Post on 02-Jun-2020
transcript
Page 1 of 67
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District
Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality
Specialist Report
Introduction
Soils and watershed resources on National Forest System lands are potentially affected by land
management and development activities both on and off Forest Service lands. The 2005 Travel
Management Rule requires that the North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD) of the Kaibab
National Forest (KNF) designate a system of roads, trails and areas open for motor vehicle use
by class of vehicle, and if appropriate, by time of year. The designated roads, trails and areas
will be published on a motor vehicle use map, which will be available to the public. After routes
and areas are designated and the motor vehicle use map is published any motor vehicle use not in
accordance with these designations will be prohibited. Fixed distance corridors to access
campsites and retrieve big game with vehicles are optional under the Travel Management Rule,
and the NKRD is analyzing alternatives that incorporate these options into the decision.
This document will present a description of the current conditions related to watershed and soil
resources on the Forest. It will then present an analysis of the predicted effects to these resources
under each action alternative, including an evaluation of effects under the No Action Alternative.
The predicted effects of the action alternatives will be compared to the option of taking no
action.
Existing Condition
General Description
The NKRD lies primarily in north western Coconino County with a small portion (4,646 acres)
in northeastern Mohave County. The District encompasses most of the Kaibab Plateau, with the
southern boundary bordering Grand Canyon National Park.
The Kaibab Plateau is essentially an island of forested lands surrounded by sagebrush, grasslands
and canyons of lower elevations. The NKRD is heavily forested with ponderosa pine, aspen, and
spruce-fir at higher elevations, and pinyon-juniper woodlands at lower elevations. The forested
ecosystems of the Kaibab Plateau contrast sharply to the more arid habitats of the surrounding
lower elevations.
Tributary canyons of the Colorado River form the plateau's eastern (Marble Canyon) and western
(Kanab Creek) boundaries, and uplifted cliffs of the Grand Staircase Escalante form the northern
edges of the landform.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 2 of 67
Climate
The NKRD occurs in the north central climatological division of Arizona. The climate is highly
variable as a consequence of topography and wide range in elevation. Elevations of the NKRD
range from 3,116 ft. above mean sea level in Kanab Creek to (amsl) approximately 9,176 ft. amsl
on Forest Road 219 near Johns Tank. Table 1 in Appendix A summarizes climate information
for the NKRD and surrounding areas. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July
and ranges between 64.9°F at Jacob Lake and 74.2°F at the Ranger Station in Fredonia. The
average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January and ranges between 27.9°F at Jacob
Lake and 32.4°F at the Ranger Station in Fredonia. The combination of a relatively short but
powerful summer monsoon with frequent winter snowstorms provides a bimodal distribution to
precipitation on the NKRD. The highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer (July-
September) or winter (January-March). During the summer monsoon, rainfall is characterized by
convective, high intensity, short duration storms that are generally of limited areal extent,
averaging an estimated five to ten square miles. The second principal period of the bimodal
precipitation distribution occurs during the period of December through February, when easterly
storm tracks originating over the Pacific Ocean occur over the region, allowing widespread
precipitation. This precipitation falls typically as snow at higher elevations on the NKRD. The
snow pack at higher elevations generally develops continuously over this period but melts over a
much shorter time span. For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall on the NKRD
is 23.10 inches at Jacob Lake and the lowest is 10.32 inches at the Fredonia Ranger Station.
In years where there is an associated El Niño in the Southwest, winter precipitation tends to be
higher than normal starting in late fall and continuing through the winter months and conversely
in years where there is an associated La Niña drier than normal conditions exist from late
summer and into the winter months. The warmest months of the year are June and July with
daytime temperatures averaging in the 80°s. The coldest months of the year are December and
January with daytime temperatures averaging in the 20°s.
There is only one SNOTEL/Snowcourse station (Bright Angel) in the area located at the north
rim of the Grand Canyon. The highest average monthly snowpack is in March with an average of
9.9 inches.
Watershed Condition
Watershed condition encompasses both aquatic and terrestrial processes and functions as the
quality of water and aquatic habitat are inseparably linked to the integrity of uplands and riparian
areas within a watershed. Aspects of a watershed related to geomorphic integrity can be defined
in terms of attributes such as slope stability, soil productivity, channel morphology and other
upslope, riparian and aquatic habitat characteristics. Hydrologic integrity of a watershed is
related primarily to flow, sediment dynamics, and water quality attributes. Biological integrity
can be defined by the aquatic characteristics that influence the diversity and abundance of
species. In each case, integrity must be evaluated in the context of the natural disturbance
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 3 of 67
regime, geoclimatic setting and other important factors. The geomorphic, hydrologic, and
biologic components are then combined and evaluated as a whole to assess watershed integrity
and health.
Hydrologically, the NKRD lands drain into a single river basin, the Colorado River. Within this
river basin, there are 14 fifth code (HUC10) watersheds that intersect portions of the NKRD.
These fifth code watersheds can be further divided into sixth code (HUC12) subwatersheds of
which there are 52 that intersect NKRD lands. These watersheds and subwatersheds are
geographic areas of land, water and biota within the confines of a drainage divide that defines the
areal extent of surface water drainage to a point. The percentage of NKRD lands that occur
within these basins ranges from less than 1% up to 100%. Due to the landscape scale of this
project, the analysis will address effects at the fifth code watershed level, which can range in size
from 100,747 acres to 192,674 acres for watersheds that intersect the NKRD.
A watershed condition assessment was recently conducted for all sixth-level subwatersheds as
part of a Forest-level assessment of watershed condition. Watershed condition was classified
using a core set of national watershed condition indicators that are updated with local data and
interpreted by Forest interdisciplinary (ID) teams. These indicators are grouped according to
four major ecosystem process categories: (1) aquatic physical; (2) aquatic biological; (3)
terrestrial physical; and (4) terrestrial biological. These categories represent terrestrial, riparian,
and riverine ecosystem processes or mechanisms by which management actions can affect the
condition of watersheds and associated resources. Each indicator is evaluated using a defined set
of attributes whereby each attribute is scored by the Forest interdisciplinary team as GOOD (1),
FAIR (2), or POOR (3) using written criteria and rule sets and the best available data and
professional judgment.
Twelve core watershed condition indicators were evaluated for all sixth-level HUCs. Aquatic
physical indicators included: 1) water quality condition, 2) water quantity (flow regime)
condition, and 3) stream and habitat condition. Aquatic biological indicators included: 4) aquatic
biota condition and 5) riparian vegetation condition. Terrestrial physical indicators included: 6)
road and trail condition, and 7) soil condition. Terrestrial biological indicators included: 8) fire
effect and regime condition, 9) forest cover condition, 10) rangeland, grassland and open area
condition, 11) terrestrial non-native invasive species condition, and 12) forest health condition.
Attribute scores for each indicator are summed and normalized to produce an overall indicator
score. The indicator scores for each ecosystem process category are then averaged to arrive at an
overall category score. The Watershed Condition scores are tracked to one decimal point and
reported as Watershed Condition Classes 1, 2, or 3. Class 1 = scores of 1.0 to 1.66; Class 2 =
scores >1.66 and <2.33, and Class 3 = scores from 2.33 to 3.0. Class 1 watersheds are
functioning properly. Class 2 watersheds are functional – at risk, and Class 3 watersheds have
impaired function. Table 1 in Appendix B lists watershed condition ratings for each
subwatershed that occurs within the NKRD.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 4 of 67
The NKRD is distributed across fourteen 5th
level watersheds. Table 1 below lists these
watersheds and the associated acreages on the North Kaibab Ranger District.
Table 1. Watersheds (HUC10) that include North Kaibab Ranger District lands.
HUC 5
Watershed
NKRD
Acreage
General Location
Snake Gulch 167,941 Begins in the Dry Park area and includes washes meandering north
between Highway 67 and Little Mountain. The watershed then turns west
into snake Gulch and includes the North half of the west side of the district
before draining into Kanab creek.
Jumpup Canyon-
Kanab Creek
113,625 Begins in the Big Saddle Area and travels west. Includes much of the
southern half of the west side of the district and drains into Kanab Creek.
House Rock
Wash
101,274 Begins in the Telephone Hill Area and covers a large portion of the eastern
side of the district. Drains into the Colorado River after crossing BLM
lands
North Canyon
Wash
67,996 Begins on the NPS North Rim lands and drains into Houserock Valley on
the south east side of the district. Drains into Colorado River after crossing
BLM lands.
White Sage
Wash
47,987 Begins in the Jolly Sink area and travels north to include Orderville and
Willis Canyon washes on the northern end of the district. Watershed
continues on to BLM lands and drains into Kanab Creek.
Shinumo Wash-
Lower Colorado
43,609 Begins in the southern portion of the Saddle Mountain wilderness and
drains into South Canyon before entering the Colorado River.
Tapeats Creek-
Lower Colorado
River
31,748 Starts at the southern end of the district west of Dry Park. Watershed
travels west including the drainages of the vista points and Crazy Jug Point.
Drains into the Colorado River via NPS lands.
Lower Johnson
Wash
31,043 Begins near Jacob Lake and includes the Northwest corner of the district.
Continues onto BLM lands and drains into Kanab Creek.
Jacob Canyon-
Kanab Creek
21,211 Begins into 2 places on the district. One small piece of the watershed starts
near the Forest Roads 422 and 422A junction in Jacob Canyon and travels
west onto BLM lands. The other section includes the Jumpup area on the
west side of the district. Drains into Kanab Creek.
Tatahatso Wash-
Lower Colorado
River
17,463 Begins in the far south east corner of the district. Drains into Colorado
River via NPS lands.
Lower Buckskin
Gulch
6,276 Begins on the North East corner of the district. Drains into BLM lands
towards the Paria River.
Shinumo Creek-
Lower Colorado
River
5,152 Begins in the South Central portion of the district by the NPS boundary.
Drains southwest into NPS lands.
Hack Canyon 385 Begins on BLM with drainages leading into Hack Canyon. The small
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 5 of 67
portion of this watershed on FS lands is where it enters Kanab Creek in the
wilderness.
Bright Angel
Creek-Lower
Colorado River
252 Small portion of the watershed occurs on the district along the boundary
with NPS. Drains into NPS lands.
The higher elevations in these watersheds are cooler, have greater moisture retention, and are
generally of higher productivity than lower elevation site that are more arid. The higher
elevations produce a smaller portion of the overall sediment yield due to greater vegetative cover
and forest floor litter, but produce more water.
Vegetation and ground cover play a key role in maintaining watershed proper functioning
condition. At higher elevations where ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands are found,
watershed conditions are typically satisfactory, with thick duff layers and deep soils contributing
to stability. In lower elevations, where woodlands are present, soils are often shallow and may
be coupled with less ground cover which can lead to more unstable watershed conditions,
particularly when subjected to natural or man-caused disturbances.
Wildland fire is probably the most significant natural disturbance that impacts watersheds on the
NKRD. Where high intensity wildland fires have occurred over large acreages, watershed
conditions have rapidly deteriorated due to loss of vegetative ground cover, lack of rainfall
interception (i.e., soil hydrophobicity), and resultant poor hydrologic conditions. Soil
hydrophobic conditions caused by high severity fires can result in excessive surface runoff and
erosion. Poor hydrologic conditions are likely to occur in any area with high, or even moderate,
burn severity.
Anthropogenic disturbances are another key contributor of adverse impacts to watershed
conditions. The current transportation system across the NKRD is one of the more prominent,
land disturbing activities occurring. This system is comprised of open routes (roads and trails),
motorized cross country travel, and motorized dispersed camping use. The transportation system
currently impacts both upland and valley bottom resources. The primary impacts to watershed
condition include soil compaction, soil erosion, sedimentation, stream channel degradation,
riparian degradation, and vegetation disturbance. Moreover, high road densities contribute to
unsatisfactory watershed conditions by increasing the connected disturbed areas associated with
roads to the drainage network, or increasing the number of stream crossings within a watershed.
Aquatic Resources
Only one perennial stream exists on the Kaibab National Forest. It is on the North Kaibab
Ranger District in North Canyon, starting from North Canyon spring and flowing approximately
1.5 miles before returning to the subsurface as groundwater. The above ground portion of the
North Canyon stream occurs entirely within the Saddle mountain wilderness.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 6 of 67
There are numerous ephemeral and intermittent streams across the district. The ephemeral
streams primarily flow for very short durations following snow melt and monsoon storms, while
intermittent streams flow slightly longer following precipitation and during snowmelt.
Vegetation found along the edges of these channels does not thrive in moist environments and is
rarely considered riparian.
Riparian Areas / Wetlands
Riparian vegetation and wetlands are generally associated with each other and are rare on the
North Kaibab Ranger District. These occur primarily at the higher elevations of the district in
the subalpine meadows around springs, natural lakes, wildlife and livestock tanks, and
occasionally along intermittent streams.
There are numerous springs and seeps that flow around the North Kaibab Ranger District. Many
of these emerge from the Kaibab Limestone formation at higher elevations of the plateau and
from the Coconino Sandstone formation at lower elevations near the perimeter of the district.
However, there continue to be numerous springs and seeps found across the district that originate
from other geologic formations.
There are numerous natural lakes in subalpine meadows, created by sinkholes in limestone
formations. Those that see limited to completely excluded livestock use often contain riparian
vegetation. At least one of these natural lakes, Frank’s Lake, is spring fed. Many of the natural
lakes contain water most of the summer in all but the driest years. Some of the better known
natural lakes include Frank’s Lake, 3 Lakes, VT, Deer, Dog, Mile and a Half, Lookout, and
Oquer.
Wildlife and livestock tanks that are created by mechanical means are common across the
district. Typically the tanks that were located in higher elevations where the fine loam or clayey
soils provide for less water infiltration, located within intermittent drainages of larger
watersheds, in combination with higher precipitation totals provide more reliable water storage.
The tanks located in the lower elevations where the soils are more sandy and the annual moisture
is lower, will typically only contain water after large moisture events. Some tanks that have been
lined with bentonite, a fine clay, experience less infiltration and therefore more reliable water
storage than unlined tanks.
Water Quality
The potential adverse effects to surface water quality from forest management activities are
considered non-point sources, as opposed to point sources of water pollution. To ensure
compliance with the Clean Water Act, water quality standards are established by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Arizona Surface Water Quality Standards
define water quality goals by designating uses for water bodies, establishing criteria to protect
those uses, and implementing measures to protect water quality. These water quality standards
are examined for changes on a 3-year (triennial) basis. The current standards (2009) are
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 7 of 67
documented in 18 A.A.C. Chapter 11, Art. 1. Since the Secretary of State has not yet posted the
official rule, the ADEQ has provided an unofficial copy of the 2009 Surface Water Quality
Standards on the ADEQ website (ADEQ 2009). Under Section 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water
Act, states are required to develop a list of waters within a state that are not in compliance with
water quality standards and to establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each pollutant.
Stream reaches in Arizona that are currently in some state of non-attainment are documented in
"2006/2008 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona” (ADEQ 2009) which was
approved in 2009 by the Water Quality Division, Surface Water Section Manager, Monitoring
Unit Supervisor, and TMDL Unit Supervisor. There are no surface waters on the NKRD that are
listed as being in impaired condition on the Arizona 303d list.
Geology
The major geologic influence on soil development found on the North Kaibab Ranger District is
Permian Kaibab Limestone. This formation is the uppermost rock that is found at the higher
elevations and has eroded off over time. The formation averages approximately 250 million
years old and forms the surface of both the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus. It is composed
primarily of a sandy limestone, both dolomitic and gypsiferous, with a darker layer of limestone
(Torroweap formation) below followed by underlying sandstone (i.e., Coconino Sandstone). In
some places both sandstone and shale exist in the upper portion of the formation. The colors
range from cream to a greyish-white.
The influences of these parent materials as they interact with climate, topography, and vegetation
have resulted in over 70 unique Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) map units across the
district. While each map unit has its own characteristics, similar soil types can be found at each
elevation zone. The highest elevations of the district are in the mixed conifer vegetation type
where soils are generally gravelly sandy loams. At similar elevations, subalpine meadows
consist of deeper fine loamy soils mixed with gravel.
Soils
Soils of the NKRD were mapped as part of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the
Kaibab National Forest (Brewer et al. 1991). This information is available at the Kaibab
National Forest Headquarters or via the internet at:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5138598.pdf.
The TES is the result of the systematic analysis, mapping, classification and interpretation of
terrestrial ecosystems, also known as terrestrial ecological units that are delineated and
numbered. A TES represents the combined influences of climate, soil and vegetation, and
correlates these factors with soil temperature and moisture along an environmental gradient. It is
an integrated survey and hierarchical with respect to classification levels and mapping
intensities. It is the only seamless mapping of vegetation and soils available across the KNF that
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 8 of 67
includes field visited, validated and correlated sites with a stringent Regional and National
protocol stemming from decades of work. Major field work for the Kaibab TES was completed
from 1979 through 1986. Map units are identified by numbers ranging from 3 to 683. One
hundred and thirty-two soil types have been mapped and described and management
interpretations developed on the KNF.
It is important to understand that differences in ecosystem properties including soil and
vegetation can occur within short distances. The TES was mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 across
the landscape. Generally, small vegetation types (i.e., smaller than about 40 acres) were not
mapped and are included in larger TES map units. Where site-specific information is required
and at a finer scale, on-site investigations should be made to validate or refine soil information.
Individual map units were based on data collected across the Forest and may or may not
represent the exact same landscape existing conditions and potential plant community as
depicted in the TES. Overall accuracy of mapping and information provided by the TES is
considered reliable at the ecological unit or landscape level. It is estimated that over 3,000 points
per Forest were visited on-site and have data documenting soil classification, vegetation type
present, surface components and other site characteristics.
The TES follows National Cooperative Soil Survey Standards similar to Soil Surveys conducted
by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. This is strict quality assurance including Project
Leader field review, Regional Office, initial, annual progressive and final field review to approve
map unit design and mapping.
There are minimum data collection requirements necessary to establish, design and map TES
map units. Generally, at least 10 observations, 3 transects of 10 stops/transect and reference
ecological sites per map unit are required and each Forest has more than 130 TES map units.
The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) is used to evaluate and adjust land uses to the
limitations and potentials of natural resources and the environment. It presents important
properties pertaining to the natural, physical, and behavioral characteristics of the terrestrial
ecosystems and provides the background for making interpretations. Interpretations based upon
TES incorporate 1) soil physical and chemical properties, 2) climatic considerations, 3)
topographic position and slope, 4) vegetation and anthropogenic influences as well as animal
impacts, 5) productive and successional potentials, and 6) geologic influences. As such the TES
can form the ecological basis for describing existing conditions for resource areas including
watershed, wildlife, fire, and timber.
Soils of the NKRD include a wide variety of taxonomic classifications, reflecting the influences
of several separate, but interacting soil forming factors including parent material, climate,
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 9 of 67
topography, and organisms over time. As a result, soil characteristics range from shallow,
weakly developed, rocky soils on plateaus, mesas, cliffs, escarpments, and ridges to deeper, more
productive soils on alluvial fans, plains, and in valley bottoms. In general, soils on the NKRD are
fine textured and contain a wide range of rock fragment sizes within soil profiles and at the
surface. The dominant parent materials that occur on the NKRD consist of sedimentary rocks,
including sandstone, carbonates (primarily limestone and dolomite), mudstone, shale, and
gypsum.
Wetlands and soils with aquic moisture regimes cover less than one percent of the district. These
soils are generally characterized by a high water table that fluctuates seasonally and climatically.
These wetlands are generally found in the subalpine meadows towards the higher elevations and
are typically ephemeral. During an average precipitation year, they will contain surface water in
the spring from snow melt, become dry in the early summer, and potentially become wetlands
again during an average monsoon.
The ponderosa pine ecosystems often have soils of Mollic taxa consisting primarily of fine sandy
loam textures with rock outcrops and clay subsoils. These soils typically have higher organic
matter content in the upper portions of the solum than other soils in the region.
The pinion juniper ecosystems and neighboring areas that could also be classified as great basin
grassland or shrubland have more Lithic top soils with significant quantities of limestone. The
soil textures will often be fine sandy loams that can be gravelly to very gravelly and are shallow
to moderately deep.
The shrub land communities can be found on the eastern edges of the District. These areas
typically receive low precipitation and contain gravelly fine sandy loam soil textures.
The lowest elevation portion of the district is in the Kanab Creek wilderness. These areas
typically consist of high percentages of rock outcrop with shallow loamy fine sand textured soils.
Table 2 displays the TES map units of the NKRD and selected interpretations relevant to travel
management considerations.
Table 2. Summary of TES map units of the NKRD and associated acreages and interpretations.
TES
Map
Unit
Soil Type Texture Vegetation Type Slope
(%)
Soil Condition Erosion
Hazard
Acres
4 Aridic Ustochrepts fsl ARTR2/BOGR2/STCO4 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 809
5 Pachic Argiborolls loam POPR/FEOV/BRAN 0-5 Satisfactory SLI 3,007
9 Cumulic Haploborolls loam POPR/AGSM/PIPOS 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 1,815
15 Typic Torrifluvents lfs POFR2 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 1,197
17 Cumulic Haplustolls loam ARTR2/BOGR2/PIED 0-5 Satisfactory SLI 2,009
23 Fluventic Ustochrepts vfsl ARTR2/BOGR2/PIED 0-5 Satisfactory SLI 3,390
32 Fluventic Ustochrepts fsl PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 4,023
35 Argic Cryaquolls loam CAREX/JUNCUS 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 608
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 10 of 67
TES
Map
Unit
Soil Type Texture Vegetation Type Slope
(%)
Soil Condition Erosion
Hazard
Acres
150 Typic Argiustolls loam AGSM/PIED 0-15 Unsatisfactory MOD 6,817
151 Typic Torriorthents fsl CORA/HIJA 0-40 Satisfactory MOD 2,940
153 Typic Torriorthents fsl CORA/HIJA 40-120 Unsatisfactory MOD 6,958
154 Typic Ustorthents fsl ARTR2/BOGR2 40-120 Satisfactory SEV 11,735
156 Udic Haploborolls loam QUGA/RONE 40-80 Satisfactory SEV 3,931
217 Aridic Haplustalfs loam ARTR2/BOGR2 0-30 Unsatisfactory MOD 562
250 Lithic Ustochrepts fsl PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 13,682
251 Lithic Ustochrepts fsl PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 15-40 Unsatisfactory SEV 29,618
252 Lithic Ustochrepts fsl PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 40-80 Satisfactory SEV 70,765
263 Lithic Ustochrepts loam PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 39,534
264 Lithic Ustochrepts loam PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 15-40 Unsatisfactory MOD 30,793
271 Lithic Ustochrepts loam PIPOS 40-80 Unsatisfactory SEV 9,726
272 Typic Haplustalfs loam PIED/JUOS/QUGA 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 16,289
273 Typic Haplustalfs loam PIED/JUOS/QUGA 15-40 Satisfactory MOD 22,617
274 Typic Ustochrepts fsl PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 40-120 Unsatisfactory SEV 6,153
279 Typic Ustochrepts fsl ARTR2/AGCR/STCO4 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 619
281 Typic Ustochrepts fsl PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 8,585
293 Mollic Eutroboralfsw loam PIPOS/QUGA 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 58,804
294 Mollic Eutroboralfsw loam PIPOS/QUGA 15-40 Satisfactory MOD 48,296
297 Mollic Eutroboralfsw loam PIPOS/PIED/QUGA 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 10,342
298 Mollic Eutroboralfsw loam PIPOS/PIED/QUGA 15-40 Satisfactory MOD 11,347
299 Typic Haploborolls loam PIPOS/PIED/QUGA 40-80 Satisfactory SEV 2,522
603 Eutric Glossoboralfs fsl PIEN/PIPOS/POTR5 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 2,129
604 Eutric Glossoboralfs fsl PIEN/PIPOS/POTR5 15-40 Satisfactory SEV 1,172
605 Lithic Glossoboralfs sl PIEN/PIPOS/POTR5 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 1,407
606 Lithic Glossoboralfs sl PIEN/PIPOS/POTR5 15-40 Satisfactory SEV 616
612 Lithic Haploborolls fsl PIEN/PIPOS/POTR5 15-40 Satisfactory SEV 542
613 Eutric Glossoboralfs fsl ABCO/PSMEG/PIPOS 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 2,035
614 Eutric Glossoboralfs fsl ABCO/PSMEG/PIPOS 15-40 Satisfactory SEV 2,967
615 Eutric Glossoboralfs fsl ABCO/PSMEG/PIPOS 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 129
618 Eutric Glossoboralfs fsl ABCO/PSMEG/PIPOS 0-15 Satisfactory SEV 227
619 Typic Eutroboralfs fsl PIPOS/QUGA/POTR5 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 7,615
620 Lithic Haploborolls loam PIPOS/QUGA 15-40 Satisfactory MOD 4,906
621 Mollic Eutroboralfs loam PIPOS/QUGA 40-80 Satisfactory SEV 6,909
622 Lithic Haploborolls fsl PIPOS/QUGA/POTR5 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 2,682
623 Typic Paleboralfs sl ABCO/PSMEG/PIPOS 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 34,171
624 Eutric Glossoboralfs sl ABCO/PSMEG/PIPOS 15-40 Satisfactory SEV 46,921
625 Eutric Glossoboralfs loam PSMEG 40-120 Satisfactory SEV 11,009
626 Typic Cryoboralfs sl PIEN/ABLA/ABCO 15-40 Satisfactory SEV 15,960
627 Typic Cryoboralfs sl PIEN/ABLA/ABCO 40-120 Satisfactory SEV 2,275
628 Typic Cryoboralfs sl PIEN/ABLA/ABCO 40-120 Satisfactory SEV 1,440
629 Typic Cryoboralfs sl PIEN/ABLA/ABCO 40-120 Satisfactory SEV 776
631 Lithic Eutroboralfs loam PIPOS/QUGA 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 2,384
632 Lithic Ustochrepts fsl ARTR2/BOGR2/STCO4 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 14,083
633 Lithic Ustochrepts fsl ATCA2/BOGR2/EULA5 15-40 Unsatisfactory SEV 9,985
634 Typic Ustochrepts loam ARTR2/AGCR/STCO4 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 12,038
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 11 of 67
TES
Map
Unit
Soil Type Texture Vegetation Type Slope
(%)
Soil Condition Erosion
Hazard
Acres
636 Aridic Ustochrepts fsl ATCA2/BOGR2/EULA5 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 6,079
637 Lithic Ustochrepts fsl ATCA2/BOGR2/EULA5 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 6,179
641 Typic Paleboralfs loam PIEN/ABLA/ABCO 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 8,553
642 Typic Eutrochrepts loam FEOV/BRAN/MUMO 0-15 Satisfactory SLI 670
643 Lithic Eutrochrepts loam FEOV/BRAN/MUMO 15-40 Satisfactory SEV 138
644 Typic Haplustalf loam PIED/JUOS/ARTR2 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 5,200
645 Typic Eutrochrepts loam FEOV/BRAN/MUMO 40-80 Unsatisfactory SEV 89
655 Argic Cryoborolls loam FEOV/DAIN/MUMO 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 826
672 Typic Haplustalfs loam ARTR2/AGCR/QUGA 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 8,332
673 Typic Haplustalfs loam ARTR2/AGCR/QUGA 0-15 Satisfactory MOD 4,264
681 Typic Eutroboralfs fsl PIPOS 40-80 Satisfactory SEV 912
Total 655,110
fsl =fine sandy loam, lfs = loamy fine sand, sl = sandy loam, vfsl = very fine sandy loam
Soils currently in unsatisfactory condition are found in areas where unacceptable rates of erosion
are occurring due to inadequate plant, litter, and other effective ground cover occur (i.e., rock
and coarse woody debris). According to the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Kaibab
National Forest (Brewer et al. 1991), unsatisfactory soil conditions occur on approximately
100,701 acres, or 15 percent of the district. In addition to unsatisfactory soils, there are
approximately 91,931 acres of soils that are characterized as unsuitable for most uses. This is
generally due to excessive, unstable slopes. Unsuitable soils on the NKRD are on slopes greater
than 40 percent. These soils are primarily found in canyon lands and on steep escarpments.
Table 3 lists the unsatisfactory soils on the district and their associated acreages and landscapes.
Table 4 lists unsuitable soils on the NKRD and their associated acreages.
Table 3. Unsatisfactory TEUs and associated acreages on the NKRD.
TEU NKRD
Acreage
Landform
150 6,817 Level to gently sloping concave to convex elevated plains
153 6,958 Steeply sloping to strongly sloping complex convex and concave
escarpments
217 562 Moderately steep to steep complex convex and concave elevated plains
251 29,618 Moderately steep to steep simple concave and convex elevated plains
264 30,793 Moderately steep to steep complex convex and concave elevated plains
271 9,726 Extremely steep complex concave and convex escarpments
274 6,153 Extremely steep complex concave and convex escarpments
633 9,985 Moderately steep to steep simple convex and linear elevated plains
645 89 Steep to extremely steep simple concave and linear escarpments
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 12 of 67
TEU NKRD
Acreage
Landform
Total 100,701
Table 4. Unsuitable TEUs and associated acreages on the NKRD.
TEU NKRD
Acreage
Landform
154 11,735 Steeply sloping to strongly sloping escarpments
252 70,765 Extremely steep complex concave and convex escarpments
299 2,522 Steep to extremely steep complex concave and convex escarpments
621 6,909 Moderately steep to steep simple concave and convex elevated plains
Total 91,931
Highly erodible soils can be found on numerous locations across the district. There are
approximately 137,078 acres of soils with slight erosion hazard, 263,606 of soils with moderate
erosion hazard, and 233,943 acres of soils with severe erosion hazard across the NKRD. The
majority of soils with a moderate to severe erosion hazard are commonly found on slopes that
exceed 15 percent. When ground cover is removed from soils that have moderate to severe
erosion hazard ratings, an unacceptable rate of erosion will occur, leading to an overall decline in
site productivity and potential adverse impacts to streams and water bodies through increased
sedimentation. Table 5 lists soil erosion hazard ratings and associated acreages and percentages
of the NKRD that each composes.
Table 5. Summary of soil erosion hazard ratings and associated acreages and percentages of the
NKRD.
Erosion Hazard
Slight Moderate Severe
Acres 137,078 263,606 233,944
Percent of NKRD 22% 42% 36%
For soils with a severe erosion hazard, the average minimum ground cover via plants and litter
required to protect the soils from an unacceptable rate of erosion is 50 percent, for soils with a
moderate erosion hazard, it is 25 percent.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 13 of 67
Cross country vehicle use can cause soil compaction resulting in increased surface water runoff.
These conditions can lead to gully formation and sediment delivery to drainages, reducing soil
productivity and surface water quality. Most of this risk occurs during periods when moisture is
received and the soil is wet. Generally the peak times for increased compaction or erosion risk
can occur from November through April and July through September.
The KNF TES includes limitations for the use of OHVs on soils of the NKRD. Water and wind
erosion potentials were used as factors in evaluating the suitability of soils on the KNF to
withstand OHV recreational use. Also, soil bearing capacity (i.e., the ability of soils to support
loads applied to the ground) is considered in this suitability rating. On the NKRD there are
approximately 27,079 acres of soils that are rated as having slight limitations for OHV use,
362,975 acres rated as having moderate limitations for OHV use, and 244,573 acres rated as
having severe limitations for OHV use. In general, areas rated as having severe limitation for
OHV recreational use include soils within drainages or watercourses, wet meadows, and steep
terrain above drainages. These are generally soils with low bearing capacity or on steep terrain
where disturbance or removal of protective vegetative cover would leave soils susceptible to
erosion. Table 6 lists soils limitations for OHV use and associated acreages on the NKRD.
Table 6. OHV suitability ratings and associated acreages for the NKRD.
OHV Limitation
Slight Moderate Severe
Acres 27,079 362,975 244,573
Percent of NKRD 4% 57% 39%
Vegetation
Potential Natural Vegetation Type (PNVT) describes coarse-scale groupings of ecosystem types
that share similar geography, vegetation, and historic ecosystem disturbances such as fire,
drought, and native herbivory (Brewer et al. 1991, Vander Lee et al. 2006). Only the PNVTs that
occur on the NKRD are shown in Table 7 below and Figure 1 displays the types and extent of the
PNVTs on the NKRD. The PNVTs with the greatest number of acres on the NKRD are Pinyon
Juniper Woodlands, Ponderosa Pine, and Mixed Conifer Forests.
Table 7. Potential Natural Vegetation types and associated acreages and percentages each
comprises of the NKRD.
PNVT Acres on NKRD Percent of NKRD
Pinyon Juniper Woodland 248,242 37.9
Ponderosa Pine 155,241 23.7
Mixed Conifer Forests 113,620 17.3
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 14 of 67
Sagebrush Shrubland 57,836 8.8
Montane /Subalpine Grassland 6,545 1.0
Spruce Fir Forest 29,002 4.4
Semi-Desert Grassland 25,115 3.8
Desert Communities 13,773 2.1
Gambel Oak Shrubland 3,931 0.6
Wetland / Cienega 608 0.1
Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 1,197 0.2
Totals 655,078 100%
Figure 1. Percent of North Kaibab Ranger District in each Potential Natural Vegetation
Type (PNVT).
Roads
The typical road on the North Kaibab consists of compacted soils with the higher utilized roads
supplemented by gravel to improve road longevity and a safer travelway. These roads are
generally impermeable to the infiltration of precipitation and are mostly unable to support
vegetation. These two factors combine to yield large volumes of surface water run-off.
Due to the need of access, some of the roads are located on soils with a moderate to severe
erosion hazard. These roads increase run-off in areas already prone to erosion present
37.9
23.7
17.3
8.8
1 4.4 3.8 2.1
0.6
0.1
0.2 Pinyon Juniper Woodland
Ponderosa Pine
Mixed Conifer Forests
Sagebrush Shrubland
Montane /Subalpine Grassland
Spruce Fir Forest
Semi-Desert Grassland
Desert Communities
Gambel Oak Shrubland
Wetland / Cienega
Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 15 of 67
maintenance challenges, and require higher engineering specifications to reduce severe erosion.
Native surface roads created or built without adequate drainage features are easily damaged
during wet weather by heavy rains, concentrated run-off, and vehicle traffic. The road surface
washes off and ruts are easily created on the road. The erosion and concentrated flow from the
road surface may cause a head cut next to the road, leading to a new gully or drainage.
Roads effectively increase the drainage network by facilitating water movement off the
impermeable road surfaces into the natural drainage systems at road-stream intersections. These
relationships between roads and streams can increase flow volume and increase the peak flow
characteristics of the hydrologic regime of streams during storm events or during spring run-off.
Former roads that have been properly decommissioned and effectively vegetated produce a
fraction of the run-off when compared to a compacted road surface. When run-off is reduced,
more water is available on site for plant growth and stream water quality is improved.
Cross country motorized vehicle travel is especially damaging to soils with a moderate to a
severe erosion hazard. The vehicle tires compact the soil, create ruts, and damage vegetative
cover. Vehicle use on slopes is particularly harmful as vehicles will often drive straight up the
slope rather than going across the side of the slope. New ruts are formed in this fashion that can
lead to additional gullies.
Natural rehabilitation of areas where cross country travel has occurred can vary. An user-
created route, where the route was utilized once or twice when it was dry in an area containing
soils with high potential for re-vegetation may recover naturally within a few days. In other
areas, where the route has been utilized regularly for years, ruts and/or significant compaction
has been created, and it’s an area with low potential for re-vegetation and high erosion hazard, it
may not fully recover without appropriate mitigation. More top soil could be lost, making
revegetation difficult even when measures are taken by the Forest including mulching, seeding,
and measures to decompact the soil.
The majority of the dispersed camping on the North Kaibab occurs in the ponderosa pine or
mixed conifer plant communities with a large percent of this camping being concentrated near
the state highways or by popular recreational trailheads or viewpoints. Many of these campsites
occur on soils that are more productive and are only utilized a few times a year. The soils and
vegetation at these campsites will recover. The frequently utilized campsites on the moderate
erosion hazard soils will often experience slight to moderate compaction and degraded
vegetation from years of use with only a few examples of rill erosion occurring.
For the most part camping in the lower elevations occurs at recreational viewpoints or trailheads
and at a lower rate than use in the higher elevations. During the short duration of the late season
deer hunts, dispersed camping across the pinion juniper and shrubland ecosystems is high.
Dispersed camping can have a larger effect to these areas as more of the soil types fall into the
moderate erosion hazard category. The soils are less productive, receive less moisture, and thus
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 16 of 67
are less able to respond to compaction or ruts that can be created by dispersed camping. This
mostly balances out as many areas favored for hunting camps are only utilized a few times a
year, allowing for sufficient recovery. Only the camp sites that are utilized many times
throughout the year have been degraded to the point of not being able to recover and adequately
support vegetation.
Forest plan direction sets the goal to maintain soil productivity and watershed condition. To
accomplish these objectives, the Forest must: a) rehabilitate non-productive lands on a planned
basis to eliminate unsatisfactory watershed condition by 2020, b) maintain a high quality
sustained water yield for forest users, and c) identify and protect wetlands and floodplains.
Air Quality
The NKRD is not located adjacent to large population centers, power plants, or industrial
facilities. The NKRD is approximately 37 miles west of the nearest coal fired power plant
located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of Page, Arizona and owned by the Salt River Project.
The prevailing southwest winds on most days of the year carry pollution from this plant farther
away from the NKRD. The NKRD is located approximately 189 aerial miles from Phoenix,
Arizona, 148 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada, and 367 miles from Los Angeles, California.
Pollution and haze from these and other urban/industrial centers does affect the NKRD.
Visibility is sometimes affected by this haze. Wildfires, prescribed fires, and wood stoves also
contribute smoke, particulates, and haze to the NKRD periodically.
The NKRD is not located within an air quality Non-Attainment Area designated by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The closest Non-Attainment Areas are the
Bullhead City Area for PM10 (particulate matter) and the Phoenix Area for PM10 and ozone.
The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7)) requires states to assess and reduce pollutants
that cause haze in order to improve visibility at Class I Areas, including Grand Canyon National
Park, Kanab Creek Wilderness, and Saddle Mountain Wilderness.
The Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the State of Arizona from December 23, 2003
states that “road dust is not a measurable contributor on a regional level to visibility impairment
in the 16 Class I areas. Due to this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are
needed…” The Plan also states that the State of Arizona will “perform further assessments of
road dust impacts on visibility. Based on these assessments, if road dust emissions are
determined to be a significant contributor to visibility impairment, the State of Arizona commits
to implement emissions management strategies…”
The Kaibab National Forest must submit prescribed burn plans to ADEQ for approval in order to
minimize smoke, but it is not required to reduce fugitive dust or vehicle emissions.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 17 of 67
The majority of roads on the NKRD are unpaved. These gravel and dirt roads are sources of
fugitive dust in dry weather, especially when there is frequent vehicle traffic. Vehicles driving
cross country may also create fugitive dust.
Laws, Regulations and Policies
Applicable Laws
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
Public Law 92-500 as amended in 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4), also
known as the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA): This act provides the structure for regulating
pollutant discharges to waters of the United States. The Act's objective is "…to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," and is aimed at
controlling point and non-point sources of pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) administers the Act, but many permitting, administrative, and enforcement functions are
delegated to State governments. In Arizona, the designated agency for enforcement of the Clean
Water Act is the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
Pertinent sections of the Clean Water Act:
CWA Sections 208 and 319: recognize the need for control strategies for non-point
source pollution.
CWA Section 303(d): requires waterbodies with water quality determined to be either
impaired (not fully meeting water quality standards) or threatened (likely to violate
standards in the near future), to be compiled by Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality in a separate list which must be submitted to EPA every two years. These waters
are targeted and scheduled for development of water quality improvement strategies on a
priority basis.
CWA Section 305(b): require that states assess the condition of their waters and produce
a biennial report summarizing the findings.
CWA Section 401: allows states and tribes to review and approve, set conditions on, or
deny Federal permits (such as 404 permits) that may result in a discharge to State or
Tribal waters, including wetlands. Applications for Section 404 permits are often joint
404/401 permits to ensure compliance at both the State and Federal levels.
CWA Section 404: outlines the permitting process for dredging or discharging fill
material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
administers the 404 Program.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 18 of 67
Organic Administration Act of 1897 (30 Stat. 34 amended; 16 U.S.C. 473-478, 479-482, 551) -
Authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to manage the National Forests to improve and protect
the forests, to secure favorable conditions of water flow, and to furnish a continuous supply of
timber.
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531) - Established a
policy of multiple use, sustained yield management for the renewable resources of the National
Forest System.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852 as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-
4335, 4341, 4347) - Required that environmental considerations be incorporated into all Federal
policies and activities, and required all Federal agencies to prepare environmental impact
statements for any actions significantly affecting the environment.
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 476 as amended; 17
U.S.C. 1600-1614) - Provided for continuing assessment and long-range planning of the Nation's
forest and range renewable resources under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture.
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 472a, 476, 476 (note), 500,
513-516, 521b, 528 (note), 576b, 594-2 (note), 1600 (note), 1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614)
- Established additional standards and guidelines for managing the National Forests, including
directives for National Forest land management planning, and public participation. It is the
primary statute governing the administration of national forests.
Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500 Watershed and Air Management
Contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance
needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than one
unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. Subsections that apply to this analysis
include: 2500—Zero Code; 2510—Watershed Planning; 2520—Watershed Protection and
Management; 2530—Water Resource Management; 2550—Soil Management; 2580—Air
Resource Management. Complete text can be found at
http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/html/fsm2000.shtml
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) (USDA Forest Service, 2000)
The principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out the direction issued
in the FSM. Specialists and technicians are the primary audience of this Handbook
direction. Subsections that apply to this analysis include: 2509.16 – Water Resource Inventory
Handbook; 2509.18—Soil Management Handbook; 2509.22 – R3 Soil and Water Conservation
Handbook; 2509.23 –R3 Riparian Area Handbook. Complete text can be found at
http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/html/fsh2000.shtml
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 19 of 67
Executive Orders 11988 and 11990
(CEQ 1978): ”President Carter issued two Executive Orders last May requiring all executive
agencies to take special care when undertaking actions that may affect wetlands or floodplains,
directly or indirectly. The orders require agencies to avoid disrupting these areas wherever there
is a practicable alternative, and to minimize any environmental harm that might be caused by
federal actions.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, agencies are commanded to “take action to
reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and
welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.”
It requires the agency to determine whether a proposed action will occur in a floodplain,
consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the
floodplain. If the only practicable alternative consistent with the Executive Order requires
activity in a floodplain, the agency must design or modify the action to minimize potential
harm to or within the floodplain and circulate a notice containing an explanation of why the
action is to be located in the floodplain. Early public review of any proposals in floodplains
is required (NEPA).
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, commands that the agency shall take action
to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the
natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Specifically, it requires the agency to avoid
undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless there is
no practicable alternative to such construction and the proposed action includes all
practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands, which may result from such use. In
determining that there is no practicable alternative and all practicable measures to minimize
harm have been incorporated, the agency may take into account economic, environmental,
and other pertinent factors. There must be early public review of plans or proposals for new
construction in wetlands.
Executive Order (EO) 11644 (February 8, 1972) and EO 11989 (May 24, 1977) – Provide
direction for Federal agencies to establish policies and provide for procedures to control and
direct the use of OHVs on public lands so as to: (1) protect the resources of those lands; (2)
promote the safety of all users of those lands; and (3) minimize conflicts among the various users
on those lands.
The Forest Service developed regulations in response to the EOs (36 CFR, 219, 261 and
295). Under those regulations, OHV use can be restricted or prohibited to minimize: (1)
damage to the soil, vegetation, watershed and impacts to water quality, or other resources of
public lands; (2) harm to wildlife or wildlife habitats; and (3) conflict between the use of
OHVs and other types of recreation.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 20 of 67
Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7))
Directs agencies to assess and reduce pollutants that contribute to haze in order to protect
visibility at Class I Areas such as Grand Canyon National Park and Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness.
USDA Forest Service, Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR Part 212 (November 9, 2005) –
Section 212.50 –
“(a) Purpose. This subpart provides for a system of National Forest system roads, National
Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest system lands that are designated for motor
vehicle use. After these roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use, including the
class of vehicle and time of year, not in accordance with these designations is prohibited by 36
CFR 261.13. Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is
prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13.”
Section 212.51 –
“(a) …the following vehicles and uses are exempted from these designations:
(1) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service;…
(8) Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under
Federal law or regulations.
(b) Motor vehicle use for dispersed camping or big game retrieval. In designating routes, the
responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a
specified distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods,
solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an
individual who has legally taken that animal.”
Section 212.52 –
“(b) …Nothing in this section shall alter or limit the authority to implement temporary,
emergency closures pursuant to 36 CFR part 261, subpart B, without advance public notice to
provide short-term resource protection or to protect public health and safety.
(2) Temporary, emergency closures based on a determination of considerable adverse effects. If
the responsible official determines that motor vehicle use on a National Forest System road or
National Forest System trail or in an area on National Forest System lands is directly causing or
will directly cause considerable adverse effects on public safety or soil, vegetation, wildlife,
wildlife habitat, or cultural resources associated with that road, trail, or area, the responsible
official shall immediately close that road, trail, or area to motor vehicle use until the official
determines that such adverse effects have been mitigated or eliminated and that measures have
been implemented to prevent future recurrence. The responsible official shall provide public
notice of the closure…”
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 21 of 67
Section 212.54 –
“Designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on
National Forest System lands pursuant to Section 212.51 may be revised as needed to meet
changing conditions.”
Section 212.55 –
“(a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System
trails, and areas on National Forest System lands… the responsible official shall consider effects
on National Forest System natural and cultural resources...”
“(b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph
(a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest
System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective
of minimizing: (1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;…”
Section 212.57 –
“For each administrative unit of the National Forest System, the responsible official shall
monitor the effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails and in designated
areas…”
Memorandum of Agreement on Fostering Collaboration and Efficiencies to Address Water
Quality Impairments on National Forest System Lands:
This document was signed in 2007 between U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the purpose of which is to coordinate between agencies and address issues of
water quality impairment regarding 303d list, as well as TMDLs. The leading cause of water
quality impairments on National Forest lands includes temperature, excess sediment, and habitat
modification. These issues are to be addressed via BMPs as much as possible. In terms of this
project analysis area, BMPs can be applied to soil and watershed condition and are applicable
throughout the Kaibab National Forest.
Kaibab National Forest Plan Direction
Relevant direction from the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan (1988, as amended)
includes:
Goals:
Maintain soil productivity and watershed condition.
Rehabilitate non-productive lands on a planned basis to eliminate unsatisfactory
watershed condition by 2020.
Maintain a high quality sustained water yield for Forest users and others.
Identify and protect wetlands and floodplains.
Forest-wide Guidelines for Air and Watershed Resource Operations and Improvements:
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 22 of 67
1. Define, geographically identify and locate best management practices for the landscape during
landscape planning and analysis. Apply best management practices to mitigate adverse effects
of activities and maintain site soil productivity. These practices include:
a. Installation of water control structures or seeding lands in poor and very poor condition
where the revegetation potential is moderately high to high and the slope is less than 40
percent.
b. Designate stream courses during landscape planning and analysis process.
c. Rehabilitate areas impacted by wildfire.
2. Exclude domestic livestock from treated areas for not less than two growing seasons.
3. Maintain not less than three age classes of woody riparian species with ten percent of the
woody plant cover in sprouts, suckers, seedlings, and saplings.
4. Maintain not less than 90 percent of the potential stream shading from May to September
along all perennial cold or cool water streams. Provide shade with tree and other vegetational
cover.
5. Maintain not less than 90 percent of the potential shrub cover in riparian areas.
6. Maintain not less than 90 percent of total linear stream bank in stable condition.
7. Woody riparian communities in addition to riparian communities which are dominated by
shrub and herbaceous species are rated in satisfactory or better condition.
8. Select riparian areas for treatment based on relative scorecard condition rating with the lowest
rating assigned to first treatment.
Management Direction for Ecosystem Management Areas of the NKRD
The NKRD includes five ecosystem management areas, some of which include specific
management direction for soils and watershed resources. Table 7 below summarizes applicable
soils and watershed management direction for these ecosystem management areas.
Table 7. Ecosystem Management Areas of the NKRD and associated management direction for
soils and watershed resources.
Ecosystem
Management Area
Acreage Description Management Direction for Soils and Water Resources
Management Area 11
– Kanab Creek
Wilderness
61,514
Located in the western part of the NKRD. The management area is typical of canyonland formations with steep scarp slopes and narrow drainage bottoms. Almost 80 percent of this area has slopes in excess of 40 percent. Elevations range from 3,500
None specified
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 23 of 67
Ecosystem
Management Area
Acreage Description Management Direction for Soils and Water Resources
feet to 6,000 feet
Management Area 12
– Western North
Kaibab Woodland
151,272
Includes portions of the western, northern, and eastern sides of the NKRD and includes the west half of the woodland zone. This area is in the Kanab Creek, Coyote Wash, and Houserock-Marble watersheds. It is an elevated plain dissected by numerous drainage systems and displaying karst topographical features such as solution basin, sinkholes, etc. Elevations range from 5,200 feet to 6,800 feet. Drainage systems are well-defined and flows are ephemeral
Provide for intensive management of soil and watershed resources. Make soil and watershed resource inventories and analyses to ensure the conservation of soil and water resources and to avoid significant and permanent impairment of site productivity. Provide soil and water resource integration and coordination in land and resource management planning. Formulate and execute land treatment measures to (1) close, revegetate, and thereby obliterate, system roads not needed for resource actions and (2) establish groundcover improvements in degraded, unsatisfactory watersheds to return them to satisfactory condition. Provide for the long-term maintenance of vegetative ground-cover improvements. Maintain soil and water inventory and information systems.
Management Area 13
– Kaibab Plateau
Forestland
276,016
Located in the middle of the NKRD. It is part of an elevated plain dissected by numerous drainage systems. Elevations range from 7,000 feet to over 9,000 feet. Drainage systems are well-defined and flows are ephemeral. Annual precipitation ranges from 18 to 30 inches. Ponderosa pine predominates in most of this management area, except at higher elevations and on cooler sites. Understory species include mutton bluegrass, blue grama, squirreltail, junegrass, Carex sp., and mountain muhly.
Formulate and implement control measures where and when the following damage occurs: a. Soil compaction. b. Loss of vegetative cover. c. Tree damage and mortality. d. Deterioration of water quality. 1. Define, geographically identify and locate best management practices for the landscape during landscape planning and analysis. Apply best management practices to mitigate adverse effects of activities and maintain site soil productivity. These practices include:
a. Installation of water control structures or seeding lands in poor and very poor condition where the revegetation potential
is moderately high to high and the slope is less than 40 percent.
b. Designate stream courses during landscape planning and
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 24 of 67
Ecosystem
Management Area
Acreage Description Management Direction for Soils and Water Resources
analysis process. c. Rehabilitate areas impacted by
wildfire. 2. Exclude domestic livestock from treated areas for not less than two growing seasons.
3. Maintain not less than three age classes of woody riparian species with ten percent of the woody plant cover in sprouts, suckers, seedlings, and saplings.
4. Maintain not less than 90 percent of the potential stream shading from May to September along all perennial cold or cool water streams. Provide shade with tree and other vegetational cover.
5. Maintain not less than 90 percent of the potential shrub cover in riparian areas.
6. Maintain not less than 90 percent of total linear stream bank in stable condition.
7. Woody riparian communities in addition to riparian communities which are dominated by shrub and herbaceous species are rated in satisfactory or better condition.
8. Select riparian areas for treatment based on relative scorecard condition rating with the lowest rating assigned to first treatment.
Management Area 16
– Eastern North
Kaibab Woodland
125,413
Includes the Buffalo Ranch and the extreme eastern side of the North Kaibab Ranger District. It includes portions of the Coyote Wash and Houserock-Marble watersheds. It is an elevated plain dissected by numerous well defined drainages. Water flows are ephemeral,except for several springs in the area. Elevations range from 5,200 feet to about 8,200 feet at Tater Point. The majority of this
Provide for intensive management of soil and watershed resources. Make soil and watershed resource inventories and analyses to ensure the conservation of soil and water resources and to avoid significant and permanent impairment of site productivity. Provide soil and water resource integration and coordination in land and resource management planning. Formulate and execute land treatment measures to (1) close, revegetate, and thereby obliterate, system roads not needed for
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 25 of 67
Ecosystem
Management Area
Acreage Description Management Direction for Soils and Water Resources
area is dominated by woodland vegetation consisting largely of pinyon pine and Utah juniper. At higher elevations there are ponderosa pine stringers. The understory typically includes big sagebrush, snakeweed and rubber rabbitbrush. On rocky slopes, cliffrose is also common.
resource actions and (2) establish groundcover improvements in degraded, unsatisfactory watersheds to return them to satisfactory condition. Provide for the long-term maintenance of vegetative ground-cover improvements. Maintain soil and water inventory and information systems.
Management Area 19
– Saddle Mountain
Wilderness
40,894
This is the Saddle Mountain Wilderness, located in the southeast section of the NKRD. This area is within the Houserock-Marble watershed which is characterized by narrow drainage bottoms adjacent to steep to very steep ascending scarp slopes. Elevations range from 6,000 feet to over 8,000 feet.
None specified
Climate Change
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asserted that scientists know with virtual
certainty that human activities are changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is also
documented that “greenhouse” gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), and hydrofluorocarbons have been increasing (EPA, 2010). The atmospheric
increase of these gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy that would otherwise be reflected from the earth. As
the infrared energy is absorbed, the air surrounding the earth is heated (CARB 2007).
The Southwestern Region of the Forest Service recently released “Southwestern Region Climate
Change – Trends and Forest Planning February 2010. The following information is summarized
from excerpts of this publication:
“In the Southwest, climate modelers agree there is a drying trend that will continue well into the
latter part of 21st century (IPCC 2007; Seager et al. 2007). Climate modelers predict increased
precipitation, but believe that the overall balance between precipitation and evaporation would
still likely result in an overall decrease in available moisture. Regional drying and warming
trends have occurred twice during the 20th century (1930s Dust Bowl, and the 1950s Southwest
Drought). Current drought conditions “may very well become the new climatology of the
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 26 of 67
American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades”. According to recent model
results, the slight warming trend observed during the last 100 years in the Southwest may
continue into the next century, with the greatest warming to occur during winter. Climate
models predict temperatures to rise approximately 5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the
century (IPCC 2007). This trend would likely increase demand on the region’s already limited
water supplies, as well as increase energy demand, alter fire regimes and ecosystems, create risks
for human health, and affect agriculture (Sprigg 2000).
Average ambient air temperatures are rising, and it is possible that continued warming will
increase the temperature difference between the Southwest and the tropical Pacific Ocean,
enhancing the strength of westerly winds that carry moist air from the tropics into the Southwest
region during the monsoon season. This scenario may increase the monsoon’s intensity, or its
duration, or both, in which case floods would occur with greater frequency (Guido 2008). While
the region is generally expected to dry, it is possible that extreme weather patterns leading to
more frequent destructive flooding would occur. Along with monsoons of higher intensity,
hurricanes and other tropical depressions are projected to become more intense overall. Arizona
typically receives 10 percent or more of the annual precipitation from storms that begin as
tropical depressions in the Pacific Ocean. In fact, some of the largest floods in the Southwest
have occurred when remnant tropical storms intersect frontal storms from the north or northwest
(Guido 2008).
Most global climate models are not yet accurate enough to apply to land management at the
ecoregional or National Forest scale. This limits regional and forest-specific analysis of the
potential effects of climate change.
Due to the spatial and temporal limitations of climate models, as stated above, site-specific
analysis of climate change at the Forest level with regard to implementing the travel management
rule remains impractical. Several unknown factors further limit discussion and analysis of
climate change at the Forest level. These include: lack of data regarding traffic numbers and
projected increases or decreases in motorized visitors to the Forest, limited data and knowledge
of current effects of motorized travel to ecosystem resiliency at the Forest level, and limited
knowledge of the contributions of surrounding areas to current and future climate impacts at the
Forest level necessary to analyze cumulative effects. Impacts to the NKRD from climate change
are therefore discussed in a qualitative manner.
Projected future climate change could affect Arizona in a variety of ways. Public health and
safety could be compromised due to an increase in extreme temperatures and severe weather
events. Agriculture would vulnerable to altered temperature and rainfall patterns, increasing
plant stress and susceptibility to insects and diseases. Forest ecosystems could face increased
occurrences of high severity wildfires and may also be more susceptible to insects and diseases.
Snowpack could decrease and snowmelt may occur earlier.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 27 of 67
While the future of climate change and its effects across the Southwest remains uncertain, it is
certain that climate variability will continue to occur across the NKRD. Forest management
activities should strive to promote ecosystem resilience and resistance to impacts of climate
change. Implementation should focus on maintenance and restoration of resilient native
ecosystems, thereby reducing the vulnerability of ecosystems to variations in climate patterns.
Ecological diversity remains an integral component in native ecosystems. Projects should
promote connected landscapes and endeavor to restore significantly altered biological
communities, thus restoring their resilience to changes in climate.
Methodology and Analysis Process
Analyses for soils and watershed existing conditions and environmental consequences to soils
and watershed resources that may result from implementation of the Travel Management Rule
were conducted using information contained in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab
National Forest (TES), information obtained from other KNF resource specialists, other agency
reports, available literature, and input from KNF collaborators and cooperators. Geospatial
analysis was used to quantitatively and qualitatively assess soils and subbasin, watershed, and
subwatershed conditions using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data obtained from a
variety of sources as noted below. The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is all forest
lands within the NKRD boundary. Cumulative effects are evaluated for all fifth-level (HUC10)
watersheds intersecting the NKRD that have more than 10% of lands managed by the Forest.
Data Sources
Data sources for this analysis included existing inventories and spatial data:
Roads, associated maintenance levels, road widths and road miles from the NKRD Infra
Database.
Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) soil map unit properties and interpretations
Riparian Area Remote Sensing Data
2006/2008 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona (ADEQ 2009)
National Wetlands Inventory (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
User created routes inventory (Forest and Public)
5th
- and 6th
-level HUC shapefiles
Watershed Condition Classification information of 6th
-level HUCs on the NKRD
Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral National Hydrography Data (NHD)
Spring and seep information for the NKRD
General Assumptions:
Public education, compliance, and enforcement of regulations will generally limit public
travel to designated routes.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 28 of 67
The action alternatives involve the closure of certain routes to vehicle use by the public
and not the physical removal (decommissioning/obliteration) of roads. The removal of
roads typically involves the removal of culverts, ripping/decompacting road surfaces,
and in some cases the re-contouring of the road surface to blend in with natural
topography. It typically requires more than 5 or more years for closed roads to
revegetate naturally to background conditions, if traffic is successfully eliminated.
Closed routes without fixed barriers are expected to revegetate minimally. These routes
will not disappear from the landscape until decommissioned, and will continue to be a
source of sediment and erosion to some degree.
Unauthorized routes may not be in acceptable condition since they were created without
engineering design.
An undetermined number of unauthorized routes exist that are not included in the
current roads inventory.
Miles by traffic use are unknown. Traffic use on maintenance level 2 routes and user-
created routes is generally low, and traffic use on maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5 routes
is generally moderate.
Sediment is the major pollutant from native-surface roads. Most other pollutants from
roads, such as trace metals and man-made chemicals can be attached to sediment
(Gucinski and others 2001; Dissmeyer 2000). Thus, the relative effects of the
alternatives with regard to sediment apply qualitatively to trace metals and man-made
chemicals.
The effects of roads on peak flows of streams and the subsequent conditions of aquatic
habitat are generally minor. Research on small watersheds has typically shown that
peak flows do not increase until more than 12 percent of a given watershed is occupied
by roads and other impermeable surfaces (Ziemer, 1981), such as, landings, parking
areas, and structures.
Disturbance within 300 feet of streams has the greatest potential to impact water quality,
via overland flow (Burroughs and King, 1989; Belt, O’Laughlin and Merrill, 1992).
The most important factors that influence the risk of adverse effects to water quality
from unpaved roads are: length (and associated acres) of unpaved roads near a stream,
distance of the unpaved roads from a stream, the number of times that unpaved roads
cross the stream, the slope leading to road stream crossings, and effectiveness of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) implemented to protect road surfaces and water quality.
The reduction or elimination of vehicle traffic on a road or trail near a stream will result
in decreased sediment delivery from the road to the stream over time. This relates to the
reduction of the amount of loose material on the road surface and also the increase in the
amount of vegetative, litter, and other cover on the road surface. Erosion rates from a
closed road may decrease to near background levels as the density of vegetation on the
road surface increases (Dissmeyer, 2000).
The existing road system has already committed soil resources to productivity losses.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 29 of 67
Average road widths are related to road maintenance level.
Routes that are connected to the drainage network provide some level of sediment
delivery, regardless of whether a drainage is perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral.
Sediment delivery varies based on duration and frequency of flow events. During short
duration, high intensity storm events, ephemeral drainages can carry a considerable
amount of sediment, some of which is generated by roads.
Administrative or “written authorization use” roads are considered level 2 routes.
Issues
1. The proposed motorized routes specifically the type, extent, level of use and location of
motorized routes may lead to resource, recreation, social and economic impacts.
2. Motorized dispersed camping within proposed designated corridors and other areas may
lead to resource, recreation, social and economic impacts.
3. The proposed motorized big game retrieval may lead to resource, recreation, social and
economic impacts.
4. Off-road travel for the purpose of fuelwood gathering may lead to resource, recreation,
social and economic impacts.
Data Limitations:
The TES is mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 and was designed for general assessments and
evaluation of projects at the landscape level. TES map units contain inclusions and
complexes that occur in intricate patterns and are therefore inseparable.
District-wide coverage of on-the-ground riparian and wetland assessments is not
available
Watershed conditions have not been assessed at the 5th
-level (i.e., HUC10).
Key Indicators
Key indicators for water and soil resources were selected that affect aspects of watershed
condition, including soil condition, riparian and wetland vegetation, water quality, and road and
trail conditions.
Soils
Indicator Measure:
• Relative risk of motorized disturbance in soils identified as having moderate and severe
erosion potential as defined in the KNF TES.
Criteria for measure:
• Acres of disturbance from motorized routes in areas with moderate and severe erosion
hazard ratings
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 30 of 67
• Acres of potential disturbance from motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed
camping, and motorized fuelwood gathering in areas with moderate and severe erosion
hazard ratings.
Indicator Measure:
• Relative risk of motorized disturbance on soils identified as having unsatisfactory and
unsuited TES soil conditions.
Criteria for measure:
• Acres of disturbance from motorized routes in areas having unsatisfactory and unsuited
TES soil condition classes
• Acres of potential disturbance from motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed
camping and motorized fuelwood gathering in areas having unsatisfactory and unsuited
TES soil condition classes
Riparian and Wetland Vegetation
Indicator measure:
• Relative risk of motorized disturbance in wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian areas
Criteria for measure:
• Acres of disturbance from motorized routes within identified wetland, wet meadows and
riparian risk zones.
• Acres of potential disturbance from motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed
camping, and motorized fuelwood gathering within identified wetland, wet meadows and
riparian areas.
Water Quality
Indicator measure:
• Relative risk of motorized disturbance impacting perennial and intermittent streams
Criteria for measure:
• Number of stream crossings on perennial and intermittent
• Miles of perennial and intermittent streams potentially impacted by motorized routes,
motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed recreation, and motorized fuelwood
collection.
Road and Trail Condition (hydrologic connectivity)
Indicator measure:
• Relative risk of motorized disturbance to disrupt watershed function
Criteria for measure:
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 31 of 67
• Acres of disturbance from routes District-wide (including all routes still connected to
stream system)
• Acres of potential disturbance from motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed
camping, and motorized fuelwood collection District-wide.
• Route density by 6th
-level subwatershed (HUC12) (including all routes still connected to
stream system).
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
Each of the alternatives are analyzed in the following sections to determine if there is potential for
motorized disturbance on the NKRD to impact critical ecological functions that affect watershed
condition and health. The components reviewed in this analysis include soil resources, riparian and
wetland resources, and water quality. Other factors related to road and trail conditions were examined to
evaluate the relative risk of motorized uses to disrupt hydrologic function and potentially impact
watershed health.
Soils
The effects to soils by motorized uses on native surface routes are directly related to the impact caused by
the vehicle footprint on the ground. This project will result in a change in the levels of use of particular
roads and cross country motorized travel on the NKRD. However, road decommissioning or obliteration
to return roads to a more natural state is not in the scope of this project and is therefore not considered in
this analysis. A brief summary of these effects is provided below:
This project does not address road decommissioning or obliteration; all road scars will remain,
with the addition of approximately 16 miles of currently unauthorized routes. These are short spur
routes that provide access to campsites and other recreation opportunities. Until
decommissioned, the roads will remain in passive storage, with compacted soils, decreased soil
productivity, concentrated runoff resulting in erosion and sediment production, and lacking
protective vegetative ground cover. Due to compaction and loss of soil productivity of these
roads, natural revegetation would occur more slowly than if they were decommissioned or
obliterated. Freeze and thaw cycles and other weathering processes would continue to occur
naturally, resulting in decompaction of road surfaces and gradual revegetation over time.
In reviewing only motorized routes and the reduction in relative risk to soils resources,
Alternative 3 would provide the largest reduction in acres impacted on soils with moderate or
severe erosion hazard and unsatisfactory or unsuited conditions. Alternative 2 shows the next
largest reduction, followed by Alternative 4. The No Action Alternative provides the lowest
reduction in relative risk to soils resources.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 show considerable reduction in potential acres of soil disturbance as a
result of motorized big game retrieval. With no allowance for motorized cross-country travel to
retrieve legally harvested animals during any hunting season, Alternative 3 would provide the
greatest overall protection of soils resources. Alternative 2 would provide the next highest level
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 32 of 67
of soils resource protection by limiting motorized cross country travel to 1 mile off either side of
existing roads, except where restricted, to allow for the retrieval of a legally harvested elk or
bison during any designated hunting season. Alternative 4 would provide somewhat less
protection of soils resources than Alternatives 2 and 3, but more than the No Action Alternative
by allowing motorized cross country travel for up to 1 mile off either side of existing roads,
except where restricted, for the retrieval of legally harvested elk, bison, or mule deer during any
designated hunting season. Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in potential soil disturbance of
508,969 acres. However, since Alternative 4 would also allow the retrieval of legally harvested
mule deer, it would result in somewhat greater soil disturbance than Alternative 2, depending on
the number of mule deer harvested and retrieved using motorized means. The No Action
Alternative would provide the least protection of soils resources by allowing unrestricted
motorized cross country travel for all hunting related purposes, except where existing restrictions
to motorized travel apply. Table 8 displays potential impacts to soils resources from MBGR
under each alternative. Table 9 displays erosion hazard ratings and associated acreages for areas
extending for one mile on either side of designated motorized routes on the NKRD.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide substantial reduction in potential acres of soil disturbance
over the No Action Alternative by eliminating cross-country motorized fuelwood gathering in the
pinyon-juniper vegetation type. The three Action Alternatives would reduce adverse impacts to
soils resources on approximately 248,242 acres or 37.9% of the NKRD. Cross-country motorized
travel for the purpose of fuelwood gathering would continue to be permitted within the ponderosa
pine and mixed conifer vegetation types (approximately 268,861 acres) under all three Action
Alternatives. Table 10 displays potential impacts to soils resources from motorized fuelwood
gathering under each alternative.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide substantial reduction in potential acres of soil disturbance
over the No Action Alternative by reducing motorized dispersed camping across the NKRD. The
No Action Alternative would continue to allow motorized dispersed camping on approximately
540,869 acres or 82 percent of the NKRD. Alternatives 2 and 4 would continue to allow
motorized dispersed camping on approximately 21,833 acres or 3.3 percent of the NKRD.
Alternative 3 would not designate any corridors for dispersed camping. Dispersed camping
would only be permitted within one vehicle length (i.e., 30 feet) off of motorized routes. There
are a total of 10,589 acres that could potentially be impacted by motorized dispersed camping
under Alternative 3. Table 11 displays potential impacts to soils resources from motorized
dispersed camping under each alternative.
Table 8. Acres on NKRD with potential to exhibit negative impacts caused by soil disturbance as a result
of motorized big game retrieval.
Alternative Acres Change in Acres
from No Action
% Increase or
decrease from
No Action
Alternative 1 – No Action 552,457 0 No Change
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 33 of 67
Alternative Acres Change in Acres
from No Action
% Increase or
decrease from
No Action
Alternative 2 508,969 -43,488 7.9%
Alternative 3 0 -552,457 100%
Alternative 4 508,969 -43,488 7.9%
Table 9. Erosion hazard ratings and associated acreages for areas subject to MBGR.
Erosion Hazard
Slight Moderate Severe
Acres 132,951 255,064 225,058
Percent of NKRD 20% 39% 34%
Table 10. Acres on NKRD with potential to exhibit negative impacts caused by soil disturbance as a
result of motorized fuelwood gathering.
Alternative Acres Change in Acres
from No Action
% Increase or
decrease from
No Action
Alternative 1 – No Action 517,103 0 No Change
Alternative 2, 3 and 4 268,861 248,242 48%
Table 11. Acres on NKRD with potential to exhibit negative impacts caused by soil disturbance as a
result of motorized dispersed camping.
Alternative Acres Change in Acres
from No Action
% Increase or
decrease from
No Action
Alternative 1 – No Action 540,869 0 No Change
Alternative 2 20,382 -520,487 96%
Alternative 3 10,516 -530,353 98%
Alternative 4 20,382 -520,487 96%
General Direct and Indirect Effects of Motorized Routes Common to All Alternatives
Effects that will occur throughout all alternatives are related to soil compaction, loss of soil
productivity, concentrated runoff resulting in erosion and sediment production, and loss of
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 34 of 67
vegetative ground cover of existing routes. The presence of roads across the NKRD has already
resulted in negative impacts to soils resources. With the implementation of any of the action
alternatives, there will be a continued commitment of soils resources and associated negative
impacts, with effects remaining the same, increasing, or decreasing. Impacts to the soils
resources will vary to some degree by alternative, with the potential for negative impacts varying
by the number of roads that will remain open for motorized use, acres available for motorized
cross country travel, acres of motorized dispersed camping and motorized areas affected by
parking one vehicle length off of roads in each proposed alternative. Adverse effects are not
limited to the road prism alone, but include direct and indirect effects to areas adjacent to
motorized routes. Roads are a major source of sediment and contribute more off-site sediment
than any other land management activity.
Soil compaction is a direct result of the weight of a motor vehicle and its wheels coming into
contact with the surface of the ground. The heavier the vehicle the more contact pressure (pounds
per square inch, or psi) is exerted by the tire on the ground surface. As tire width increases in
relation to the weight of the vehicle, less contact pressure (psi) is exerted by the tire on the
ground surface. Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are compressed together reducing
the amount and size of pore spaces between soil particles. The higher the clay content of a soil
the more susceptible they are to compaction. When soils are wet they are much more susceptible
to compaction to a greater depth than when dry. Additional direct impacts occur as a result of
soil compaction, including, but not limited to decreased soil porosity, increased soil bulk density,
reduced infiltration rates, reduced percolation rates, increased surface runoff, increased surface
erosion, reduced nutrient cycling, and reduced plant growth.
Compacted soils can persist for many years and variables such as how severely a soil was
compacted and to what depth compaction occurred dictate recovery time. Compaction of soils by
motorized use results in a series of indirect effects that can be detrimental to soil productivity,
watershed condition, and water quality.
Loss of soil productivity occurred when routes were established, and is still occurring to varying
degrees. In addition, loss of soil productivity to areas adjacent to motorized routes has and is
still occurring. Factors that contribute to loss of soil productivity of the motorized route, or to
areas adjacent to motorized routes include: inadequate road surface maintenance, inadequate
drainage of road surfaces, poor route design, and poor route location. Loss of soil productivity of
areas adjacent to motorized routes occurs as sheet, rill, and gully erosion, and soil compaction.
Concentrated runoff is the primary agent of erosion and sediment production on native surface
motorized routes and areas adjacent to, or connected, to the route. Factors that influence the
degree of concentrated runoff include: drainage features, route design, route location, and
maintenance levels.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 35 of 67
Wind erosion and fugitive dust are the release of soil particles into the air as a result of the high
velocity winds contacting bare soil surfaces or the interaction of tires on the native road surface
and the mechanical displacement of soil particles. These are typically smaller soil particles, but
as wind velocity increases larger soil particles become more susceptible to being removed from
the route.
Loss of vegetative ground cover has occurred on all motorized routes. Maintenance level 3 and 4
roads are frequently bladed (i.e., approximately every year) and are generally denuded of
vegetative ground cover. Maintenance level 1 and 2 routes receive less frequent maintenance,
have lower use levels, and have varying degrees of vegetative ground cover associated with the
road prism. Vegetative ground cover assists in reducing the effects of erosion from concentrated
runoff and wind on motorized routes and areas adjacent to them.
General Direct and Indirect Effects of Motorized Off-Road Travel Common to all Alternatives
Effects of motorized off road travel (for the purposes of camping, parking, game retrieval and
fuelwood gathering) to soil productivity include soil compaction, loss of vegetative ground
cover, decreased soil porosity, increased soil bulk density, displacement of litter or duff layers
leaving bare soil exposed, soil displacement, reduced infiltration rates, reduced percolation rates,
decreased plant growth, disturbance to soil biotic crusts and reduced nutrient cycling. All of
these effects lead to increased and concentrated overland flow, erosion, and sediment transport to
downslope areas and connected stream courses following storm events, which pose a risk to long
term soil productivity, downstream water quality and overall watershed condition. Impacts from
motorized off road travel are most pronounced when soils are wet, and are minimized under dry
soil conditions. Typically, a single motorized pass over an area has minimal effects to vegetation
and soils resources. It is when there are repeated passes or when new routes are established that
negative effects to vegetation and soils resources become more pronounced. Slope also plays a
critical role with regard to the magnitude of the effects that cross country travel has on vegetation
and soil productivity. As slope of the area being traveled increases ground disturbance increases
due to wheel slip or churn caused by the forces of gravity and uneven terrain. As a result, more
vegetation, litter and soil are displaced. This increases the amount of exposed mineral soil that
can potentially be moved off site, leading to accelerated erosion, and consequently decreased soil
productivity, soil stability, and overall watershed condition. Off-road travel on soils with
moderate or high erosion hazard is more likely to channelize water and increase surface runoff,
resulting in accelerated erosion, and sediment delivery into stream courses. On soils with slight
erosion hazard, the direct impacts of motorized cross country travel are not expected to result in
accelerated soil erosion but will cause loss of soil productivity when vegetative ground cover is
removed, soils are compacted, or rutting occurs. Cross country travel on soils with unsatisfactory
or unsuited soil condition ratings are more likely to exhibit negative impacts in the form of loss
of soil productivity and erosion than travel on soils with satisfactory soil condition ratings.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 36 of 67
Alternative 1, No Action
Effects to soil resources as a result of current routes and unlimited cross country travel on the
NKRD are detailed above in the General Direct and Indirect Effects of Motorized Routes
Common to All Alternatives and General Direct and Indirect Effects of Motorized Off-Road
Travel Common to all Alternatives. With this alternative there are 1,852 miles of motorized
routes under Forest Service jurisdiction and 3,095 acres of disturbance associated with these
routes. There are approximately 1,491 additional miles of user-created routes that have caused
approximately 1,806 acres of disturbance across the NKRD. Cross country travel by motor
vehicles is permitted in all areas, except designated Wilderness, roads, trails, or areas specified in
Forest Orders, and restricted off-road vehicle areas identified in the Forest Land Management
Plan. Motorized cross country travel includes access for big game retrieval, motorized dispersed
recreation, camping, and personal and commercial fuelwood gathering. Under this alternative,
552,457 acres could potentially be impacted by motorized cross country travel. Fuelwood
gathering would only be permitted in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation types
(i.e., approximately 268,861 acres). Under the No Action alternative, continued, unrestricted
motorized dispersed camping would continue in areas adjacent to approximately 1,852 miles of
routes.
Recreation and other land uses are expected to increase over current levels, especially in light of
the increasing popularity of all-terrain vehicles. More forest visitors will use the current Forest
System roads, leading to additional impacts to these roads. Assuming funding available for road
maintenance stays at current levels, most roads may not receive needed maintenance on a regular
basis. Many natural surface roads, especially those that are located on erodible soils or along
drainages, could cause accelerated erosion and sedimentation.
Motorized cross country travel would continue. More unauthorized cross country routes and
dispersed camping areas would continue to be developed by Forest users at the current rate or
higher, especially in areas near scenic views, water sources, and popular recreational and/or
hunting areas. The number of stream crossings and the number of user-created routes that follow
drainages is likely to increase. Cross-country tracks and dispersed camping areas would
continue to be created by forest users on soils with a moderate to severe erosion hazard, on soils
in unsatisfactory condition or impaired soils with low revegetation potential. These disturbances
could cause additional accelerated erosion and run-off, increased sedimentation of water bodies,
and the loss of soil, watershed, and vegetative health and productivity.
Continuation of motorized cross-country travel under this alternative does not meet the intent of
the Travel Management Rule. Motorized cross-country travel typically occurs in an unplanned
manner without regard to the capability of the land to withstand such impact. Long-term soil
productivity is compromised in areas where surface soil is damaged or removed though cross
country travel. Soil erosion, loss of soil productivity, and adverse impacts to surface water
quality would be the greatest under this alternative and would not be mitigated on most of the
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 37 of 67
area where it occurs. Many of the soils on the district are not suitable for such cross country
travel impacts. Alternative 1 would adversely affect soil condition and productivity to a greater
extent than all other alternatives because motorized cross-country travel would continue
throughout much of the district.
Currently, use of OHVs for hunting and MBGR is permitted for all big game species legally
harvested throughout the NKRD during legal hunting seasons. There are no restrictions on
motorized cross-country travel related to hunting activities except existing off road travel
restricted areas. Unrestricted motorized cross-country travel has resulted in damage to soils and
watershed resources through indiscriminate stream crossings by OHV users, multiple motorized
passes on unstable soils, rutting, compaction, and puddling of soils not suited for OHV use, and
removal of effective vegetative ground cover.
Compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, Alternative 1 provides the least protection or improvement
to soil and watershed resources. Alternative 1 would have difficulty meeting Kaibab National
forest plan goals for maintaining soil productivity and watershed condition and of protecting
wetlands and floodplains.
Continuation of motorized cross-country travel under this alternative would result in continued
rutting, compaction, puddling, water diversion, gully and rill formation, and localized fugitive
dust as soil surfaces are disturbed and vegetative cover is removed, leaving these areas prone to
water and wind erosion. Minor, localized rutting, compaction, puddling, water diversion, gully
and rill formation, and fugitive dust would also occur as National Forest System roads are
traveled by motor vehicles throughout the NKRD.
Effects common with alternatives 2, 3, and 4
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would allow motorized cross country travel for fuelwood gathering,
allowing one trip in and one trip out and only in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation
types (approximately 268,861 acres). Motorized cross country travel for fuelwood gathering
would not be permitted in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type (approximately 248,242 acres).
These alternatives would eliminate the continuation of user created roads. Approximately 38.5
miles of roads would be changed to administrative use only (i.e., Maintenance Level 2 – for
official use only). Adverse impacts to these roads caused by motorized travel would be
decreased since recreational use would be excluded. Approximately 17.5 miles of these roads
occur on soils that are currently characterized as unsatisfactory. These road segments would
have increased risk of soil rutting, compaction, puddling, and erosion. Table 12 below lists the
unsatisfactory TEUs and the associated road lengths and acreages that would be retained in these
map units.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 38 of 67
Table 12. Unsatisfactory TEUs containing road segments to be designated Maintenance
Level 2 – for official use only.
Road Segment Unsatisfactory TEU Distance (miles) Acreage
235A 251 4.12 5.99
249A 264 1.75 2.55
249D 264 1.61 2.34
278 264 3.24 4.71
284DD 633 1.51 2.20
289 264 2.60 3.78
652 251 0.76 1.11
894 264 1.05 1.53
Total 16.64 24.21
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in closure of roads that would no longer be available for
Forest access. Road decommissioning/obliteration is not planned for these roads at this time and
is beyond the scope of this analysis. Since all motorized travel would be eliminated from these
roads, many are expected to de-compact, stabilize, and revegetate naturally over time, depending
on the location and current condition, instead of receiving regular use that inhibits the ability
these sites to stabilize. Some of the roads that occur on moderate to severe erosion hazard soils
will take longer to stabilize and would likely require mitigation measures to facilitate complete
recovery. The subalpine meadows of the higher elevations would recover naturally over the
course of 3-5 years, assuming average precipitation since these area generally have greater soil
moisture and vegetative cover than drier upland sites. Many of the lower elevation areas are
expected to stabilize and revegetate naturally in 5-10 years. Closed roads in locations with high
erosion hazards and low revegetation potential will require additional effort and mitigation
through Forest Service stabilization projects.
No new user created roads would be allowed to occur under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. This would
lead to overall benefits of reduction in rutting, compaction, bare ground, puddling, erosion, run-
off, sedimentation, and water diversion.
Some areas that may have been utilized as random dispersed campsites under the no action
alternative may no longer be accessible by motorized vehicle for camping. Many of the potential
adverse impacts that can occur from camping in these areas would be reduced since motor
vehicle access to these areas would be eliminated through road closures and restriction of
motorized cross-country travel, thus improving resource conditions on all of these areas when
compared to the No Action Alternative.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 39 of 67
Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 approximately 16 miles of currently unauthorized road spurs
would be added to the system. These spurs range in length from less than 0.01 miles to 0.31
miles. Approximately 8.4 miles (12.21 acres) of these road spurs occur on soils with slight
erosion hazard, 5.8 miles (8.43 acres) occur on soils with moderate erosion hazard, and 1.4 miles
(2.04 acres) occur on soils with severe erosion hazard.
Minor, localized fugitive dust would continue to occur under alternatives 2 and 4 as National
Forest System roads are traveled by motor vehicles throughout the NKRD.
Effects common with Alternatives 2 and 4
Alternatives 2 and 4 are similar with regard to miles of road closure (376 miles), addition of
approximately 16 miles of currently unauthorized routes, continued authorization of cross
country motorized travel for purposes of fuelwood gathering in ponderosa and mixed conifer
vegetation types, and continued authorization of MBGR up to one mile on either side of
designated motorized routes. However, in addition to MBGR for legally harvested elk and
bison, alternative 4 would authorize MBGR for legally harvested mule deer. Motorized cross
country travel authorized under these alternatives would be for one trip in and one trip out for
each occurrence of big game retrieval. There would be some adverse impacts to soils including
rutting, compaction, puddling, water diversion, and removal of vegetative ground cover, with the
degree depending on the soil type, erosion hazard, soil moisture content, distance of travel, and
type of retrieval vehicle utilized. In most cases, these adverse impacts would be minor and
localized since motorized passes over the same areas would be minimized in comparison to the
No Action Alternative. As a result, these areas would be expected to stabilize rapidly after use.
The numbers of expected harvested elk and bison would be low, and long term impacts would be
rare and generally localized to the area traveled.
Continuation of motorized cross-country travel for the purpose of MBGR under Alternatives 2
and 4 would result in continued minor, localized fugitive dust as soil surfaces are disturbed and
vegetative cover is removed. These areas would be at risk of erosion by wind and water.
Alternative 4 is expected to result in slightly greater potential fugitive dust than Alternative 2
since mule deer would be included under MBGR. However, the level of motorized cross-
country travel is expected to decline considerably under Alternatives 2 and 4 since motorized
cross-country travel for purposes other than MBGR would be eliminated. Minor, localized
fugitive dust would continue to occur under alternatives 2 and 4 as National Forest System roads
are traveled by motor vehicles throughout the NKRD.
Alternatives 2 and 4 would reduce the current road system by 376 miles, decreasing the number
of roads to be maintained over current management. Most of these roads have been identified as
roads creating potential resource concerns with some issues being associated with erosion
hazard. Many of the roads that would be closed to public use in lower elevations are in areas
with impaired soil conditions that would benefit from road closures.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 40 of 67
Road corridors for dispersed camping would be created along 203 miles of roads. These
corridors would be primarily in the ponderosa pine vegetation type, where some of the more
productive soils on the district occur. Most of the road corridors are located in areas with low
soil erosion hazards, with mostly low and occasional moderate slope gradients, and high soil
productivity and vegetative response. Some of these corridors would extend up to 300 feet on
each side of designated roads and others would extend 100 feet on each side of designated roads.
The corridors that would be 300-feet-wide would amount to approximately 7,946 acres of land
available for dispersed camping while the corridors that would be 100-feet-wide would amount
to approximately 2,722 acres. A total of 77.73 acres (i.e., less than 1 percent) of these road
corridors would occur on soils that are currently in unsatisfactory condition. Table 13 lists
corridor acreages that occur on soils that are currently in unsatisfactory condition due to erosion
rates that exceed tolerance erosion limits.
Table 13. Corridor acreages that occur on soils currently in unsatisfactory condition.
Route
Number
Corridor Width
(each side of road)
TEU Corridor Acreage
occurring in TEU
225A 300 271 9.93
225F 300 271 11.05
272D 300 271 15.30
461G 300 271 2.23
487 300 271 6.01
761 300 271 0.19
218 100 274 5.78
228 100 271 0.32
274D 100 271 0.02
274E 100 271 26.38
416 100 271 0.29
416 100 274 0.20
4189 100 271 0.03
Total 77.73
Approximately 6,250 acres of road corridors would occur on soils with slight erosion hazard,
3,563 acres would occur on soils with moderate erosion hazard, and 855.27 acres would occur on
soils with severe erosion hazard.
Corridor
Width
Acres Erosion Hazard
Slight Moderate Severe
100 ft. 2,722 1,997.57 554.97 169.88
300 ft. 7,946 4252.46 3,008.06 685.39
Total 10,668 6,250.03 3,653.03 855.27
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 41 of 67
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would reduce the current road system by 466 miles. This would be a further
reduction of roads to be maintained than proposed under Alternatives 2 and 4. Approximately 90
miles of additional roads would be closed under Alternative 3 than under Alternatives 2 and 4.
Most of the additional roads to be removed are on soils with moderate erosion hazard. Overall,
Alternative 3 would result in fewer roads receiving adverse impacts through motorized travel
(i.e., rutting, compaction, puddling, and soil displacement) and contributing to additional run-off
and potential sedimentation of ephemeral channels and surface waters. Table 14 lists erosion
hazard and associated acreages of additional roads to be removed under Alternative 3 as opposed
to Alternatives 2 and 4.
Table 14. Erosion hazard and associated acreages of additional roads that would be removed
under Alternative 3 as opposed to Alternatives 2 and 4.
Erosion Hazard
Slight Moderate Severe
Acres 30.69 70.25 13.96
Length (miles) 21.1 48.3 9.6
There would be no designated camping corridors under Alternative 3. As a result, designated
road corridors may experience considerably higher use. Under current management, most
dispersed camp sites are utilized occasionally and many impacts recover prior to the next use.
The level of recovery depends on the site and the degree of impact. Under Alternative 3, the
designated road corridors could be utilized for dispersed camping more often and become
permanently degraded and compacted. The degree of adverse impact to each site would depend
on the level of recreational use and site-specific conditions such as soil types and plant
communities. For example, areas in the pinion juniper vegetation type on impaired to
unsatisfactory soils that would get utilized more regularly may sustain little to no vegetation and
may exhibit increased run-off and erosion. There would be an additional 16 miles (23.27 acres)
of spur roads added to the NKRD road system under this alternative. Approximately 0.34 miles
(0.50 acres) of these spur roads would occur on soils currently in unsatisfactory condition. These
soils would potentially be subject to soil compaction, rutting, vegetation removal and accelerated
erosion as a result of disperse recreational use.
Under Alternative 3, there will be no big game retrieval for any species. This will eliminate
potential adverse impacts that could be created by vehicles traveling off-road.
Cross country motorized travel for fuelwood gathering in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer
vegetation types (approximately 268,861 acres) would continue under this alternative.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 42 of 67
Alternative 4
As discussed above, Alternative 4 is very similar to Alternative 2 with the only difference being
the authorization of big game retrieval for mule deer. There are considerably more mule deer
hunted than bison and elk. This will also create impacts across the entire non-wilderness
portions of the district. The earlier hunts are typically concentrated in the higher elevations
where more productive soils occur. The late hunts will be in the lower elevations where less
productive soils and higher erosion hazards are more common.
The cross country travel created by this Alternative would be one trip in and one trip out for each
mule deer retrieval. There would be some adverse impacts to soils including compaction,
rutting, and removal of vegetative ground cover, with the degree depending on the soil type,
erosion hazard, soil moisture content, distance of travel, and type of retrieval vehicle utilized. In
most cases, these adverse impacts would be minor and localized since motorized passes over the
same areas would be minimized in comparison to the No Action Alternative. As a result, these
areas would be expected to stabilize rapidly after use. In the higher elevations, adverse impacts
to soils are expected to stabilize rapidly due to the highly productive nature of these soils. These
areas are therefore expected to have limited, short term impacts.
The lower elevations in the pinion-juniper and shrubland communities can expect to receive
greater adverse impacts that will take longer to recover. Where MBGR occurs on the more
productive soils and times when the soils are dry, then minimal adverse impacts can be expected.
However, rutting can occur on easily compacted soils during wet periods. There would be some
adverse impacts to soils including compaction, rutting, and removal of vegetative ground cover,
with the degree depending on the soil type, erosion hazard, soil moisture content, distance of
travel, and type of retrieval vehicle utilized. In most cases, these adverse impacts would be
minor and localized since motorized passes over the same areas would be minimized in
comparison to the No Action Alternative. As a result, these areas would be expected to stabilize
in a relatively short timeframe after use.
Adverse impacts to soils and watershed resources that can be expected from this alternative
would be considerably less than no action, while being equal to or slightly greater than those
expected from Alternative 2.
Effects to Riparian and Wetland Vegetation
Each of the alternatives was analyzed to determine if there is potential for motorized vehicle
travel on the NKRD to impact riparian and wetland vegetation. There is an estimated total of
2,033 acres of perennial streams, riparian areas and wetlands on the NKRD. Most of these acres
occur in the Kanab Creek (1,168.64 acres) and Saddle Mountain (49.43 acres) Wilderness Areas.
There are no locations on the NKRD where roads intersect riparian areas or perennial streams.
Approximately 0.72 miles (1.04 acres) of maintenance level 2 roads and 0.20 miles (0.73 acres)
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 43 of 67
of maintenance level 3 roads occur within seasonally wet meadows on the NKRD. These roads
are not proposed for removal from the road system under any of the proposed alternatives.
The effects to wetland vegetation by motorized uses are related to the impacts of the road prism
across wet surfaces, disturbance of vegetation, rutting, compaction, puddling, accelerated
erosion, and potential sediment delivery to surface waters. Soil moisture and high organic matter
content in seasonally wet meadows provides an increased level of resilience to irreversible,
adverse impacts, and often increases the recovery potential to a greater degree than drier, upland
sites. These areas will often recover to a more natural state in a shorter period of time.
Effects to Watershed Health from Road Condition
Each of the alternatives was analyzed to determine if there is potential for motorized uses on the
NKRD to affect the integrity of watersheds. The indirect effects to watershed conditions from
motorized routes are primarily related to the level of disturbance created by roads on the
landscape and the resulting disruption of hydrologic function. Roads can alter hydrologic
function by diverting and concentrating storm flows, increasing or changing sediment transport
patterns, increase surface water turbidity and nutrient loads, all of which are important
considerations of watershed health. While implementation of the Travel Management Rule
would decrease the number of routes open for motorized use, it does not propose to
decommission or obliterate any routes that will be closed. Decommissioning of a road is defined
as “activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural
state” (36 CFR 212.1, Forest service Manual 7705-Transportation System [USDA FS 2003]).
The Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide states that “properly closed roads
should be hydrologically disconnected from the stream network. If roads have a closure order
but are still contributing to hydrological damage they should be considered open for the purposes
of road density calculations.” (USDA 2010).
For this portion of the analysis, closed roads are still considered as land disturbance that have the
potential to impact watershed health across the Forest. Miles and acres associated with closed
roads are included in the following tables of calculations. This is viewed from a landscape level
and does not discount negative effects that may be more quickly reversed in riparian areas and
wetlands, and water quality improvements that may occur from closed routes. It is just one of
many factors that must be considered when assessing watershed condition.
Tables 15 provide a summary of effects from motorized routes that have the potential to impact
watershed conditions throughout the NKRD, by alternative as compared to the No Action
Alternative. A brief summary of these effects, based on changes from the No Action Alternative
are described below:
This project does not address road decommissioning; all road scars will remain, with the
addition of a few roads added to the system (i.e. addition of approximately 16 miles of
currently unauthorized user-created routes to the NKRD road system). For the majority
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 44 of 67
of motorized routes in the uplands, the changing of designation of roads to maintenance
level 1 will result in minor change on the landscape until the road is decommissioned or
removed from passive storage. At a landscape level, there is little to no change from
existing road and trail condition, as result of changes in route designation under any
alternative. There will be little to no change in road densities under any alternative as
routes will remain hydrologically connected until decommissioned.
All alternatives to the No Action alternative would reduce acres of potential disturbance
caused by recreational motorized cross country travel. Alternative 3 would significantly
reduce the acres of potential disturbance caused by motorized big game retrieval and
motorized dispersed camping over all proposed alternatives by not allowing motorized
big game retrieval and not designating dispersed camping corridors. Alternatives 2 and 4
would reduce acres of potential disturbance caused by motorized big game retrieval and
motorized dispersed camping, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 3. Alternative 2
would reduce acres of potential disturbance caused by motorized big game retrieval more
than Alternative 4 since mule deer retrieval would not be included under Alternative 2.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would reduce acres of disturbance caused by fuelwood gathering
by eliminating this activity in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type.
Table 15. Miles and acres of motorized route disturbance with potential to affect watershed
condition by Alternative.
Alternative Miles
Change
in Miles
from No
Action
Change
from
No Action
(%)
Acres
Change
in Acres
from No
Action
Change from
No Action
(%)
Alternative 1
(No Action) 1,852 0 No Change 3,095
No
Change 0
Alternative 2 1,476 -376 20% 2,504 458 15%
Alternative 3 1,386 -466 24% 2,352 573 19%
Alternative 4 1,476 -376 20% 2,504 458 15%
Cumulative Effects Analysis
The cumulative effects analysis discussion concentrates on the geographic boundary of the
NKRD. This area encompasses the vast majority of the effects of TMR implementation within
the fifth-level HUC watersheds that contain, at least partially, NKRD lands. Impacts that may
cascade downstream of the fifth-level HUCs are expected to be of minor consequence and
difficult to quantify. Past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities on the NKRD and
adjoining lands that could have a cumulative effect on soils and watershed resources when
combined with implementation of TMR include: vegetation manipulation and restoration
projects, timber management, timber and fuelwood harvesting, fuels management including
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 45 of 67
prescribed burning, livestock grazing, fence construction and repair, water tank construction and
maintenance, wildfire suppression, non native and invasive weed species mitigation, recreational
activities, road maintenance, management of designated wilderness areas, mining and mineral
extraction, and growth of local communities. Many of the reasonably foreseeable activities on
other land ownerships are difficult to predict with regard to timing, location, and scale of such
activities.
Vegetation Projects
Vegetation management and restoration projects, including timber harvesting will be ongoing.
Each project will require specific analysis. All proposed travel management alternatives would
provide sufficient access to most project areas on the NKRD. Temporary roads would be
constructed as needed for project implementation with the intent to decommission such roads
upon project completion. Temporary road construction and use would lead to short-term adverse
impacts to soils and watershed resources such as rutting, compaction, puddling, accelerated
erosion, vegetation trampling or removal, and potential sediment delivery to surface waters, with
the levels of these impacts directly related to road length, traffic, project duration and timing of
activities. Upon project completion, rehabilitation and/or mitigation measures, including Best
Management Practices would be implemented as needed to ensure long term soil productivity
and watershed protection.
Cross country motorized travel for fuelwood harvesting will be ongoing to continue to meet local
demand. There would be temporary increases in soil rutting, compaction, puddling, accelerated
erosion, vegetation trampling and removal, and potential sediment delivery to surface waters as a
result of personal and commercial fuelwood gathering. It is unlikely that these impacts would be
mitigated since fuelwood gathering is permitted throughout the ponderosa pine and mixed
conifer vegetation types. However, since cross country motorized travel would be limited to one
trip in and one trip out, multiple passes across the same area are expected to be infrequent,
allowing opportunity for traveled areas to recover.
Fire
Wildland fire plays a large role in vegetation management in the Southwest. Wildland fires are
categorized in two distinct types: a) wildfires, which are unplanned ignitions, including escaped
prescribed fires that are declared wildfires, and b) prescribed fires, which are planned
management ignitions. Wildfires may be ignited by natural causes, namely lightning, or human
caused. Under the current management, some sort of suppression action is taken on all human
caused wildfires.
Wildfire occurrences are difficult to predict with reasonable certainty. However, some
generalizations can be made regarding cumulative effects of fire suppression activities.
Currently, increased fuel loads as a result of decades of fire suppression have caused wildfires to
often become larger and burn at a higher intensities. High severity wildfires lead to adverse
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 46 of 67
impacts to soils and watershed conditions through soil sterilization, hydrophobicity, loss of
native seed banks in the soil, soil erosion, and sediment delivery to surface waters. Suppression
activities often result in areas of bare mineral soil where firelines and other suppression efforts
are implemented. Firelines may be installed off-contour, resulting in potential channelization or
diversion of surface water flow. Fire suppression vehicles have potential to introduce non-native
invasive and noxious weeds that can displace native vegetation, resulting in adverse impacts to
soils and watersheds through decreased ground cover. Firelines and other areas that support fire
suppression efforts are typically rehabilitated through implementation of Best Management
Practices to prevent soil erosion and loss of soil productivity. Wildfire suppression therefore
results in minimal adverse cumulative effect to soils and watershed conditions when combined
with implementation of the Travel Management Rule on the NKRD.
Wildland fire has a critical role in maintaining forested and grassland ecosystems on the NKRD.
Use of prescribed fire to restore historic fire regimes and decrease fuel loads that have resulted
from decades of fire suppression is common practice on the NKRD. Prescribed fire and
managed natural fires provide opportunities to reintroduce low intensity fire that partially
consumes fuels and restores nutrient cycles, particularly carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrients
critical to graminoid and forb production. The combination of partially burned and unburned
areas creates a landscape mosaic that increases understory biodiversity and increases long-term
protective ground cover. The cumulative effect of prescribed fire and natural fire use when
combined with implementation of Travel Management Rule would result in improved soil and
watershed conditions throughout the NKRD.
Livestock Grazing
Livestock grazing on the North Kaibab will be ongoing. The overall stocking rates on the
grazing allotments are relatively low and many allotments are stocked appropriately for drought
conditions. Typically, concerns related to livestock grazing impacts to soils and watershed
resources include trampling and removal of vegetative cover, soil compaction in livestock
trailing areas and around livestock waters, and soil erosion caused by removal of protective
vegetation and litter cover. These conditions can occur when livestock remain in a given area for
prolonged durations or are grazed in high numbers. Continuing low stocking rates and adequate
livestock distribution across pastures minimize adverse impacts to soils and watershed resources.
Reduced livestock numbers combined with decreased road densities and elimination of
recreational motorized cross country travel would improve vegetative and litter ground cover to
protect soils and watershed resources.
Fence construction and maintenance occurs within most of the watersheds on the NKRD. These
projects can remove understory vegetation and tree cover and compact soils in the immediate
vicinity of these activities. Erosion rates may increase in these areas for short durations (1-2
years). Long term adverse effects to soils and watershed resources from fence construction and
maintenance are rare.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 47 of 67
Improved livestock distribution reduces grazing intensity, improves protective vegetative ground
cover, and maintains soil stability and productivity. The long-term net cumulative effect of
rangeland management activities (including best management practices and mitigation measures)
in combination with decreased road densities and elimination of recreational motorized cross
country travel is improved soils and watershed conditions throughout most of the NKRD.
Non-Native Invasive Species
Non-Native Invasive species continue to occur through many areas of the NKRD, particularly in
burned areas following high severity wildfires. Some non-native species can impact watershed
conditions by displacing native vegetation that more effectively protects soil surfaces from
raindrop impact and erosion. An anticipated effect of the action alternatives would be fewer
locations that invasive species can be spread to. This benefits watershed resources by there
being fewer places that can be infested by weed species, thus reducing the areas where the
watershed can be altered.
Monitoring
Areas away from roads will be monitored periodically for ruts, erosion, sedimentation of
water bodies, and excessive damage to vegetation from cross country motor vehicle use.
This monitoring will occur in conjunction with other project or management activities.
o If soil damage or excessive damage to vegetation is discovered, the Forest Service
may temporarily or permanently close specific corridors of the District to motorized
big game retrieval. All permanent closure proposals will follow the required NEPA
process.
Designated open roads and closed roads will be monitored periodically for ruts, erosion,
or sedimentation of water bodies. This monitoring will occur in conjunction with other
project or management activities, including enforcement of the Wet Weather Roads
Policy.
o If road damage, erosion, or sedimentation of water bodies is discovered, the Forest
Service may repair or upgrade the roads. Temporary or permanent closures of open
roads may be necessary. Decommissioning or obliteration (i.e. blocking access, de-
compaction, and re-vegetation) of closed roads may be necessary. All permanent
closure, decommissioning, or obliteration proposals will follow the required NEPA
process.
Irreversible and/or Irretrievable Commitment of Resource
Alternative 1 (No Action) inherently commits soils and watershed resources of the NKRD to the
purpose of providing motorized access to much of the District. It would be exceedingly difficult,
if not impossible, to reverse these conditions or to retrieve or restore soil productivity to its
original condition if, hypothetically, all motorized routes were removed. Continuation of
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 48 of 67
unlimited motorized cross-country travel would permit new soils and watershed resource
degradation to occur, possibly resulting in additional irreversible and/or irretrievable impacts.
The selection of any of the action alternatives will affirm the commitment of the soils and
watershed resources discussed above for whichever motorized routes are included in the selected
alternative. In considering all routes, both open and closed, every action alternative proposes an
overall decrease in acres accessible by motorized means. No additional acres are proposed for
motorized travel in riparian areas, wetlands, or perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral
streamcourses. Disturbance associated with any selected alternative may or may not be
irreversible or irretrievable, depending on: 1) conditions of the route when traveled (wet or dry);
2) the amount of compaction created; 3) associated loss of soil productivity; and 4) related
sediment losses or erosion created from motorized travel. Soil could be irretrievably lost and
transported down slope in runoff and in streamcourses as bedload, resulting in loss of on-site soil
productivity. Compacted soils could take many years to recover proper functioning condition,
and while not irreversible, would be considered a long-term impact. Site-specific evaluation
would be appropriate during future road maintenance and decommissioning to ensure that
mitigation measures are properly implemented and maintained in an effective manner to protect
from such irreversible and/or irretrievable losses.
Consistency Review of Laws, Regulations and Policies
Guidance
Document
Laws, Regulations and Policies Travel Management
Compliance
Forest
Plan
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines; Ecosystem
Management in Northern Goshawk Habitats
Emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy
riparian ecosystems through conformance with
forest plan riparian standards and guidelines.
Management strategies should move degraded
riparian vegetation toward good condition as soon
as possible. Damage to riparian vegetation, stream
banks, and channels should be prevented. pp. 28,
30
In all Action alternatives,
travel routes would not
impact these resources.
All Action alternatives
show a reduction in
motorized cross country
travel in wet meadows
when compared to the No
Action Alternative
All Action alternatives
show a reduction in
motorized dispersed
camping, big game
retrieval, and fuelwood
gathering when compared
to the No Action
alternative.
All Action alternatives
are moving towards
meeting Forest Plan
Standards and Guides.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 49 of 67
Guidance
Document
Laws, Regulations and Policies Travel Management
Compliance
Forest
Plan
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines; Ecosystem
Management in Northern Goshawk Habitats
Within Nesting Areas:
Manage road densities at the lowest level possible
to minimize disturbance in the nest area. Use small,
permanent skid trails in lieu of roads for timber
harvesting. p. 30.
Ground Surface Layer (All forested cover
types) Manage road densities at the lowest level possible.
Where timber harvesting has been prescribed to
achieve desired forest condition, use small, skid
trails in lieu of roads. p. 31
All Action alternatives
meet Forest Plan
Standards and guidelines.
Forest
Plan Forest Plan, Ecosystem Management Areas 12
and 16: Management Direction for Recreation
Resources
Management Direction for Recreation
Resources: Establish off-road vehicle area closures and manage
ORV use to maintain recreation, visual, heritage,
soil, water, wildlife, and other resource values. p.
63.
Provide off-road vehicle area closures as needed
and manage ORV use occurring on other areas to
maintain recreation, visual, heritage, soil, water,
wildlife, and other resource values. p. 67.
Management Direction for Soil and Water
Resources: Formulate and execute land treatment measures to
(1) close, revegetate, and thereby obliterate, system
roads not needed for resource actions and (2)
establish groundcover improvements in degraded,
unsatisfactory watersheds to return them to
satisfactory condition. Provide for the long-term
maintenance of vegetative ground-cover
improvements. p. 63, 67.
Management Direction for Transportation
Facilities: Provide for extensive management of the Forest
Transportation System. Make inventories; surveys;
analyses; formulate plans; and execute construction,
reconstruction, and maintenance operations to
provide transportation facilities that support
resource management and protection and safe
public access to National Forest System lands.
Maintain local terminal roads that support
intermittent and short-term resource actions in a
All Action Alternatives
would result in a
reduction of ORV use
throughout Ecosystem
Management Area 12.
Road decommissioning
and obliteration are not
planned for any roads
under any Action
alternatives.
Road maintenance of
National Forest System
Roads on the NKRD will
be ongoing.
Recreational cross-
country motorized travel
for purposes other than
MBGR would be
prohibited.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 50 of 67
Guidance
Document
Laws, Regulations and Policies Travel Management
Compliance
closed-to-traffic mode except during said periods of
intermittent use. Reconstruct and maintain arterial,
collector, and local service roads that are needed for
support of continuing, long-term resource practices
and public access to National Forest System Lands
in an open-for-traffic mode. Provide integration and
coordination for transportation and facility
management in National Forest land and resource
management planning and with Federal, State,
County, and local transportation authorities.
Identify and obliterate unneeded system roads and
facilities in accordance with the Management
Direction for Soil and Water Resources. p. 64, 68,
85.
Work Activities, Standards and Guidelines –
Ecosystem Management Areas 1, 3, 8, 9, 12
& 16;
Recreation Use Administration Prohibit off-road competitive events. p. 73
Implement permanent, temporary or seasonal
closures of areas to off-road vehicle traffic to
protect soil, vegetation, visual, wildlife, wildlife
habitat and cultural and historic resources. p. 73
Recreation Use Administration Implement land treatment and structural measures
in accordance with project specific analysis and the
following guidelines. Land treatment measures are
(1) closure and revegetation of system roads
identified for obliteration in the transportation
inventory; and (2) ground cover improvements in
the following soil mapping units: 8, 12, 16 - 19, 27,
30, 32, 40, 162, 165, 250, 251, 254, 255, 257, 258,
260, 261, 263, 264, 272, 273, 280, 281, 288, 289,
502, 503, 507, 513, 514, 520, 542, 543, 587, 588,
590, 592, 599, 632 and 634. Forest
Plan
Forest Plan Goals
Soil, Water, and Air Quality Maintain soil productivity and watershed condition.
Rehabilitate non-productive lands on a planned
basis to eliminate unsatisfactory watershed
condition by 2020. Maintain a high quality
sustained water yield for Forest users and others.
Identify and protect wetlands and floodplains. p. 19.
All Action Alternatives
would provide for
improved protection of
soils and watershed
resources including
wetlands and floodplains.
Forest
Plan
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines
Guidelines for Recreation Resource
Operations Formulate and implement control measures where
and when the following damage occurs:
All action alternatives
result in a reduction of
motorized routes within
Management areas that
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 51 of 67
Guidance
Document
Laws, Regulations and Policies Travel Management
Compliance
a. Soil compaction.
b. Loss of vegetative cover.
c. Tree damage and mortality.
d. Deterioration of water quality.
p. 41.
Guidelines for Air and Watershed Resource
Operations and Improvements: 1. Define, geographically identify and locate best
management practices for the landscape during
landscape planning and analysis. Apply best
management practices to mitigate adverse effects
of activities and maintain site soil productivity.
These practices include:
a. Installation of water control structures or
seeding lands in poor and very poor condition
where the revegetation potential is moderately high
to high and the slope is less than 40 percent.
b. Designate stream courses during landscape
planning and analysis process.
c. Rehabilitate areas impacted by wildfire.
2. Exclude domestic livestock from treated areas for
not less than two growing seasons.
3. Maintain not less than three age classes of woody
riparian species with ten percent of the woody plant
cover in sprouts, suckers, seedlings, and saplings.
4. Maintain not less than 90 percent of the potential
stream shading from May to September along all
perennial cold or cool water streams. Provide shade
with tree and other vegetational cover.
5. Maintain not less than 90 percent of the potential
shrub cover in riparian areas.
6. Maintain not less than 90 percent of total linear
streambank in stable condition.
7. Woody riparian communities in addition to
riparian communities which are dominated by shrub
and herbaceous species are rated in satisfactory or
better condition.
8. Select riparian areas for treatment based on
relative scorecard condition rating with the lowest
rating assigned to first treatment. p. 42.
have sensitive soils
associated with them.
All Action Alternatives
reduce adverse impacts to
soils and watershed
resources over the No
Action alternative and are
moving towards
achieving Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines.
Clean
Water Act Pertinent sections of the Clean Water Act:
CWA Sections 208 and 319: recognize the need for
control strategies for non-point source pollution.
CWA Section 303(d): requires waterbodies with
The Travel Management
Rule is compliant with
the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 52 of 67
Guidance
Document
Laws, Regulations and Policies Travel Management
Compliance
water quality determined to be either impaired (not
fully meeting water quality standards) or threatened
(likely to violate standards in the near future), to be
compiled by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) in a separate list
which must be submitted to EPA every two years.
These waters are targeted and scheduled for
development of water quality improvement
strategies on a priority basis.
TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads): There are
no TMDLs written for stream reaches that occur
within the NKRD.
CWA Section 305(b): require that states assess the
condition of their waters and produce a biennial
report summarizing the findings.
CWA Section 401: allows states and tribes to
review and approve, set conditions on, or deny
Federal permits (such as 404 permits) that may
result in a discharge to State or Tribal waters,
including wetlands. Applications for Section 404
permits are often joint 404/401 permits to ensure
compliance at both the State and Federal levels.
CWA Section 404: outlines the permitting process
for dredging or discharging fill material into waters
of the U.S., including wetlands. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers administers the 404 Program.
1972.
All Action alternatives
would result in a
reduction in the number
of ephemeral stream
crossings, motorized
routes and motorized
dispersed camping when
compared to the No
Action alternative.
NEPA of
1969
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat.
852 as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-4335, 4341,
4347) –Required that environmental considerations be
incorporated into all Federal policies and activities,
and required all Federal agencies to prepare
environmental impact statements for any actions
significantly affecting the environment.
The Travel Management
Rule is compliant with
the National
Environmental Policy Act
of 1969.
NFMA of
1976
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat.
2949; 16 U.S.C. 472a, 476, 476 (note), 500, 513-516,
521b, 528 (note), 576b, 594-2 (note), 1600 (note),
1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614) – Established
additional standards and guidelines for managing the
National Forests, including directives for National
Forest land management planning, and public
participation. It is the primary statute governing the
administration of national forests.
The Travel Management
Rule complied with the
National Forest
Management Act of 1976
Executive
Orders
11988 and
11990
Executive Orders 11988 and 11990
(CEQ 1978): President Carter issued two Executive
Orders in May 1977 requiring all executive
The Travel Management
Rule is compliant with
Executive Orders 11988
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 53 of 67
Guidance
Document
Laws, Regulations and Policies Travel Management
Compliance
agencies to take special care when undertaking
actions that may affect wetlands or floodplains,
directly or indirectly. The orders require agencies to
avoid disrupting these areas wherever there is a
practicable alternative, and to minimize any
environmental harm that might be caused by federal
actions
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management: Agencies are commanded to “take
action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize
the impact of floods on human safety, health and
welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and
beneficial values served by floodplains.” It
requires the agency to determine whether a
proposed action will occur in a floodplain, consider
alternatives to avoid adverse effects and
incompatible development in the floodplain. If the
only practicable alternative consistent with the
Executive Order requires activity in a floodplain,
the agency must design or modify the action to
minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain
and circulate a notice containing an explanation of
why the action is to be located in the floodplain.
Early public review of any proposals in floodplains
is required (NEPA).
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, commands that the agency shall take action to
minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of
wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural
and beneficial values of wetlands. Specifically, it
requires the agency to avoid undertaking or
providing assistance for new construction located in
wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative to
such construction and the proposed action includes
all practicable measures to minimize harm to
wetlands, which may result from such use. In
determining that there is no practicable alternative
and all practicable measures to minimize harm have
been incorporated, the agency may take into
account economic, environmental, and other
pertinent factors. There must be early public
review of plans or proposals for new construction in
wetlands.
and 11990
All Action alternatives
reduced the amount of
motorized routes in wet
meadows when compared
to the No Action
Alternative.
All Action alternatives
reduce the amount of
motorized dispersed
camping and big game
retrieval in floodplain
areas when compared to
the No Action
Alternative.
Executive
Order
(EO)
11644
(February
Executive Order (EO) 11644 (February 8, 1972) and
EO 11989 (May 24, 1977) – Provide direction for
Federal agencies to establish policies and provide for
procedures to control and direct the use of OHVs on
public lands so as to: (1) protect the resources of those
The Travel Management
Rule complies with
Executive Order (EO)
11644 (February 8, 1972)
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 54 of 67
Guidance
Document
Laws, Regulations and Policies Travel Management
Compliance
8, 1972)
and EO
11989
(May 24,
1977)
lands; (2) promote the safety of all users of those
lands; and (3) minimize conflicts among the various
users on those lands.
The Forest Service developed regulations in
response to the EOs (36 CFR, 219, 261 and 295).
Under those regulations, OHV use can be restricted
or prohibited to minimize: (1) damage to the soil,
vegetation, watershed and impacts to water quality,
or other resources of public lands; (2) harm to
wildlife or wildlife habitats; and (3) conflict
between the use of OHVs and other types of
recreation.
and EO 11989 (May 24,
1977)
Conclusions about Alternative Effects
All Action Alternatives provide for some level of reduction of adverse impacts to soils and
watershed resources by reducing acres available to motorized cross country travel, including
motorized dispersed recreation and motorized big game retrieval, across the NKRD. In addition,
all Action Alternatives reduce miles of motorized routes open to the public, which reduces the
relative risk of negative impacts to riparian areas, wetlands, and water quality. No
decommissioning of roads will occur as the result of implementation of any Action Alternative,
thus road densities and road and trail conditions will continue to impact overall watershed health
similar to existing condition.
In comparing alternatives, Alternative 3 provides the greatest opportunity for reduced adverse
effects to soils and watersheds through reduced acres available for motorized cross country travel
and reduced motorized travel routes. Alternative 3, does not allow for cross country travel
outside of the 1-vehicle length (30 foot) parking width from designated motorized routes.
Alternatives 2 and 4 provide additional soils and watershed protection over the No Action
Alternative, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 3 since dispersed recreation corridors would
be designated along approximately 203 miles of motorized routes.
Alternative 2 provides the second greatest opportunity for reduced adverse impacts to watershed
and soils resources. It has the same amount of reduction in motorized routes as Alternative 4,
but reduces cross country travel for MBGR by not allowing MBGR for mule deer retrieval.
Alternative 4 would provide similar protection of soils and watershed resources as Alternative 2
with regard to reduced acreage available for motorized routes. However, since MBGR would
include mule deer retrieval, adverse impacts from cross country motorized travel would be
somewhat greater than Alternative 2.
All proposed Action Alternative would include fuelwood gathering in ponderosa pine and mixed
conifer vegetation types. Additional protection of soils and watershed resources from the three
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 56 of 67
References
ADEQ 2009. Unofficial Copy of Final Rules, Title 18. Environmental Quality, Chapter 11.
Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality, Article 1. Water Quality Standards for
Surface Waters. 132 pp.
ADEQ 2009. Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona, Arizona’s Integrated 305(b)
Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. November 2009. 596 pp.
ADEQ 2011. Arizona State Implementation Plan Regional Haze Under Section 308 of the
Federal Regional Haze Rule. Air Quality Division. January 2011. 226 pp.
Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the
Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and
Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Report No. 8. 35 p.
Brewer, David G., Rodney K. Jorgensen, Lewis P. Munk, Wayne A. Robbie, and Janet L. Travis.
1991. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County and
Part of Yavapai County. USDA Forest Service. 319 pp.
Burroughs, E.R. Jr. and J. G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. General
Technical Report INT-264, Ogden, Utah, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Center. 21 p.
CARB 2011. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board Website.
Accessed March 30, 2011. URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm
Dissmeyer, D.E., Editor. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands. A Synthesis of the
Scientific Literature. General Technical Report SRS-39. Asheville, North Carolina:
U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 246 p.
Environmental Protection Agency 2011. Climate Change Web Page. Office of Atmospheric
Programs. Climate Change Division. Accessed March 28, 2011
URL: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Gucinski, Hermann; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H. 2001. Forest
roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR 509. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.
Guido, Zack. (2008). Southwest Climate Change Network. Fire. Institute of the Environment,
Climate Assessment of the Southwest. Accessed March 22, 2011. URL:
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/land/fire
IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 57 of 67
Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.
Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Accessed March 28, 2011.
URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Seager, R., R. Burgman, et al. (2008). "Tropical Pacific Forcing of North American Medieval
Megadroughts: Testing the Concept with an Atmosphere Model Forced by Coral-
Reconstructed SSTs." Journal of Climate 21: 6175-6190.
Sprigg, W. A., T. Hinkley, et al. (2000). Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change: Southwest. A Report of the Southwest
Regional Assessment Group. University of Arizona. The Institute for the Study of Planet
Earth. Tucson, AZ, US Global Change Research Program: 66.
USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan,
1988, as amended.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Forest Service Manual 7705 – Transportation
System.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. Stream
Systems Technology Center, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants Staff.
Washington, D.C. p. 44.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change – Trends and Forest
Planning Website. Accessed March 31, 2011. URL: http://fsweb.r3.fs.fed.us/eap/climate
/index.shtml
Vander Lee, B., R. Smith, and J. Bate. 2006. Chapter 1: Introduction in Ecological and
Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3. Southwest Forest Assessment
Project, Arizona Conservation Science Program, The Nature Conservancy. 28 pp.
URL: http://azconservation.org/dl/TNCAZ_SWFAP_DiversityReport_Carson.pdf.
Ziemer, Robert R. 1981. Stormflow response to roadbuilding and partial cutting in small streams
of northern California. Water Resources Research 17(4): 907-917. [Caspar Creek]
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 58 of 67
Appendix A
Climate Summary for the North Kaibab Ranger District
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 59 of 67
Table 1. Climate data for areas surrounding the North Kaibab Ranger District.
Source: Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC).
1 Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000
Station Name Elevation
(in feet)
Period of
Record Used
for Averages
Average Temperature Range
(in °F) Average Precipitation (in inches)
Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual
Bright Angel
Ranger Station 8,400 1971-2000 61.8/Jul 27.2/Jan 10.79 2.80 5.76 6.35 25.70
Colorado City 5,010 1971-2000 76.8/Jul 23.2/Jan, Dec 4.41 2.70 4.04 3.02 14.17
Fredonia 4,680 1948-20051 74.2/Jul 32.4/Jan 2.79 1.40 2.79 3.34 10.32
Inner Canyon
USGS 2,570 1948-1966 91.5/Jul 45.8/Jan 2.13 1.23 3.21 1.82 8.38
Jacob Lake 7,830 1950-19871 64.9/Jul 27.9/Jan 5.71 3.64 7.08 6.67 23.10
Lees Ferry 3,210 1971-2000 87.3/Jul 37.8/Jan, Dec 1.64 0.91 2.33 1.67 6.55
Phantom Ranch 2,570 1971-2000 91.4/Jul 47.0/Jan 3.12 1.09 3.13 2.43 9.77
Pipe Springs
National
Monument 4,920 1971-2000 76.7/Jul 34.8/Jan 3.81 1.59 3.30 2.56 11.26
Tuweep 4,780 1948-19851 79.6/Jul 38.5/Jan 3.93 1.46 3.97 2.98 12.34
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 60 of 67
Appendix B
Subwatershed (HUC12) Condition Summary
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 61 of 67
Table 1. Subwatershed condition within the North Kaibab Ranger District.
Subwatershed Name
Subwatershed Acres
Forest Service
(FS) Acres
Non FS Acres
Percent FS
Acres
Percent Non FS Acres
Overall Watershed
Score
Aquatic Biological Average
Aquatic Physical Average
Terrestrial Physical Average
Terrestrial Biological Average
Watershed Score
FS Average
Watershed Score
Non FS Average
Watershed Condition
Watershed Condition Summary
Bright Angel Wash
9,932 2,279 7,653 23 77 1.7 1.5 1.2 2.1 2 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at Risk
Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many roads near water courses; high risk of insect and disease.
Buck Farm Canyon-Colorado River
21,268 10,979 10,289 52 48 1.7 1.5 1.3 2.3 2.4 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at
Risk
Moderate to high burn severity - Outlet Fire 2000; fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many roads near water courses.
Cane Canyon 33,846 20,689 13,157 61 39 2.3 2.5 2 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at
Risk
Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (3 springs; 109 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance.
Castle Canyon 11,176 11,157 19 100 0 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at
Risk
Fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high insect and disease risk.
Chamberlain Canyon-Kanab Creek
38,321 7,847 30,475 20 80 2.3 2.5 2.2 2 1.8 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at
Risk
Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (2 springs and 308 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 62 of 67
Subwatershed Name
Subwatershed Acres
Forest Service
(FS) Acres
Non FS Acres
Percent FS
Acres
Percent Non FS Acres
Overall Watershed
Score
Aquatic Biological Average
Aquatic Physical Average
Terrestrial Physical Average
Terrestrial Biological Average
Watershed Score
FS Average
Watershed Score
Non FS Average
Watershed Condition
Watershed Condition Summary
Deer Creek 10,791 1,675 9,116 16 84 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.9 2 1.6 1.6 Proper Functioning Condition
Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance.
Fence Canyon 18,317 18,317 0 100 0 1.7 1.5 1.2 2.1 2 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at
Risk
Low road maintenance.
Flint Creek 16,615 1,124 15,492 7 93 1.7 2.5 1 1.8 2 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at
Risk
Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; high insect and disease risk.
Hancock Spring-House Rock Wash
20,189 1,554 18,635 8 92 1.7 1.5 1.2 2 1.8 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at
Risk
Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; low road maintenance.
Hidden Lake 12,522 3,020 9,502 24 76 1.9 2.5 1.3 2 2.1 1.9 1.9 Functioning – at
Risk
Moderate to high burn severity - Hidden Fire 2001; low road maintenance.
House Rock Canyon-House Rock Wash
33,010 19,149 13,862 58 42 2.1 2.5 1.5 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.1 Functioning – at
Risk
Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance.
Indian Hollow 32,686 30,301 2,385 93 7 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.5 Impaired Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (4 springs; 4 acres of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 63 of 67
Subwatershed Name
Subwatershed Acres
Forest Service
(FS) Acres
Non FS Acres
Percent FS
Acres
Percent Non FS Acres
Overall Watershed
Score
Aquatic Biological Average
Aquatic Physical Average
Terrestrial Physical Average
Terrestrial Biological Average
Watershed Score
FS Average
Watershed Score
Non FS Average
Watershed Condition
Watershed Condition Summary
Jacob Canyon 32,412 13,448 18,964 41 59 1.9 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.9 Functioning – at Risk
Fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks and 1 well present.
Jumpup Canyon
36,891 35,825 1,065 97 3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.4 Impaired Moderate to high burn severity - Bridger Knoll Fire 1996; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (4 springs; 73 ac of riparian habitat; fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high noxious weeds
Kaibab Wash 11,292 984 10,307 9 91 1.7 1.5 1.2 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at
Risk
Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many roads near water courses.
Le Fevre Canyon
23,149 12,788 10,361 55 45 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 Functioning – at
Risk
Moderate to high burn severity - Hidden Fire 2001, Le Fevre Fire 2004; low road maintenance; many roads near water courses.
Le Fevre Ridge 7,859 1,638 6,222 21 79 1.7 1.5 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at
Risk
Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many roads near water courses.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 64 of 67
Subwatershed Name
Subwatershed Acres
Forest Service
(FS) Acres
Non FS Acres
Percent FS
Acres
Percent Non FS Acres
Overall Watershed
Score
Aquatic Biological Average
Aquatic Physical Average
Terrestrial Physical Average
Terrestrial Biological Average
Watershed Score
FS Average
Watershed Score
Non FS Average
Watershed Condition
Watershed Condition Summary
Little Spring Canyon-Kanab Creek
20,731 20,250 481 98 2 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at
Risk
Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (3 springs; 509 ac of rip habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many roads near water courses.
Lookout Lakes 38,735 38,735 0 100 0 2.3 2.5 2.5 2 2 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at
Risk
Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (3 springs and 30 acres of riparian habitat); high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high insect and disease risk.
Lower North Canyon Wash
28,592 2,942 25,650 10 90 1.7 1.5 1.2 2.1 2 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at
Risk
Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many roads near water courses.
Middle North Canyon Wash
17,112 12,718 4,394 74 26 1.9 1.5 1.5 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 Functioning – at
Risk
Low road maintenance.
Moquitch Canyon
16,283 16,283 0 100 0 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at Risk
Mod to high burn severity - Warm Fire 2006; Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (1 spring and 8 ac of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 65 of 67
Subwatershed Name
Subwatershed Acres
Forest Service
(FS) Acres
Non FS Acres
Percent FS
Acres
Percent Non FS Acres
Overall Watershed
Score
Aquatic Biological Average
Aquatic Physical Average
Terrestrial Physical Average
Terrestrial Biological Average
Watershed Score
FS Average
Watershed Score
Non FS Average
Watershed Condition
Watershed Condition Summary
Nail Canyon 17,609 17,608 2 100 0 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.4 Impaired Mod to high burn severity - Warm Fire 2006; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (10 springs; 24 ac of riparian habitat); high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high noxious weed infestation (cheatgrass).
Pasture Canyon 23,297 21,525 1,773 92 8 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.5 2.6 1.9 1.9 Functioning – at
Risk
Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; high insect and disease risk.
Pigeon Canyon-Snake Gulch
40,124 28,641 11,483 71 29 2.2 2.5 2 2 2 2.2 2.2 Functioning – at
Risk
Reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (7 springs; 183 ac. of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance.
Pleasant Valley Outlet
16,223 14,022 2,201 86 14 1.7 1.5 1.2 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at Risk
High road density.
Rock Canyon 24,740 22,985 1,756 93 7 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 Impaired Mod to high burn severity-Warm Fire 2006; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (2 springs and 35 ac of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 66 of 67
Subwatershed Name
Subwatershed Acres
Forest Service
(FS) Acres
Non FS Acres
Percent FS
Acres
Percent Non FS Acres
Overall Watershed
Score
Aquatic Biological Average
Aquatic Physical Average
Terrestrial Physical Average
Terrestrial Biological Average
Watershed Score
FS Average
Watershed Score
Non FS Average
Watershed Condition
Watershed Condition Summary
Rock Canyon 41,878 35,625 6,253 85 15 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at
Risk
Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance; many tanks present; high insect and disease risk.
Saddle Canyon 25,625 14,930 10,695 58 42 2.3 2.5 2.7 2 2.2 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at
Risk
Reduced flows to springs (5 springs); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present.
Saddle Canyon-Colorado River
20,968 6,573 14,395 31 69 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 Proper Functioning Condition
Moderate to high burn severity - Outlet Fire 2000; low road maintenance; septic systems present.
Seegmiller Canyon-House Rock Wash
24,290 3,709 20,582 15 85 1.7 1.5 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.7 Functioning – at Risk
Unsatisfactory soils in watershed; fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance.
Shinumo Creek (Local Drainage)
29,017 4,020 24,997 14 86 1.9 2.5 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 Functioning – at
Risk
Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance.
Slide Canyon 25,883 25,883 0 100 0 2.3 2.5 2 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 Functioning – at
Risk
Moderate to high burn severity-Bridger Knoll Fire 1996, Slide Fire 2007; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (4 springs; 84 ac of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; high noxious weed infestation.
Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District, Travel Management Project EA
Final Soils, Watershed, and Air Quality Specialist Report
Page 67 of 67
Subwatershed Name
Subwatershed Acres
Forest Service
(FS) Acres
Non FS Acres
Percent FS
Acres
Percent Non FS Acres
Overall Watershed
Score
Aquatic Biological Average
Aquatic Physical Average
Terrestrial Physical Average
Terrestrial Biological Average
Watershed Score
FS Average
Watershed Score
Non FS Average
Watershed Condition
Watershed Condition Summary
South Canyon 28,862 24,807 4,055 86 14 2 2.5 1.5 1.9 1.8 2 2 Functioning – at
Risk
Fire regime departed from reference condition; low road maintenance.
Sowats Canyon 39,580 39,579 2 100 0 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 Impaired Moderate to high burn severity-Bridger Knoll Fire 1996; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (15 springs; 129 ac of riparian habitat); fire regime departed from ref condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present.
Tapeats Creek 27,824 15,075 12,749 54 46 2.2 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.2 Functioning – at Risk
Reduced flows to springs (7 springs); fire regime departed from reference condition; high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks present.
Tater Canyon 23,209 23,123 85 100 0 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 Impaired Moderate to high burn severity - Point Fire 1993; reduced flows to springs and riparian areas (3 springs; 15 acres of riparian habitat); high road density; low road maintenance; many tanks and 1 well present.