores) within

the analysis area are expected under this alternative. Holechek (1981) reported that forage

production and quality is maintained and enhanced by light to moderate grazing. Patton, et al

(2007) found that low to moderate levels of grazing can increase vegetative production over no

grazing, but that the level of grazing that maximizes vegetation production depends upon the

growing conditions of the current year.

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would not occur and as a result, vegetation production

and the quality of forage species would not be maintained or enhanced over a large portion of the

analysis area. Changes in vegetation production and quality of non-forage vegetation species is

expected to remain unchanged under this alternative. Wildlife would continue to graze within

the analysis area and provided the wildlife use is seasonal and transitory, vegetation production

and quality of forage species would be maintained in small, localized areas. If wildlife use

within these areas occurs continuously throughout the year, vegetation production and quality

would not be maintained as a decrease in vegetation diversity and density would likely occur.

Existing Structural Range Improvements

Operation and maintenance of existing structural range improvements is the responsibility of the

grazing permittee. Under this alternative livestock grazing not occur and there would be no

grazing permittee; as a result, operation and maintenance of existing structural range

improvements would not occur. This would result in an immediate loss of available water for

wildlife in the winter pastures since the existing pipeline/drinker system would no longer be

operated. Indirect effects due to the lack of improvement maintenance would be realized

through a long-term loss of water available for wildlife as stock tanks fill with sediment and as

the pipeline/drinker system in the winter pastures is no longer operated and degrades.

Additionally, as fences degrade due to lack of maintenance, they would likely become an

entanglement/impalement hazard for wildlife (AZGFD, 2011).

34

New Structural Range Improvements

Under this alternative, new structural range improvements would not be constructed and as a

result there would be no direct or indirect effects relating to that activity.

Mooney Trail

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would no longer occur on the Windmill West allotment

and as a result, the Mooney trail would no longer be used as a livestock drive trail. Additionally,

since there would be no livestock grazing, there would be no grazing permittee to assist with trail

maintenance.

Vegetation Treatments

Under this alternative, vegetation treatments to reduce the density and canopy cover of Pinyon

and Juniper species would not be conducted in the identified Terrestrial Ecosystem Units (TEUs)

where current canopy cover exceeds the potential canopy cover. As a result, there would be no

direct effects relating to this activity. Without the vegetation treatments, pinyon and juniper

density and canopy cover would continue to increase within these locations. Wilcox et al (1995)

reported that as juniper increases in density the understory vegetation decreases. Decreases in

understory vegetation would result in a decrease in vegetation diversity, vegetation density, and

vegetation production. Under this alternative, vegetation diversity, density, and production

would continue to decline within the locations identified for vegetation treatments.

Cumulative Effects

The focus of this analysis is on upland vegetation which receives very little influence from off-

site activities. As a result, the geographical extent of the cumulative effects analysis is confined

to the Windmill West Allotment. The timeframe selected for this analysis is 20 years; 10 years in

the past and 10 years in the future. This timeframe was selected because ground disturbing

activities that have occurred within the analysis area are expected to exhibit recovery within 10

years. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities considered in the

cumulative effects analysis for upland vegetation include: timber sales, fuels reduction projects,

prescribed burning, weed treatments, recreation, hunting, firewood gathering, OHV use, and

wildlife use.

Livestock grazing, in combination with timber sales, fuels reduction projects, prescribed burning,

dispersed recreation, firewood gathering, weed treatments, hunting, roads, OHV use, and wildlife

herbivory/browsing can cumulatively affect the density, diversity, production, and canopy cover

of understory plants. Under this alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects from

cattle grazing on vegetation density, vegetation diversity, production, and canopy cover and as a

result, there would be no cumulative effects related to cattle grazing.

This alternative provides the least cumulative impact to upland vegetation by not authorizing

livestock grazing which would be additive to the other activities. Wildlife herbivory and

browsing would continue within the analysis area. Within small portions of the analysis area,

wildlife use would be seasonal and transitory and the density, diversity, production, and canopy

cover of upland vegetation would be maintained. Within other small portions of the analysis

area, heavy wildlife use would occur continuously throughout the year creating areas of

excessive utilization. In these areas, the density, diversity, production, and canopy cover of

upland vegetation production would likely decrease. Timber sales, fuels reduction projects, and

35

prescribed burning would continue within the analysis area and would result in localized,

temporary reductions in vegetation density and canopy cover. These effects would be temporary

and recovery would occur under favorable climatic conditions. Additionally, these activities

would improve vegetation density, vegetation diversity, and canopy cover within the project

areas by reducing the overstory canopy. The other activities identified would also continue,

creating localized impacts to upland vegetation. Changes in road management and OHV use

through the Travel Management Plan would cumulatively lessen the impact to the upland

vegetation across the Windmill West Allotment.

State Trust Land

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would not occur on NFS land within the Windmill West

allotment. However, the Windmill West allotment contains approximately 11,500 acres of State

Trust Land and under this alternative two possibilities exist for these lands:

1. Livestock grazing would continue on the subject State Trust lands.

2. Livestock grazing would cease on the subject State Trust lands.

If grazing continues on the State Trust lands, it is unknown as to what level of livestock use

would occur as those are management actions that would be determined by the Arizona State

Land Department. However, it is likely that additional fencing and water developments would

be constructed on State Trust Land to facilitate livestock grazing.

It is also likely that the loss of the ability to graze the associated NFS lands would result in a

livestock operation that is no longer viable and the State Trust lands would no longer be grazed.

Under this scenario, existing structural range improvements on State Trust Land would no longer

be operated or maintained. The lack of structural range improvement operation and maintenance

would result in a loss of water available for wildlife as stock tanks fill with sediment and as the

pipeline/drinker system in the winter pastures is no longer operated and degrades due to lack of

maintenance. Additionally, as fences degrade due to lack of maintenance, they would likely

become an entanglement/impalement hazard for wildlife.

Climate Change

Vegetation density, diversity, production and canopy cover fluctuate naturally in response to

inter-annual and longer periods of climate variability. Periods of favorable climatic conditions

result in increased vegetation density, diversity, production and canopy cover. Periods of

unfavorable climatic conditions result in decreased vegetation density, diversity, production and

canopy cover.

Climate change is predicted to result in periods of extreme climatic conditions in both

temperature and precipitation. Climate change in the North American southwest is predicted to

lead to decreased winter precipitation throughout the current century (Seager and Vecchi, 2010).

This decline in winter precipitation could lead to a decrease in vegetation dependent on winter

precipitation. Although winter precipitation is important for annuals and cool season grasses as

well as replenishment of soil moisture, rangeland productivity in the southwest is primarily

controlled by summer precipitation delivered by the North American monsoon (McCollum,

et.al., 2011). The effect of climate change on the North American Monsoon, which accounts for

36

roughly half the precipitation on the Windmill West allotment, is uncertain, however; recent

research suggests a delay in the onset of the monsoonal activity with no change in total

precipitation.

Under this alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects from cattle grazing on

vegetation density, vegetation diversity, production, and canopy cover. As a result, there would

be no effects from this alternative that would be additive to the potential effects of climate

change.

Modified Proposed Action Alternative


Under this alternative, managed livestock grazing would occur and as a result, there would be

direct and indirect effects from cattle grazing on upland vegetation. Adaptive management and

annual implementation monitoring would be used to mitigate the direct and indirect effects of

livestock grazing, as well as the effects of climate variability. Wildlife would continue to graze

on the allotment, creating localized impacts and potentially areas of excessive utilization.

Vegetation Height and Canopy Cover

Livestock grazing effects to vegetation occur through a reduction in plant height and canopy

cover as a result of livestock consumption or trampling. These effects are only temporary

because plant height and canopy cover will recover under favorable climatic conditions. The

livestock grazing effects of reducing plant height and canopy cover are primarily managed

through the length of the grazing period (how long plants are exposed to livestock grazing),

frequency of grazing (how often plants are exposed to livestock grazing), grazing intensity (how

much of a plants growth to date is removed during the grazing period; determined at the end of

the grazing period), and forage utilization guidelines (how much of a plants annual growth is

removed; determined at the end of the growing season).

Under this alternative, the following management guidelines for grazing periods, frequency of

grazing, forage utilization, and grazing intensity by livestock and wildlife would be established:

Livestock Grazing Periods

Management guidelines of:

Winter Pastures/Summer Pastures: Length of the grazing period within the winter

pastures and/or summer pastures would be based upon climatic conditions, existing and

predicted forage production, and the operational needs of the grazing permittee. The

general guideline would be a 6 month grazing period in the winter pastures and a 6 month

grazing period in the summer pastures.

Pasture grazing period: Length of the grazing period within each pasture would be based

upon climatic conditions, existing and predicted forage production, and the need to

provide for plant regrowth following livestock grazing.

North Gyberg pasture: Livestock grazing will only occur from October 1 to January 31.

37

Frequency of Livestock Grazing


Generally pastures would only have one grazing period during the grazing year.

Pasture re-entry: Pasture re-entry may be necessary to facilitate livestock movement on

the allotment. Pasture re-entry will only be authorized if resource conditions are

appropriate and utilization/grazing intensity guidelines would not be exceeded.

North Gyberg pasture: Livestock use will only be allowed every other year.

Grazing Intensity


Summer range: Conservative to moderate grazing intensity (30-50%) in the late spring to early summer months when sufficient opportunity exists for plant regrowth. Conservative grazing intensity (30-40%) during the remainder of the summer grazing period when the potential for plant regrowth is limited.

Winter Range: Conservative grazing intensity (30-40%).

These grazing intensity guidelines represent the grazing intensity level for combined livestock and wildlife use.

Forage Utilization


Allotment wide: Conservative use (30-40%)

Riparian areas: Utilization would not exceed 20% on woody vegetation

North Gyberg pasture: Combined utilization of Arizona cliffrose by livestock and

wildlife would not exceed 20% of current year’s growth for any individual.

These forage utilization guidelines represent the forage utilization level for combined

livestock and wildlife use.

In Galt, et al. (2000), a 25 percent utilization guideline is recommended for livestock, with 25

percent allocated for wildlife and natural disturbance, and the remaining 50 percent left for site

protection. Under this alternative, wildlife use is included within the proposed forage utilization

guideline of 30 and 40 percent. As a result, this alternative leaves 60 to 70 percent of the forage

production available at the end of the growing season for site protection, which exceeds the Galt,

et al. recommendation. During the growing season, the proposed grazing intensity guidelines

maintain forage on site to reproduce, grow to maturity, build necessary root mass, produce seed

heads, produce litter important for nutrient cycling, and propagate and move into new areas.

Under this alternative, reductions in herbaceous vegetation height and canopy cover resulting

from livestock grazing would occur. Reductions in herbaceous plant height and canopy cover

would also continue in localized areas as a result of wildlife use. Under favorable climatic

conditions the reduction of herbaceous vegetation height and canopy cover is temporary and

recovery of plant height and canopy cover is expected within the same growing season except in

areas that are continuously grazed by wildlife. Under favorable climatic conditions, the

38

management guidelines for grazing periods, frequency of grazing, forage utilization, and grazing

intensity are expected to:

Maintain or improve vegetative canopy cover and vegetative ground cover.

Maintain soil condition within the areas currently identified as having satisfactory soil

condition.

Improve soil condition within the areas currently identified as having impaired or

unsatisfactory soil condition except in those areas where overstory species limit the

improvement potential.

Adaptive management and annual implementation monitoring would provide the ability to

modify the management guidelines as needed to maintain vegetation height and canopy cover

during periods of unfavorable climatic conditions. During periods of unfavorable climatic

conditions the management guidelines for grazing periods, frequency of grazing, forage

utilization, and grazing intensity would be modified to accomplish the following:

Maintain, or minimize the reduction of, vegetative canopy cover and vegetative ground

cover.

Maintain, or minimize the reduction of, vegetation necessary for soil stability.

Vegetation Diversity and Density

As previously discussed, this alternative would have direct effects to upland vegetation by

reducing plant height and canopy cover. Usually these effects are only temporary because plant

height and canopy cover recover under favorable climatic conditions. If plant height and canopy

cover do not recover, either due to climate or management actions, the effects of livestock

grazing could result in a decrease in vegetation diversity and density. Annual implementation

monitoring would be used to timely identify resource issues (such as a lack of plant

height/canopy cover recovery) and adaptive management would provide the ability to modify the

management as needed to maintain or improve vegetation conditions.

Livestock grazing can have an effect in improving or decreasing plant species composition

depending on the timing of grazing. For instance, spring and early summer grazing occurs

mainly on cool season species. Once the monsoon season begins, grazing occurs mainly on warm

season species. As the weather cools in the fall, use changes back to cool season species. Under

this alternative, the grazing use period within a pasture is seasonally rotated so that forage is

grazed and rested at different times each year. By alternating the livestock use and rest periods

on cool and warm season species, plant species composition would be maintained or improved.

Additionally, adaptive management and annual implementation monitoring would provide the

necessary resource information and management options to adjust the timing, intensity,

frequency and duration of livestock grazing to ensure that vegetation condition is maintained or

improved.

Under this alternative, through effective implementation of the management guidelines, annual

implementation monitoring, and adaptive management, range condition and trend (as measured

by changes in vegetation diversity and density) is expected to remain static or move upward

39

during periods of favorable climatic conditions, except in areas where over story species limit the

improvement potential of understory species or in areas that are continuously grazed by wildlife.

During periods of unfavorable climatic conditions, range condition and trend is expected to

decline at all locations within the analysis area. The ability for improvement in range condition

and trend would be most affected by climatic conditions (Sprinkle, et al, 2007).

Vegetation Production and Quality

Vegetation production (amount of plant biomass above ground produced in a given year) and

vegetation quality (the nutritional value and palatability of plant biomass) of forage species

(herbaceous and woody palatable plant species available for food to herbivores) within the

analysis area are expected to be maintained under this alternative. Holechek (1981) reported that

forage production and quality is maintained and enhanced by light to moderate grazing. Loeser,

et al. (2004) showed evidence of increased aboveground productivity in response to defoliation

from cattle grazing. Patton, et al (2007) found that low to moderate levels of grazing can

increase vegetative production over no grazing, but that the level of grazing that maximizes

vegetation production depends upon the growing conditions of the current year.

Under this alternative, managed livestock grazing would occur and as a result, vegetation

production and vegetation quality of forage species would be maintained or enhanced over a

large portion of the analysis area. Changes in vegetation production and quality of non-forage

vegetation species is expected to remain unchanged under this alternative. Wildlife would

continue to graze within the analysis area and provided the wildlife use is seasonal and

transitory, vegetation production and quality of forage species would be maintained or enhanced

in combination with managed livestock grazing. If heavy wildlife use occurs continuously

throughout the year in combination with managed livestock grazing, vegetation production and

quality will not be maintained as a decrease in vegetation diversity and density would likely

occur. Vegetation production is expected to be average to above average during periods of

favorable climatic conditions. During periods of unfavorable climatic conditions, vegetation

production is expected to decline.

Existing Structural Range Improvements

Under this alternative, existing structural range improvements will be maintained and

operational. The operation and maintenance of existing structural range improvements would

have short-term direct effects to upland vegetation. Plant height and canopy cover would be

reduced in the immediate area due to maintenance activities; however, plant height and canopy

cover would recover with favorable climate conditions. Operating and maintaining existing

structural improvements will allow for the implementation of managed livestock grazing and

provide the necessary infrastructure to control grazing periods, frequency of grazing, grazing

intensity, and forage utilization.

Existing allotment and pasture fences will be maintained annually. Maintaining existing fences

will reduce the chance of entanglement/impalement for wildlife (AZGFD, 2011). Existing

fences may be modified or upgraded to current wildlife specifications. When existing fences

reach the end of their functional lifespan they will be reconstructed to current wildlife

specifications.

40

Existing earthen stock ponds will be maintained and water distribution systems (wells, pipelines,

water storage tanks, and troughs) will be maintained and operational. Functional livestock water

developments are necessary for managed livestock grazing but they also provide

important/critical water sources for wildlife.

New Structural Range Improvements

Under this alternative, a new pasture fence would be constructed in the northeast corner of the

Rogers Lake pasture; this will create the North Rogers Lake pasture. The construction of this

pasture fence would have short-term direct effects to upland vegetation. Plant height and canopy

cover would be reduced in the immediate area due to fence construction activities; however,

plant height and canopy cover would recover with favorable climate conditions. The proposed

pasture fence is designed to reduce livestock grazing effects to riparian/wetland vegetation and to

protect duck nesting habitat by eliminating livestock use of the Rogers Lake wetland prior to

July 15. Under this alternative, livestock use will not occur within the new North Rogers Lake

pasture before July 15 and only if wildlife utilization on riparian/wetland species is less than

40%. Due to heavy elk utilization of the Rogers Lake wetland, it is not expected to be able to

graze the North Rogers Lake pasture with livestock.

Under this alternative, a wetland exclosure fence may be constructed at Fry Lake; an adaptive

management strategy would be utilized to determine management actions at Fry Lake. Initially,

managing livestock grazing effects to riparian/wetland vegetation and protection of duck nesting

habitat would be accomplished by deferment of livestock grazing in the Fry Park East pasture

until after July 15. A wetland exclosure fence would be constructed at Fry Lake under the

following conditions:

Monitoring reveals a decline in upland vegetation diversity and density in the Fry Park

East pasture, or any of the surrounding pastures, as a result of the continued mid to late

season livestock use of the Fry Park East pasture.

Monitoring reveals a decline in riparian/wetland vegetation at Fry Lake as a result of the

continued mid to late season livestock use of the Fry Park East pasture.

The grazing permittee requests the ability to use Fry Park East pasture early in the

summer grazing period (prior to July 15) to meet the operational needs of the allotment.

Under the first two conditions, the wetland exclosure fence would be constructed so that the Fry

Park East pasture could be used by livestock prior to July 15 which would result in the ability to

provide deferment from early season livestock use in the surrounding pastures. Under the last

condition, the wetland exclosure fence would be constructed to improve the livestock

management efficiency on the allotment. Protection of riparian/wetland vegetation and duck

nesting habitat would be accomplished under all adaptive management strategies.

If necessary to construct the wetland exclosure fence at Fry Lake, the construction of the wetland

exclosure fence would have short-term direct effects to upland and wetland/riparian vegetation.

Plant height and canopy cover would be reduced in the immediate area due to fence construction

activities; however, plant height and canopy cover would recover with favorable climate

conditions. A fenced lane to the existing earthen stock pond which would allow for livestock

watering would be a required design feature of the wetland exclosure fence. Concentrating

41

livestock within this lane would result in compacted soils and reduced upland and

riparian/wetland vegetation within the lane area. The proposed wetland exclosure fence would

be designed to reduce livestock grazing effects to riparian/wetland vegetation and to protect duck

nesting habitat. Improvement of the wetland and riparian vegetation at Fry Lake would largely

be dependent on elk use and on climatic conditions.

Under this alternative, spring restoration activities would occur at Lockwood Spring. Restoration

of Lockwood Spring would include construction of an exclosure fence that would protect the

spring and the associated riparian area but would still allow livestock and wildlife access to the

existing troughs and re-plumbing the spring box to allow a portion of the water to discharge near

the spring’s natural emergence area. These activities would have short-term direct effects to

upland and riparian/wetland vegetation. Plant height and canopy cover would be reduced in the

immediate area due to fence and spring box construction activities; however, plant height and

canopy cover would recover with favorable climate conditions. The proposed fencing and re-

plumbing activities would be designed to aid in the restoration of riparian vegetation, reduce

livestock grazing effects to riparian/wetland vegetation, improve the vigor and extent of

riparian/wetland vegetation at the site, and provide water for livestock and wildlife.

Improvement of the riparian and wetland vegetation within the exclosure at Lockwood Spring

will largely be dependent on elk use and on climatic conditions.

Mooney Trail

Under this alternative, the Mooney trail would continue to be used to drive cattle between the

winter and summer pastures two days per year; one day in May/June and one day in

October/November. Use of the Mooney trail as a livestock drive trail would have short-term

direct effects to upland vegetation. Plant height and canopy cover would be reduced in the area

immediately adjacent to the trail due to livestock trailing activities; however, plant height and

canopy cover would recover with favorable climate conditions. Use of the Mooney trail as a

livestock drive trail would also result in direct effects to recreational users of the Mooney trail

two days per year. Under this alternative, the grazing permittee would continue to provide

assistance with maintenance of the trail.

Vegetation Treatments

Under this alternative, approximately 3,180 acres of potential vegetation treatment acres are

identified. Within the potential vegetation treatment areas, vegetation treatments to reduce the

density and canopy cover of Pinyon and Juniper species would be conducted on approximately

2,500 acres where the current canopy cover exceeds the potential canopy cover identified in the

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Coconino National Forest (1991). Proposed vegetation

treatments would include:

Hand thinning of pinyon and juniper trees.

Lopping and scattering the resultant slash

In areas where the pre-treatment canopy cover exceeds 40%, hand seeding with a native

seed mixture may be necessary.

Rest or seasonal deferment from livestock grazing may be necessary within treatment

areas for up to one year.

42

Vegetation treatments would have short-term direct effects to upland vegetation. Plant height

and canopy cover would be reduced in the immediate area due to treatment activities; however,

plant height and canopy cover would recover with favorable climate conditions. Vegetation

treatments would reduce the overstory canopy of pinyon and juniper trees which would increase

upland vegetation density and diversity within the treatment areas (Willcox and Davenport,

1995). The increase in upland vegetation within the treatment areas would include an increase in

forage species which would improve allotment conditions and allow for more flexibility in

grazing management. All other factors being equal, the increase in forage production would

improve livestock distribution and result in reduced grazing intensity and forage utilization

levels. The reduced grazing intensity level would provide for an increase in the pasture grazing

period which would provide the opportunity to allow for rest or seasonal deferment for other

pastures.

Closed Pastures

Under this alternative, Winter Cabin (except approximately 284 acres), North Sycamore, South

Sycamore, Loy Canyon, Secret Mountain, South Gyberg, #60, and #51 pastures would be

removed from the Windmill West allotment and closed to livestock grazing. A small portion of

Winter Cabin pasture (approx. 284 acres; located in the southeastern corner of the pasture) would

remain in the Windmill West allotment to continue to serve as a livestock driveway between the

Winter Cabin Holding pasture and the Lockwood Springs pasture. Winter Cabin, North

Sycamore, South Sycamore, Loy Canyon, Secret Mountain, #60, and #51 pastures have not been

grazed in the past 10-15 years due to difficulty with livestock management. The decision to not

graze these pastures was a joint decision between the permittee and the Forest Service. The

South Gyberg pasture has not been grazed in the past 10+ years due to the occurrence of Arizona

cliffrose (Purshia subintegra), an endangered species.

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would not occur in these pastures. Direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects would be the same as described in the No Action alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The geographical extent, timeframe, and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

activities are the same as described in the No Action Alternative.

Under this alternative, managed livestock grazing in combination with timber sales, fuels

reduction projects, prescribed burning, weed treatments, recreation, hunting, firewood gathering,

OHV use, and wildlife use would result in cumulative effects to plant height and canopy cover,

vegetation density and diversity, and vegetation production and quality.

Timber sales, fuels reduction projects, and prescribed burning projects within the analysis area

would result in localized, short term reductions in plant height, canopy cover, and vegetation

production due to the physical defoliation and crushing of understory vegetation related to

mechanical tree thinning activities and the consumption of above ground vegetation during

prescribed burning activities. However, these effects would be temporary and recovery would

typically occur in one growing season under favorable climatic conditions.

In the long term, timber sales, fuels reduction projects, and prescribed burning projects would

result in increases in vegetation density, vegetation diversity, plant height and canopy cover, and

43

vegetation production. Tree thinning and prescribed burning would increase vegetation density

(number of plants per unit area) because of the overall increase in the amount of sunlight that

reaches the soil surface, the reduction of competition from over story species, the reduction of

the pine needle litter layer, and the increase in nutrient cycling provided by burning. An increase

in vegetation density would result in an increase plant canopy cover and vegetation production

simply as a result of more plants occupying the site. Additionally, as more of the soil surface

area is exposed to sunlight, vegetation diversity would improve as shade intolerant vegetation

species would increase.

An increase in vegetation density and diversity would include an increase in forage production

which would allow for more flexibility in grazing management. Increased forage production

would improve livestock distribution and result in reduced grazing intensity and forage

utilization levels. The reduced grazing intensity level would provide for an increase in the

pasture grazing period which would provide the opportunity to allow for rest or seasonal

deferment for other pastures.

Weed Treatments would result in localized, short term reductions in plant height, canopy cover,

and vegetation production due to the physical defoliation and crushing of understory vegetation

related to mechanical/vehicular weed treatment activities. However, these effects would be

temporary and recovery would typically occur in one growing season under favorable climatic

conditions. In the long term, weed treatment projects would remove, or control the spread of,

noxious weed species which would result in maintaining vegetation density, vegetation diversity,

plant height and canopy cover, and vegetation production within the analysis area.

Recreation (camping, hiking, biking, etc.), hunting, and firewood gathering all result in

reductions in plant height, canopy cover, and vegetation production due to the physical

defoliation and crushing of understory vegetation primarily related to the vehicular use

associated with these activities. Except in areas that receive continuous recreational and

vehicular use, the effects to plant height, canopy cover, and vegetation production would be

temporary and recovery would typically occur in one growing season under favorable climatic

conditions. Changes in road management through the Travel Management Plan would lessen the

impact to the upland vegetation within the analysis area.

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use results in reductions in plant height, canopy cover, and

vegetation production due to the physical defoliation and crushing of understory vegetation.

Except in areas that receive continuous OHV use, the effects to plant height, canopy cover, and

vegetation production would be temporary and recovery would typically occur in one growing

season under favorable climatic conditions. Changes in road and OHV management through the

Travel Management Plan would lessen the impact to the upland vegetation within the analysis

area through a reduction in the number and mileage of roads open for vehicular use and the

elimination of off-road vehicle use.

Wildlife herbivory and browsing would continue within the analysis area. In areas where the

wildlife use is seasonal and transitory, the density, diversity, production, and canopy cover of

upland vegetation would be maintained or enhanced in combination with managed livestock

grazing. In areas where heavy wildlife use occurs continuously throughout the year, the density,

44

diversity, production, and canopy cover of upland vegetation production would likely decrease;

this decrease would occur regardless of the presence or absence of managed livestock grazing.

State Trust Land

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would continue on NFS land within the Windmill West

allotment and it is likely that livestock grazing would continue on the approximately 11,500

acres of State Trust lands within the Windmill West allotment. How long these lands continue to

be utilized for livestock grazing, and to what level livestock use occurs on these lands would be

management actions determined by the Arizona State Land Department. Under this alternative,

it is likely that existing structural range improvements on State Trust Land would remain

operational and would continue to be maintained.

Climate Change

Vegetation density, diversity, production and canopy cover fluctuate naturally in response to

inter-annual and longer periods of climate variability. Periods of favorable climatic conditions

result in increased vegetation density, diversity, production and canopy cover. Periods of

unfavorable climatic conditions result in decreased vegetation density, diversity, production and

canopy cover.

Climate change is predicted to result in periods of extreme climatic conditions in both

temperature and precipitation. Climate change in the North American southwest is predicted to

lead to decreased winter precipitation throughout the current century (Seager and Vecchi, 2010).

This decline in winter precipitation could lead to a decrease in vegetation dependent on winter

precipitation. Although winter precipitation is important for annuals and cool season grasses as

well as replenishment of soil moisture, rangeland productivity in the southwest is primarily

controlled by summer precipitation delivered by the North American monsoon (McCollum,

et.al., 2011). The effect of climate change on the North American Monsoon, which accounts for

roughly half the precipitation on the Windmill West allotment, is uncertain, however; recent

research suggests a delay in the onset of the monsoonal activity with no change in total

precipitation.

Under this alternative, adaptive management and annual implementation monitoring would

provide the ability to modify livestock management as needed to maintain or improve vegetation

conditions under varying climatic conditions. As a result, there would be no effects from this

alternative that would be additive to the potential effects of climate change.

Modified Proposed Action with South Gyberg Pasture Alternative

Under this alternative, livestock grazing on the Windmill West allotment would occur as

described for the Modified Proposed Action but the South Gyberg pasture would be retained and

converted to an actively grazed pasture.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for this alternative are exactly the same as the effects

identified and discussed for the Modified Proposed Action. As a result, only additions, revisions,

or effects that vary from the Modified Proposed Action are described and discussed.

45


Under this alternative, the Management Guidelines described in the Vegetation Height and

Canopy Cover Section would be revised to include requirements for South Gyberg pasture.

Revisions would include:

• Livestock Grazing Periods: North and South Gyberg pastures: Livestock grazing will

only occur from October 1 to January 31.

• Frequency of Livestock Grazing: North and South Gyberg pastures: Livestock use will

only be allowed every other year.

• Forage Utilization: North and South Gyberg pastures: Combined utilization of Arizona

cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) by livestock and wildlife would not exceed 20% of current

year’s growth for any individual.

Under this alternative, several new structural range improvements would need to be constructed

to facilitate livestock management in the South Gyberg pasture. Structural range improvements

that would need to be constructed include: 1) approximately 0.75 miles of water pipeline; 2)

placement/construction of 1 to 2 water troughs; 3) construction of approximately 600 feet to

1,200 feet of water lot fencing. The construction of these structural range improvements would

have short-term direct effects to upland vegetation. Plant height and canopy cover would be

reduced in the immediate area due to construction activities; however, plant height and canopy

cover would recover with favorable climate conditions. The creation of a water lot and the

placement/construction of water troughs will concentrate livestock and result in compacted soils

and reduced upland vegetation within the immediate area.

Under this alternative, South Gyberg pasture would not be removed from the Windmill West

allotment and the area would not be closed to livestock grazing. Arizona cliffrose (Purshia

subintegra), an endangered species, occurs in the South Gyberg pasture and livestock grazing

will be authorized and managed in accordance with the Arizona Cliffrose Recovery Plan.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as the effects identified and discussed for the

Modified Proposed Action.

Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in

the following tables focuses on activities where different levels of effects or outputs can be

distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 15. Proposed Structural Improvements by Alternative

New Structural

Improvements No Action

Modified

Proposed

Action

Modified

Proposed Action

with South Gyberg

Pasture

Fence – pasture fence 0 0.50 miles 0.50 miles

Fence – wetland exclosure fence at

Fry Lake 0 1.6 miles 1.6 miles

Fence – spring exclosure at 0 450 feet 450 feet

46

Lockwood Spring

Fence – waterlot fencing in South

Gyberg Pasture 0 0 0.10 miles

Pipeline – water distribution

pipeline 0 0 0.70 miles

Trough 0 0 1

Vegetation Treatments –

Grassland Restoration/PJ Thinning 0 2,500 acres 2,500 acres

Table 16. Livestock Grazing Activities by Alternative

Grazing Statistic No Action Modified

Proposed Action

Modified

Proposed Action with

South Gyberg Pasture

Permitted Season of Use None Yearlong Yearlong

Maximum Animal Unit

Months (AUMs) Permitted 0 6,780 6,780

Maximum Permitted

Animal Units (AUs) 0 565 565

Percent change from current

permit/management

100%

reduction 0 0

Summer and Winter

Pastures Graze Period None

Summer: Approx. 6 months

Winter: Approx. 6 months

Summer: Approx. 6 months

Winter: Approx. 6 months

Change from Current

Management

100%

reduction

Add 1 month to summer

graze period. Reduce winter

graze period by 1 month.

Add 1 month to summer

graze period. Reduce winter

graze period by 1 month.

Pasture Grazing Period None Variable; based on

conditions

Variable; based on

conditions

Frequency of Pasture Use None

Pastures will generally only

be grazed once during the

grazing year.

Pastures will generally only

be grazed once during the

grazing year.

Forage Utilization Guideline None 30-40% 30-40%

Percent change from current

management

100%

reduction

No change for Summer

pastures.

20-40% reduction for Winter

pastures.

No change for Summer

pastures.

20-40% reduction for Winter

pastures.

Riparian Utilization

Guideline None 20% on Woody Vegetation 20% on Woody Vegetation

Change from Current

Management

100%

Reduction

No change from current

management


management

Grazing Intensity Guideline

Summer Pastures

None

Late Spring/Early Summer:

40-50%

Remainder of the summer

grazing period: 30-40%

Late Spring/Early Summer:

40-50%

Remainder of the summer

grazing period: 30-40%

Change from current

management

100%

Reduction


management


management

Grazing Intensity Guideline

Winter Pastures None 30-40% 30-40%

Change from current

management

100%

Reduction 20-40% reduction 20-40% reduction

Utilizes Monitoring and

Adaptive Management No Yes Yes

47

Table 17. Alternative Comparison by Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need

Proposed Action Modified

Proposed

Action

Modified

Proposed Action

with South

Gyberg Pasture

Alternative meets or moves the area

towards Forest Plan objectives Yes Yes Yes

Alternative meets or moves the area

towards desired conditions Yes Yes Yes

Alternative maintains or improves

upland vegetation conditions Yes Yes Yes

Table 18. Summary of Environmental Effects

Indicator Unit of

Measure

No Action

Modified

Proposed

Action

Modified

Proposed Action

with South Gyberg

Pasture

Upland

Vegetation

Condition and

Trend

Vegetation

Diversity

and Density

Range condition and trend, as measured by changes in vegetation

diversity and density, is expected to remain static or move upward during

periods of favorable climatic conditions. Exception to this would occur

primarily in areas where overstory species limit improvement potential.

During periods of unfavorable climatic conditions, range condition and

trend is expected to decline. The ability for improvement in range

condition and trend will be most affected by climatic conditions.

Measurable differences in vegetation condition and trend between any of

the alternatives is not expected.

Vegetation

Height and

Canopy

Cover

Short term reductions

in the height and

canopy cover of

herbaceous vegetation

from livestock grazing

would not occur.

Long-term measurable

differences between

any of the alternatives

are not expected

Short term reductions in the height and canopy

cover of herbaceous vegetation from livestock

grazing will occur. The reduction in plant

height and cover, as a result of grazing, does

recover with favorable climatic conditions.

Livestock grazing effects of reducing plant

height and canopy cover will be managed

through controlling the length of the grazing

period, the frequency of grazing, the grazing

intensity, and forage utilization guidelines. Measurable differences between the two action

alternatives are not expected.

Vegetation

Production

and Quality

of Forage

Species

Vegetation production

and quality of forage

species is not expected

to be maintained or

enhanced over a large

portion of the analysis

area.

Vegetation production and quality of forage

species is expected to be maintained and

enhanced by light to moderate grazing.

Measurable differences between the two action

alternatives are not expected.

48

Preparation of Report This report was prepared considering the Best Available Science and locally gathered data. Field

reviews were conducted to: assess forage production and vegetation condition, assess the

condition of existing structural range improvements, evaluate the need for additional structural

range improvements, and to observe livestock use that occurred within the analysis area of the

Windmill West Allotment. Parker 3-Step clusters (established between 1952 and 1964) were

read in 2000 and converted to Pace Frequency and 1/10 acre ocular macro plot cover methods.

These plots were read again 2008 and 2009 and that data was used for condition and tread

assessments for this report. Forage production data and additional vegetation condition data was

also collected in 2011-2013 for use in this report.

A thorough review was also conducted of the historical records and data for the allotment (on file

at the Flagstaff Ranger District). This review included information relating to past grazing

management, historical livestock numbers, past range condition and trend data, past production

and utilization data, and precipitation records. All of this information and data was used in the

preparation of this report.

Education and Professional Experience

My experience includes a Bachelor’s degree in Rangeland Management (Arizona State

University, 1984) and 29 years of experience as a Range Conservationist/Rangeland

Management Specialist (27 years in Northern Arizona). From 1984 to 2002, I was a Range

Conservationist with the Arizona State Land Department; the last 17 years for the Flagstaff Field

Office/Little Colorado Resource Area. From 2002 to 2006, I was a Rangeland Management

Specialist with the US Forest Service for the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts of the

Kaibab National Forest. From 2006 to 2007, I was the Range Staff/Rangeland Management

Specialist for the Red Rock and Mogollon Rim Ranger Districts of the Coconino National

Forest. Since October, 2007 I have been the Range Staff/Rangeland Management Specialist for

the Flagstaff Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest.

49

LITERATURE CITED ____________________________

Archer, S. and F.E. Smeins. 1991. Ecosystem-Level Processes. P. 109-134. In: Grazing

Management: An Ecological Perspective. R.K. Heitschmidt and J.W. Stuth (eds.),

Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Archer, S. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into southwestern grasslands and savannas: rates,

patterns and proximate causes. Pages 13–68 in M. Vavra, W. Laycock, and R. Pieper,

editors. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West. Society for Range

Management, Denver, Colorado, USA.

AZGFD. 2011. Wildlife Compatible Fencing. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 34

pp.

Arnold, J. F. 1950. Changes in ponderosa pine bunchgrass ranges in northern Arizona resulting

from pine regeneration and grazing. Journal of Forestry 48: 118-26.

Baxter, C. 1977. A comparison between grazed and ungrazed juniper woodland. In: Aldon, E. F.,

and T. J. Loring, technical coordinators. Ecology, uses and management of pinyon-

juniper woodlands. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-39, pp. 25-27.

Baker, Robert D.; Maxwell, R.S.; Treat, V.H.; Dethloff, H.C. 1988. Timeless heritage: a history

of the Forest Service in the Southwest. FS–409. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 208 p

Briske D.D. 1991. Developmental Morphology and Physiology of Grasses. P. 85-108. In:

Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. R.K. Heitschmidt and J.W. Stuth

(eds.), Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Cooper, C.F., 1960. Changes in Vegetation, Structure, and Growth of Southwestern Pine Forests

since White Settlement. Ecol. Monog. 30(2): pp. 129-164

Cooperative Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Natural

Resource Conservation Service, Grazing Land Technology Institute, U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Utilization Studies and Residual

Measurements: Interagency Technical Reference.

Coulloudon, B., K. Eshelman, J. Gianola, N. Habich, L. Hughes, C. Johnson, M. Pellant, P.

Podborny, A. Rasmussen, B. Robles, P. Shaver, J. Spehar, and J. Willoughby. 1999.

Sampling Vegetation Attributes: Interagency Technical Reference. Cooperative

Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Natural Resource

Conservation Service, Grazing Land Technology Institute, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Courtois, D.R., B.L. Perryman, H.S. Hussein. 2004. Vegetation change after 65 years of grazing

and grazing exclusion. Journal of Range Management. 57: 574-582.

50

Crimmins, Michael A., George Zaimes, Niina Haas, Christopher K. Jones, Gregg Garfin, and

Theresa M. Crimmins. 2007. Changes on the Range: Exploring Climate Change with

Range Managers. Journal of Natural Resoures and Life Science Education. Vol. 36, 2007,

pp 76-86

Finch, Deborah M., Editor. 2004. Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the

Southwestern United States. Volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-135-vol. 1. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 167 p.

Galt, D., F. Molinar, J. Navarro, J. Joseph, and J. Holecheck. 2000. Grazing Capacity and

Stocking Rate. Rangelands. 22(6):6-11.

Holechek, Jerry L. 1981. Livestock grazing impacts on public lands: A viewpoint. Journal of

Range Management. 34(3); 251-254.

Holechek, Jerry L. 1988. An approach to setting the stocking rate. Rangelands. 10:10-14, Table

3.

Holecheck, Jerry L., R.D. Peiper and C. H. Herbel. 1989. Range Management. Prentice-Hall,

Inc. Englewood Cliff, N.J. 501p.

Jameson, D.E. 1987. Climax or Alternative Steady States in Woodland Ecology. In:

Proceedings – Pinyon-Juniper Conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical

Report INT-215:9-13. Intermountain Research Station. Ogden,UT.

Khumalo, G., Holechek, J., Thomas, M., and Molinar, F. 2007. Long-term vegetation

productivity and trend under two stocking levels on Chihuahuan Desert Rangeland.

Rangeland Ecology and Management, 60:165-171.

Loeser, Matt R., T. D. Sisk, and T. E. Crews. 2004. Defoliation increased above-ground

productivity in a semi-arid grassland. Journal of Range Management, 57(5):442-447. Loeser, Matt. R., T. D. Sisk and T. E. Crews. 2003a. Evidence of increased above-ground

productivity in a semi-arid grassland in response to defoliation. Submitted to the Journal of Range Management. October, 2003.

Loeser, Matt R., T. D. Sisk and T. E. Crews. 2003b. Five years of cattle removal has little effects

on forb abundance or standing herbaceous matter in a semi-arid grassland. Submitted to

the Journal of Range Management. October, 2003.

Loeser, Matthew R. R., Thomas D. Sisk, and Timothy E. Crews. 2006. Impact of Grazing

Intensity during Drought in an Arizona Grassland. Conservation Biology. 21(1):87-97.

51

Martin, S.C., and D.R. Cable. 1974. Managing semidesert grassshrub ranges: Vegetation

responses to precipitation, grazing, soil texture, and mesquite control. U.S. Dept. Agr.

Tech. Bull. 1480.

McCollum, D.W., Tanaka, J.A., Morgan, J.A., J.E. Mitchell, K.A. Mackzo, L. Hidinger, W.E.

Fox, C.S. Duke. 2011. Climate Change Effects on Rangelands: Affirming the Need for

Monitoring. Unpublished report available at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/docs/climate_

change_effects_rangelands.pdf. 27 p.

Moore, M.M., Deiter, D.A. 1992. Stand Density Index as a predictor of forage production in

Northern Arizona pine forests. Journal of Range Management. 45: 267-271.

Moore, M. M., D. W. Huffman, P. Z. Fule´, W. W. Covington, and J. E. Crouse. 2004.

Comparison of historical and contemporary forest structure and composition on

permanent plots in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Forest Science 50:162–176.

Manske, Llewellyn. 1998. Animal Unit Equivalent for Beef Cattle based on Metabolic Weight.

North Dakota State University, Dickinson Research Extension Center. 1998.

Patton, Bob. D., Xuejun Dong, Paul E. Nyren, and Anne Nyren. 2007. Effects of Grazing

Intensity, Precipitation, and Temperature on Forage Production. Rangeland Ecology &

Management. 60(6):656-665.

Pearson, Henry A., and D. A. Jameson. 1967. Relationship between timber and cattle production

on ponderosa pine range: The Wild Bill Range. 10 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Ruyle, George (ed.). 1997. Some Methods for Monitoring Rangelands and Other Natural Area

Vegetation. University of Arizona, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Report

9043.

Seager, R., Vecchi, G.A., 2010. Greenhouse warming and the 21st century hydroclimate of

southwestern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America 107, 21277e21282.

Sprinkle, Jim, Mick Holder, Chas Erickson, Al Medina, Dan Robinett, George Ruyle, Jim

Maynard, Sabrina Tuttle, John Hays, Jr., Walt Meyer, Scott Stratton, Alix Rogstad, Kevin

Eldredge, Joe Harris, Larry Howery, and Wesley Srpinkle. 2007. Dutchwoman Butte

Revisited; Examining paradigms for livestock grazing exclusion. Rangelands. 29 (6):21-

34.

Szaro, R.C., N.C. Johnson, W.T. Sexton, and A.J. Malke (Ed.). 1999. Ecological Stewardship –

A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management. Volume II. Elsevier Science Ltd.

Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK.

52

Tausch, R.J. and N.E. West. 1994. Plant Species Composition Patterns with Differences in Tree

Dominance on a Southwestern Utah Pinion-Juniper Site. In: Desired Future Conditions

for Pinion-Juniper Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-258:

16-23. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.

Vavra, M., W.A. Laycock, and R. D. Pieper. 1994. Ecological Implications of Livestock

Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management. Denver, CO.

Wilcox, Bradford P. David W. Davenport. 1995. Juniper Encroachment: Potential Impacts to

Soil Erosion and Morphology. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Manual 2200: Range Management. USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Handbook 2200.13: Grazing Permit Administration

Handbook. USDA, Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 90 (Grazing Permit Administration;

Rangeland Management Decision making). USDA Forest Service. 1987a. Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan, and all

subsequent amendments. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Coconino National Forest,

Region 3. 405 pp. USDA Forest Service Records. (Various Dates). Red Rock Ranger Station, Coconino National

Forest. United States Department of Agriculture.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Rangeland Analysis and Training Guide, Southwestern Region 3.

53

Appendix A: Monitoring Requirements

Both qualitative and quantitative monitoring methods would be used in accordance with the

Interagency Technical References, Region 3 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training

Guide, and the Region 3 Allotment Analysis Handbook. Monitoring frequency varies by each

activity and would be accomplished collaboratively by Forest Service personnel, permittee, and

cooperating agencies.

Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring would be conducted on an annual basis and includes: permit

compliance, livestock actual use data, grazing intensity, utilization, assessments of forage

production and ground cover, precipitation, and allotment inspections.

Permit Compliance: Throughout each grazing season, Forest Service personnel would monitor

activities on the allotment to ensure compliance with Permit terms and conditions, the Allotment

Management Plan, and the Annual Operating Instructions.

Livestock Actual Use: Permittee would keep accurate records regarding actual livestock

numbers and pasture use dates on the form supplied as part of the Annual Operating Instructions.

This form would be submitted to the Forest Service at the end of the grazing season.

Grazing Intensity: Grazing intensity monitoring would occur within each of the main grazing

pastures during, or immediately after, the period when livestock are grazing the pasture. Grazing

intensity is defined as the amount of herbage removed through grazing or trampling during the

grazing period. Grazing intensity would be used by the Forest Service and the permittee to

control actual pasture moves. Livestock may need to be moved out of a pasture sooner if the

grazing intensity guideline is reached before the planned move date. Likewise, livestock may

stay longer in a pasture if grazing intensity is below the established guideline when the planned

move date arrives.

Grazing intensity measurements would be taken in key areas which reflect grazing effects within

an entire pasture. A minimum of one key area would be established within each main grazing

pasture, at existing long-term monitoring sites if possible, to represent the overall grazing

intensity within the pasture.

Utilization: Utilization monitoring would occur at the end of the growing season within each of

the main grazing pastures. Utilization is defined as the proportion or degree of current year’s

forage production that is consumed or destroyed by animals (including insects). It is a

comparison of the amount of herbage left compared with the amount of herbage produced during

the year. Utilization is measured at the end of the growing season when the total annual

production can be accounted for and the effects of grazing in the whole management unit can be

assessed.

Utilization measurements would be taken in key areas which reflect grazing effects within an

entire pasture. A minimum of one key area would be established within each main grazing

pasture, at existing long-term monitoring sites if possible, to represent overall pasture utilization.

54

Utilization guidelines are not intended as inflexible limits. Utilization measurements can indicate

the need for management changes prior to this need being identified through long term

monitoring. Utilization data would not be used alone, but would be used along with climate and

condition/trend data, to determine stocking levels and pasture rotations for future years.

If monitoring shows that the utilization guideline was exceeded in a pasture, the grazing schedule

and/or cattle numbers would be adjusted for the following year. If utilization is exceeded after

these adjustments are made, then changes would be made to the grazing management system.

Utilization on Arizona Cliffrose: Monitoring of livestock and wildlife utilization on the current

year’s growth of Arizona Cliffrose would occur before, during, and after periods of livestock

use. Three permanent utilization transects have been established in the North Gyberg pasture in

areas that contain Arizona Cliffrose and are accessible to livestock. Utilization of current year’s

growth on Arizona Cliffrose will be determined using the Extensive Browse Method as

described in Interagency Technical Reference, Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements

(1996).

Forage Production and Ground Cover: Forage production assessments would be made to

determine stocking levels for the grazing season and would also be used during the grazing

season to determine if adjustments in the stocking level should be made. Qualitative assessments

of ground cover would also be made and used as an indicator of condition and trend; observed

changes may indicate the need to conduct effectiveness monitoring (condition and trend) prior to

the scheduled interval.

Precipitation: Precipitation is currently recorded at 4 sites that approximate the precipitation for

the allotment. Additional precipitation gauges may be placed on the allotment for more localized

information.

Allotment Inspection: A written summary would be completed each year by Forest Service

personnel to document the overall history of that year’s grazing. This document would include a

monitoring summary, livestock actual use, weather history, and a discussion of the year’s

accomplishments and problems. Information from this report would be used in preparing the

following year’s grazing plan.

Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring would be used to evaluate the success of management in achieving the

desired objectives. Effectiveness monitoring would occur within key areas on permanent

transects at an interval of 10 years or less. Effectiveness monitoring may also be conducted if

data and observations from implementation monitoring (annual monitoring) indicate a need.

Effectiveness monitoring would include forage production and vegetation condition and trend.

Forage Production: Forage production surveys would be conducted using the best available

methods at that time. Forage production data would be used as a tool to manage this allotment,

but would not be the sole measurement to establish carrying capacity. The most recent forage

production survey was completed in 2006. The next survey is scheduled to occur after 2015.

55

Condition and Trend: Twenty seven Parker Three-Step clusters were established within the

analysis area between 1952 and 1964; 11 on the winter use pastures and 16 on the summer use

pastures. These transects are one of the best historic records of range condition and trend. The

photo points and vegetative ground cover data show how the site has changed over time. Twenty

of these historic monitoring locations were converted to use the Pace Frequency method and one-

tenth acre canopy cover plots in 2000 (seven historic locations have not been relocated). The

change in monitoring methods was necessary to obtain ground cover and vegetation data that

correlate with data presented in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Coconino National

Forest (1995).

Frequency and ground cover data would be collected using the widely accepted plant frequency

method (University of Arizona, Extension Report 9043, 1997). These plots monitor trends in

plant species abundance, plant species distribution and ground cover. This would provide

information on plant composition and additional information on regeneration.

Ocular plant canopy cover 0.10-acre plots would be used to compare existing conditions with

potential and desired vegetative community conditions. Over time, these plots would document

canopy cover changes.

The most recent data collection from these monitoring locations was completed in 2008 and

2009. These monitoring locations would be read at least every 10 years by Forest Service

personnel.

56

Appendix B: Precipitation Trends

Blue line represents precipitation trend; Red line represents average precipitation/year

Figure 1: Williams, AZ; 20 Year Precipitation Trend; 20 year average = 20.36 inches/year

Figure 2: Sedona Ranger Station; 18 Year Precipitation Trend; 18 year average = 17.38

inches/year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PP

T (i

n)

Year

Williams, AZ Precipitation Gauge #029359

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

PP

T (i

n)

Year

Sedona Ranger Station Precipitation Gauge #027708

57

Figure 3: Woody Mountain; 19 Year Precipitation Trend; 19 year average = 14.45 inches/year

Figure 4: Red Hill; 20 Year Precipitation Trend; 20 year average = 16.93 inches/year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PP

T (i

n)

Year

Woody Mountain Precipitation Gauge #110

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

PP

T (i

n)

Year

Red Hill Precipitation Gauge #120

58

Figure 5: Dry Creek Levee; 11 Year Precipitation Trend; 11 year average = 12.03 inches/year

Figure 6: Cottonwood; 8 Year Precipitation Trend (data missing for 2003 & 2004); 8 year

average = 10.15 inches/year

0

5

10

15

20

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

PP

T (i

n)

Year

Dry Creek Levee Precipitation Gauge #175

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

PP

T (i

n)

Year

Cottonwood Precipitation Gauge #430

59

Appendix C: Field Data for Forage Production

Forage Production

Forage production data was collected at 51 locations in October and November, 2011 (Table 1).

Average forage production by TES unit or TES grouping is shown in Table 2.

Table 1. Windmill West Forage Production Data

Pasture TES

Unit

Date Data

Collected

Forage

Production

(pounds/acre)

North Gyberg 280 11/2/2011 111

Duff Flat 350 11/2/2011 819

Duff Flat 350 11/2/2011 499

Duff Flat 381 11/2/2011 314

Duff Flat 381 11/2/2011 772

Dutch Kid 381 11/2/2011 495

North Gyberg 381 11/2/2011 277

North Gyberg 381 11/2/2011 128

North Gyberg 381 11/2/2011 227

South Gyberg 381 11/2/2011 160

Duff Flat 385 11/2/2011 651

Duff Flat 385 11/2/2011 617

Duff Flat 385 11/2/2011 298

Black Tank 403 11/2/2011 57

Dutch Kid 403 11/2/2011 360

Greasy 403 11/2/2011 153

Greasy West 403 11/1/2011 113

Wheatfield 403 11/1/2011 101

Wheatfield 403 11/2/2011 389

Black Tank 414 10/31/2011 30

Wheatfield 414 11/1/2011 185

Wheatfield 414 11/1/2011 115

Greasy West 416 10/31/2011 187

Black Tank 417 10/31/2011 80

Greasy 417 11/2/2011 146

Black Tank 418 10/31/2011 48

60

Black Tank 418 10/31/2011 136

Black Tank 418 10/31/2011 140

Black Tank 418 11/1/2011 56

Black Tank 418 11/1/2011 61

Black Tank 418 11/2/2011 68

Greasy 420 11/2/2011 486

Malpais 420 11/2/2011 144

Malpais 420 11/2/2011 132

Malpais 420 11/2/2011 70

Duff Flat 447 11/2/2011 234

Duff Flat 447 11/2/2011 807

Dutch Kid 447 11/2/2011 354

Wheatfield 447 11/2/2011 465

Dutch Kid 448 11/2/2011 252

Dutch Kid 448 11/2/2011 390

Dutch Kid 448 11/2/2011 64

Dutch Kid 448 11/2/2011 585

Black Tank 457 10/31/2011 285

Greasy 457 11/2/2011 92

Greasy 457 11/2/2011 106

Greasy 457 11/2/2011 82

Black Tank 458 10/31/2011 103

Black Tank 463 10/31/2011 98

Black Tank 463 10/31/2011 82

Black Tank 463 10/31/2011 156

Table 2. Avg. Forage Production by TES Unit or TES

Grouping

TES

Unit/Group

Avg. Forage

Production

# of Data

Locations

280 111 1

350 659 2

381, 385 394 10

402, 403, 404 196 6

414, 417 111 5

416, 457, 458 143 6

61

418 85 6

420, 430 208 4

447, 448 394 8

462, 463, 495 112 3

Total # of Data Locations 51

62

Appendix D Table 1: Codes and Abbreviations Used in Capacity Calculation Tables

Column Heading Abbreviation Abbreviated term Additional Information

Soil Condition

Sat.(green) Satisfactory See Glossary

Imp. (blue) Impaired See Glossary

UnSat.

(pink)

Unsatisfactory See Glossary

Sat./Unstable

(yellow)

Satisfactory but

Inherently

Unstable

See Glossary

Slope Class

1 0-10% slope No reduction in estimated

grazing capacity

2 11-30% slope 30% reduction in estimated

grazing capacity

3 31-40% slope 60% reduction in estimated

grazing capacity

4 Greater than

40% slope

100% reduction in estimated

grazing capacity

NFS acres NFS National Forest

System

Acres of National Forest

Systems lands within the

pasture.

Range

Capability

Class

NC No Capability See Glossary under

Capability

PC Potential

Capability

See Glossary under

Capability

FC Full Capability See Glossary under

Capability

FP and FP

Source

FP Forage

Production

See Glossary

FD Field Data Field data collected in 2011

TES Terrestrial

Ecosystem

System

1991 data source, See

Glossary for details

Grazing

Capacity in

AUMs

AUM Animal Unit

Month

See Glossary

Calculations used for determining the Animal Unit Months within estimated capacity tables:

Acres x FP x Slope Reduction Factor x Allowable Use ÷ 800 lbs. of forage/AUM = AUMs

63

Table 2: Estimated Livestock Grazing Capacity based on Full Capability – Summer Pastures in the Windmill West Allotment

Summer Pasture TES Unit

Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor

Allowable Utilization

Grazing Capacity in AUMs

Roger's Lake North 50 UnSat. 1 87 PC 2,850 TES 1 0 0.0

Roger's Lake North 50 UnSat. 2 0 PC 2,850 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Roger's Lake North 582 Sat. 1 51 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 5.6

Roger's Lake North 582 Sat. 2 52 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 4.0


Roger's Lake North 582 Sat. 4 0 NC 250 TES 0 0 0.0

Roger's Lake North 585 Sat. 1 2 FC 225 TES 1 0.35 0.2


Roger's Lake North 595 Sat. 1 44 FC 2,600 TES 1 0.35 50.1

Roger's Lake North 595 Sat. 2 1 FC 2,600 TES 0.7 0.35 0.8

Roger's Lake North NFS Acres 238 Roger's Lake North Estimated Grazing Capacity 61

Roger's Lake 586 Sat. 1 4 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 0.4



Roger's Lake 585 Sat. 2 72 FC 225 TES 0.7 0.35 5.0

Roger's Lake 55 Imp. 1 167 PC 2,000 TES 1 0.35 146.1

Roger's Lake 55 Imp. 2 0 PC 2,000 TES 0.7 0.35 0.0




Roger's Lake 582 Sat. 4 0 NC 250 TES 0 0 0.0





64


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor















Roger's Lake 555 Sat. 2 35 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Roger's Lake 555 Sat. 3 25 NC 50 TES 0.4 0 0.0













65


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor
























Roger's Lake NFS Acres 3,844 Roger's Lake Estimated Grazing Capacity 571

Metz 55 Imp. 1 0 PC 2,000 TES 1 0.35 0.0

Metz 582 Sat. 1 0 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 0.0

Metz 582 Sat. 2 0 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 0.0

Metz 586 Sat. 1 32 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 3.5

66


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Metz 586 Sat. 2 8 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 0.6

Metz 536 Sat. 1 12 FC 300 TES 1 0.35 1.6

Metz 536 Sat. 2 4 FC 300 TES 0.7 0.35 0.4

Metz 584 Sat. 1 15 FC 275 TES 1 0.35 1.8

Metz 584 Sat. 2 97 FC 275 TES 0.7 0.35 8.2

Metz 584 Sat. 3 10 FC 275 TES 0.4 0.35 0.5

Metz 584 Sat. 4 3 NC 275 TES 0 0 0.0

Metz 585 Sat. 1 44 FC 225 TES 1 0.35 4.3

Metz 585 Sat. 2 0 FC 225 TES 0.7 0.35 0.0

Metz 55 Imp. 1 13 PC 2,000 TES 1 0.35 11.4

Metz 582 Sat. 1 195 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 21.3

Metz 582 Sat. 2 5 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 0.4

Metz NFS Acres 438 Metz Estimated Grazing Capacity 54

Mill Park 586 Sat. 1 81 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 8.9

Mill Park 586 Sat. 2 9 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 0.7





Mill Park 55 Imp. 1 111 PC 2,000 TES 1 0.35 97.1

Mill Park 55 Imp. 2 0 PC 2,000 TES 0.7 0.35 0.0






67


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor





























68


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor























Mill Park Total NFS Acres 3,600 Mill Park Estimated Grazing Capacity 740

Lockwood Springs 586 Sat. 1 1,247 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 136.4

Lockwood Springs 586 Sat. 2 334 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 25.6


Lockwood Springs 586 Sat. 4 1 NC 250 TES 0 0 0.0

Lockwood Springs 546 Sat. 1 928 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 101.5

69


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor










Lockwood Springs 585 Sat. 1 1,245 FC 225 TES 1 0.35 122.6












Lockwood Springs 55 Imp. 1 37 PC 2,000 TES 1 0.35 32.4

Lockwood Springs 55 Imp. 2 2 PC 2,000 TES 0.7 0.35 1.2


Lockwood Springs 555 Sat. 2 178 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Lockwood Springs 555 Sat. 3 116 NC 50 TES 0.4 0 0.0



70


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor


















Lockwood Springs NFS Acres 8,098 Lockwood Springs Estimated Grazing Capacity 729

Fry Park West 586 Sat. 1 92 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 10.1

Fry Park West 586 Sat. 2 60 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 4.6


Fry Park West 586 Sat. 4 0 NC 250 TES 0 0 0.0







71


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor













Fry Park West 55 Imp. 1 16 PC 2,000 TES 1 0.35 14.0

Fry Park West 55 Imp. 2 2 PC 2,000 TES 0.7 0.35 1.2

Fry Park West 55 Imp. 3 0 PC 2,000 TES 0.4 0.35 0.0


Fry Park West 555 Sat. 2 36 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Fry Park West 555 Sat. 3 30 NC 50 TES 0.4 0 0.0




Fry Park West NFS Acres 824 Fry Park West Estimated Grazing Capacity 75

Mexican Pocket 578 Sat. 1 0 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 0.0

Mexican Pocket 578 Sat. 2 3 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 0.2





72


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Mexican Pocket 575 Sat. 4 60 NC 150 TES 0 0 0.0









Mexican Pocket 471 Sat./Unstable 1 4 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

Mexican Pocket 471 Sat./Unstable 2 18 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0


Mexican Pocket 471 Sat./Unstable 4 142 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0


Mexican Pocket 555 Sat. 2 18 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Mexican Pocket 555 Sat. 3 12 NC 50 TES 0.4 0 0.0







Mexican Pocket NFS Acres 1,467 Mexican Pocket Estimated Grazing Capacity 86

Harding Point 550 Sat. 1 22 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 2.4

Harding Point 550 Sat. 2 89 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 6.8


73


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Harding Point 550 Sat. 4 7 NC 250 TES 0 0 0.0

























Harding Point 471 Sat./Unstable 1 0 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

74


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Harding Point 471 Sat./Unstable 2 4 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0











Harding Point 55 Imp. 1 32 PC 2,000 TES 1 0.35 28.0

Harding Point 55 Imp. 2 0 PC 2,000 TES 0.7 0.35 0.0


Harding Point 555 Sat. 2 35 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0







Harding Point 582 Sat. 1 1,057 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 115.6





75


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor













Harding Point Total NFS Acres 6,074 Harding Point Estimated Grazing Capacity 526

West Barney 586 Sat. 1 359 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 39.3

West Barney 586 Sat. 2 179 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 13.7


West Barney 586 Sat. 4 4 NC 250 TES 0 0 0.0









West Barney 546 Sat. 1 2,809 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 307.2

West Barney 546 Sat. 2 1,100 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 84.2


76


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor












West Barney 471 Sat./Unstable 1 11 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

West Barney 471 Sat./Unstable 2 44 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0












West Barney 555 Sat. 2 368 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0




77


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor













West Barney NFS Acres 10,060 West Barney Estimated Grazing Capacity 722

East Barney 650 Sat. 1 71 FC 150 TES 1 0.35 4.7

East Barney 650 Sat. 2 42 FC 150 TES 0.7 0.35 1.9


East Barney 650 Sat. 4 5 NC 150 TES 0 0 0.0





East Barney 546 Sat. 1 1,930 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 211.1







78


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor








East Barney 471 Sat./Unstable 1 6 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

East Barney 471 Sat./Unstable 2 33 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0












East Barney 555 Sat. 2 288 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0








79


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor













East Barney NFS Acres 5,612 East Barney Estimated Grazing Capacity 362

Winter Cabin Holding 550 Sat. 1 14 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 1.5

Winter Cabin Holding 550 Sat. 2 40 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 3.1


Winter Cabin Holding 550 Sat. 4 0 NC 250 TES 0 0 0.0




80


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor








Winter Cabin Holding 471 Sat./Unstable 1 1 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

Winter Cabin Holding 471 Sat./Unstable 2 13 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0




Winter Cabin Holding 572 Sat. 2 273 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0



81


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor
















82


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor






Winter Cabin Holding NFS Acres 877 Winter Cabin Holding Estimated Grazing Capacity 22

Fry Park East 586 Sat. 1 162 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 17.7

Fry Park East 586 Sat. 2 13 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 1.0




Fry Park East 584 Sat. 4 6 NC 275 TES 0 0 0.0





Fry Park East 471 Sat./Unstable 1 2 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

Fry Park East 471 Sat./Unstable 2 4 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Fry Park East 471 Sat./Unstable 3 3 NC 100 TES 0.4 0 0.0

Fry Park East 471 Sat./Unstable 4 15 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0





Fry Park East 55 Imp. 1 481 PC 2,000 TES 1 0.35 420.9

83


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Fry Park East 55 Imp. 2 2 PC 2,000 TES 0.7 0.35 1.2

Fry Park East 55 Imp. 3 0 PC 2,000 TES 0.4 0.35 0.0


Fry Park East 555 Sat. 2 3 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Fry Park East 555 Sat. 3 2 NC 50 TES 0.4 0 0.0


Fry Park East 582 Sat. 1 1,097 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 120.0




Fry Park East NFS Acres 2,625 Fry Park East Estimated Grazing Capacity 634

Winter Cabin Driveway 546 Sat. 1 1 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 0.1

Winter Cabin Driveway 546 Sat. 2 10 FC 250 TES 0.7 0.35 0.8




Winter Cabin Driveway 549 Sat. 4 4 NC 250 TES 0 0 0.0

Winter Cabin Driveway 555 Sat. 2 1 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0

84


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Winter Cabin Driveway 555 Sat. 3 0 NC 50 TES 0.4 0 0.0













85


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor





Winter Cabin Driveway NFS Acres 284 Winter Cabin Driveway Estimated Grazing Capacity 15

TOTAL NFS ACRES WITHIN SUMMER PASTURES 44,041 TOTAL ESTIMATED GRAZING CAPACITY FOR SUMMER PASTURE (AUMs)

4,597

86

Table 3: Estimated Livestock Grazing Capacity based on Full Capability – Winter Pastures in the Windmill West Allotment

Winter Pasture TES Unit

Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Black Tank 471 Sat./Unstable 3 0 NC 100 TES 0.4 0 0.0

Black Tank 471 Sat./Unstable 4 0 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0

Black Tank 45 Sat. 1 143 FC 300 TES 1 0.35 18.8

Black Tank 45 Sat. 2 46 FC 300 TES 0.7 0.35 4.2


Black Tank 45 Sat. 4 1 NC 300 TES 0 0 0.0

Black Tank 495 Sat. 2 0 FC 112 FD 0.7 0.35 0.0

Black Tank 495 Sat. 3 0 FC 112 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Black Tank 495 Sat. 4 0 NC 112 FD 0 0 0.0

Black Tank 457 Imp. 1 317 PC 141 FD 1 0.35 19.6

Black Tank 457 Imp. 2 190 PC 141 FD 0.7 0.35 8.2


Black Tank 457 Imp. 4 9 NC 141 FD 0 0 0.0

Black Tank 418 UnSat. 1 1,129 NC 85 FD 1 0 0.0

Black Tank 418 UnSat. 2 1,523 NC 85 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Black Tank 418 UnSat. 3 289 NC 85 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Black Tank 418 UnSat. 4 81 NC 85 FD 0 0 0.0









87


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor










Black Tank 471 Sat./Unstable 1 82 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0



Black Tank 471 Sat./Unstable 4 2,495 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0

Black Tank 572 Sat. 2 0 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0







Black Tank 549 Sat. 1 1 FC 250 TES 1 0.35 0.1








88


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor











Black Tank NFS Acres 12,187 Black Tank Estimated Grazing Capacity 282

Casner Mountain 471 Sat./Unstable 2 0 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 555 Sat. 2 0 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 495 Sat. 1 267 FC 112 FD 1 0.35 13.1

Casner Mountain 495 Sat. 2 180 FC 112 FD 0.7 0.35 6.2

Casner Mountain 495 Sat. 3 11 FC 112 FD 0.4 0.35 0.2

Casner Mountain 495 Sat. 4 10 NC 112 FD 0 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 418 UnSat. 2 0 NC 85 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 418 UnSat. 3 0 NC 85 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 418 UnSat. 4 0 NC 85 FD 0 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 417 Imp. 1 3 PC 111 FD 1 0.35 0.1

Casner Mountain 417 Imp. 2 24 PC 111 FD 0.7 0.35 0.8


Casner Mountain 417 Imp. 4 0 NC 111 FD 0 0 0.0




Casner Mountain 471 Sat./Unstable 1 3 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

89


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor





Casner Mountain 471 Sat./Unstable 4 267 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 492 Imp. 1 61 NC 50 TES 1 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 492 Imp. 2 23 NC 50 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Casner Mountain 492 Imp. 3 0 NC 50 TES 0.4 0 0.0





Casner Mountain 493 Sat. 1 48 NC 50 TES 1 0 0.0












Casner Mountain NFS Acres 1,456 Casner Mountain Estimated Grazing Capacity 32

Wheatfield 448 Imp. 1 250 PC 323 FD 1 0.35 35.3

Wheatfield 448 Imp. 2 468 PC 323 FD 0.7 0.35 46.3


90


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Wheatfield 448 Sat./Unstable 4 21 NC 323 FD 0 0 0.0




Wheatfield 457 Imp. 4 9 NC 141 FD 0 0 0.0





Wheatfield 414 UnSat. 1 803 PC 111 FD 1 0 0.0

Wheatfield 414 UnSat. 2 158 PC 111 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Wheatfield 414 UnSat. 3 1 PC 111 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Wheatfield 414 UnSat. 4 1 NC 111 FD 0 0 0.0













Wheatfield 403 Imp. 1 1,803 PC 196 FD 1 0.35 154.6

91


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor






Wheatfield 471 Sat./Unstable 1 2 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

Wheatfield 471 Sat./Unstable 2 20 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Wheatfield 471 Sat./Unstable 3 34 NC 100 TES 0.4 0 0.0

Wheatfield 471 Sat./Unstable 4 207 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0


Wheatfield 430 Sat./Unstable 2 116 NC 208 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Wheatfield 430 Sat./Unstable 3 191 NC 208 FD 0.4 0 0.0






Wheatfield 350 Sat. 1 9 FC 659 FD 1 0.35 2.6

Wheatfield 350 Sat. 2 69 FC 659 FD 0.7 0.35 13.9

Wheatfield 350 Sat. 3 51 FC 659 FD 0.4 0.35 5.9








Wheatfield NFS Acres 6,975 Wheatfield Estimated Grazing Capacity 436

92


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Black Mountain 463 Imp. 1 138 PC 112 FD 1 0.35 6.8

Black Mountain 463 Imp. 2 698 PC 112 FD 0.7 0.35 23.9


Black Mountain 463 Imp. 4 23 NC 112 FD 0 0 0.0




Black Mountain 471 Sat./Unstable 1 0 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

Black Mountain 471 Sat./Unstable 2 3 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Black Mountain 471 Sat./Unstable 3 3 NC 100 TES 0.4 0 0.0

Black Mountain 471 Sat./Unstable 4 23 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0

Black Mountain 430 Sat./Unstable 1 1 NC 208 FD 1 0 0.0

Black Mountain 430 Sat./Unstable 2 9 NC 208 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Black Mountain 430 Sat./Unstable 3 19 NC 208 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Black Mountain 430 Sat./Unstable 4 60 NC 208 FD 0 0 0.0

Black Mountain 462 Imp. 1 640 PC 112 FD 1 0.35 31.4




Black Mountain NFS Acres 1,998 Black Mountain Estimated Grazing Capacity 74

Sugarloaf 418 UnSat. 1 84 NC 85 FD 1 0 0.0

Sugarloaf 418 UnSat. 2 54 NC 85 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Sugarloaf 418 UnSat. 3 2 NC 85 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Sugarloaf 417 Imp. 1 104 PC 111 FD 1 0.35 5.1

Sugarloaf 417 Imp. 2 37 PC 111 FD 0.7 0.35 1.3


93


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor






Sugarloaf 471 Sat./Unstable 2 1 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Sugarloaf 471 Sat./Unstable 3 2 NC 100 TES 0.4 0 0.0

Sugarloaf 471 Sat./Unstable 4 21 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0




Sugarloaf 458 Imp. 4 5 NC 145 FD 0 0 0.0




Sugarloaf 416 Imp. 4 8 NC 145 FD 0 0 0.0

Sugarloaf NFS Acres 633 Sugarloaf Estimated Grazing Capacity 26

048 (Blk. Tank Holding) 418 UnSat. 1 4 NC 85 FD 1 0 0.0

048 (Blk. Tank Holding) 418 UnSat. 2 1 NC 85 FD 0.7 0 0.0

048 (Blk. Tank Holding) 403 Imp. 1 36 PC 196 FD 1 0 0.0

048 (Blk. Tank Holding) 403 Imp. 2 1 PC 196 FD 0.7 0 0.0

048 (Black Tank Holding) NFS Acres 42 048 (Black Tank Holding) Estimated Grazing Capacity 0

Greasy West 45 Sat. 1 2 FC 300 TES 1 0.35 0.3

Greasy West 45 Sat. 2 0 FC 300 TES 0.7 0.35 0.0

Greasy West 45 Sat. 3 0 FC 300 TES 0.4 0.35 0.0

94


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Greasy West 45 Sat. 4 0 NC 300 TES 0 0 0.0

Greasy West 457 Imp. 1 2,061 PC 141 FD 1 0.35 127.1

Greasy West 457 Imp. 2 196 PC 141 FD 0.7 0.35 8.5


Greasy West 457 Imp. 4 2 NC 141 FD 0 0 0.0

Greasy West 418 UnSat. 1 661 NC 85 FD 1 0 0.0

Greasy West 418 UnSat. 2 476 NC 85 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Greasy West 418 UnSat. 3 21 NC 85 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Greasy West 418 UnSat. 4 5 NC 85 FD 0 0 0.0

Greasy West 414 UnSat. 1 87 PC 111 FD 1 0 0.0

Greasy West 414 UnSat. 2 11 PC 111 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Greasy West 417 Imp. 1 935 PC 111 FD 1 0.35 45.4






Greasy West 471 Sat./Unstable 1 2 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

Greasy West 471 Sat./Unstable 2 8 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Greasy West 471 Sat./Unstable 3 3 NC 100 TES 0.4 0 0.0

Greasy West 471 Sat./Unstable 4 3 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0






95


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor









Greasy West NFS Acres 6,680 Greasy West Estimated Grazing Capacity 309

Red 448 Imp. 1 2 PC 323 FD 1 0.35 0.3

Red 448 Imp. 2 3 PC 323 FD 0.7 0.35 0.3

Red 448 Imp. 3 0 PC 323 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Red 448 Sat./Unstable 4 0 NC 323 FD 0 0 0.0

Red 418 UnSat. 1 203 NC 85 FD 1 0 0.0

Red 418 UnSat. 2 51 NC 85 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Red 418 UnSat. 3 2 NC 85 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Red 418 UnSat. 4 1 NC 85 FD 0 0 0.0

Red 417 Imp. 1 454 PC 111 FD 1 0.35 22.0

Red 417 Imp. 2 9 PC 111 FD 0.7 0.35 0.3

Red 417 Imp. 3 0 PC 111 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Red 403 Imp. 1 333 PC 196 FD 1 0.35 28.6

Red 403 Imp. 2 23 PC 196 FD 0.7 0.35 1.4

Red 403 Imp. 3 0 PC 196 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Red 416 Imp. 1 2 PC 145 FD 1 0.35 0.1

Red 416 Imp. 2 2 PC 145 FD 0.7 0.35 0.1

Red NFS Acres 1,085 Red Estimated Grazing Capacity 53

Duff Mesa 457 Imp. 1 212 PC 141 FD 1 0.35 13.1

Duff Mesa 457 Imp. 2 120 PC 141 FD 0.7 0.35 5.2

96


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor




Duff Mesa 457 Imp. 4 3 NC 141 FD 0 0 0.0

Duff Mesa 34 Imp. 4 0 NC 175 TES 0 0 0.0

Duff Mesa 381 Imp. 1 1,413 PC 339 FD 1 0.35 209.6















Duff Mesa 383 Imp. 1 122 PC 200 TES 1 0.35 10.7

Duff Mesa 383 Imp. 2 14 PC 200 TES 0.7 0.35 0.9





Duff Mesa 471 Sat./Unstable 1 3 NC 100 TES 1 0 0.0

Duff Mesa 471 Sat./Unstable 2 21 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0

97


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Duff Mesa 471 Sat./Unstable 3 27 NC 100 TES 0.4 0 0.0

Duff Mesa 471 Sat./Unstable 4 93 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0





Duff Mesa 430 Sat./Unstable 1 5 NC 208 FD 1 0 0.0

Duff Mesa 430 Sat./Unstable 2 101 NC 208 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Duff Mesa 430 Sat./Unstable 3 96 NC 208 FD 0.4 0 0.0


Duff Mesa 33 Imp. 1 13 PC 350 TES 1 0.35 2.0



Duff Mesa 33 Imp. 4 23 NC 350 TES 0 0 0.0

Duff Mesa 350 Sat. 1 27 FC 659 FD 1 0.35 7.8

Duff Mesa 350 Sat. 2 179 FC 659 FD 0.7 0.35 36.1

Duff Mesa 350 Sat. 3 82 FC 659 FD 0.4 0.35 9.5










98


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Duff Mesa NFS Acres 4,842 Duff Mesa Estimated Grazing Capacity 449

Greasy East 45 Sat. 1 95 FC 300 TES 1 0.35 12.5

Greasy East 45 Sat. 2 32 FC 300 TES 0.7 0.35 2.9

Greasy East 45 Sat. 3 7 FC 300 TES 0.4 0.35 0.4

Greasy East 45 Sat. 4 13 NC 300 TES 0 0 0.0

Greasy East 457 Imp. 1 1,526 PC 141 FD 1 0.35 94.1

Greasy East 457 Imp. 2 417 PC 141 FD 0.7 0.35 18.0


Greasy East 457 Imp. 4 0 NC 141 FD 0 0 0.0

Greasy East 463 Imp. 1 6 PC 112 FD 1 0.35 0.3




Greasy East 414 UnSat. 2 0 PC 111 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Greasy East 402 UnSat. 1 0 PC 196 FD 1 0 0.0

Greasy East 402 UnSat. 2 1 PC 196 FD 0.7 0 0.0





Greasy East 471 Sat./Unstable 2 0 NC 100 TES 0.7 0 0.0

Greasy East 471 Sat./Unstable 3 0 NC 100 TES 0.4 0 0.0

Greasy East 471 Sat./Unstable 4 4 NC 100 TES 0 0 0.0

Greasy East 458 Imp. 1 1,459 PC 145 FD 1 0.35 92.6

Greasy East 458 Imp. 2 1,740 PC 145 FD 0.7 0.35 77.3


99


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor








Greasy East NFS Acres 6,523 Greasy East Estimated Grazing Capacity 350

DK Unit 418 UnSat. 1 378 NC 85 FD 1 0 0.0

DK Unit 418 UnSat. 2 59 NC 85 FD 0.7 0 0.0

DK Unit 418 UnSat. 3 0 NC 85 FD 0.4 0 0.0

DK Unit 418 UnSat. 4 0 NC 85 FD 0 0 0.0

DK Unit 403 Imp. 1 1,013 PC 196 FD 1 0.35 86.9

DK Unit 403 Imp. 2 33 PC 196 FD 0.7 0.35 2.0

DK Unit 403 Imp. 3 0 PC 196 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

DK Unit 403 Imp. 4 0 NC 196 FD 0 0 0.0

DK Unit 350 Sat. 1 1 FC 659 FD 1 0.35 0.3

DK Unit 350 Sat. 2 0 FC 659 FD 0.7 0.35 0.0

DK Unit 420 Imp. 1 1 PC 208 FD 1 0.35 0.1

DK Unit 420 Imp. 2 0 PC 208 FD 0.7 0.35 0.0

DK Unit NFS Acres 1,485 DK Unit Estimated Grazing Capacity 89

Duff Flat 448 Imp. 1 134 PC 323 FD 1 0.35 18.9

Duff Flat 448 Imp. 2 247 PC 323 FD 0.7 0.35 24.4


Duff Flat 448 Sat./Unstable 4 6 NC 323 FD 0 0 0.0

Duff Flat 34 Imp. 2 0 PC 175 TES 0.7 0.35 0.0


Duff Flat 381 Imp. 1 1,047 PC 339 FD 1 0.35 155.3

100


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor





Duff Flat 381 Imp. 4 0 NC 339 FD 0 0 0.0







Duff Flat 385 Imp. 1 2,302 PC 522 FD 1 0.35 525.7




Duff Flat 33 Imp. 1 8 PC 350 TES 1 0.35 1.2



Duff Flat 33 Imp. 4 10 NC 350 TES 0 0 0.0

Duff Flat 350 Sat. 1 407 FC 659 FD 1 0.35 117.3

Duff Flat 350 Sat. 2 2,132 FC 659 FD 0.7 0.35 430.3

Duff Flat 350 Sat. 3 806 FC 659 FD 0.4 0.35 93.0

Duff Flat 350 Sat./Unstable 4 451 NC 659 FD 0 0 0.0

Duff Flat NFS Acres 9,757 Duff Flat Estimated Grazing Capacity 1,583

Malpais 448 Imp. 1 0 PC 323 FD 1 0.35 0.0

Malpais 448 Imp. 2 2 PC 323 FD 0.7 0.35 0.2

Malpais 448 Imp. 3 0 PC 323 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Malpais 457 Imp. 1 49 PC 141 FD 1 0.35 3.0

101


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Malpais 457 Imp. 2 5 PC 141 FD 0.7 0.35 0.2

Malpais 414 Imp. 1 1,388 PC 111 FD 1 0.35 67.4

Malpais 414 Imp. 2 168 PC 111 FD 0.7 0.35 5.7

Malpais 414 Imp. 3 1 PC 111 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Malpais 414 Imp. 4 0 NC 111 FD 0 0 0.0

Malpais 447 Imp. 1 19 PC 465 FD 1 0.35 3.9

Malpais 447 Imp. 2 3 PC 465 FD 0.7 0.35 0.4

Malpais 402 UnSat. 1 248 PC 196 FD 1 0 0.0

Malpais 402 UnSat. 2 29 PC 196 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Malpais 402 UnSat. 3 0 PC 196 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Malpais 403 Imp. 1 300 PC 196 FD 1 0.35 25.7

Malpais 403 Imp. 2 18 PC 196 FD 0.7 0.35 1.1

Malpais 403 Imp. 3 0 PC 196 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Malpais 403 Imp. 4 0 NC 196 FD 0 0 0.0

Malpais 458 Imp. 1 5 PC 145 FD 1 0.35 0.3

Malpais 458 Imp. 2 6 PC 145 FD 0.7 0.35 0.3

Malpais 458 Imp. 3 0 PC 145 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Malpais 458 Imp. 4 0 NC 145 FD 0 0 0.0

Malpais 420 Imp. 1 668 PC 208 FD 1 0.35 60.8

Malpais 420 Imp. 2 997 PC 208 FD 0.7 0.35 63.5

Malpais 420 Imp. 3 119 PC 208 FD 0.4 0.35 4.3

Malpais 420 Imp. 4 73 NC 208 FD 0 0 0.0

Malpais NFS Acres 4,098 Malpais Estimated Grazing Capacity 236

Dutch Kid 448 Imp. 1 63 PC 323 FD 1 0.35 8.9

Dutch Kid 448 Imp. 2 364 PC 323 FD 0.7 0.35 36.0


102


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Dutch Kid 448 Sat./Unstable 4 33 NC 323 FD 0 0 0.0




Dutch Kid 381 Imp. 4 0 NC 339 FD 0 0 0.0

Dutch Kid 414 UnSat. 1 38 PC 111 FD 1 0 0.0

Dutch Kid 414 UnSat. 2 16 PC 111 FD 0.7 0 0.0












Dutch Kid NFS Acres 2,523 Dutch Kid Estimated Grazing Capacity 306

Strip 414 Imp. 1 244 PC 111 FD 1 0.35 11.8

Strip 414 Imp. 2 17 PC 111 FD 0.7 0.35 0.6

Strip 414 Imp. 3 0 PC 111 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Strip 402 UnSat. 1 148 PC 196 FD 1 0 0.0

Strip 402 UnSat. 2 68 PC 196 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Strip 402 UnSat. 3 1 PC 196 FD 0.4 0 0.0

Strip 402 UnSat. 4 0 NC 196 FD 0 0 0.0

103


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



Strip 403 Imp. 1 68 PC 196 FD 1 0.35 5.8

Strip 403 Imp. 2 6 PC 196 FD 0.7 0.35 0.4

Strip 403 Imp. 3 0 PC 196 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0

Strip 403 Imp. 4 0 NC 196 FD 0 0 0.0

Strip 420 Imp. 1 154 PC 208 FD 1 0.35 14.0

Strip 420 Imp. 2 329 PC 208 FD 0.7 0.35 21.0

Strip 420 Imp. 3 74 PC 208 FD 0.4 0.35 2.7

Strip 420 Imp. 4 71 NC 208 FD 0 0 0.0

Strip NFS Acres 1,180 Strip Estimated Grazing Capacity 56

North Gyberg 448 Imp. 1 19 PC 323 FD 1 0.35 2.7

North Gyberg 448 Imp. 2 63 PC 323 FD 0.7 0.35 6.2


North Gyberg 448 Sat./Unstable 4 17 NC 323 FD 0 0 0.0







North Gyberg 447 Imp. 4 0 NC 465 FD 0 0 0.0



North Gyberg 280 UnSat. 1 14 PC 111 FD 1 0 0.0

North Gyberg 280 UnSat. 2 0 PC 111 FD 0.7 0 0.0



104


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor




North Gyberg 385 Imp. 4 0 NC 522 FD 0 0 0.0

North Gyberg 350 Sat. 1 69 FC 659 FD 1 0.35 19.9

North Gyberg 350 Sat. 2 392 FC 659 FD 0.7 0.35 79.1

North Gyberg 350 Sat. 3 159 FC 659 FD 0.4 0.35 18.3

North Gyberg 350 Sat./Unstable 4 86 NC 659 FD 0 0 0.0

North Gyberg NFS Acres 2,168 North Gyberg Estimated Grazing Capacity 348

Sheepshead Holding 448 Imp. 1 25 PC 323 FD 1 0.35 3.5

Sheepshead Holding 448 Imp. 2 37 PC 323 FD 0.7 0.35 3.7





Sheepshead Holding 414 UnSat. 1 13 PC 111 FD 1 0 0.0

Sheepshead Holding 414 UnSat. 2 3 PC 111 FD 0.7 0 0.0

Sheepshead Holding 402 UnSat. 1 1 PC 196 FD 1 0 0.0



105


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor





Sheepshead Holding 350 Sat. 1 0 FC 659 FD 1 0.35 0.0

Sheepshead Holding 350 Sat. 2 0 FC 659 FD 0.7 0.35 0.0

Sheepshead Holding 350 Sat. 3 0 FC 659 FD 0.4 0.35 0.0




Sheepshead Holding 420 Imp. 4 2 NC 208 FD 0 0 0.0

Sheepshead Holding NFS Acres 448 Sheepshead Holding Estimated Grazing Capacity 44

TOTAL NFS ACRES WITHIN WINTER PASTURES 64,080 TOTAL ESTIMATED GRAZING CAPACITY FOR WINTER PASTURE (AUMs) 4,673

106

Table 4: Estimated Livestock Grazing Capacity based on Full Capability – South Gyberg Pasture


Soil Condition

Slope Class

NFS Acres

Range Capability

Class FP

FP Source

Slope Reduction

Factor



South Gyberg 381 Imp. 1 93 PC 394 FD 1 0.35 16.0

South Gyberg 381 Imp. 2 3 PC 394 FD 0.7 0.35 0.4

South Gyberg 385 Imp. 1 300 PC 394 FD 1 0.35 51.7



South Gyberg 385 Imp. 4 1 NC 394 FD 0 0 0.0

South Gyberg 350 Sat. 1 54 FC 659 FD 1 0.35 15.6

South Gyberg 350 Sat. 2 155 FC 659 FD 0.4 0.35 17.9

South Gyberg 350 Sat. 3 31 FC 659 FD 0.7 0.35 6.3

South Gyberg 350 Sat./Unstable 4 10 NC 659 FD 0 0 0.0

South Gyberg* 381 Imp. 1 152 NC 394 FD 1 0 0.0

South Gyberg* 381 Imp. 2 10 NC 394 FD 0.7 0 0.0





South Gyberg* 350 Sat. 1 69 NC 659 FD 1 0 0.0

South Gyberg* 350 Sat. 2 255 NC 659 FD 0.7 0 0.0


South Gyberg* 350 Sat./Unstable 4 61 NC 659 FD 0 0 0.0

South Gyberg* 350 Sat. 1 1 NC 659 FD 1 0 0.0


South Gyberg NFS Acres 1,957 South Gyberg Estimated Grazing Capacity 125

* No Capacity or allowable use can be assigned to MA 17 per the Coconino Forest Plan

107

Table 5: Estimated Livestock and Elk Use (AUMs) Based on Potential Livestock Use Dates for Windmill West Summer

Pastures

Period of

Livestock Use

for Summer

Pastures 1

Livestock Use at

Maximum

Permitted

Numbers

(AUMs)

Estimated

Summer Elk

Use 2,3

(AUMs)

Total Livestock

and Estimated Elk

Summer Use

(AUMs)

Estimated

Capacity of

Summer Pastures

at 35% Use 4

(AUMs)

Estimated

Capacity Not

Used by

Livestock or Elk

(AUMs)

6/1 to 10/31 2,842 847 3,689 4,597 + 908

5/16 to 10/31 3,139 847 3,986 4,597 + 607

5/16 to 11/15 3,417 847 4,264 4,597 + 333 1) Periods of livestock use reflect a range of use periods that are likely to occur on the summer pastures of the Windmill West allotment.

2) Estimated Elk Use assumes that (a) the herd size is an average of 500 elk in the summer range (source: personal communication with L.

Luedeker 2013) (b) one elk has an animal unit equivalent of 0.6 (source: USDA National Range Handbook) (c) Period of elk use in the

summer range is assumed to average April 1 to November 30 (244 days) (d) Elk in this population range throughout game management unit

6B. In the summer elk range, since all habitat is fairly similar, it is assumed that the amount of forage utilized by elk within the Windmill

West summer pastures is approximately equivalent to the proportion of Unit 6B summer elk range that occurs on FS acres within the Windmill

West allotment (35.2%).

3) Deer, antelope and other wildlife are not considered here because they have little dietary overlap with livestock and are expected to have a

negligible effect on forage levels.

4) See Appendix D; Table 2.

108

Table 6: Estimated Livestock and Elk Use (AUMs) Based on Potential Livestock Use Dates for Windmill West Winter

Pastures

Period of

Livestock Use

for Winter

Pastures 1

Livestock Use at

Maximum

Permitted

Numbers

(AUMs)

Estimated

Winter Elk

Use 2,3

(AUMs)

Total Livestock

and Estimated Elk

Winter Use

(AUMs)

Estimated

Capacity of

Winter Pastures at

35% Use 4

(AUMs)

Estimated

Capacity Not

Used by

Livestock or Elk

(AUMs)

11/1 – 5/31 3,938 477 4,415 4,798 + 383

11/1 – 5/15 3,640 477 4,117 4,798 + 681

11/16 – 5/15 3,362 477 3,839 4,798 + 959 1) Periods of livestock use reflect a range of use periods that are likely to occur on the winter pastures of the Windmill West allotment.

2) Estimated Elk Use assumes that (a) the herd size is an average of 200 elk in the winter range (source: personal communication with L.

Luedeker 2013) (b) one elk has an animal unit equivalent of 0.6 (source: USDA National Range Handbook) (c) Period of elk use in the winter

range is assumed to average December 1 to March 31 (121 days) (d) Elk in this population range throughout game management unit 6B. In

the winter elk range, it is assumed that all winter elk use occurs within the Windmill West winter pastures due to the high level of urban

development and barriers to wildlife movement in the other portions of Unit 6B winter elk range.

3) Deer, antelope and other wildlife are not considered here because they have little dietary overlap with livestock and are expected to have a

negligible effect on forage levels.

4) See Appendix D; Tables 3 and 4.

109

APPENDIX E: EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS

Table 1:

Windmill West Allotment - TES Unit 55

General Description: TES Unit 55 - Mountain grasslands located on valley plains on the northen region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 0-5%. Typical grass species includes blue grama,

carex, Arizona fescue, mountain muhly, spike muhly, mutton bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass. There are approximately 1,300 acres in these aggregated TES units.

Vegetation Soil (Ground Cover %)

Potential Grasses Forbs Shrubs Trees

Condition 8-12 species 7-15 Species 0-1 Species 0-1 Species Bare Soil 10-15%

51-73% c. cover 3-16% c. cover <0.5% c. cover <0.5% c. cover Rock 5%

cool season species composition 50% Basal Vegetation 35-50%

warm season species composition 50% Effective Litter (>0.5") 40-50%

FEAR 5-30% c. cover Acmil 0.5-5% c. cover CHNA (P) PIPO *Effective Ground Cover 80-90%

POPR 10-30% c. cover POAN 0.1-5% c. cover

MUMO 5-10% c. cover ARFR 0.1-3% c. cover

Desired Condition Grasses Forbs Shrubs Trees

5-10 species 7-16 species 0-1 species 0-1 Species Bare soil 10-40%

39-73% c. cover 15-30% c. cover <0.5% c. cover <0.5% c. cover Rock 4%

cool season species composition 40-60% Basal Vegetation 25-50%

warm season species composition 40-60% Effective Litter (>.5") 5-30%

FEAR 0-30% c. cover Acmil 0.5-5% c. cover CHNA (P) PIPO *Effective Ground Cover >/=20%

POPR 10-30% c. cover POAN 0.1-5% c. cover

MUMO 2-10% c. cover ARFR 0.1-5% c. cover

Existing Condition Grasses Forbs Shrubs Trees

5 species 16 species 0 species 0 species Bare Soil 49%

39% c. cover 37% c. cover 0 0% Rock 4%

cool season species composition 40% Basal Vegetation 25%

warm season species composition 60% Effective Litter (>0.5") 1%

FEAR 0% c. cover Acmil 2% c. cover *Effective Ground Cover 26%

POPR 10% c. cover POAN 3% c. cover

MUMO 2% c. cover ARFR 0.2% c. cover

Rangeland Capability Potential capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 1,300 acres

Trend

Soil Cond. Rating Impaired for all acres in this TEU group.

Objectives Maintain or improve existing conditions while grazing cattle. Reduce Ponderosa pine overstory to promote understory vegetation.

Monitoring Continue monitoring of frequency and ground cover plots at long term sites to determine trend.

*Effective Ground Cover = Basal Vegetation + Litter >0.5"

c. cover = Canopy Cover

110

Table 2: Windmill West Allotment - TES Unit 350

General Description: TES Unit 350 - Desert shrubland located on hills/escarpments on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 35-40%. Typical grass species includes three

awn, black grama and stipa comata. There are approximately 5,000 acres in this TEU; 4,200 acres on slopes less than 40% and 800 acres on slopes greater than 40%.


Potential Grasses Forbs Shrubs Trees Bare Soil 15-20%

Condition 12 Species 4-5 Species 16 Species 1 Specie Rock 60-65%

24-26% c. cover 2-3% c. cover 14-19% c. cover 2% c. cover Basal Vegetation 10%

Cool season species composition 33% Effective Litter (>0.5") 10%

Warm season species composition 67% *Effective Ground Cover 20%

Arist 5% c. cover GUSA <0.5-1% c. cover CAHO 8-12% c. cover JUER 2% c. cover

BOCU 2% c.c over ERCI 0.5% c. cover BEHA 2% c. cover

Stipa 10-12% c. cover ERWR 0.5% c. cover Krpag 1% c. cover

Desired Condition 4-10 Species 4-8 Species 9-12 Species 1-2 Species Bare Soil 11-20%

15-24% c. cover 1-3% c. cover 14-19% c. cover 2-25% c. cover Rock 58-72%

Cool season species composition 10-25% Basal Vegetation 6-11%

Warm season species composition 67-80% Effective Litter (>0.5") 2-8%

Arist 2-5% c. cover GUSA <0.5-2% c. cover CAHO 4-8% c. cover JUER <0.5-2% c. cover

*Effective Ground Cover

>/=25%

BOCU 2-4% c. cover ERCI <0.5-0.5% c. cover BEHA <0.5-2% c. cover JUMO 0-25% c. cover

Stipe 1-8% c. cover ERWR <0.5-0.5% c. cover Krpag <0.5-1% c. cover PIED <0.5-2% c. cover

Existing Condition 3-5 Species 4-8 Species 9-10 Species 1-2 Species Bare Soil 11-13%



Warm season species composition 80-100% Effective Litter (>0.5") 0%

Arist 2-3% c. cover GUSA <0.5-2% c. cover CAHO 4-8% c. cover JUER 0% c. cover *Effective Ground Cover 6-11%

BOCU 3-4% c. cover ERCI 0% c. cover BEHA 0% c. cover JUMO 3-36% c. cover

Stipa 0-1% c. cover ERWR 0% c. cover Krpag 1-2% c. cover PIED 0-3% c. cover

Rangeland Capability

Potential capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 4,200 acres; no capability on slopes greater than 40% on

800 acres.

Trend

Soil Cond. Rating Satisfactory on all acres in this TEU with slopes below 40%.

Objectives Maintain or improve existing conditions while grazing cattle.


*Effective Ground Cover = Basal Vegetation + Litter >0.5"; values for Desired Conditions derived from Tol. in table 3 of TES.

c. cover = canopy cover

111

Table 3: Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 381, 385

General Description: TES Units 381 and 385 - Verde Valley desert communities located on valley plains on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 0-10%. Typical grass species includes aristida, black grama and needle-and-thread There are approximately 8,410 acres in these aggregated TES units; 8,400 acres on slopes less than 40%, 10 acres on slopes greater than

40%.



Condition 10-12 Species 4-12 species 13-16 species 0-1 species Bare soil 45-65%

24-35% c. cover 1-2% c. cover 13-18 c. cover 0-2% c. cover Rock 5-35%

Cool season species composition 30% Basal vegetation 10-20%

Warm season species composition 70% Effective Litter (>0.5") 10%

ARIST 4-5% c. cover ERCI 0.5% c. cover ACGR 0.1-1% c. cover JUER 2% c. cover

*Effective ground cover 20-

30%

BOER 4-17% c. cover GUSA 0.5-1% c. cover ATCA 0.1-1 % c. cover

STCO 6-12% c. cover Krpag 1% c. cover

Desired Condition Grasses Forbs Shrubs Trees

3-10 species 2-10 species 10-14 species 0-1 species Bare soil 39-80%

5-35%c. cover 1-2% c. cover 9-16% c. cover 0-1% c. cover Rock 0-10%

Cool season species composition 5-35% Basal vegetation 6-15%

Warm season species composition 65-90% Effective litter (>0.5") 5-50%

ARIST 2-8%c. cover ERCI 0.5% c. cover ACGR 0.1-1% c. cover JUER 0-1% c. cover *Effective ground cover >/=10%

BOER 4-17% c. cover GUSA 0.5-4% c. cover ATCA 0.1-1% c. cover

STCO 1-8% c. cover Krpag 1-2% c. cover

Existing Condition Grasses Forbs Shrubs Trees

2-3 species 2-4 species 10 species 0 species Bare soil 39-87%

5-30% c. cover 1% c. cover 9% c. cover 0% c. cover Rock 0-10%



ARIST 1-10% c. cover ERCI 0% c. cover ACGR 0-0.1% c. cover JUER 0% c. cover


64%

BOER 4-15% c. cover GUSA 1-5% c. cover ATCA 0-0.4% c. cover

STCO 0% c. cover Krapg 0-2% c. cover


Potential capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 8,400 acres; no capability on slopes with greater than 40%

slope on 10 acres

Trend






112

Table 4: Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 402, 403, 404

General Description: TES Units 402, 403 and 404- Verde Valley desert communities located on valley plains and in wilderness areas on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 0-20%. Typical grass species includes tobosa, blue grama and sideoats grama. There are approximately 7,340 acres in these aggregated TES units; 7,300 acres on slopes less than 40% and 40 acres

on slopes greater than 40%.



Condition 9-12 species 8-13 species 12-17 species 1-2 species Bare soil 20-65%



Warm season species composition 75% Effective litter (>0.5") 10-15%

HIMU 2-15% c. cover ASTRA <0.5% c. cover ACGR <0.5-2% c. cover JUER 0-2% c. cover


35%

BOGR 1-18% c. cover GUSA <0.5-1% c. cover MIBI <0.5-2% c. cover JUOS 0-10% c. cover

BOCU 0.5-8% c. cover PLANT <0.5-1% c. cover QUTU 1-3% c. cover

Desired Condition 4-10 species 5-10 species 3-12 species 0-2 Species

15-35% c. cover 2-7% c. cover 1-10% c. cover 0-8% c. cover Bare soil 20-65%

Cool season species composition 5-15% Rock 5-55%

Warm season species composition 60-75% Basal vegetation 7-20%

HIMU 2-10% c. cover ASTRA <0.5% c. cover ACGR <0.5-1% c. cover JUER 0-2% c. cover Effective litter (>0.5") 5-15%

BOGER 1-10% c. cover GUSA <0.5-1% c. cover MIBI <0.5-1% c. cover JUOS 0-10% c. cover *Effective ground cover >/=15%

BOCU 0.5-6% c. cover PLANT <0.5-1% c. cover QUTU <0.5-1% c. cover

Existing Condition 4 species 5 species 3 species 0 species

15% c. cover 6% c. cover 1% c. cover 0% c. cover Bare soil 57%

Cool season species composition 0% Rock 28%

Warm season species composition 100% Basal vegetation 7%

HIMU 0% c. cover ASTRA 0% c. cover ACGR 0% c. cover JUER 0% c. cover Effective litter (>0.5") 0%

BOGR 0% c. cover GUSA 0% c. cover MIBI 0% c. cover JUOS 0% c. cover *Effective ground cover 7%

BOCU 0% c. cover PLANT 0% c. cover QUTU 0% c. cover

Rangeland

Capability

Potential capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 7,300 acres; no capability on slopes greater than 40% on 40

acres

Trend

Soil Cond. Rating Impaired on approximately 6,230 acres and unsatisfactory on approximately 1,110 acres.





113

Table 5:

Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 414 and 417

General Description: TES Units 414 and 417 - Verde Valley desert communities located on valley plains and in wilderness areas on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of

0-5%. Typical grass species includes tobosa, blue grama and aristida. There are approximately 5,710 acres in these aggregated TES units; 5,700 acres on slopes less than 40% and 10 acres on slopes greater than 40%.






Warm season species composition 70-80% Effective litter (>0.5") 10%

HIMU 2-12% c. cover ERCI 0.3-0.5% c. cover ACGR 1-3% c. cover JUMO 0-<0.5% c. cover


25%

BOGR 1-5% c. cover ERFL 0.1% c. cover PRVE 2-7% c.cover JUOS 2-7% c. cover

ARIST 1-2% c. cover SPHAE 0.1% c. cover YUEL 0.5% c. cover

Desired Condition 5-10 species 5-9 species 8-15 species 0-2 species

2-20% c. cover 5-20% c. cover 10-20% c. cover 0-7% c. cover Bare soil 23-70%



HIMU 1-8% c. cover ERCI 0.3-0.5% c. cover ACGR 2-8% c. cover JUMO 0-<0.5% c. cover Effective litter (>0.5") 1-8%

BOGER 0.2-10% c. cover ERFL 0.1% c. cover PRVE 1-10% c. cover JUOS 0-7% c. cover *Effective ground cover >/=15%

ARIST 0.2-2% c. cover SPHAE 0.1-0.2% c. cover YUEL 0-0.5% c. cover

Existing Condition 5-6 species 5-9 species 8 species 0 species

2-20% c. cover 10-26% c. cover 20-23% c. cover 0% c. cover Bare soil 23-74%



HIMU 0% c. cover ERCI 0% c. cover ACGR 2-10% c. cover JUMO 0% c. cover Effective litter (>0.5") 0.3-1%

BOGR 0.2-12% c. cover ERFL 0% c. cover PRVE 1-10% c. cover JUOS 0% c. cover *Effective ground cover 8-11%

ARIST 0.2-2% c. cover SPHAE 0-0.2% c. cover YUEL 0% c. cover

Rangeland

Capability


acres

Trend

Soil Cond. Rating Impaired on approximately 4,580 acres, and unsatisfactory on approximately 1,130 acres.




c. cover = canopy

cover

114

Table 6:

Windmill West Allotment - TES Unit 418 General Description: TES Unit 418 - Verde Valley desert communities located on valley plains and in wilderness areas on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 15-20%.

Typical grass species includes needle and thread, black grama and squirrel tail. There are approximately 5,100 acres in these aggregated TES units; 5,000 acres on slopes less than 40% and 100 acres on

slopes greater than 40%.



Condition 11 species 6 species 14-16 species 2 species Bare soil 30-35%

7-9% c. cover 3% c. cover 22-28% c. cover 5% c. cover Rock 45%


Warm season species composition 63% Effective litter (>0.5") 15%

BOER 1% c. cover GUSA 2% c. cover MIBI 10-15% c. cover JUER <0.5% c. cover *Effective ground cover 20-25%

SIHY 1.5-2% c. cover PLANT 0.5% c. cover PRVE 5% c. cover JUOS 5% c. cover

STCO <0.5-2% c. cover MIMU 0.2% c. cover QUTU 2-5% c. cover

Desired Condition




Warm season species composition 65-85% Effective litter (<0.5") 1-10%

BOER 1-3% c. cover GUSA 2% c. cover MIBI 1-8% c. cover JUER <0.5% c. cover

*Effective ground cover

>/=25%

SIHY <0.5-1.5% c. cover PLANT <0.5-0.5% c. cover PRVE 1-3% c. cover JUOS 5-7% c. cover

STCO <0.5-1% c. cover MIMU <0.5-0.2% c. cover QUTU 5-7% c. cover

Existing Condition

7 species 5 species 7 species 1 species Bare soil 40%

23% c. cover 1% c. cover 16% c. cover 7% canopy cover Rock 30%

Cool season species composition 14% Basal vegetation 6%


BOER 3% c. cover GUSA 2% c. cover MIBI 0% c. cover JUER 0% c. cover *Effective ground cover 6%

SIHY 0% c. cover PLANT 0% c. cover PRVE 0% c.cover JUOS 7% c. cover

STCO 0% c. cover MIMU 0% c. cover QUTU 7% c. cover

Rangeland

Capability


acres

Trend

Soil Cond. Rating Unsatisfactory for all acres in this TEU.





115

Table 7:

Windmill West Allotment - TES Unit 420 and 430

General Description: TES Unit 420 and 430 - Desert shrubland located on hills on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 20-25%. Typical grass species includes sideoats grama, black grama and

bottlebrush squirreltail. There are approximately 5,000 acres in this TEU; 4,000 acres on slopes less than 40% and 1,000 acres on slopes greater than 40%.



Condition 12-15 Species 10-11 Species 18-20 Species 2-5 Species Rock 60-70%

6-10% c. cover 2-4% c. cover 14-27% c. cover 8-22% c. cover Basal Vegetation 10%

Cool season species composition 20-25% Effective Litter (>0.5") 10%

Warm season species composition 75-80% *Effective Ground Cover 20%

BOCU 1-3% c. cover Astrag <0.5% c. cover CAHO 1-5% c. cover JUER <0.5-2% c. cover

BOER 1-2% c. cover ERIOG 1% c. cover Krpag 0-1% c. cover JUOS 7-10% c. cover

HIMU 1-2% c. cover GUSA 1% c. cover PRVE 1-3% c. cover PIFA 0-12% c. cover


4-26% c. cover 0.5-2% c. cover 6-17% c. cover 5-10% c. cover Rock 45-56%

Cool season species composition 5-25% Basal Vegetation 8-12% c. cover


BOCU <0.5-2% c.cover Astrag <0.5% c. cover CAHO <0.5-10% c. cover JUER <0.5-1% c. cover *Effective Ground Cover >/=30%

BOER <0.5-1% c. cover ERIOG <0.5-1% c. cover Krpag <0.5-1% c. cover JUOS <0.5-5% c. cover

HIMU <0.5-15% c. cover GUSA <0.5-1% c. cover PRVE <0.5-2% c. cover JUMO <0.5-8% c. cover

Existing Condition 3-5 Species 4-6 Species 6-8 Species 1-2 Species Bare Soil 5-28%

4-26% c. cover 0.5-2% c. cover 6-17% c. cover 5-10% c. cover Rock 45-56%



BOCU 0-0.5% c. cover Astrag 0-<0.5% c. cover CAHO 0-15% c. cover JUER 0% c. cover *Effective Ground Cover 9-15%

BOER 0% c. cover ERIOG 0% c. cover Krpag 0-1% c. cover JUOS 0% c. cover

HIMU 0-20% c. cover GUSA <0.5-1% c. cover PRVE 0% c. cover JUMO <0.5-10% c. cover

Rangeland Capability Potential capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40%; no capability on slopes greater than 40%

Trend






116

Table 8:

Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 447

General Description: TES Unit 447 - Verde Valley desert communities located on valley plains on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 0-10%. Typical grass species includes sideoats grama, blue grama and needle and thread. There are approximately 1,800 acres in this TES unit; allacres are on slopes less than 40%.



Condition 12 species 5-6 species 15 species 4 species Bare soil 35-55%

10% c. cover 1-2% c. cover 21% c. cover 20-25% c. cover Rock 15-40%

Cool season species composition 25-30% Basal vegetation 10%


BOCU 1% c. cover ERIOG 1% c. cover ATCA 5% c. cover PIFA 12-15% c. cover


30%

BOGR 1% c. cover ERWR <0.5-1% c. cover QUTU 5% c. cover JUOS 8-10% c. cover

STCO 6% c. cover GUSA <0.5% c. cover CEMO 4% c. cover JUMO <0.5% c. cover

Desired Condition





BOCU 1-5% c. cover ERIOG <0.5-1% c. cover ATCA <0.5-5% c. cover PIFA 0-5% c. cover *Effective ground cover >/=10%

BOGR <0.5-1% c. cover ERWR <0.5-1% c. cover QUTU <0.5-5% c. cover JUOS 0-5% c. cover

STCO 5-16% c. cover GUSA 2-5% CEMO <0.5-5% c. cover JUMO 0-5% c. cover

Existing Condition


23% c. cover 2% c. cover 5% c. cover 0% c. cover Rock 22%



BOCU 5% c. cover ERIOG <0.5% c. cover ATCA 0% c. cover PIFA 0% c. cover *Effective ground cover 7%

BOGR 0% c. cover ERWR <0.5% c. cover QUTU 0% c. cover JUOS 0% c. cover

STCO 16% c. cover GUSA 5% c. cover CEMO 0% c. cover JUMO 0% c. cover

Rangeland

Capability


acres

Trend





c. cover = canopy

cover

117

Table 9: Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 457 and 458

General Description: TES Units 457 and 458- Verde Valley desert communities located on valley plains on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 0-30%, Some acreage is located in wilderness areas. Typical grass species includes sideoates grama, black grama and tobosa. There are approximately 11,000 acres in these aggregated TES units; 10,600 acres on slopes less

than 40% and 400 acres on slopes greater than 40%.



Condition 11 species 5 species 17 species 4 species Bare soil 10-50%

8% c. cover 1% c. cover 23-24% c. cover 22-25% c. cover Rock 25-65%



BOCU 2% c. cover QUTU 8-10% c. cover JUMO 1% c. cover


30%

BOER <0.5% c. cover ERFL 0.5% c. cover BEHA 2-3% c. cover JUOS 8% c. cover

HIMU 1% c. cover SPHAE 0-0.5% c. cover CEGR 1% c. cover JUER 1% c. cover

Desired Condition





BOCU <0.5-2% c. cover QUTU <0.5-5% c. cover JUMO 1-6% c. cover *Effective ground cover >/=15%

BOER <0.5-2% c. cover ERFL 0-0.5% c. cover BEHA <0.5-2% c. cover JUOS <0.5-5% c. cover

HIMU <0.5-2% c. cover SPHAE 0-0.5% c. cover CEGR <0.5-1% c. cover JUER <0.5-1% c. cover

Existing Condition





BOCU 0% QUTU 0% JUMO 6% *Effective ground cover 22%

BOER 0% ERFL 0% BEHA 0% JUOS 0%

HIMU 0% SHPAE 0% CEGR 0% JUER 0%

Rangeland

Capability

Potential capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 14,000 acres; no capability on slopes greater than 40% on 600 acres

Trend




*Effective Ground Cover = Basal Vegetation + Litter >0.5" c. cover = canopy

cover

118

Table 10:

Windmill West Allotment - TES Unit 462,463 and 495

General Description: TES Unit 462,463 and 495 - Desert shrubland located on hills/scarps on the southern region of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 20-25%. Typical grass species includes

sideoats grama, blue grama and bottlebrush squirreltail. There are approximately 3,100 acres in this TEU; 3,000 acres on slopes less than 40% and 100 acres on slopes greater than 40%.



Condition 10-14 Species 10-11 Species 7-13 Species 2-5 Species Rock 50-55%

13-16% c. cover 2% c. cover 8-12% c. cover 20-40% c. cover Basal Vegetation 10%

Cool season species composition 30-43%

Effective Litter (>0.5") 15-

20%

Warm season species compostion 57-70%

*Effective Ground Cover 25-

30%

BOGR 8% c. cover GUSA 1% c. cover QUTU 7-10% c. cover JUDE <0.5-15% c. cover

BOCU 2% c. cover Astrag 0-<0.5% c. cover BEHA 0-1% c. cover JUOS 5-15% c. cover

SIHY 1% c. cover CAOC <0.5% c. cover CEMO <0.5-1% c. cover PIFA 12-25% c. cover


4-17% c. cover <0.5-1% c. cover 11-18% c. cover 13-30% c. cover Rock 28-55%



BOGR <0.5-6% c. cover GUSA <0.5-8% c. cover QUTU 4-10% c. cover JUDE <0.5% c. cover *Effective Ground Cover >/=20%

BOCU <0.5-5% c. cover Astrag <0.5% c. cover BEHA <0.5-1% c. cover JUOS <0.5-5% c. cover

SIHY <0.5-7% c. cover CAOC <0.5% c. cover CEMO <0.5-1% c. cover PIFA <0.5-5% c. cover

Existing Condition 4-6 Species 3-7 Species 5-8 Species 1-2 Species Bare Soil 12-21%%

4-17% c. cover <0.5-0.7% c. cover 11-21% c. cover 13-20% c. cover Rock 28-55%



BOGR 0-6% c. cover GUSA 0-10% c. cover QUTU 4-8% c. cover JUDE 0% c. cover

*Effective Ground Cover 7-

22%

BOCU <0.5-5% c. cover Astrag 0% c. cover BEHA 0% c. cover JUOS 0-5 c. cover

SIHY 0-7% c. cover CAOC 0% c. cover CEMO 0% c. cover PIFA 0% c. cover


Potential capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 3,000 acres; no capability on slopes greater than 40% on

100 acres

Trend






119

Table 11:

Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 536, 546, 549

General Description: TES Units 536, 546 and 549- Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities located on elevated plains and hills and in wilderness areas on the northernregion of the Windmill

West allotment with a slope of 0-30%. Typical grass species includes Arizona fescue, muttongrass, mountain muhly. There are approximately 13,500 acres in these aggregated TES units; 13,000 acres on slopes less than 40% and 500 acres on slopes greater than 40%.







FEAR 5-10% c. cover Acmil 3-5% c. cover CEFE <0.5% c. cover JUSC <0.5% c. cover


95%

MUMO 3% c. cover ANRO 0.5% c. cover CHNA <0.5% c. cover PIPO 65% c. cover

POFE 3% c. cover LUAR 2-4% c. cover RONE <0.5% c. cover QUGA <0.5-1% c. cover

Desired Condition


4-32% c. cover 1-11% c. cover <0.5-1% c. cover 5-50% c. cover Rock .33-11%



FEAR <0.5-8% c. cover Acmil <0.5-3% c. cover CEFE <0.5% c. cover JUSC 0-<0.5% c. cover

*Effective ground cover

>/=30%

MUMO <0.5-5% c. cover ANRO 0.5-8% c. cover CHNA <0.5% c. cover PIPO 20-50% c. cover

POFE <0.5-2% c. cover LUAR <0.5-2% c. cover RONE <0.5% c. cover QUGA 0-<0.5% c. cover

Existing Condition

4-9 species 3-10 species 0 species 1 species Bare soil 1-13%

2-32% c. cover 1-11% c. cover 0% c. cover 3-45% c. cover Rock .33-11%

Cool season species composition 75-80% Basal vegetation 2-10% c. cover


FEAR 0-6% c. cover ACMIL 0-<0.5% c. cover CEFE 0% c. cover JUSC 0% c. cover


56%

MUMO 0-5% c. cover ANRO 0-8% c. cover CHNA 0% c. cover PIPO 3-45% c. cover

POFE 0-<0.5% c. cover LUAR 0-<0.5% c. cover RONE 0% c. cover QUGA 0-<0.5% c. cover


Full capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 13,000 acres; no capability on slopes greater than 40% on 500 acres

Trend

Soil Cond. Rating Satisfactory for all acres in this TEU group.



*Effective Ground Cover = Basal Vegetation + Litter >0.5"; values for Desired Conditions derived from Tol. in table 3 of TES. c. cover = canopy

cover

120

Table 12: Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 550, 582, 584 and 585

General Description: TES Units 550, 582, 584 and 585- Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities located on elevated plains and hills and in wilderness areas on the northernregion of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of 0-30%. Typical grass species includes Arizona fescue, muttongrass, mountain muhly. There are approximately 17,700 acres in these aggregated TES units;

17,400 acres on slopes with less than 40% and 300 acres on slopes greater than 40%.



Condition 8 species 12-14 species 5 species 3 species Bare soil 5%

12-15% c. cover 10% c. cover 5% c. cover 56-66% c. cover Rock 25-65%


Warm season species composition 40-50%

Effective litter (>0.5") 65-

75%

FEAR 2-5% c. cover ACMIL 1-5% c. cover CEFE <0.5% c. cover JUSC <0.5% c. cover


85%

MUMO 1-3% c. cover ANRO <0.5-0.5% c. cover RICE <0.5% c. cover PIPO 40-65% c. cover

POFE 2-3% c. cover LUAR 2-4% c. cover RONE <0.5% c. cover QUGA 1-5% c. cover

Desired Condition


7-28% c. cover 1-11% c. cover <0.5-3% c. cover 22-55% c. cover Rock 0.1-2%




30%

FEAR <0.5-15% c. cover ACMIL 0.5-5% c. cover CEFE <0.5-0.5% c. cover JUSC <0.5% c. cover *Effective ground cover >/=30%

MUMO <0.5-3% c. cover ANRO <0.5-10% c. cover RICE <0.5-0.5% c. cover PIPO 20-50% c. cover

POFE <0.5-3% c. cover LUAR <0.5-3% c. cover RONE <0.5-0.5% c. cover QUGA 0-3% c. cover

Existing Condition

6-10 species 4-7 species 0 species 1-2 species Bare soil 3-31%

7-28% c. cover 1-11% c. cover 0% c. cover 22-45% c. cover Rock 0.1-2%




25%

FEAR 0-1% c. cover ACMIL 0-0.5% c. cover CEFE 0% c. cover JUSC 0% c. cover


31%

MUMO 0-<0.5% c. cover ANRO <0.5-10% c. cover RICE 0% c. cover PIPO 20-45% c. cover

POFE 0-2% c. cover LUAR 0-<0.5% c. cover RONE 0% c. cover QUGA 0-2% c. cover

Rangeland

Capability

Full capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 21,000 acres; no capability on slopes with greater than 40% slope on

400 acres

Trend

Soil Cond. Rating Satisfactory for a ll acres in this TEU group.





121

Table 13:

Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 567, 578 and 579

General Description: TES Units 567, 578 and 579- Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities located on elevated plains and hills and in wilderness areas on the northernregion of the Windmill West allotment with a slope of

0-10%. Typical grass species includes Arizona fescue, muttongrass, mountain muhly. There are approximately 940 acres in these aggregated TES units; all but 5 acres are on slopes less than 40%.



Condition 10 species 13-14 species 4-6 species 4 species Bare soil 5-10%

12% c. cover 6% c. cover 5% c. cover 56-66% c. cover Rock 10-65%



FEAR 1-5% c. cover ACMIL <0.5-1% c. cover CEFE <0.5% c. cover JUDE 5-10% c. cover *Effective ground cover 75-80%

MUMO 2-3% c. cover ANRO <0.5-0.5% c. cover RICE 0-<0.5% c. cover PIPO 50-60% c. cover

POFE 0-3% c. cover LUAR 0-4% c. cover RONE <0.5% c. cover QUGA <0.5-1% c. cover

Desired Condition

6-10 specise 2-8 species 1-5 species 3-4 species Bare soil 2-20%

12-86% c. cover 1-4% c. cover <0.5-5% c.cover 10-54% c. cover Rock 2-15%



FEAR <0.5-2% c. cover ACMIL <0.5-1% c. cover CEFE <0.5% c. cover JUDE <0.5-5% c. cover *Effective ground cover >/=30%

MUMO <0.5-2% c. cover ANRO <0.5-1% c. cover RICE 0-<0.5% c. cover PIPO 10-45% c. cover

POFE 0-2% c. cover LUAR 0-4% c. cover RONE <0.5% c. cover QUGA <0.5-8% c. cover

Existing Condition

6 species 1-5 species 0-5 species 3 species Bare soil 2-19%

14-86% c. cover <0.5-3% c. cover 0-1% c. cover 7-54% c. cover Rock 2-15%


Warm season species composition 50% Effective litter (>0.5") 13-63%

FEAR 0% c. cover ACMIL 0% c. cover CEFE 0% c. cover JUDE <0.5-3% c. cover *Effective ground cover 15-81%

MUMO 0% c. cover ANRO 0% c. cover RICE 0% c. cover PIPO 4-50% c. cover

POFE 2-3% c. cover LUAR 0% c. cover RONE 0% c. cover QUGA <0.5-4% c. cover

Rangeland Capability Full capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 1,400 acres; no capability on slopes greater than 40% on 30 acres

Trend






122

Table 14: Windmill West Allotment - TES Unit 572

General Description: TES Units 572- Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities located on elevated plains and hills and in wilderness areas on the northernregion of the Windmill West allotment

with a slope of 0-10%. Typical grass species includes Arizona fescue, muttongrass, mountain muhly. There are approximately 1,430 acres in these aggregated TES units; 1,400 acres on slopes less than

40% and 30 acres on slopes greater than 40%.



Condition 8 species 8 species 7 species 4 species Bare soil 5%




FEAR 1% c. cover ACMIL <0.5% c. cover ARPU 10% c. cover JUDE 10% c. cover *Effective ground cover 80%

MUMO 3% c. cover ANRO <0.5% c. cover NOMI 1% c. cover PIPO 50% c. cover

SIHY 1% c. cover ERRA 0.5% c. cover QUTU 2% c. cover QUGA <0.5% c. cover

Desired Condition


8-15% c. cover 1-5% c. cover <0.5-5% c.cover 21-30% c. cover Rock 6%




50%

FEAR <0.5-2% c. cover ACMIL <0.5-1% c. cover ARPU <0.5-1% c. cover

JUDE <0.5-5% c. cover

*Effective ground cover >/=30%

MUMO <0.5-2% c. cover ANRO <0.5-1% c. cover

NOMI <0.5-1% c.

cover PIPO 10-45% c. cover

POFE 0-2% c. cover ERRA <0.5-1% c. cover

QUTU <0.5-1% c.

cover

QUGA <0.5-8% c.

cover

Existing Condition

8 species 5 species 0 species 3 species Bare Soil 31%


Cool season species composition 43% Basal Vegetation 4%


FEAR 0% c. cover ACMIL 0 % c. cover ARPU 0% c. cover JUDE 1% c. cover *Effective ground cover 17%

MUMO 0% c. cover ANRO 0% c. cover NOMI 0% c. cover PIPO 10% c. cover

SIHY <0.5% c. cover ERRA 0% c. cover QUTU 0% c. cover QUGA 10% c. cover

Rangeland Capability Full capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 1,400 acres; no capability on slopes greater than 40% on 30 acres

Trend




*Effective Ground Cover = Basal Vegetation + Litter >0.5"; values for Desired Conditions derived from Tol. in

table 3 of TES.


123

Table 15: Windmill West Allotment - TES Units 586

General Description: TES Units 586- Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities located on elevated plains and hills and in wilderness areas on the northernregion of the Windmill West allotment

with a slope of 0-30%. Typical grass species includes Arizona fescue, muttongrass, mountain muhly. There are approximately 17,700 acres in these aggregated TES units; 17,400 acres on slopes with

less than 40% and 300 acres on slopes greater than 40%.



Condition 8 species 14 species 5 species 3 species Bare soil 5%

12% c. cover 10% c. cover 4% c. cover 61-66% c. cover Rock 50%



FEAR 5% c. cover ACMIL 5% c. cover CEFE <0.5% c. cover JUSC <0.5% c. cover *Effective ground cover 85%

MUMO 1% c. cover ANRO 0.5% c. cover QUGA 4% c. cover PIPO 60-65% c. cover

POFE 3% c. cover LUAR 4% c. cover RICE <0.5% c. cover QUGA 1% c. cover

Desired Condition


12-24% c. cover 9-15% c. cover <0.5-3% c. cover 20-50% c. cover Rock 19%




50%

FEAR <0.5-15% c. cover ACMIL 0.5-5% c. cover CEFE <0.5-0.5% c. cover JUSC <0.5% c. cover *Effective ground cover >/=30%

MUMO <0.5-3% c. cover ANRO <0.5-10% c. cover RICE <0.5-0.5% c. cover PIPO 20-50% c. cover

POFE <0.5-3% c. cover LUAR <0.5-3% c. cover RONE <0.5-0.5% c. cover QUGA 0-3% c. cover

Existing Condition





FEAR <0.5% c. cover ACMIL <0.5% c. cover CEFE 0% c. cover JUSC 0% c. cover *Effective ground cover 27%

MUMO 0% c. cover ANRO 0% c. cover QUGA 0% c. cover PIPO 15% c. cover

POFE <0.5% c. cover LUAR 0% c. cover RICE 0% c. cover QUGA 3% c.cover

Rangeland

Capability

Full capabilty with production >100lbs/acre and slopes less than 40% on 21,000 acres; no capability on slopes with greater than 40% slope on

400 acres

Trend

Soil Cond. Rating Satisfactory for a ll acres in this TEU group.




c. cover = canopy

cover

range specialist’s reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · ·...

Documents