B08_Horseshoe_EA_Sept_2020.pdf

Horseshoe Allotment

Grazing Authorization Renewal

Final Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-AZ-P030-2020-0001-EA

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Aqua Fria National Monument

21605 North 7th Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85027

623-580-5500

September 2020

S ie rra F ro n t F ie ld O ffic e

, N e v a d a ii

DOI-BLM-AZ-P030-2020-0001-EA

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Purpose and Need

1.3 Scoping and Issue Identification

1.4 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement

1.5 Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, Manuals and Other Plans

1.6 Decision to be Made

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Proposed Action

2.1.1 Wildlife Management

2.1.2 Heritage Resources Management

2.1.3 Livestock Grazing Management

2.1.4 Rangeland Improvement Projects

2.1.5 Weed Treatments

2.1.6 Rangeland Research Projects

2.1.7 Natural and Heritage Resource Monitoring

2.1.8 Livestock Use

2.2 No Action Alternative

2.3 No Grazing Alternative

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

3.1 General Setting

3.2 Types of Effects

3.2.1 Affected Environment - Vegetation Resources

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences - Vegetation Resources

3.3.1 Affected Environment - Riparian Resources

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences - Riparian Resources

iv

3.4.1 Affected Environment – General Wildlife, Migratory Birds, BLM Sensitive Species

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences – General Wildlife, Migratory Birds, BLM Sensitive

Species 32

3.4.3 Affected Environment - Threatened and Endangered Species

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences - Threatened and Endangered Species

3.5.1 Affected Environment - Soil Resources

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences - Soil Resources

3.6.1 Affected Environment - Noxious and Invasive Weed Species

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences - Noxious and Invasive Weed Species

3.7.1 Affected Environment - Water Resources

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences - Water Resources

3.8.1 Affected Environment – Public Health and Safety

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences – Public Health and Safety

3.9 Residual Effects

4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

4.1 Geographic Scope

4.2 Timeframe of Effects

4.3 Past and Present Actions

4.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

4.5 Analysis by Resource

5.0 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

5.1 List of Preparers

5.2 Public Review

5.3 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations or Agencies Consulted

6.0 REFERENCES

v

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Coordinated Resource Management Plan

Appendix 2 Horseshoe Allotment Land Health Evaluation

Appendix 3 AFNM Presidential Proclamation

Appendix 4 Arizona Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

Management

Appendix 5 Standard Operating Procedures for Weed Treatments

Appendix 6 Resources and Issues Identification Checklist

Appendix 7 Comments and Responses to Comments

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Vicinity

Figure 2 Proposed Range Improvements

Figure 3 Proposed Pasture Designations

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Agua Fria National Monument (AFNM) proposes to fully process the term grazing authorization on the Horseshoe Allotment (Allotment) (Figure 1).

The Allotment is located in the southeastern portion of Yavapai County, Arizona. The

Horseshoe/Copper Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP), was developed to provide area-specific management in partnership with the Tonto National Forest (Tonto NF), Cave

Creek Ranger District, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), and multiple stakeholders

(Appendix 1). The CRMP identifies the need for many of the management actions proposed in this document. A Land Health Evaluation (LHE) was prepared for this Allotment in 2018 (Appendix

2).

The AFNM was established under Presidential Proclamation 7263 issued on January 11, 2000 under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Appendix 3) (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S. Code 431A). The AFNM was created to protect an array of scientific, archaeological, historical, and biological “objects.”

These monument objects include one of the most significant systems of late prehistoric sites in the

American Southwest, with hundreds of archaeological sites such as stone-masonry pueblos, cliffs covered with distinct rock art symbols, and extensive agricultural terraces used as ancient farms.

There are also historical sites that are remnants of ranching, sheep herding, mining, and military activities during the 19th and 20th centuries. Monument objects also encompass an expansive mosaic of semi-desert grassland, cut by ribbons of rare riparian forest, that provide habitat for a wide array of sensitive and endangered wildlife species. These include native fish species in the

Agua Fria River and its tributaries.

The Proclamation governs how the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976 (FLPMA) will be applied within the AFNM. Along with FLPMA, the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other legal mandates, it provided direction for the preparation of a management plan which was approved in 2010 (BLM 2010).

The Proclamation states the following regarding livestock grazing in the AFNM: “Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and administering grazing leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument.” The Proclamation did not require the BLM to complete a separate grazing compatibility document, nor did the Proclamation close allotments within the AFNM to livestock grazing.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the potential environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives for livestock management on the Allotment. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the NEPA, the

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal

Regulation (CFR) 1500-1508), and guidance provided under BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1

(2008).

1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of this action is to consider livestock grazing opportunities on public lands where consistent with management objectives, including the BLM Arizona Standards for Rangeland

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Standards) (Appendix 4).

The need for this action is, established by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the FLPMA, Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 4180), and the AFNM

Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2010), to respond to an application for renewal of an expiring livestock grazing permit or lease to graze livestock on public land.

1.3 Scoping and Issue Identification

Based on comments received from scoping in 2015, the BLM identified five primary concerns that were raised related to the Proposed Action. Some of these issues are either addressed in one or more of the three alternatives, are part of the analysis of the alternatives, and/or have been addressed through mitigation measures incorporated into the Proposed Action as shown directly following the concern.

The primary issues identified during public scoping include:

• How would continued livestock grazing affect cultural resources?

• How would continued livestock grazing affect the health of native, endemic upland vegetation?

• How would continued livestock grazing affect the control of noxious and invasive weeds?

• How would continued livestock grazing affect visual resource management?

• How would continued livestock grazing affect water quality and the health of riparian vegetation?

• How would additional range improvements affect resources within the Allotment?

1.4 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement

Rangeland management decisions in the Agua Fria RMP1 that pertain to the Proposed Action include:

Desired Future Conditions

• GM-1 “Rangeland conditions conform to the Land Health Standards described in Arizona

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration, which describe the desired conditions needed to encourage proper functioning of ecological processes. These standards are described in greater detail in the above section on Land

Health Standards.”

• GM-2 “Watersheds are in properly functioning condition, including their upland, riparian, and aquatic components. Soil and plant conditions support infiltration, storage, and release of water that are in balance with climate and landform.”

• GM-3 “Ecological processes are maintained to support healthy biotic populations and communities.”

1 Management decisions applicable to Rangeland Management (GM) are numbered and listed on pages 33-35 of the web version Agua Fria RMP ROD (BLM 2010).

Land Use Allocation

• GM-4 “Administer 11 grazing authorizations within the grazing allotment boundaries shown on Map 6.”

Management Actions

• GM-5 “Limit livestock grazing in riparian areas to the winter season (November 1 to

March 1).”

• GM-7 “Fence construction and maintenance will follow guidance provided in BLM’s

Handbook on Fencing No. 17-41-1.”

• GM-9 “Inventory and/or monitoring studies are used to determine if adjustments to permitted use levels, terms and conditions, and management practices are necessary in order to meet and/or make significant progress towards meeting the Arizona Standards for

Rangeland Health and other management objectives.”

• GM-12 “Range improvements needed for proper management of the grazing program will be determined and completed, including repair and/or installation of fences, cattle guards, water developments, and vehicle routes needed to access improvement areas.”

• GM-15 “Management practices to achieve Desired Plant Community (DPCs) will consider protecting and conserving known cultural resources, including historical sites, prehistoric sites, and plants of significance to Native American people.”

• GM-16 “Apply management actions outlined in the Arizona Standards for Rangeland

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration to recognize and correct potential erosion problems that could degrade other resources, with prioritized emphasis on sites that might directly affect species that have been listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate by the FWS.”

Guidelines for Standard One

• GM-17 “Management activities will maintain or promote ground cover that will provide for infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, and soil stability appropriate for the ecological sites. The ground cover should maintain soil organisms, plants, and animals to support the hydrologic and nutrient cycles and energy flow. Ground cover and signs of erosion are surrogate measures for hydrologic and nutrient cycles, and energy flow.”

Guidelines for Standard Two

• GM-19 “Management practices maintain or promote sufficient vegetation to maintain, improve or restore riparian-wetland functions of energy dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater recharge, stream bank stability, thus promoting stream channel morphology

(e.g. gradient, width/depth ratio, channel roughness, and sinuosity), and functions suitable to climate and landform.”

Guidelines for Standard Three

• GM-23 “Intensity, season and frequency of use, and distribution of grazing use will be managed to provide for growth and reproduction of plant species needed to reach DPC

(Desired Plant Community) objectives.”

• GM-26 “DPC objectives will be quantified for each allotment through the rangeland monitoring and evaluation process. Ecological site descriptions available through the

Natural Resources Conservation Service and other data will be used as a guide for addressing site capabilities and potentials for change over time. These DPC objectives are vegetation values that BLM is managing over the long-term. Once established, DPC objectives will be updated and monitored by the use of indicators for Land Health Standard

Three.”

1.5 Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, Manuals and Other Plans

Livestock grazing on public lands is managed according to grazing regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations (at 43 CFR 4100). The objectives of these regulations are “. . . to promote healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public rangelands to properly functioning conditions; to promote the orderly use, improvement and development of the public lands; to establish efficient and effective administration of grazing of public rangelands; and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands” (43 CFR 4100.0-2).

43 CFR 4100.0-2(b) also states, in part, “These objectives will be realized in a manner consistent with land use plans, multiple use, sustained yield, environmental values, economic and other objectives stated in the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-

315r); Section 102 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701) and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901(b)(2)).”

The Proposed Action would comply with 43 CFR 4100.0-8 which states, in part, “The authorized officer shall manage livestock grazing on public lands under the principle of multiple use and sustained yield, and in accordance with applicable land use plans.” The Proposed Action also would comply with 43 CFR 4130.2(a) which states, in part, “Grazing permits or leases shall be issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management that are designated as available for livestock grazing through land use plans”.

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR

4180.1) and Rangeland Health Standards, which were developed through a collaborative process involving the Arizona Resource Advisory Council and the BLM State Standards and Guidelines team. The Secretary of the Interior approved the Standards and Guidelines in April 1997 (BLM

1997).

The following statutes, regulations, or plans apply to BLM-managed lands within the Allotment:

• Taylor Grazing Act of 1934

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)

• Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978

• 43 CFR 4100 Grazing Administration - Exclusive of Alaska

• Arizona Water Quality Standards, Revised Statute Title 49, Chapter II

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1917, and Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of

Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds

• Addressing Hunting, Fishing, Shooting Sports, and Big Game Habitats, and Incorporating

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Plans and Information from Tribes, State Fish and Wildlife

Agencies, and other Federal Agencies in Bureau of Land Management (IM-2018-062)

• Secretarial Order 3362: Improving Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and

Migration Corridors.

1.6 Decision to be Made

The Authorized Officer would decide whether to renew, renew with modifications, or not to renew the term livestock grazing permit. If renewed the Authorized Officer would decide which management actions, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements would be prescribed for the Allotment to ensure management objectives and Standards are achieved. The Authorized

Officer would also decide whether to authorize the range improvements described in Section 2.1.4.

Separately, the Authorized Officer would issue a Decision Record to authorize the weed treatments in the Allotment as described in the Proposed Action. This Decision Record would be subject to appeal under 4 CFR 4.21.

The BLM would use the following procedures to authorize site-specific treatments:

1. Conduct on-going monitoring to identify locations of weed infestations;

2. Prepare a pesticide use proposal (PUP) or ensure one has been completed;

3. Complete any required compliance under the NHPA, including tribal consultation; and

4. Document whether this analysis is sufficient for the site-specific treatments (in a Determination of NEPA Adequacy [DNA] or other appropriate environmental analysis and ensure land use plan conformance).

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the alternatives to be analyzed in detail in Chapter 3.0. The interdisciplinary team developed three alternatives: 1) Proposed Action; 2) No Action Alternative; and 3) No

Grazing Alternative, based on the analysis and technical recommendations presented in the LHE

(Appendix 2) as well as to respond to issues identified during scooping. The alternatives are designed to meet the purpose and need for action, conform to existing land use plans, and satisfy the legal and regulatory requirements for rangeland management.

Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

The following actions apply to each of the action alternatives below.

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health

All the alternatives were designed to meet the following objectives, as described in the Rangeland

Health Standards:

1. Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform (ecological site).

2. Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition.

3. Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland plant communities of native species exist and are maintained.

Table 1. Comparison of the Alternatives.

Action Proposed Action No Action Alternative No Grazing Alternative

Livestock Grazing Authorized Yes Yes No

New Range Improvements Authorized Yes No No

Weed Treatment Study Plots Yes No No

Weed Treatments Yes No No

New Riparian Exclosures Yes No No

Adaptive Monitoring Requirements Yes Yes No

Reductions in Livestock Intensity Yes No Yes

2.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is to renew the Allotment grazing authorization for a period of 10-years with the terms and conditions, as well as proposed new range improvement projects. Specific goals and objectives, which represent the desired future conditions for the Allotment, have been developed and are listed in Appendix A of the CRMP. The Proposed Action consists of six sections as derived from the CRMP:

1) Wildlife management;

2) Heritage resources management;

3) Livestock grazing management;

4) Range improvement improvements projects;

5) Rangeland research projects, and;

6) Natural and heritage resources monitoring.

Although the CRMP applies to both the Horseshoe and Copper Creek allotments, actions identified in the Proposed Action in this EA apply only to the BLM-administered Horseshoe Allotment

(Figure 1).

2.1.1 Wildlife Management

Biological goals and objectives have been developed in the CRMP for both long- and short-term timeframes to improve wildlife habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Many of the goals and objectives that have been developed have been based upon the guiding principles of using adaptive management in the Allotment.

Focal Species: The goals, objectives, strategies, and actions identified within the CRMP were developed to ensure habitat is maintained and/or improved for all fish and wildlife species.

However, specific wildlife species associated with specific habitat types (e.g. semi-desert grasslands and riparian deciduous forests) were used for planning purposes and influenced the development of multi-resource objectives, strategies and actions. It is presumed that by using these species for planning purposes, implementation level actions would maintain or improve habitat conditions for most wildlife species found within the Allotment.

Table 2. Wildlife Focal Species for Riparian and Upland (Terrestrial) Ecosystems.

Riparian Obligate Species Terrestrial Grassland Species

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Western Yellow-Billed

Cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus Pronghorn Antelope

(fawning)

Antilocapra americana

Northern Mexican Garter

Snake

Thamnophis eques megalops Various Grassland Bird

Species

Gila Chub, Gila

Topminnow

Gila intermedia, Peociliopsis occidentalis -

In addition to management of habitat quality for the benefit of wildlife, wildlife population management objectives would be implemented to maintain diversity and species population trends as listed below:

• Build riparian exclosures around Silver Creek, and many springs to protect sensitive areas and resources, including Gila chub;

• Maintain existing water sources to improve water distribution for both wildlife and livestock;

• Suspend surface water diversions of Indian Creek, Silver Creek and the Agua Fria River to improve surface water availability; and

• Stock Gila topminnow into Silver Creek when appropriate.

Adaptive Management: Many actions have been developed in the CRMP to benefit fish and wildlife and habitats upon which they depend. These actions would be implemented by actively and adaptively managing grazing across the Allotment to ensure habitat requirements for wildlife are maintained and/or improved. Other actions include building/removing range improvement projects (Section 2.1.4), constructing exclosures and supplemental stockings of threatened and endangered species. The specific actions that are intended to benefit fish and wildlife that may be implemented based on monitoring are listed below:

• Adjustments in timing, duration, frequency of livestock use to:

o Maintain key forage for wildlife by actively managing livestock.

o Maintain adequate pronghorn fawn hiding cover in fawning areas.

• Implement utilization thresholds in upland and riparian areas to maintain and improve habitat the vegetative community and the ecological services it provides;

• Limit livestock use of riparian areas during the winter season (November 1 to March 1) to maintain riparian health;

• Construct new water sources where appropriate to improve water availability to wildlife;

• Build, maintain and relocate fences with wildlife friendly designs to reduce entrapment and/or injury, and improve permeability and access to water for wildlife; and

• Stock Gila topminnow into Silver Creek and Copper Creek to increase threatened and endangered species populations.

Refer to the CRMP (Appendix 1) for more information about triggers and responses.

2.1.2 Heritage Resources Management

The Allotment falls within one of the richest cultural landscapes in the American southwest, the

Perry Mesa National Registered Archaeological District, the nation’s largest Archaeological

District. Information concerning modern human impacts to archaeological sites and features is well documented; however, information about impacts from livestock grazing to archaeological sites and features is limited. Therefore, goals and objectives have been developed within Appendix

A of the CRMP to better manage heritage resources, especially in relationship to livestock grazing.

Adaptive Management: Cultural resource areas identified as being impacted by humans and/or livestock would be managed using the principles of adaptive management to assist in mitigating the situation. The specific actions that are intended to benefit heritage resources and some possible mitigation measures would be implemented based on monitoring are listed below:

• Build fences around cultural sites;

• Block closed or illegally built roads to cultural areas;

• Use salt or mineral supplements to entice livestock away from cultural areas; and

• Adjust livestock numbers/class; or completely removing livestock from areas with high cultural significance.

Monitoring is also an important part of adaptive management for cultural resources.

2.1.3 Livestock Grazing Management

Historical grazing management, prescribed fires and wildfire has left some areas of the Allotment in less than desirable condition (BLM 2018). The overall theme of the CRMP calls for conservative use of the forage and water resources in the Allotment to improve resource conditions.

Livestock Numbers: Total permitted numbers would range from 0 to 381 cattle (0 to 4,572)

Animal Unit Months (AUMs) for up to 12 months annually. AUMs are defined as “a month’s use and occupancy of range by one cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 sheep, or 5 goats over

6 months of age at the time of entering public lands” per 43 C.F.R. §4130.8-1(c). Natural prongey under six months of age, provided they do not become 12 months of age during the authorized peroid, upon entering public lands or lands administared by BLM or that are born during the authorized grazing period are not included as part of they annual allocation of AUM’s per 43

C.F.R. § 4130.8-1(c). The proposed amount of livestock use would be authorized on a yearly basis.

It would be expected that during normal precipitation and forage growth years, the lessee would likely use between 2,500-3,000 AUMs in the Allotment on an annual basis. The Silver Creek and

Long Gulch exclosures would reduce acres available to livestock grazing by approximately 884 acres (Table 3, Figure 3). However, AUMs would remain the same as the No Action Alternative because utilization thresholds have not been reached; indicating that the proposed small reduction in acreage would have a minimal impact on the amount of forage available and that utilization would remain within acceptable levels.

Table 3. Proposed Pasture Realignments and Acreage Adjustments.

Pasture Current Acreage CRMP

Adjusted

Acreage

North River 1,639 1,031

South River 3,586 2,104

Boone Tank 4,181 2,550

Double Tank 4,037 4,278

Silver Creek 1,573 1,413

Indian 528 0

New Mill 6,381 6,382

Copper 1 758 758

Copper 2 497 497

Joes Hill 6,459 6,459

Lousy 2,630 2,630

Upper Agua Fria† 1,468

Lower Agua Fria† 1,812

Silver Creek Exclosure 766

Long Gulch Exclosure 118

Total 32,269 32,264

†Denotes newly proposed riparian pastures. No livestock use would be authorized in the Agua Fria riparian pastures outside of the November 1 to March 1 use period (BLM 2010). The discrepancy in total acreages are likely a result of GIS mapping inconsistencies.

Grazing System: The proposed grazing system would use an adaptively managed, rest rotational grazing system to move livestock in single or multiple herds through pastures until scheduled use dates are met, or until forage utilization thresholds (“triggers”) are met in upland and riparian areas

(Appendix 1). After livestock grazing, the lessee would rest a pasture for at least one cool and warm growing season before returning with livestock. There may be instances where the lessee would be prescribed to use livestock as a tool for weed treatments of invasive annual grasses (e.g.

wild oats) by the BLM, which may decrease the amount of rest between grazing cycles.

Within the Allotment, no hot season grazing would be authorized in any riparian areas from March

1 to October 31 annually, as directed by in the AFNM Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved

RMP (BLM 2010).

Adaptive Management: Livestock use would be managed using adaptive management strategies.

Adaptive management is a tool that uses documented results of management actions to continually modify management in order to achieve specific objectives. Management is designed to provide sufficient flexibility to adapt management to changing circumstances. Monitoring of forage availability and utilization, range readiness and resource conditions, and other short and long-term monitoring data would be used to determine whether management is being properly implemented and whether actions are effective at achieving or moving toward desired conditions. If monitoring indicates that desired conditions are not being achieved, an adaptive management decision would be used to modify management. Such changes may include annual administrative decisions to adjust the specific number of livestock and/or AUMs, specific dates for grazing, class of animal, or pasture rotations. However, such changes would not exceed limits for timing, intensity, duration and frequency defined in the grazing permits. For more information on monitoring, see the CRMP

(Appendix 1).

Table 4. Terms and Conditions for the Allotment.

Allotment

Pasture

Livestock

Number

Kind

Begin

Date

End

Date

Percent

Public

Land

Type use† AUMs

Horseshoe

381 Cattle 03/01 02/28 100 Adaptive 4,094

Upper Agua

Fria 381 Cattle 11/1 03/01 100 Adaptive 214

Lower Agua

Fria 381 Cattle 11/1 03/01 100 Adaptive 264

†Type use adaptive provides the lessee with maximum flexibility of use in their operation. The AUMs will not be exceeded however the number of livestock would be allowed to exceed the authorization. An increase in the number of livestock would also shorten the duration of the grazing period to comply the available AUMs.

Proposed Lease Terms and Conditions: The following proposed terms and conditions would be added to the grazing lease for the Allotment:

• All wildlife troughs would be left full of water and operational year-round for wildlife accessibility, unless in limited circumstances where extreme freezing conditions may damage facilities or extreme droughts limit water availability.

• When entering the next scheduled pasture, all livestock would be removed from the previous pasture within two weeks.

• Lessee would ensure that enough time is allowed to remove livestock to meet the pasture move date(s) and avoid unauthorized and/or excessive use.

• Lessee would ensure adequate range improvements to be in functioning condition prior to entering the next scheduled pasture.

• Any changes in the grazing schedule for any reason must be requested in writing at least

30 days before the requested changes are proposed to occur and be approved by the BLM

Authorized Officer in writing.

• Supplementation feeding is limited to salt, mineral, and/or protein in block, granular, or liquid form. If used, these supplements must be placed at least one-quarter (1/4) mile from livestock water sources and known cultural sites, and one-eighth (1/8) mile away from major drainages and washes, sensitive wildlife habitat, and designated recreational sites.

Supplements would be removed from pastures when cattle have left an area, and not placed within a pasture until the cattle arrive. Additionally, supplements would not be placed in the same location(s) each year.

• The lessee must properly complete, sign and date an Actual Grazing Use Report Form

(BLM Form 4230-5) annually. The completed form(s) must be submitted to the BLM, Hassayampa Field Office (HFO) within 15 days from the last day of authorized annual grazing use (43 CFR 4130.3-2 9d)).

• If in connection with Allotment operations under this authorization, any human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony as defined in the Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (P.L. 101-601; 104 Stat. 3048; 25 U.S.C.

3001) are discovered, the permittee shall stop operations in the immediate area of the discovery, protect the remains and objects, and immediately notify the Authorized Officer of the discovery. The permittee shall continue to protect the immediate area of the discovery until notified by the Authorized Officer that operations may resume.

2.1.4 Rangeland Improvement Projects

The Proposed Action includes new range improvement projects to promote better livestock grazing distribution, provide reliable sources of water for wildlife, and reduce surface water diversions from riparian areas (Figure 2, Table 5). The proposed improvements projects also incorporate fences to exclude the North River and South River riparian areas from livestock grazing during warm periods (March 1 to October 31) (Figure 3). Additionally, the Proposed Action includes a permanent exclosure fence around the Silver Creek riparian area to exclude Gila chub designated critical habitat from the added pressure of livestock grazing. The Proposed Action includes three proposed water wells, approximately five 10,000-gallon water storage tanks, approximately 17 miles of pipelines, approximately seventeen 500-gallon watering troughs, and removal of old range improvements (Figure 2, Table 5). Construction would take place outside of critical pronghorn fawning season (March 1 to June 1) in designated fawning areas located on mesa tops on the east side of the Allotment. To avoid the yellow-billed cuckoo breeding season, proposed projects near or in riparian areas would be constructed between October 1 to April 30.

Table 5. Proposed Range Improvement Projects.

Project

Pasture Approx.

Length

(Miles)

Description

1 North River

South River

2.1 Pipeline connecting four troughs to well and storage tank

2 North River

South River

4.7 Fence paralleling the Agua Fria River on the west side to make upland and riparian pastures

3 Boone Tank 2.2 Fence paralleling Indian Creek on the east side to make upland and riparian pastures and exclude Long Gulch

4 Boone Tank 0.7 Remove existing fence

5 Boone Tank 1.9 Well, storage tank, pipeline, and three troughs

6 Boone Tank, Double Tank

3.6 Fence off Silver Creek and provide for vehicle and livestock crossing

7 Boone Tank 1.4 Remove existing fence

8 Silver Creek, Double Tank

1.8 New well, storage tank, and three troughs

9 New Mill < 0.1 Wildlife trough New Mill windmill

10 Joe’s Hill, New Mill

8.4 Pipeline, four troughs, two wildlife troughs, and storage tank

11 Joe’s Hill, Lousy 2.6 Pipeline, storage tank and three troughs

12 Boone < 0.1 Maintain road

13 North River, New Mill, Joe’s

Hill

N/A 300 feet square fenced, three vegetation study plots

Access for new range improvement projects would follow existing roads and trails (open and administrative) wherever possible to limit the footprint of construction activities. Wherever possible, trough locations would also be located in areas that have previously been disturbed by livestock (e.g. dirt reservoirs). Class III cultural pedestrian surveys have been completed for all of the proposed improvements. Proposed locations were adjusted to avoid impacts to cultural resources. All ground disturbing activities would be monitored using an approved archaeologist.

Any discovery of subsurface remains and/or cultural resources would immediately stop construction activity.

Maintenance responsibilities for range improvement projects would be assigned to the livestock grazing lease holder.

Corrals: Two of the corrals located in the Double Tank and Joe’s Hill pastures (Figure 2, Table 3) are in disrepair and would need to be reconstructed. The lessee has indicated interest in following the guidance and instruction of low-stress livestock handling expert Dr. Temple Grandin. Dr.

Grandin has authored several scientific papers on low-stress handling and has shown beneficial benefits to livestock production from following such techniques (Grandin 2008 and 2011). All corral designs would mimic designs that have already been implemented by Dr. Grandin.

Wells: The Proposed Action includes several wells to be drilled or repaired to distribute groundwater through pipelines to watering troughs for both livestock and wildlife use. Three wells have been proposed which are located in the North River, Double Tank, and Boone Tank Pastures

(Figure 2, Table 4). It is estimated that the wells would produce up to 150,000-200,000 gallons of water per year. Wells would be constructed by a class 8 (3 axle) vehicle. Water facility improvements in the Indian Creek area would be constructed between October 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species.

The Tonto NF has also proposed several wells to be located in the Copper Creek Allotment. These wells would potentially feed troughs located in the Joe’s Hill, Lousy, and New Mill pastures. If the Tonto NF is unable to authorize these wells through their own analysis, these segments would likely be abandoned or revisited by the BLM to be reconfigured. Any reconfiguration of water facilities (i.e. new well location) would be subject to new environmental review.

Pipelines: The Proposed Action also presents pipelines to be associated with the wells previously mentioned. The pipelines would be located in the North River, South River, New Mill, Joe’s Hill, Lousy, Upper Agua Fria (proposed), and Boone Tank pastures (Figure 3, Table 4). Water facility improvements in the Indian Creek area would be constructed between October 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to ESA-listed species. All pipelines would be laid on the soil surface to minimize disturbance to soils, vegetation, and cultural resources. In areas where the pipeline would need to be underground (e.g. near troughs and road crossings), trenches would be no more than 24 inches deep and would be backfilled appropriately.

Watering Troughs (including wildlife only troughs): Several livestock troughs are proposed to be associated with the previously mentioned wells and pipelines. The new troughs would be located in the North River, South River, New Mill, Joe’s Hill, Lousy, Upper Agua Fria (proposed), and

Boone Tank pastures (Figure 2, Table 4).

Wildlife only troughs are proposed near New Mill and Perry Mill and would be fenced by small

(approximately 300 feet x 300 feet) wildlife friendly barbed wire or pipe-rail fences to prevent livestock use. All troughs would have wildlife escape ramps to ensure that wildlife would not become trapped in the troughs. When livestock are moved to other areas of the Allotment, the livestock troughs would be turned off while the wildlife troughs would remain on.

All water troughs and tanks with open tops that are located on public lands within the Allotment would have wildlife escape ramps installed to reduce risk of wildlife drowning.

Fences: The North and South River pastures are proposed to be realigned with the addition of fencing near the Agua Fria River. The Proposed Action would allow the pastures to be managed with the maximum amount of flexibility that is needed for adaptive management. The Proposed

Action would also create two new riparian pastures, the Upper and Lower Agua Fria pastures that would only be used during the cool season (November 1 to March 1). A fence that currently acts as boundary fence between the North River and Boone Tank pastures would be removed with the addition of the new fences.

A fence has also been proposed for the western side of the Perry Mesa portion of the Boone Tank pasture. This would create an eastern pasture fence for the Upper Agua Fria riparian pasture. Other fences have also been proposed in the southern portion of the Boone Tank and northern portion of the Double Tank pastures; this would create a riparian exclosure around the Silver Creek riparian area.

All new fences would be wildlife friendly and would be built specified to agency standards (BLM

1989).

Old Range Improvements Removal: The Proposed Action includes the removal of unnecessary fences and an existing steel pipeline (Figure 3, Table 4). The pipelines have historically pumped water from the Agua Fria River, Indian Creek and Silver Creek to dirt reservoirs located in the upland areas of the Allotment. These improvements would be replaced by the new improvements and would no longer be needed for livestock grazing operations.

Gates and Cattleguards: Gates are commonly used at road crossings to separate pastures.

Frequently gates are not properly closed by recreation users which results in livestock movement into inappropriate areas. One cattleguard is proposed on Bloody Basin Road in the North River

Pasture.

2.1.5 Weed Treatments

Noxious weeds located in the Allotment would be treated as necessary. Noxious weed monitoring would be carried out at the same time Allotment inspections are conducted. As noxious weed populations are found they would be mapped, monitored, and treated. No weed treatments would be implemented in areas with high densities of cultural resource artifacts or rock art. Vegetative treatments would not occur in areas where cultural resources have been identified unless the current conditions are an ongoing threat to cultural resources and these conditions could be improved with vegetative treatment without greater impact to cultural resources. The public would be notified about any proposed weed treatments through public outreach and signs posted near the treatment areas. Depending on the species, extent of noxious and invasive weed species, the BLM may use one or more of the following treatment methods as outlined in the Phoenix District

Integrated Weed Management Plan (IWMP) (BLM 2015).

Manual Treatment

Manual treatments would include the use of hand tools and hand-operated power tools to cut, prune, or remove herbaceous and woody species. Treatments would include but are not limited to cutting undesired plants above ground level; pulling, digging, or grubbing out root systems to prevent resprouting and regrowth; cutting at the ground level or removing competing plants around desired plants; or placing mulch around desired vegetation to limit weed germination or growth

(BLM 1991). Hand tools include handsaw, axe, shovel, rake, machete, grubbing hoe, mattock, brush hook, hand clippers, motorized chainsaw, weed whacker, power brush saw, and Pulaski tool.

Manual treatments would typically be used on small, isolated infestations, where BLM sensitive or ESA-listed species occur, or in sensitive habitat areas. Manual treatments are most effective on small weed infestations and when complete root removal is possible (Rees et al. 1996). Manual treatments work well for annual or biennial species with tap roots or shallow roots that do not resprout from tissue remaining in the soil. Sandy or gravelly soils allow for easier root removal.

Repeated treatments are often necessary due to soil disturbance and residual weed seeds in the seed bank.

Biological Treatment

Biological treatments involve the use of domestic animals to selectively suppress, inhibit, or control vegetation. The use of domestic animals requires a “prescribed grazer,” such as sheep or goats, to control the top-growth of certain weeds. Sheep consume a variety of forbs, as well as grasses and shrubs, and goats can eat large quantities of woody vegetation; their daily diets can include up to 50% of the weed (BLM 1991). In order for domestic animals to be effective, the right combination of animals, stocking rates, timing (i.e., high intensity and short-duration grazing), and rest must be used to control a particular weed species while minimizing impacts to perennial native vegetation. Grazing should occur when plants are palatable as grazing can damage or reduce viable seeds. Biological treatments are used to reduce the targeted weed population to an acceptable level by stressing target plants and reducing competition with the desired plant species. Biological control agents are most suitable for larger sites where the target plant is well established and very competitive with native species. Biological treatments are most effective when used in combination with other treatments.

Chemical/Herbicides

Chemical treatments involve the use of herbicides to kill or suppress target weed plants and the use of chemicals applied with herbicides that improve their efficiency (adjuvants). Application methods that could be used include spraying from a backpack unit or spray bottle or wiping

(wicking) directly onto the foliar tissue, horseback sprayers, and sprayers mounted on all-terrain vehicles (UTVs), and trucks. All chemical treatments would be conducted in accordance with

BLM Manual 9011 (BLM 1991) and the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of

Land Management Lands in 17 Western States PEIS (BLM 2007a).

Herbicides could be used selectively to control specific vegetation types or non‐selectively to clear all vegetation in a particular area. Selection of a specific herbicide and application rate for site-specific use would depend on its effectiveness on a particular weed species, success in previous similar applications, habitat types, soil types, and proximity to water. Herbicide treatments are most effective when used at the optimum time for controlling persistent weeds, including perennial species. Herbicide control is less labor intensive than manual methods and is more effective in controlling larger weed infestations (BLM 2007b).

The Proposed Action includes potential use of four of the 18 herbicide active ingredients approved in the 2007 PEIS (BLM 2007a). The active ingredients include 2, 4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr. All BLM-approved herbicides have been deemed effective in controlling vegetation, have minor effects on the environment and public health if used properly, are registered with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and were approved for use in the 2007 PEIS. Additional information concerning the herbicides available for use under the Proposed Action is included in the 2007 PEIS (BLM 2007a).

Under the Proposed Action, all application rates, procedures, and restrictions would be within label rates and used according to direction in the 2007 PEIS. The proposed IWM program would incorporate best management practices (BMP) for preventing weed infestations; standard operating procedures (SOP), conservation measures, mitigation measures, and associated monitoring for implementing weed treatments. These are taken from the RMPs (BLM 2010 a, b) and the PEIS and PER (BLM 2007a, b). In addition to the SOPs that are protective of resources/values in the planning area, restrictions would be applied to public lands that are within all threatened, endangered, candidate, and BLM sensitive species habitat. Any weed treatments in riparian zones would be conducted in a manner to ensure that impacts to non-target species would be minimized and/or avoided. Only herbicides that have been approved for riparian-area application would be used in riparian areas.

Rehabilitation and Revegetation

Where appropriate, rehabilitation of disturbed area may occur to prevent establishment of weeds following manual or chemical treatments or other ground disturbing activities. Revegetation of disturbed soil (except travel ways) would be conducted in a manner that optimizes plant establishment for each specific project site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching, as necessary.

Where practical, weed-seed-free topsoil may be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas (e.g., road embankments or landings). Seeds and straw mulch to be used for site rehabilitation (for wattles, straw bales, dams, etc.) would be inspected to certify that they are free of weed seed and propagules. Native materials would be used where appropriate and feasible.

Standard Operating Procedures, Best Management Practices, Mitigation Measures, Monitoring, and Conservation Measures will be incorporated into all applicable weed treatments and are considered part of the Proposed Action (Appendix 5).

2.1.6 Rangeland Research Projects

The Proposed Action includes installing three study plots (approximately five acres) on upland areas of the Allotment (Figure 2) to evaluate weed treatments of non-native and invasive grass species such as wild oats (Avena fatua) and red brome (Bromus rubens) and shrubs such as catclaw acacia (Senegalia greggii). Treatment methods would be consistent with the protocols established under the IWMP and may include use of herbicide, manual, or biological methods (or a combination of methods) to reduce or eradicate unwanted species within the Allotment (BLM

2015).

Chemical and manual weed treatments would be implemented within the three study plots using hand tools and sprayers. Chemical application periods would occur during the time/date periods suggested by the chemical manufacturer. All suggested Personal Protective Equipment would be worn as appropriate and recommended by the chemical manufacturer. Reseeding of native plant species would occur within in the plots via hand application without the disturbance of soil.

The location of two study plots have been identified and cultural resources inventories were completed. The location of a third study plot has not been identified and a cultural resources inventory would be completed first. If a cultural site is present, the third study plot would be changed to a location without a cultural site.

The public would be notified about any proposed weed treatments through public outreach and signs posted near the treatment areas. Table 6 outlines BLM-approved chemical herbicides and application amounts that may be used to treat unwanted weed species within the proposed study plots (BLM 2015).

Table 6. Proposed Herbicide Use for Weed Treatment Study Plots.

Herbicide Name

(Trade/Common)

Application Amount

(Oz/Acre)

Selective

Herbicide

Application

Method

Imazapic/Plateau 2-3 Yes Foliar/Soil

Glyphosate/Round-up 6.2-12.4 No Foliar

Hexazinone/Velpar L. 128-320 No Foliar or Soil

Imazapyr/Polaris 128-192 No Foliar

Picloram/Tordon K. 10-30 Yes Foliar

Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2-4D 10-30 Yes Foliar

Non-ionic Surfactants Varies N/A N/A

Cattle may be used as biological control agents to help with weed treatments through intensively managed prescriptive grazing. Livestock would be used when the invasive plants are at their most palatable and susceptible stage of plant growth. This would first be tested in the study plots and may be applied to other areas of the Allotment provided key species utilization levels are not exceeded.

2.1.7 Natural and Heritage Resource Monitoring

Monitoring as discussed in the CRMP would be conducted to determine if resource conditions within the Allotment are meeting or moving towards the goals and objective of the CRMP and the broader goals and objects identified in the RMP (effectiveness or long-term monitoring).

2.1.8 Livestock Use

Grazing would be managed to achieve long-term goals in pasture key areas. It is the responsibility of permittee to ensure livestock grazing does not exceed vegetative use thresholds.

Table 7. Use Thresholds in the Allotment.

Vegetation Use Threshold

Upland Herbaceous Use 30-40% of current year’s growth

Upland Browse Species 50% of current year’s growth

Tobosa grass in Key

Pronghorn Fawning areas†

Maintain a minimum of 8” average stubble height on Tobosa grass during pronghorn fawning season: late March through June.