Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District Travel Management...

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



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.



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



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.



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



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

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5138598.pdf



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,



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



Page 10 of 67

TES

Map

Unit


(%)


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



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



Page 11 of 67

TES

Map

Unit


(%)


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


633 9,985 Moderately steep to steep simple convex and linear elevated plains

645 89 Steep to extremely steep simple concave and linear escarpments



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


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.



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


Acres 27,079 362,975 244,573


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



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



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



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.



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.



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

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/html/fsm2000.shtml

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/html/fsh2000.shtml



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.



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…”



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:



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



Page 23 of 67

Ecosystem

Management Area


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



Page 24 of 67

Ecosystem

Management Area


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



Page 25 of 67

Ecosystem

Management Area


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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.


• Acres of disturbance from motorized routes in areas having unsatisfactory and unsuited

TES soil condition classes


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


• Acres of disturbance from motorized routes within identified wetland, wet meadows and

riparian risk zones.


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


• 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




Page 31 of 67

• Acres of disturbance from routes District-wide (including all routes still connected to

stream system)


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



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



Page 33 of 67


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


Acres 132,951 255,064 225,058


Table 10. Acres on NKRD with potential to exhibit negative impacts caused by soil disturbance as a

result of motorized fuelwood gathering.


from No Action

% Increase or

decrease from

No Action


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.


from No Action

% Increase or

decrease from

No Action


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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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


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



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


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.



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)



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



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



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



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.



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



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


show a reduction in

motorized dispersed

camping, big game

retrieval, and fuelwood

gathering when compared

to the No Action

alternative.


are moving towards

meeting Forest Plan

Standards and Guides.



Page 49 of 67

Guidance

Document


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


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.



Page 50 of 67

Guidance

Document


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.


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



Page 51 of 67

Guidance

Document


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.


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



Page 52 of 67

Guidance

Document


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.


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 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.


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



Executive Orders 11988



Page 53 of 67

Guidance

Document


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


reduced the amount of

motorized routes in wet

meadows when compared

to the No Action

Alternative.


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


Rule complies with

Executive Order (EO)

11644 (February 8, 1972)



Page 54 of 67

Guidance

Document


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



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

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/land/fire



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]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

http://azconservation.org/dl/TNCAZ_SWFAP_DiversityReport_Carson.pdf



Page 58 of 67

Appendix A

Climate Summary for the North Kaibab Ranger District



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



Page 60 of 67

Appendix B

Subwatershed (HUC12) Condition Summary



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.



Page 62 of 67

Subwatershed Name

Subwatershed Acres

Forest Service

(FS) Acres

Non FS Acres

Percent FS

Acres


Overall Watershed

Score





Watershed Score

FS Average

Watershed Score

Non FS Average

Watershed Condition


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.



Page 63 of 67

Subwatershed Name

Subwatershed Acres

Forest Service

(FS) Acres

Non FS Acres

Percent FS

Acres


Overall Watershed

Score





Watershed Score

FS Average

Watershed Score

Non FS Average

Watershed Condition


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.



Page 64 of 67

Subwatershed Name

Subwatershed Acres

Forest Service

(FS) Acres

Non FS Acres

Percent FS

Acres


Overall Watershed

Score





Watershed Score

FS Average

Watershed Score

Non FS Average

Watershed Condition


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.



Page 65 of 67

Subwatershed Name

Subwatershed Acres

Forest Service

(FS) Acres

Non FS Acres

Percent FS

Acres


Overall Watershed

Score





Watershed Score

FS Average

Watershed Score

Non FS Average

Watershed Condition


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.



Page 66 of 67

Subwatershed Name

Subwatershed Acres

Forest Service

(FS) Acres

Non FS Acres

Percent FS

Acres


Overall Watershed

Score





Watershed Score

FS Average

Watershed Score

Non FS Average

Watershed Condition


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


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.



Page 67 of 67

Subwatershed Name

Subwatershed Acres

Forest Service

(FS) Acres

Non FS Acres

Percent FS

Acres


Overall Watershed

Score





Watershed Score

FS Average

Watershed Score

Non FS Average

Watershed Condition


South Canyon 28,862 24,807 4,055 86 14 2 2.5 1.5 1.9 1.8 2 2 Functioning – at

Risk


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.

Date post:	02-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Kaibab National Forest - North Kaibab Ranger District Travel Management...

Documents