Environmental Assessment Arnett Creek/Telegraph

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ARNETT CREEK/TELEGRAPH CANYON NATIVE FISH RE-ESTABLISHMENT PROJECT

USDA Forest Service Tonto National Forest Globe Ranger District Pinal County, Arizona

April 16, 1996

Lead Federal Agency: USDA Forest Service 4

PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

For Further Information Contact: Larry Widner, District Ranger Globe Ranger District Tonto National Forest Route 1, Box 33 Globe, AZ 85501

Charles Bazan, Forest Supervisor Tonto National Forest 2324 E. McDowell Road Phoenix, AZ 85006

2 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title/Item Page

Chapter 1- Project Scope ...... 5 A. Background ...... 5 B. Purpose and Need ...... 7 C. Proposed Action ...... 8 D. Decision to be Made ...... 8 E. Issues ...... 9 F. Measures ...... 11 G.. Project Location ...... 12 H. Additional NEPA Analysis ...... 13

Chapter 2 - Alternatives ...... 14 A. Alternative Development ...... 14 B. Alternatives Dropped from Detailed Study ...... 14 C. Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 15 1. Alternative Mitigation and Monitoring ...... 15 2. Alternative Description ...... 17 3. Alternative Comparison ...... 22 4. Preferred Alternative Identification ...... 22 5. Map ...... 23

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 24 A. Soil/Water ...... 24 B. Vegetation ...... 28 1. Riparian Vegetation ...... 28 2. Upland Vegetation ...... 32 C. Wildlife, Fisheries and TES ...... 35 1. Wildlife and TES ...... 35 2. Fisheries ...... 37 D. Air ...... 49 E. Minerals and Geology ...... 49 F. Livestock ...... 51 G. Lands and Special Uses ...... 54 H. Recreation ...... 55 I. Other Effects ...... 56

3 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNEIT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1. Public Safety ...... 56 2. Special Area Designations ...... 58 3. Private Lands ...... 59 J. National Forest Management Act Findings ...... 59

Chapter 4- List of Preparers ...... 60

Chapter 5 - Public Involvement ...... 61

Appendix ...... 64

4 PICICETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 1- PROJECT SCOPE

A. Background:

Arnett Creek Native Fish Re-establishment Project: In 1992, an opportunity was identified by the Forest Service and the Arizona Game and Fish Department to re-establish a native fish community in Arnett Creek. This opportunity would involve the removal of green sunfish and mosquitofish, two exotic, aggressive fish which are known to prey on native fish species. In order for the project to succeed, it would be necessary to block the upstream movement of these exotic fish into Arnett Creek from Queen Creek during periods of high flow. Therefore, the construction of a fish barrier was also suggested.

Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon are within Management Areas 2E and 2F, of the Tonto National Forest Land Management Plan (1.1v1P).

Management Area 2E encompasses the Proposed Picketpost Mountain Research Natural Area (RNA) The Proposed Picketpost Mountain RNA was formally proposed in the LMP in 1985. The area has also been recently proposed for designation as a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area. This proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment (EA) and does not have bearing on the fisheries project under consideration in this EA.'

Scoping and Initiation of Analysis:

In order to avoid duplication of effort, scoping for several projects, including the designation of a special interest area, changes in the management of livestock, and withdrawal of area from future mining claims, in the Arnett Creek/Picketpost Mountain vicinity was conducted at the same time.

At this time, the forest is moving forward with the native fish re-establishment project. It is the intention of the forest to complete the Environmental Assessment regarding the special interest area designation in the near future.

The need for analysis of the area was identified in a July 22, 1993, meeting between the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Forest Service. A document summarizing the Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities (IC0s) regarding management of the vicinity identified at this meeting was prepared.

5 PICICETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

On August 24, 1994, an Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) was formed to address the Arnett Creek Native Fish Re-establishment Proposal and the management of the area formerly proposed as the Picketpost Mountain RNA.

On September 23, 1993, a proposal and a summary of the ICOs identified to date, was mailed to over 300 people. The accompanying scoping letter requested that the reader notify the Forest Service in writing of any issues or concerns that were not identified as of that date. All known interested parties were contacted including, but not limited to, those on the Tonto National Forest LMP Commenter Mailing List and the Globe Ranger District Integrated Resource Management (IRM) Mailing List. Those that wished to be informed and involved during the development of the proposal were asked to return an "Information Request Slip" with their name and address to the Tonto National Forest Supervisor's Office.

On October 29, 1993, a document summarizing the scoping results as of that date was prepared. On November 1, 1993, representatives from the Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum reviewed this scoping document and worked together to develop draft objectives for the Picketpost Mountain/Arnett Creek area. Many interested parties, representing both private interests and government agencies, were invited to this meeting. Only representatives from the Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum attended.

On March 22, 1994, the ID Team met to review the draft objectives and to develop drift alternatives. A preliminary Fisheries Report was reviewed at this meeting. The Arizona Game and Fish Department attended the meeting as a consultant. On March 31, 1994, the draft alternatives and revised draft objectives developed on March 22, 1994, were sent to the ID Team for review.

On June 22, 1994, a letter was sent out to the interested parties. The letter solicited comments regarding the draft objectives and alternatives. A copy of this letter was also sent to the ID Team Members. Alternatives for all known connected and unconnected projects in the vicinity were sent in one mailing to minimize effort.

On August 17, 1994, a summary of the public comments regarding the draft alternatives and objectives was forwarded to the ID Team. In addition, copies of the letters received from the public were available to the ID Team at both the Supervisor's Office and the Globe Ranger District.

6 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

On January 13, 1995, the ID Team met to review the public comments. Suggested changes to the draft alternatives and objectives were discussed. Several changes were made based on the public input. A field trip was conducted to the area on February 16, 1995. Based on discussions on this trip and additional discussions between the ID Team members, alternatives were further refmed.

In September 1995, the ID Team leader met with the District Ranger to review the alternatives.

In January, 1996 it was determined that it was necessary for the Forest Service to move forward with the fisheries project EA. Funding for this project is largely non-appropriated grant and donation funds, most of which must be expended or returned in 1996. It was determined that the native fish re-establishment project was comprised of actions which are separate and unconnected to other proposals in the vicinity such as designation of a special interest area, changes in livestock management, and the possible withdrawal of future mining claims. These other proposals will be evaluated in a separate EA in the near future.

A Biological Assessment and Evaluation for TE&S plants and animals is scheduled for completion by April 1996. An archeological clearance will be completed by April 1996 as well. A 401 permit has been requested from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. A Pesticide Use Proposal will also be completed. Any use of pesticides will be reported in the Annual Pesticide Use Report.

B. Purpose and Need:

The purpose of this project is to assist and support the Arizona Game and Fish Department in their actions to re-establish native fish in Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon. The proposed action would enhance the survival of native fish stocked by the Arizona Game and Fish Department by providing habitat suitable for native fish species.

The project is necessary due to the inability for native fish to recolonize and survive in the area without human intervention. Native fish were in the Arnett watershed historically, but are no longer present. The project implements direction given in the LMP, which states that warmwater, non-game type streams are to be managed to support Gila sucker and longfin dace. Gila sucker is a synonym of desert sucker. The project also results in removal of impacts from exotic fish on other native aquatic species.

7 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

C. Proposed Action:

The proposed action would authorize:

• The construction of a fish barrier to block upstream movement of exotic fish from Queen Creek into Arnett Creek during periods of high flow. • The approval to use fish toxins (pesticides) to remove exotic fish from the Arnett Creek Watershed in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. • Appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements.

Note: The primary responsibility of fish management is with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the major partner in this project. Removal of exotic fish and stocking of a native fish community falls under their jurisdiction. The construction of the fish barrier and the use of pesticides (proposed method for removal of exotic fish) on Forest Service administered lands is the decision of the USDA Forest Service. This project will be implemented in conjunction with native fish re-establishment activities by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

D. Decision to be Made:

The responsible official will decide whether to support the re-establishment of native fish in Arnett Creek and Telegraph by approving the use of piscicides (fish pesticides), the construction of a fish barrier, as well as mitigation or monitoring requirements. The responsible official may decide to select the no action alternative, defer action, or select an action alternative.

This EA documents the information needed by the responsible official to determine the significance of the environmental effects that result from his decision.

The Forest Supervisor, Tonto National Forest, will make the decision regarding activities associated with the re-establishment of a native fish population in Arnett and Telegraph Canyons. This decision will include associated activities such as the construction of the fish barrier and use of pesticides to remove exotic fish. It may also include mitigation and monitoring requirements specifically relating to the fish project. The Arizona Game and Fish Department, who is the deciding agency regarding the stocking of native fish and the removal of exotic fish, is a partner in this project.

8 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

E. Issues:

The Forest Service has made extensive efforts to determine the major issues that could affect this proposed actiOn. In summary, the Forest Service involved members of the public, private groups, and state and federal agencies by doing the following:

1. Sending letters and ID Team packages to all interested parties. These letters included a solicitation for comments. 2. Inviting interested parties, including persons on the Globe IBM Mailing List, to ID Team meetings to develop issues statements and objectives for the project.

Public involvement and agency discussions resulted in the development of the key issues for consideration in this analysis. A complete discussion of issues is documented in the project file. Some issues brought forth were resolved through adoption of mitigation and/or through the development of the alternatives. Appendix B contains issues that were dismissed if the issue was outside the proposed action scope, irrelevant to the decision being made, or beyond the geographical influence of the proposed action. Many of these issues are within the scope of other current proposals such as the designation of a special interest area, changes in the management of livestock, and withdrawal of area from future mining claims, in the Picketpost Mountain/Arnett Creek vicinity. These issues will be addressed in a separate Environmental Assessment. The remaining issues were combined into groups and are listed below. Following each issue is a short discussion of the issue and identification of where the issue is addressed within this document.

Issue #1. Use of Piscicide (Rotenone or Antimycin A). There is a concern regarding the effects of a piscicide on humans, wildlife, other aquatic life, and water quality. Anti mycin is an antibiotic that is used to remove unwanted fish from stream waters. It was discovered in 1945 and found to be extremely toxic to fish in vely low concentrations that did not affect other forms of life. It is marketed under the trade name Fintrol, and is registered by the Environmental Protection Agency for use in fisheries applications.

Rotenone is a natural substance derived from the roots and stems of some tropical plants in the pea family, including Derris elliptica. For centuries, native tribes in tropical regions of the world have used this or similar plant poisons to stun fish for food. While very toxic to fish in low concentrations, low concentrations of Rotenone will not affect mammals, birds; snails, clams, or crayfish. Rotenone is registered by the Environmental Protection Agency for use in fisheries applications.

9 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Many recovery activities throughout the Southwest have involved utilizing Antimycin A or Rotenone to remove non-native fish prior to native fish stocking.

Safe use practices of the fish toxin as well as possible environmental consequences of the use of the fish toxin were addressed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences as well as the Mitigation Measures under the action alternatives.

Issue #2. Instream Flow Right: The Tonto National Forest is pursuing an appropriation of flow in Arnett Creek. A permit application has been filed and has passed the public notice period with no protests. Nearly two years of flow data has been gathered, with two more required before the forest files the documentation for a permit. Because the application cited native fish as a potential resource value in Arnett Creek, the appropriation of flow may be in jeopardy if native fish are not reintroduced into Arnett Creek. The re-establishment of a native fish community will help support the application approval. This issue was further discussed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section of the EA.

Issue #3. What monitoring will occur? Will Management Indicator Species will be used in this area. A host of monitoring techniques, including plant and animal species, as well as physical parameters will be used to monitor the project. Monitoring was addressed during the development of the action alternatives.

Issue #4. Issues were identified concerning the proposed use of a fish toxin and the proposed construction of a fish barrier within an area proposed for a special designation (this proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment). This issue was discussed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section of the EA.

Issue #5. Another concern was the possibility that limitations may be imposed on other forest uses if a federally threatened or endangered fish species is reintroduced into Arnett Creek. This issue was addressed in the Alternative Development, and Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of the EA.

Issue #6. It was suggested that Gila topmimiow and Gila chub are reintroduced into Arnett Creek. This issue was addressed in the Alternative Development, and Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of the EA.

Issue #7. There was a concern that fish barrier sites further downstream were not evaluated in the preliminary alternatives. This issue was discussed in the Alternative Development, and Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of the EA.

10 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Issue #8. Waters on private lands may hold exotic fish. Permission from land-holders will be necessary to remove exotic fish from their private lands using piscicides (fish pesticides). This issue was discussed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Other Effects section of the EA.

Issue #9. Biotic and physical resources such as wildlife, native fish and their habitats, riparian vegetation, Sonoran desert scrub vegetation, geologic, and scenic features in the Picketpost Mountain/Arnett Creek vicinity should be restored and protected, when feasible, from ground disturbing activities and other impacts. This issue was addressed during the development of the action alternatives as well as in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section.

F. Measures:

The following units of measure or evaluation criteria were selected to evaluate issue resolution, and describe environmental impacts. A narrative discussing specific mitigation measures or effects is presented in Chapter 2 or 3. The units of measure are:

1. Issue 1. Use of Piscicide (Rotenone or Antimycin A). a. Effects on livestock - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section F) b. Effects on wildlife, fisheries, TE&S, and macroinvertebrates - See narrative, Chapter 2 (Section C-1) and Chapter 3 (Section C) c. Effects on public safety - See narrative, Chapter 2 (Section C-1) and Chapter 3 (Section I-1) d. Effects on water quality - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section A)

2. Issue 2. Instream Flow Right. a. Loss of right due to alternative selection. - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section A)

3. Issue 3. Management Indicator Species. a. Monitoring - See narrative, Chapter 2 (Section C-1)

4. Issue 4. Appropriateness of Use of Piscicide and Construction of Barrier. a. Appropriateness within area proposed for special designation - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section 1-2)

11 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNEIT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

5. Issue 5. Limitations or Restrictions on other Resources due to Native Fish Re-establishment. a. Possible limitations on Livestock - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section F) b. Possible limitations on Mineral Entry - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section E)

6. Issue 6. Reintroduce Gila topminnow and Gila chub. a. Habitat Suitability. - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section C-2) and Chapter 2 (Section C-2) b. Analysis of Future Habitat Suitability. - See narrative, Chapter 2 (C-2), and Chapter 3 (Section C-2).

7. Issue 7. Location of Evaluated Barrier Sites. a. Sites and selection criteria - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section C-2) and Chapter 2 (Section C-2)

8. Issue 8. Private Lands in need of Treatment. a. Private lands in need of treatment by a fish piscicide. - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section 1-3)

9. Issue 9. Protection and Restoration of Biotic and Physical Resources. a. Expected probability of survival of native fish community - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section C-2) b. Consequences of the removal (or no removal) of exotic fish on biotic resources - See narrative, Chapter 3 (Section C) c. Alternatives Descriptions - See narratives, Chapter 2 (Section C-2)

G. Project Location:

Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon are located south of the Town of Superior, Arizona, at the base of Picketpost Mountain. The area is situated on the Globe Ranger District on the Tonto National Forest, in Gila County. The area is further identified by the maps on page 19. The watershed area (for the activities involving the removal of exotic fish from permanent waters) is contained within the following legal location:

12 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

All or part of Sections 7-11, 13-36 of T 2 S, R 12 E; Sections 19-32 of T 2 S, R 13 E; and Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 of T 3 S, R 12 E, Salt River Base and Meridian.

The reaches of Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon proposed for re-establishment of native fishes are contained within the following legal location:

Part of Sections 7, 8, 16, and 17 of T 2 S, R 12 E, Salt River Base and Meridian.

The environmental effects are confined to the alternative actions and will not be cumulative in nature, unless identified in Chapter 3.

H. Additional National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. as amended ('NEPA) Analysis:

This proposed action and alternatives include all the reasonably foreseeable connected actions. The environmental effects estimated for this project consider the site specific effects of all foreseeable actions and mitigation measures. No additional environmental analysis will be done when the analyzed actions are actually implemented. If new information or unforeseen and unanalyzed actions become necessary in the future, additional site specific environmental analysis will be done before implementation.

13 PIC10ETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 2- ALTERNATIVES

A. Alternatives Development:

Part of an ID Team meeting on March 11, 1994, was a brain-storming session for generating preliminary alternatives for the fisheries management of Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon. These preliminary alternatives were distributed to interested parties for review. Comments received from the interested parties were reviewed and used to further refme the alternatives. Extensive reconnaissance trips, other field trips, and additional discussions among IDTeam members were utilized to add additional refinement to the alternatives.

The ID Team developed five alternatives, including the No Action alternative.

B. Alternatives Dropped From The Detail Study:

Several alternatives were considered, but dropped from the detailed study, by the ID team. These alternatives, as well as the reasons they were dropped from the detailed study, are described below.

* An alternative which considered different locations for the fish barrier was considered but dropped from detailed study due to non-conformance with the Fish Barrier Selection Criteria described in Chapter 3, Section C (Fisheries). The locations considered but dropped were not feasible due to engineering considerations, amount of habitat protected, cost, access problems, or a combination thereof.

* An alternative which included removing the exotic fish by the use of electrofishing or seining techniques was dropped from detailed study because it is not feasible to capture all the exotic fish using those techniques. Because fish are often capable of simply swimming out of a seine or swimming away from the edge of an electrofishing field of current, those techniques only capture a subsample of the fish population.

* An alternative which included supporting or recommending that the Arizona Game and Fish Department reintroduce Sonora sucker, speckled dace, loach minnow, and spikedace was dropped from detailed study. Habitat surveys indicate that the habitat is not suitable for this species. In addition, there are no historical records of Sonora sucker in the vicinity (as there are with Gila chub) and the species is not endangered (as is Gila topmilmow). Although the habitat surveys indicated that the habitat is not suitable for Gila chub or Gila topminnow,

14 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT alternatives were developed based on historical occurrences, status of the species, and input from other specialists.

C. Alternatives Considered in Detail (This section lias many subsections):

1. Alternative Mitigation

MONITORING/MITIGATION in Alternatives B, C, D, and E a. Pre - Implementation

1. Waters in the Arnett will again be intensively surveyed to confirm the distribution of exotic fish, and to confirm that no native fish are present in the creek.

2. Macro-invertebrate sampling will be conducted prior to and following treatment to determine possible changes in species composition and density, as well as to document recovery rates. b. Implementation

1. Application of the pesticide will be timed to minimize the impacts on the lowland leopard frog, whose peak breeding periods are late winter and late summer, after the summer rains.

2. If there are significant numbers of over-wintering leopard frog tadpoles present at the time of pesticide application, a representative amount of tadpoles will be collected prior to treatment •with the pesticide. After the pesticide has completely degraded, the tadpoles will be released back into the site of origin.

3. Application of the pesticide will be timed during seasons of low-precipitation to avoid unintentional downstream loss of the pesticide.

4. The Arizona Game and Fish Department will have a state-certified pesticide applicator on- site during piscicide application.

5. Antimycin A or Rotenone will be applied according to label directions. Potassium permanganate will be on-site in case a precipitation event makes it necessary to detoxify the fish pesticide immediately.

15 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

6. Publics in or near the renovation zone will be notified prior to Antimycin A or Rotenone treatment.

7. Protective clothing and eye gear will be used when applying Antimycin A or Rotenone.

8. Clean water and soap will be available for first aid if contact with the skin or eyes occur.

9. Removal of vegetation will be minimind during any road or trail rehabilitation activities. c. Post-Implementation

1. Macro-invertebrate sampling will be completed prior to native fish reintroduction and after removal of exotic fish.

2. The Forest Service will recommend that the Arizona Game and Fish Department reintroduce native fish into Arnett and/or Telegraph Creeks from appropriate stocks to ensure genetic compatibility with Gila River Drainage populations.

3. Fish Population Monitoring: The Tonto National Forest will assist the Arizona Game and Fish Department in an annual survey of all treated areas for four years after implementation of the project. Thereafter, Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon will be surveyed once every four years for at least eight years.

4. Fish Habitat Monitoring: The Tonto National Forest will survey the fish habitat within the Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area once every four years for 12 years after project implementation. Methods will be comparable to methods used in pre-project habitat analysis.

5. Fish Bather Monitoring: The bather will be evaluated for structural integrity annually for four years after construction, and once every four years for at least eight years thereafter.

Riparian Vegetation

Six permanent photopoints were established for the Arnett Creek riparian pasture in 1995. Additional photopoints will be established in lower Telegraph Canyon and along Arnett Creek below the riparian pasture in 1996. Photopoints will be replicated when the Fish Habitat Monitoring is conducted, once every four years for 12 years after project implementation.

16 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNE1T CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

2. Alternative Description

ALTERNATIVE A - No Action. This is the "No Action" alternative required by National Environmental Policy Act and regulations.

No fish barrier would be constructed, use of a fish toxin would not be authorized to remove exotic fish from the Arnett Creek Watershed, and the Forest Service would not cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department in the reintroduction of native fish.

ALTERNATIVE B

A fish barrier would be constructed at Barrier Site 1 in T 2 S, R12 E, Section 8, NE4SW4 , fish toxins would be used to remove exotic fish from the Arnett Creek Watershed above the barrier site, and the Forest Service would cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department in their reintroduction of longfm dace and desert sucker into the Arnett and Telegraph Creeks above the barrier.

Removal of exotic fish would involve treatment of permanent, fish bearing waters with fish toxicants. Rotenone and Antimycin A would be used to accomplish this. Rotenone will be used in the still ponds while Antimycin A will be used to treat flowing water. If necessary to remove exotic fish, more than one treatment would be implemented. After the stocking of non- listed native fish, future spot-treatments of the piscicide are approved if necessary to remove illegally planted exotic fish. To limit mortalities of non-listed native fish during such spot- treatments, efforts would be made to relocate native fish to other areas in the creeks prior to the spot-treatment. Multiple supplemental stockings of native fish would occur to ensure adequate opportunities for the fish to become established. Maintenance of the fish barrier would be approved under this alternative. See map on page 23 for the location of Barrier Site 1 and areas expected to need treatment for removal of the exotic fish. Waters in the following locations would be subject to removal of exotic fish:

Parts of Sections 7-11, 13-36 of T 2 S, R 12 E; Sections 19-32 of T 2 S, R 13 E; and Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 of T 3 S, R 12 E, Salt River Base and Meridian.

Barrier Site 1 is located in an intermittent reach of Arnett. Ground vehicular transportation down to the site from the forest roads will not be allowed, with the exception of minimal access by ATVs or a small backhoe along game trails.

17 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Arnett Creek Fish Barrier consists of constructing a gabion basket wall and splash pad at a remote site on Arnett Creek. Work includes excavation, gabion basket construction including an anchoring system, and back:filling Concrete may be used if necessary to increase the strength of the structure and if additional funding is available.

The removal of exotic fish and the stocking of native fish would be accomplished primarily by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, who has jurisdictional responsibilities for fish management in the State of Arizona. The U.S. Forest Service would assist in these actions. Native fish would be stocked by the Department into the Arnett and Telegraph Canyons within the following legal descriptions: T2S, R12E, Sections 7, 8, 16, and 17.

The site would be re-evaluated within 9 years of project implementation to determine if Arnett Creek and Lower Telegraph Canyon can support other species of native fish. At that time, recent management changes, including reduced livestock impacts, may result in habitat conditions conductive to the habitat needs of native fish such as the Gila topminnow and Gila chub. Habitat conditions, as well as an analysis of the effectiveness and condition of the fish barrier, will be assessed during this re-evaluation process.

ALTERNATIVE C

A fish barrier would be constructed at Barrier Site 2 in T 2 S, R12 E, Section 7, SW4NW. 4, fish toxins would be used to remove exotic fish from the Arnett Creek Watershed above the barrier site, and the Forest Service would cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department in their reintroduction of longfin dace and desert sucker into the Arnett and Telegraph Creeks above the barrier.

Removal of exotic fish would involve treatment of permanent, fish bearing waters with fish toxicants. Rotenone and Antimycin A would be used to accomplish this. Rotenone will be used in the still ponds while Antimycin A will be used to treat flowing water. If necessary to remove ekotic fish, more than one treatment would be implemented. After the stocking of non- listed native fish, future spot-treatments of the piscicide are approved if necessary to remove illegally planted exotic fish. To limit mortalities of non-listed native fish during such spot- treatments, efforts would be made to relocate native fish to other areas in the creeks prior to the spot-treatment. Multiple supplemental stockings of native fish would occur to ensure adequate opportunities for the fish to become established. Maintenance of the fish barrier would be approved under this alternative. See map on page 23 for the location of Barrier Site 2 and areas expected to need treatment for removal of the exotic fish. Waters in the following locations would be subject to removal of exotic fish:

18 PICICETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Parts of Sections 7-11, 13-36 of T 2 S, R 12 E; Sections 19-32 of T 2 S, R 13 E; and Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 of T 3 S, R 12 E, Salt River Base and Meridian.

Barrier Site 2 is located in an ephemeral reach of Arnett Creek. Access to the site will be along an abandoned road, which follows Arnett Creek up from near the confluence with Queen Creek. The abandoned road is located in T2S, R11E, Section 12 and T2S, R12E, Section 7. Road rehabilitation will include the removal of obstructions and may include minor trimming of tree limbs or the removal of a few, small plants which have grown over the mad. After completion of the project, the road would be returned to it's original state or obliterated, to the extent feasible, to help discourage people from operating ORVs in the area.

The Arnett Creek Fish Barrier consists of constructing a gabion basket wall and splash pad at a remote site on Arnett Creek. Work includes excavation, gabion basket construction including an anchoring system, and backfilling. Concrete may be used if necessary to increase the strength of the structure and if additional funding is available.

ALTERNATIVE D

A fish barrier would be constructed at Barrier Site 1 in T 2 S, R12 E, Section 8, NE4SW4 , fish toxins would be used to remove exotic fish from the Arnett Creek Watershed above the barrier site, and the Forest Service would cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department in their reintroduction of longfin dace, desert sucker, Gila chub, and Gila topminnow into the Amett and Telegraph Creeks above the barrier. The Gila topminnow is listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).

19 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Removal of exotic fish would involve treatment of permanent, fish bearing waters with fish toxicants. Rotenone and Antimycin A would be used to accomplish this. Rotenone will be used in the still ponds while Antimycin A will be used to treat flowing water. If necessary to remove exotic fish, more than one treatment would be implemented. After the stocking of the Gila topmirmow (an Endangered fish), future spot-treatments of the piscicide would not be approved to remove illegally planted exotic fish. If only non-listed native fish have been stocked and exotic fish are found in the watershed, spot-treatments of fish toxins will be approved. To limit mortalities of non-listed native fish during such spot-treatments, efforts would be made to relocate native fish to other areas in the creeks prior to the spot-treatment.

Multiple supplemental stockings of native fish would occur to ensure adequate opportunities for the fish to become established. Maintenance of the fish barrier would be approved under this alternative. See map on page 23 for the location of Barrier Site 1 and areas expected to need treatment for removal of the exotic fish. Waters in the following locations would be subject to removal of exotic fish:

Parts of Sections 7-11, 13-36 of T 2 S, R 12 E; Sections 19-32 of T 2 S, R 13 E; and Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 of T 3 S, R 12 E, Salt River Base and Meridian.

The Arnett Creek Fish Barrier consists of constructing a gabion basket wall and splash pad at a remote site on Arnett Creek. Work includes excavation, gabion basket construction including an anchoring system, and backfilling. Concrete may be used if necessary to increase the strength of the structure and if additional funding is available.

20 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ALTERNATIVE E

A fish barrier would be constructed at Barrier Site 2 in T 2 S, R12 E, Section 7, SW4NW4, fish toxins would be used to remove exotic fish from the Arnett Creek Watershed above the barrier, site, and the Forest Service would cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department in their reintroduction of longfin dace, desert sucker, Gila chub, and Gila topminnow into the Arnett and Telegraph Creeks above the bather. The Gila topminnow is listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).

Removal of exotic fish would involve treatment of permanent, fish bearing waters with fish toxicants. Rotenone and Antimycin A would be used to accomplish this. Rotenone will be used in the still ponds while Antimycin A will be used to treat flowing water. If necessary to remove exotic fish, more than one treatment would be implemented. After the stocking of the Gila topminnow (an Endangered fish), future spot-treatments of the piscicide would not be approved to remove illegally planted exotic fish. If only non-listed native fish have been stocked and exotic fish are found in the watershed, spot-treatments of fish toxins will be approved. To limit mortalities of non-listed native fish during such spot-treatments, efforts would be made to relocate native fish to other areas in the creeks prior to the spot-treatment.

Multiple supplemental stockings of native fish would occur to ensure adequate opportunities for the fish to become established. Maintenance of the fish barrier would be approved under this alternative. See map on page 23 for the location of Barrier Site 2 and areas expected to need treatment for removal of the exotic fish. Waters in the following locations would be subject to removal of exotic fish:

Parts of Sections 7-11, 13-36 of T 2 S, R 12 E; Sections 19-32 of T 2 S, R 13 E; and Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 of T 3 S, R 12 E, Salt River Base and Meridian.

Barrier Site 2 is located in an ephemeral reach of Arnett Creek. Access to the site will be along an abandoned road, which follows Arnett Creek up from near the confluence with Queen Creek. The abandoned road is located in 12S, R11E, Section 12 and T2S, R12E, Section 7. Road rehabilitation will include the removal of obstructions and may include minor trimming of tree limbs and the removal of a few small plants which have grown over the road. After completion of the project, the road would be returned to it's original state or obliterated, to the extent feasible, to help discourage people from operating ORVs in the area.

The Arnett Creek Fish Barrier consists of constructing a gabion basket wall and splash pad at a remote site on Arnett Creek. Work includes excavation, gabion basket construction including

21 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT an anchoring system, and backfilling Concrete may be used if necessary to increase the strength of the structure and if additional funding is available.

3. Alternative Comparison

Alternative A is the no action alternative. Native fish will not be reestablished into the Arnett Creek watershed, nor will the exotic fish be removed, or the barrier built.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E will result in the re-establishment of native fish in the Arnett Creek Watershed. Alternative B and C differ in the location of the fish barrier, while Alternatives D and E differ in the species of fish that would be reintroduced by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. All action alternatives include the use of fish toxins (pesticides) to remove exotic fish from the Arnett watershed.

Alternative Barrier Assist Arizona Game and Fish Department with the Site Reintroduction of the following Fish Species A (No Action) None None B 1 longfin dace, desert sucker C 2 longfin dace, desert sucker D 1 longfin dace, desert sucker, Gila chub, Gila topminnow (Endangered) E 2 longfm dace, desert sucker, Gila chub, , Gila topmirmow (Endangered)

4. Preferred Alternative Identification

In this Environmental Assessment the agency's preferred alternative is Alternative C. Alternative C contributes to a reversal in the decline of native fish, supports the re- establishment of fish for which there is suitable habitat, and protects the greatest amount of habitat from re-invasion by exotic fish.

22 R.11E. R.12E. R.13E. Arnett Creek Native Fish Project Area T.1S. T.1 S. with riparian vegetation and treatable areas

LEGEND

(I) Possible Fish Barrier Locations

Perennial or Intermittent Water Moderate Potential For Treatment With Rsh Toxicant

Perennial or Intermittent Water High Potential For Treatment Wrth Rah Toxicant

Watershed Boundary

1.25. 12S.

Highway

T.3S T.3S. Federal Highway

State Highway

1 mile R. 1 1 E. R.12E. R.13E. Tonto GIS • WI - 9/95

PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 3- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. CHAPTER 3.

This chapter shows the present condition (i.e. affected environment) within the project area and the changes that can be expected from implementing the action alternatives or taking no action at this time. The no action alternative sets the environmental base line for comparing effects of the action alternatives.

The major issues (see Chapter 1) defme the scope of environmental concern for this project. The environmental effects (changes from present base line condition) that are described in this chapter reflect the identified major issues. Most of the environmental effects are confmed to this action and the project area. Others are cumulative with environmental effects from other actions and cover an issue area beyond this project area. Cumulative effects are discussed for each major issue if they occur.

A. SOIL/WATER

Affected Environment

The Picketpost/Arnett Creek area lies within the Transition Zone of Arizona. This province forms the transition between the Colorado Plateau to the northeast and the Basin and Range province to the southwest. Elevation of the Arnett Creek watershed ranges from 4600 feet in the Tertiary volcanic mountains that form the headwaters, south of Superior, to 2400 feet where Arnett Creek joins with Queen Creek, just west of the Boyce Thompson Arboretum. Total watershed area is about 31 square miles.

For most of its length, Arnett Creek is a relatively small, nondescript, intermittent stream characteristic of the dry desert washes found in the Sonoran Desert region. The creek becomes perennial where the shallow bedrock of a structurally formed canyon forces subflow to the surface and creates a reach of perennial flow that meanders to the northwest along the base of Picketpost Mountain for approximately 2.5 miles. The native fish reintroduction area includes most of the reach of perennial flow. This reach supports a lush community of plants and animals that are dependent on the presence of perennial water. Telegraph Canyon, the major tributary to Arnett Creek within this reach, also contains a reach of perennial flow above the confluence with Arnett Creek. This reach also supports a good condition riparian community.

24 PICKETPOST MOUNTADVARNEIT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The watershed of Arnett Creek contains substantial expanses of exposed bedrock and shallow soils that result in flashy runoff conditions. Low vegetative ground cover density over much of the upland watershed also contributes to flashy runoff conditions. Within the analysis area, Arnett Creek has a streambed composed predominately of gravels and cobbles. Larger material forms steps and riffles at irregularly spaced intervals along the creek. The channel gradient averages about one percent through the analysis area. Width and depth of the bankfull channel are typically about 38 feet and 2.2 feet, respectively. Active floodplain width averages about 80 feet. Width/depth ratio of the bankfull channel averages from 15 to 20. The channel is moderately confined by vertical canyon walls composed of rhyolite and dacite. The stream is classified primarily as a "C" stream type under the Rosgen stream classification system but contains short reaches of "F" and "D" type channels.

Stream flow data have been collected monthly for Arnett Creek since August 1991 at SW4 SE4 Section 8 T2S R12E. Average streamflow is 3.0 cfs based on 29 instantaneous measurements. Median flow is 0.42 cfs. Mean and median monthly flows are listed in the table below.

ARNETT CREEK STREAM FLOW DATA

Month Mean Median Flow Flow (cfs) (cfs) Jan 17.0 17.0 Feb 11.6 11.6 Mar 6.9 6.9 Apr 3.8 3.3 May 0.5 0.5 Jun 0.2 0.23 Jul 0.16 0.16 Aug 0.8 0.23 Sep 0.23 0.23 Oct 0.18 0.18 Nov 1.5 1.5 Dec 1.2 0.68

Flow duration data suggest that streamflow exceeds 1 cfs about 35 percent of the time and 0.1 cfs 100 percent of the time. Baseflow is approximately 0.2-0.3 cfs. The greatest flow recorded

25 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT to date is 33.6 cfs, however indirect measurement of flow from the storms in January of 1993 resulted in a flood flow estimate of more than 3000 cfs.

The Tonto National Forest filed an application for an instream flow water right on Arnett Creek within the perennial reach near Picketpost Mountain in October of 1992. The Forest submitted a report documenting the link between stream flow and water dependent resource needs in March of 1994. Water requirements of dependent resources documented in this report range from 0.3 cfs from June through October to 3.0 cfs from January through April. Water dependent resources include native fish, recreation and riparian vegetation. Verbal discussions with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (DWR) suggest that DWR intends to approve a permit for the instream flow application conditioned upon reintroduction of native fish species discussed in the report.

Water quality in Arnett Creek is protected for warm water fishery and full body contact recreation. A water quality sample of the creek in November of 1992 during baseflow resulted in a calcium sulfate type water. Constituents analyzed were either within acceptable quality ranges for warm water fish or their effect on fish is unknown. Water quality was also suitable for full body contact recreation.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)

This alternative may jeopardize the instream flow water right. This right is conditioned upon reintroduction of native fish. If the fish barrier is not constructed, native fish will not be reintroduced.

Since the fish toxin will not be applied under this alternative, no water quality affects are possible.

Alternative B (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

This alternative would enable the Forest to obtain a water right certificate for its instream flow application on Arnett Creek.

26 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNE7T CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The construction of the barrier would result in localized changes to the stream channel, which would aggrade upstream of the barrier. This channel change and the temporary pool that is likely to form upstream of the barrier during high flows is expected to result in the loss of some riparian vegetation upstream of the barrier location. Because the barrier will be a gabion structure, which is water permeable, it is not expected to pool water for long periods of time. After the stream aggrades to a height equal to that of the barrier, the temporary pool will no longer form and the vegetation is expected to recolonize the site. The stream is expected to aggrade to the barrier height within a few years of construction.

Under this alternative, a fish toxin would be applied to permanent waters in the watershed. Below is an analysis of the possible effects from the fish toxin on water quality. The rate of degradation of Antimycin A and Rotenone is rapid in natural waters, being accelerated in the presence of high pH, and high temperature, and light. Complete degradation can take from 1- 14 days, but usually occurs between 4 and 7 days. The half-life of Antimycin A in laboratory tests ranged from 310 hours at pH 6.0 to 1.5 hours at pH 10 at water at 12. The rate of degradation of Rotenone in warm water systems is strongly affected by the water temperatures. Dissipation time has been reported to vary from 1-26 days, depending on the water temperature. Complete degradation in Arnett Creek, at warmer temperatures is expected to occur within 1-7 days. The half life of Rotenone in field tests was 0.94 days in warm water (24 degrees C) and 10.3 days in cold water (5 degrees C). Potassium permanganate will be available on-site to neutralize the Antimycin A or Rotenone, if necessary. Because treatment will occur during low flow seasons, it is doubtful that Potassium permanganate use will be required. Potassium permanganate deactivates Antimycin A and Rotenone within a few minutes. Addition of potassium perrnanganate rapidly deoxidizes the compound, and effects on aquatic organisms are virtually stopped at the neutralization station. Post-treatment surveys reported in the U.S. Forest Service, 1980, during projects on Little Creek and White Creek, in New Mexico indicated that the Antimycin was neutralized within a short distance downstream after potassium permanganate was added. Live fish were found within a few hundred feet of the neutralization station, and the following year were present immediately downstream of the fish barrier.

This alternative would result in temporary and localized discoloration of water it if it necessary to use potassium permanganate to detoxify the Antimycin A or Rotenone. The discoloration dissipates to undetectable levels within a short distance. At the levels used, potassium permanganate has no effect on aquatic organisms. Due to the rapid detoxification rates of Antimycin A or Rotenone, no impacts to water quality are expected after treatment of the area.

Because access under this alternative would not include overland vehicular access, with the exception of minimal access by ATVs or a small backhoe along game trails, impacts from access are expected to be minimal.

27 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETL CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B. Under Alternative C, however, access to Barrier Site 2 would occur via an abandoned road, which is in need of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation could result in minor, short-term changes to ephemeral portions of the streambed in Arnett Creek. Any changes to the stream bed will either be obliterated at the end of the project implementation or evidence is expected to be removed by the next flood event. No major stream channel modifications or water quality changes will occur as a result off the temporary road rehabilitation.

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminriow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative C.

B. VEGETATION

1. Riparian Vegetation

Affected Environment

A. Existing Condition

1. Arnett Creek

The analysis area includes 3.5 miles of Arnett Creek and 0.7 miles of lower Telegraph Canyon.

28 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Of the 3.5 miles of Arnett Creek, approximately 2.5 miles has a perennial flow and a moderately confined channel (see Hydrology Section). The remaining one mile is a dry wash with decreasing riparian vegetation as the channel approaches Queen Creek.

The upper 2.5 mile reach of Arnett Creek sustains a multi-storied broadleaf forest with high species and age class diversity. It is dominated by Goodding and Bonpland willows (Salix gooddingii and S. bonplandiana), velvet ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica var. velutina) and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). This riparian community type is rare within the Lower Sonoran Desert climate zone. It is similar to both the Bonpland Willow Community Type and the Goodding Willow Community Type.

Tree canopy is moderately high (77%). The relatively low tree basal area (10,451 inches) and very high tree species density (2076 stems/acre) indicate that this is a young riparian forest community. With continued good management, tree basal area will increase, and tree species density will decline.

Important herbaceous species, in order of prominence, include deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens), rabbit foot (Polypogon monspeliensos), and an unknown sedge (Cyperus sp). Deergrass presently has a canopy cover between 8 and 20% on the mile long reach of Arnett Creek below its confluence with Telegraph Creek. This plant plays a critical role in stability and floodplain function. Deergrass canopy will probably not decline as the community matures.

There is also one small stand of coyote willow (Salix exigua) on Arnett Creek. This species is uncommon on the Tonto NF, and very rare within the Lower Sonoran Desert climate zone.

The Arnett Creek and lower Telegraph Canyon riparian areas hosts several introduced, non- native plant species, including oleander (Nerium oleander), salt cedar (Tamara pentandra), date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), rabbitfoot grass, and red brome. Only oleander occurs in sufficient quantity to potentially threaten the integrity of this rare riparian community. In 1994 volunteer and Forest Service employees cut all the oleander plants in the area, but the plants have re-sprouted.

2. Lower Telegraph Canyon

The lower Telegraph Canyon riparian community and channel is very similar to that of Arnett Creek. It differs principally by having a significant dominance of Goodding willow over Bonpland willow. The herbaceous component is slightly more prevalent than on Arnett Creek, and includes Juncus torreyi, which is absent on Arnett Creek.

29 PICKETPOST MOUNTA1N/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

B. Existing Management

1. Arnett Creek within the Proposed RNA

About two miles of Arnett Creek are included within the proposed Research Natural Area (RNA), and are currently not grazed with the exception of occasional unauthorized livestock.

2. Arnett Creek riparian pasture

The Arnett Creek riparian pasture includes about 1.2 miles of high quality riparian vegetation and perennial water. Until 1993 it was managed as part of the Superior Grazing Allotment (grazing strategy described below under Telegraph Canyon). According to Mr. Lew Myers (pers. comm.), utilization on deer grass was fairly high when the area was grazed by livestock. However, livestock use overall was often relatively light in the canyon. Cattle tended to prefer the more open areas on Arnett Creek upstream of the canyon.

In 1993, the permittee and the Globe Ranger District agreed to manage the Arnett Creek riparian pasture with goals, objectives and standards specific for riparian areas. The Memorandum allows for cattle grazing in the Arnett Creek riparian pasture for a 3 to 30 day period by 20 to 50 cattle. The grazing period will correspond with the time that the adjacent pasture is being used. Mitigation standards agreed to in a Memorandum of Understanding between the permittee and District are to limit utilization of:

a. current annual growth (CAG) to 50% on pole and mature class woody species; b. CAG to 40% on seedlings and sapling woody species; c. perennial grasses to 60% by weight.

Utilization on woody species is clarified to mean 50 and 40% of total twig numbers, which correlates to about 20 % use by weight.

The Memorandum requires monitoring of utilization levels before and after the pasture is used, each year it is used. The riparian pasture has only been used one year since 1993. It was grazed by about 15 head for three days in the first half of May, 1995. Uti1i7ation monitoring of deer grass and woody species documented less than 5% use by weight.

The intent of allowing planned grazing was to assist the district in fine tuning allowable use levels in riparian areas for other riparian areas on the district.

30 PICKETPOST MOUNTA1N/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

3. Lower Arnett Creek

The confluence of Arnett Creek and Queen Creek occurs within the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. About 0.3 miles of the Arnett Creek channel lies between the Arboretum and the proposed RNA. It lies within one of the pastures of the Superior Grazing Allotment. Grazing strategy is described below for the lower Telegraph Canyon. This portion of Arnett Creek is a dry wash with little riparian vegetation.

4. Lower Telegraph Canyon

Lower Telegraph Canyon lies within the Superior Grazing Allotment. The grazing management strategy is a three pasture deferred system. Each pasture is grazed for six months, then rested for twelve months. Grazing periods generally range from November through April. Under this system, lower Telegraph Canyon is grazed during the summer one year out of three, during the winter one year out of three and rested one year out of three.

Currently, riparian condition is good in lower Telegraph Canyon, and the woody component dominated by relatively young plants. There are small, localized areas of high utilization, but the integrity of the riparian area has been protected by its location in a steep, narrow canyon and the presence of mountain lions.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No action)

No fish barriers would be constructed under this alternative. No impacts to riparian vegetation would occur under this alternative.

Alternative B (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace Desert Sucker)

Alternative B proposes to construct a fish barrier in the Arnett Creek stream channel. The riparian vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the fish barrier may be affected. Some trees and/or shrubs may be removed. Pooling of water behind the fish barrier may cause shifts in the type of riparian plant species currently there now. There may also be some loss of individual plants immediately below the fish barrier if a plunge pool develops. These potential changes in the riparian vegetation will be localized, and will not affect the overall quality or function of the riparian vegetation in the project area.

31 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B. In Alternative C, however, rehabilitation of the abandoned road which would provide access to the barrier site may involve trimming of tree branches and the removal of one or two small trees on a terrace near Arnett Creek. Such trimming and removal is not expected to result in damage to the riparian vegetation community, but only to individual plants. Such impacts will be avoided if at all possible.

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative C.

2. Upland Vegetation

Affected Environment

The surrounding area, which includes the formerly Proposed RNA, contains excellent examples of several Sonoran desert scrub vegetation types associated with the foothill and piedmont topography found in central Arizona. Botanical surveys have documented in excess of 240 species of vascular plants present in the area. Much of the following information has been adopted from the following publication.

Crosswhite, Frank. 1984. History, Geology, and Vegetation of Picketpost Mountain. Desert Plants 6(2).

The top of Picketpost Mountain is covered with grass and has been classified by Brown (1982) as Semidesert Grassland. Aside from the numerous types of grama grass (Bouteloua spp.),

32 PICICETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT three awn (Aristida app.), lovegrass (Eragrostis spp.), sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) and tobosa (Hilaria mutica), there are thickets of scrub oak (Quercus turbinella) and abundant rosettes of Agave.

A Chaparral formation with characteristic mountain mohogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), hackbeffy (Celtis reticulata), one-seeded Juniper (Juniperus monosperma) and scrub oak is seen on the north side of Picketpost Mountain. It extends from about 3000 feet to 4200 feet in elevation.

The Oak Scrubland is beautifully developed on the north side of the mountain. It extends from about 2500 feet to 3200 feet in elevation. In this community, scrub oak is often intermixed with Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis).

The Rosewood Scrubland of Picketpost Mountain consists of stands of Arizona Rosewood (Vauquelinia californica) intermixed with jojoba. This community, as well as the five succeeding vegetational types are considered to be facies of the Sonoran Desertscrub because of their seemingly more subtropical nature. These plants occur on slopes and in ravines. On the south side, the fades follows ravines from about 3000 feet up to 4200 feet. On the north side, it extends from 2500 feet to about 3800 feet.

The Jojoba Scrubland: The jojoba is probably the most common plant on Picketpost Mountain, often intermixed with other vegetation types. It does, however, tend to make rather pure stands which ring the mountain at about 3200 feet to 4200 feet on the south and 2800 feet to 3600 feet on the north.

The Hopbush and Cholla Scrubland is well correlated to the Arnett Rhyolite, a geologic formation. Characteristic are hopbush (Dodonaea viscosa) and chain-fruit cholla (Opuntia fulgida). Rhyolite-bush (Crossosoma bigelovii) is found only on rhyolite and rhyolitic tuffs. Octollo (Fouquieria splendens), compass barrel cactus (Fercactus acanthodes var eastwoodiae), and flowered pincushion cactus (mammallaria viridiflora) are other common plants as are Graptopetalum rusbyi, resurrection plant (Selaginella) and various ferns.

The Buckwheat Bush and Jojoba Scrubland is common on the west side of Picketpost, from about 2400 feet to 3400 feet in elevation. It is also common in the area to the west of the mountain. The more common plants in this community are buckwheat bush (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and jojoba, with occasional fish-hook barrel cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii), fish- hook pincushion cactus (Mammallaria microcarpa), blackfoot daisy (Melampodium leucanthum), and the fern Notholaena sinuata.

33 PICICETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Saguaro and Palo Verde Scrubland is primarily a south slope community at Picketpost. The community is present at many south facing slopes, even on the north side of Picketpost Mountain, particularly on the south facing cliffs of Arnett Creek. Characteristic plants are saguaro cactus (Carnegia gigantea), palo verde (Cercidium spp.), with brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), Mormon tea (Ephedra), Trixis californica and numerous wildflowers.

Creosotebush and Bursage Scrubland. This community is present on the conglomerates and abruptly ends where the rock type changes. This is a text-book example of geologic influence on vegetation types. Such examples are common in the Picketpost Mountain vicinity.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A ( No Action)

No impacts are expected on upland vegetation under this alternative.

Alternative B (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1, Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker)

No impacts from the fisheries project are expected on upland vegetation since the fisheries project is limited to the aquatic areas and no roads would be constructed as part of this alternative.

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

No impacts from the fisheries project are expected on upland vegetation since the fisheries project is limited to the aquatic areas and no roads within the uplands would be constructed as part of this alternative. The road to be rehabilitated lies within the floodplain of Arnett Creek, in an ephemeral reach.

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Bather at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

34 PICKETPOST MOUNTALN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative C.

C. WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND TE&S

1. Wildlife and TE&S (excluding mil)

Affected Environment-Wildlife and TE&S

The area affected by this proposal includes Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon. Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon are riparian zones which function as habitat for riparian obligate species and wildlife corridors for species which pass through the area. The riparian zones supply good water, cover, and forage for a variety of species.

Common black hawks have been noted nesting at two locations in this vicinity. Another riparian obligate that has been observed in this area is the lowland leopard frog. Pocketed free- tailed bats use the watercourse to drink and feed over, and would use clefts in the upland areas for roosting. A variety of passerines, neotropical migratory birds, and raptors utilize both the riparian and upland habitats in the project area. Bell's vireo is particularly notable in the riparian zone. Peregrine falcons have been sited foraging in the Picketpost area. White- winged doves and mourning doves are both present. High density populations of javelina are known to occur in the area, as well as medium densities of mule deer and quail. Whitetail deer have been sited on bluffs south of Picketpost. Mountain lion tracks and scat have been observed on the upland areas, and these animals would use the riparian zones for water. Chuckwalla and desert tortoise are both known to occur in the general vicinity. Jackrabbits, cottontails, and rodents occur throughout the area. Overall, the project area is important habitat for a diverse number of species.

35 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Environmental Consequences-Wildlife and TE&S

Alternative A (No Action)

Under this alternative, green sunfish would continue to prey on leopard frogs. During a fisheries survey several years ago, it was noted that leopard frog adults or tadpoles only occurred in pools with no-to-low green sunfish densities. It is suspected that this was due to predation on the frogs or their tadpoles. Predation by green sunfish can have significant long- term consequences on leopard frog populations (M.Sredl, AGFD, pers comm).

Alternative B (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker)

Studies indicate that fish killing concentrations of Antimycin A and Rotenone are not harmful or toxic to mammals or birds. One exception to this is possible negative impacts of Rotenone on "swine". The only Threatened or Endangers species known to occur in the renovation zone is the Peregrine Falcon. Narrow-headed garter snake (Candidate), have not been recorded from the project site, however, the area is within their probable range. Yavapai leopard frog (Candidate) has been recorded in the area.

Antimycin A or Rotenone is unlikely to have a direct effect on the garter snake and adult leopard frogs as they would probably exit the water if the piscicide was irritating. Tests on water snakes (Colubridae) of Antimycin A at treatment levels showed no effects. Effects on leopard frog tadpoles by Antimycin A are not expected. Studies have not detected effects of Antimycin A on larval frogs in other areas of the country. Rotenone may have negative impacts on the larval forms of Yavapai leopard frogs (i.e. tadpoles) as well as to javelma. Possible impacts from Rotenone to these species will be minimized due to the limited use of Rotenone during this project. As stated in the alternative description, Rotenone will only be used at a few still-water ponds. Possible impacts to non-target species will also be minimized because of the short-lived nature of Antimycin A and Rotenone in warm-water systems.

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

36 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

2. Fisheries (including TE&S Fish)

Affected Environment-Fisheries

BARRIER SITE SF! FC770N CRITERIA

Key criteria used to choose the proposed barrier site is outlined below. This criteria was developed through field trips and discussions with forest engineers, biologists, and hydrologists, as well as professors from local universities, biologists from the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Bureau of Reclamation, and an engineer from the Bureau of Reclamation. Criteria 2, 3, and 4 were chosen as "Critical Selection Criteria"; Without conformance to these three criteria, structural failure would be more likely to occur.

1. Width of Floodprone Area. This relates to the width of the barrier. In order for the barrier to be effective, it must span the width of the floodprone area. a. The width of the barrier can impact the construction and maintenance costs. larger width would result in higher costs. b. The width of the barrier can also result in changes in the structural integrity of the barrier. A smaller barrier width implies a confined channel that would be subjected to greater forces during flood events. Likewise, a larger barrier width implies that the barrier would be subjected to reduced forces during flood events.

37 PICKET'POST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

2. Anchoring Substrates. This refers to the stability of the surface which the barrier will be anchored or keyed into. Bedrock or large boulders embedded Into the adjacent terrace provide the most stable anchoring substrates. Smaller materials provide significantly less stability and may result in structural failure of the barrier.

3. Gradient. In order to achieve a 3-5 foot vertical drop, it is preferable from an engineering standpoint to choose a site with a relatively high gradient.

4. Height and Stability of Adjacent Floodplain. After the barrier is in place, the channel may try to change direction in order to avoid the barrier. If the adjacent floodplain is not significantly higher than the barrier, the stream will simply divert itself around the barrier. Similarly, if the adjacent floodplain is not composed of a highly stable material, the stream is likely to erode around the barrier. Such diversions would make the barrier ineffective.

5. Amount of Aquatic Habitat Protected from Reinvasion. This refers to the amount of aquatic habitat upstream of the barrier. Any habitat downstream of the barrier will not be protected from reinvasion of non-native fishes.

6. Access. This refers to access to the site for the delivery of materials, equipment, and labor force. If overland access was not currently available, the ovation of access (i.e. temporary rehabilitation and closure of an abandoned road) was explored. Environmental consequences, as well as cost, were considered in this analysis. If overland access was not feasible or desirable, transportation of materials and equipment via helicopter or limited ATV or small backhoe use was explored.

7. Environmental Effects due to Access. This refers to environmental effects due to the type of access expected to get materials, supplies, and equipment to the site.

7RE47ME1VT AREA

As stated in the description of the action alternatives B and C, all fish-bearing waters in the Arnett Creek Watershed would need to be treated to remove non-native fish from the area and ensure success for the project.

All perennial and intermittent waters in the watershed have been identified and mapped to determine the probability of treatment with a fish toxicant to remove exotic fish. A copy of this map can be found on page 23 of this document.

38 PICICETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Arnett Creek has perennial and intermittent reaches within the project area, but is ephemeral for most of the rest of its length. There are a few exceptions to this, including permanent reaches on and near two parcels of private land upstream of the project area.

FISH HABITAT INVENTORY

Main Channel Physical Characteristics:

Of the 21,732 feet of stream that were surveyed for fish habitat, 10,338 feet were dry. The majority of the dry channel was in the lower reach, just above the confluence with Queen Creek. Of the watered length, 40.7% of the habitat was composed of low grade riffles, 39.7% runs, and 19.6% pool habitats. The median residual pool depth for the entire area surveyed was 0.8 feet. Median watered pool depths varied between the two reaches: the reach within the Riparian Pasture had a median pool depth of 0.83 feet, while the reach downstream of the Riparian Pasture had a median pool depth of 0.49 feet. The median watered width for the entire area was 7 feet. Like the pool depths, the median watered width varied between the two reaches: the reach within the Riparian Pasture had a median watered width of 9 feet, while the reach downstream of the Riparian Pasture had a median watered width of approximately 43 feet. These differences are easily explained by the varying discharge rates. Residual pool depths are not dependent on seasonal discharge rates since it is a measure of physical pool depth rather than the watered pool depth. Discharge on March 11, 1994 (when the reach within the Riparian Pasture was surveyed), was measured as 0.58 cfs. Discharge was not measurable during the summer of 1995 (in the reach downstream of the Riparian Pasture), but it was considerably less than 0.58 cfs..

The banks were considered stable, with an average rating of 3. This describes bank stability to be: "Between 50 and 79 percent of the streambank surface is covered by vegetation or by gravel or larger material. Those areas not covered by vegetation are protected by materials that allow only minor erosion." The high bank stability rating was partially due to the good condition of the riparian vegetation in the stream, particularly the dense deer grass present. A thick mat of an unidentified, aquatic plant is also contributing to the high bank stability. Using a standard rating system, average embeddedness was estimated to be 3.5. The rating for 3 and 4 is given below.

3 "Gravel, rubble, and boulder particles having between 25 and 50% of their surface covered by fine sediment."

39 PICKETPOST MOUNTADI/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4 "Gravel, rubble, and boulder particles having between 5 and 25% of their surface covered by fine sediment."

Main Channel Instream Cover:

Only 3.5% of the banks were undercut. Given the condition of the riparian vegetation and the mats of aquatic grass, this is surprisingly low.

Small Woody Debris (SWD) Instream Cover: 83% of the habitat units had No cover provided by SWD. SWD provided only 3% cover in 8% of the habitat units, and 5% cover in 7% of the units. Only a handful of habitat units had instream cover from SWD that reached as high as 10 to 25% Large Woody Debris (LWD) provided virtually no instream cover to the stream.

Terrestrial Vegetation (TV) Instream Cover: Cover provided by terrestrial vegetation overhanging into the water column was similar to that provided by SWD. 62% of the habitat units had No cover provided by terrestrial vegetation. Terrestrial vegetation provided only 3% cover in 9% of the habitat units, 5% cover in 12% of the habitat units, and 10% cover in 8% of the habitat units. The remaining 9% of the habitat units had 15-70% cover by terrestrial vegetation.

Cover Provided by Substrate: 52% of the habitat units had No cover provided by substrate. Substrate provided only 3% instream cover in 14% of the habitat units, 5% cover in an additional 14% of the habitat units, and 10% cover in 6% of the habitat units. The remaining 14% of the habitat units had 15-60% cover by substrate. Most of the instream cover provided by substrate was provided by boulders (70%); however, non-embedded cobble and rubble were present (30% combined) to provide cover for smaller fish.

Cover Provided by Aquatic/Emergent Vegetation: Algae provided the most instream cover of any aquatic vegetation type recorded. 53% of the habitat units had No cover provided by algae. Algae provided only 3% instream cover in 11% of the habitat units. 16% of the habitat units had 5-10% cover by algae, and the remainder of the habitat units had from 15 to 100% cover provided by algae.

Minimal cover was provided by the unidentified aquatic plant present at Arnett Creek. This plant provided No cover to 87% of the habitat units, and 3% cover in 10% of the habitat units. The remaining 3% of the habitat units had 5-25% cover provided by this unidentified plant. This plant forms thick mats of plant material and soil, with virtually no pockets of water. It grows mainly at the water's edge, contributing significantly to stable banks, but not to instream cover for fish or other aquatic fauna. In addition, a small amount of cover was provided by watercress and cattails.

40 PICICETPOST MOUNTALN/ARNEIT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Backwater Pools and Side Channels:

About 3% of the stream channel had backwater pools present, while approximately 8% of the stream channel was braided with side channels. The median backwater pool depth was 0.8 feet, while the median side channel pool depth was 0.6 feet. The median residual pool depth for backwaters was 0.95 feet and 0.8 feet for side channels. The side channels were characterized by 35% run, 33% pool, and 22% riffle habitat types. The approximate median width of a side channel was 4.5 feet, much smaller than the 7 foot median width of the main channel.

Average embeddeclness was estimated to be 4, which corresponds to "Gravel, rubble, and boulder particles having between 5 and 25% of their surface covered by fine sediment."

Bankfull Channel Characteristics

Three cross sections were measured as part of this habitat inventory. Table 1 shows all the Width/Depth (W/D) ratios taken as part of this inventory.

Table 1. Width/Depth Ratios at Bankfull Cross Sections W/D Ratio Cl 14 C2 12 C3 28

Three pebble counts were taken. Two in the Riparian Pasture, and one downstream of the Pasture, in the proposed exclosure area. Sand, gravel, and small cobble were the dominant substrates, although there was a fair amount of large cobble and silt/clay also present: Table 2 shows the corrected percent substrate over bankfull as well as the substrate size categories used.

Table 2. Corrected Percent Substrate Over Bankfull and Size Categories. Substrate Size Class In Riparian Below Pasture Type (mm) Pasture Pebble Count 1 Pebble Count 2 Pebble Count 3 Silt/Clay < 0.062 9 1 12 Sand 0.062-2 25 31 39

41 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Gravel 2-64 47 30 32 .., Small Cobble 64-128 14 18 10 Large Cobble 138-256 5 11 5 Small 256-1024 0 5 ' 3 Boulder . Large >1024 1 4 0 Boulder , Bedrock 0 0 0

Analysis of Suitability of Habitat for Reintroduction of Native Fish:

Eight fish were reviewed for possible reintroduction into Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon. These fish are Agosia chrysogaster (longfin dace), Catostomus insignis (Sonora sucker), Catostomus (Pantosteus) clarld (desert sucker), Gila intermedia (Gila chub), Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis (Gila topminnow), Meda fulgida (Spikedace), and Tiaroga cobitis (loach minnow). Gila chub is the only known record of native fish in the Arnett Creek drainage. Recent surveys by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Forest Service have shown only green sunfish and mosquitofish to be present at this time.

Longfm Dace: The longfin dace is a highly opportunistic fish, ranging from intermittent, low-desert streams to higher elevation brooks, although they are most commonly found in waters less than 4900 feet in elevation. Generally found over small cobble, gravel, and sand substrates, it is often concentrated in shallow ( < 6 inches) water with smooth, laminar flow. During warmer seasons, when the water temperatures exceed 75 degrees F, adults have been found in deeper, shaded areas. Longfin dace is known to survive in algal mats and under moist debris during desiccating conditions. From personal observations, longfin dace appear to be able to withstand significant flood events better than many other fish species, both native and non- native. Longfm dace appear to be able to repopulate an area with amazing speed, as they did in Pinto Creek in 1993. At this site, they were thought to be lost after a 50 year flood and spill from a nearby copper mine. Within only a few months, population numbers had risen dramatically in Pinto Creek.

The longfm dace is an excellent candidate for reintroduction into Arnett Creek. As described earlier in this document, Arnett Creek is subject to high energy, flashy runoff conditions, which the longfin dace is likely to persist in. The substrate available in Arnett Creek is dominated by sand, gravel, and small cobble, the substrates over which longfin dace are most

42 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT commonly found. Runs and shallow pools, both of which would be used heavily by longfin dace, are prominent, combining to comprise nearly 60% of the available habitat. As stated above, longfm dace is generally found in elevations of less than 4900 feet; the reach of Arnett Creek in question is less than 2600 feet in elevation.

Sonora Sucker: The Sonora sucker is often found in rocky or gravelly pools with instream cover. The preferred pool depth is generally greater than one foot in depth, over sand/gravel substrates. Adults may move from their cover sites into runs and riffles during the evening. Sub-adult suckers are found in runs and quiet eddies.

Considering the lack of deep or rocky pools and large-sized instream cover (large enough for adult Sonora sucker, who can easily reach lengths of 12-24 inches), it is not recommended that this fish is stocked into Arnett Creek at this time.

Desert sucker:

The desert sucker is found in riffles and flowing pools over gravel-rubble (i.e. small cobble) substrate with sandy silt in the interstices. Adults concentrate in pools, moving into riffles and runs in the evening, where they feed on encrusting algae scraped from stones. Sub-adults inhabit riffles, feeding on midge larvae. The desert sucker is resistant to downstream displacement during floods.

The desert sucker is another good candidate for reintroduction into Arnett Creek. Arnett Creek is subject to high energy, flashy runoff conditions, which the desert sucker is likely to persist in. The substrate available in Arnett Creek is dominated by sand, gravel, and small cobble; desert sucker is known to utilize gravel and small cobble substrates. Riffles and pools (although shallow) should provide adequate, although probably not optimal, habitat for the desert sucker. These habitats types comprise about 60% of the available habitat. The development of deeper pools would improve the habitat for the desert sucker. It is hoped that with only limited or no grazing (depending on the reach), these habitat changes will occur. Desert suckers are generally found in elevations between 300 and 6560 feet; the reach of Arnett Creek in question ranges from 2354 to 2600 feet in elevation.

Gila chub:

The Gila chub typically occupies pools in small streams, marshes, cienegas, or other quiet waters. It is a secretive fish, remaining in deeper waters with abundant cover. Preferred pools often have heavily vegetated margins and undercut banks. When available, it also utilizes heavily vegetated backwaters.

43 • PICICETPOST MOUNTADVARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The recorded occurrence of Gila chub earlier in this century gives an indication of the potential conditions in Arnett Creek. Arnett Creek must have supported a greater abundance of pools with heavily vegetated margins and well-developed, stable, undercut banks. Recent management actions, such as the creation of the Riparian Pasture, as well as a proposed special interest area which would result in a permanent riparian exclosure downstream from the Pasture, should contribute to improved fish habitat, including a deepening of pools, an increase in the occurrence of undercut banks, and an increase in instream cover. Continued improvement of upland conditions through more intensive management should also result in less flashy flood events. It is suggested that Arnett Creek is monitored closely over the next few years to determine if conditions improve to a level where the creek could support a Gila chub population. At this time, however, it is doubtful that Gila chub could persist in Arnett Creek, which is lacking undercut banks, and deep pools with abundant cover.

Gila Topminnow:

The Gila topminnow prefers shallow, warm, quiet waters, but can adjust to other conditions, including moderate currents, and depths up to three feet. It inhabits a variety of water bodies including springs, cienegas, marshes, permanent or intermittent streams, and historically, along the margins of large rivers. Preferred habitat has dense mats of algae and debris with sandy substrates, sometimes covered by organic mud and debris. The Gila topminnow does not appear to be highly resistant to downstream displacement during extreme flood events. Probability of displacement may be higher in creeks lacking habitat complexity and stable instream cover. The topminnow is not found below elevations of 5000 feet.

At the present time, the Gila topminnow is not a preferred species for reintroduction into Arnett Creek. Like the Gila chub, it is suggested that Arnett Creek is monitored and reevaluated in the future for the possible reintroduction of Gila topminnow. Considering the high-energy, flashy runoff conditions in Arnett Creek at the present time as well as the lack of cover, it is unlikely that the Gila topminnow, which does not appear to be highly resistant to downstream displacement during flood events, would persist in Arnett Creek.

Loach Minnow

The loach minnow is found in turbulent, rocky riffles of large to moderately-large rivers and streams up to about 2200 meters in elevation. Most habitat occupied by the loach minnow is relatively shallow, has moderate to swift current velocity and gravel to cobble dominated substrate.

44 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Arnett Creek, which is a small desert stream, is not similar in size to habitats which support the loach minnow. In addition, the creek does not support the turbulent, rocky riffles which the loach minnow are found in. Therefore, Arnett Creek does not contain habitat which would support the loach minnow.

Spikedace

Spikedace occupies flowing waters, usually less an a meter deep, and as adults often aggregate in shear zones along gravel-sand bars, quiet eddies on the downstream edge of riffles, and broad, shallow areas above gravel-sand bars. Spikedace is found in large and moderately sized rivers and streams.

As with the loach minnow, Arnett Creek does not provide adequate habitat because of its small size. Therefore, Arnett Creek does not provide suitable habitat for the spikedace.

Speckled Dace

Speckled dace generally occupies relatively swift, moderate sized creeks and rivers, often congregating below riffles and eddies. Breeding adults prefer the pocket waters associated with swift, high gradient riffles,

Arnett Creek does not contain such swift, well-developed riffles, and is considered a small sized creek. Therefore, it is doubtful that Arnett Creek has habitat suitable for the survival of speckled dace.

Fish Sources and Stocking Schedules: These aspects of the project are decisions to be made by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, who manages fish populations in the State of Arizona. It is recommended that fish are taken from within the Gila River Basin at a site near Arnett Creek to ensure genetic compatibility.

Environmental Consequences- Fisheries

Alternative A - No Action

Under this alternative, native fish would not be re-established in Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon. The area would not contribute to reversing the decline of native fish populations, the

45 PICKET-POST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT non-native fish would continue to exist in the Arnett Creek Watershed, and the barrier would not be constructed. No localized effects on the stream channel at the barrier site would occur.

Alternative B (Use of fish toxins, to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

Under this alternative, the Forest Service would support the re-establishment of native fish in Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon. The area would contribute to reversing the decline of longfm dace and desert sucker populations, but would not contribute to the reverse in the decline of Gila chub or the recovery of the Gila topminnow.

As described in the Affected Environment - Fisheries, the habitat is suitable to support the survival of longfin dace and desert sucker.

The non-native fish would be removed from the watershed using Antimycin A and Rotenone. Some taxa of macroinvertebrates would be reduced in numbers temporarily, and then return in abundance within a year. Taxa which sometimes disappear temporarily after treatment include Cladocera, Copeopda, Amphipoda, Ephemeroptera, and Trichoptera. Taxa generally not affected adversely include Protozoa, Rotatoria, Nematoda, Nematomolpha, Annelida, Ostracoda, Decapoda, Plecoptera, Odonata, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, Gastropoda, and Pelecypoda. Zooplankton numbers may also be reduced temporarily. When Big Dry Creek, on the Gila National Forest was treated with Antimycin A) in 1985, there was a minimal, short-term effect on the macroinvertebrate community, but no long-term effect was documented. Re-establishment of macroinvertebrates occurs more rapidly if upstream, permanent waters are not treated, thereby providing a source for recolonization. There are upstream waters that are not expected to require treatment, therefore, macroinvertebrate recolonization is expected to occur in a reasonable timeframe. Studies conducted indicate fish killing concentrations of Antimycin A or Rotenone result in no long-term, toxic effects to plankton or aquatic plants.

Impacts to the stream channel are discussed in the Soil/Water section.

Barrier Site Evaluation - Site 1

Barrier Site 1 is located in an intermittent reach of Arnett Creek, in T2N, R12E, Section 8 NE4SW4. The valley width at this site is approximately 125 feet, while the floodprone width is approximately 30 feet. South of the active channel is a terrace. There is no evidence of flood waters being present on this terrace. Vegetation is dominated by a cottonwood-willow community near the stream channel and mesquite on the terrace. The following discussion

46 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT refers to the Fish Barrier Selection Criteria discussed earlier in the Affected Environment - Fisheries section of this document.

This site conformed to all the critical (2-4) Selection Criteria (SC), as well as Criteria la and 7. The width of the floodprone area is low, decreasing the cost of the barrier (SC la), the anchoring substrates are bedrock and very large boulders embedded into the terrace (SC 2), the gradient is relatively high (SC 3), The adjacent floodplain is stable, with no evidence of floodwaters (SC 4), and access impacts would be minimal due to the use of helicopters to deliver most of the materials and equipment (SC 7).

This site does not conform to Criteria lb, 5 and 6. The width of the floodprone area is low, thereby resulting in a greater possibility of high-force flood events damaging the barrier (SC lb), The amount of habitat protected at this site does not include all the available habitat in Arnett Creek (SC 5). Access for the heavy equipment and heavy materials via overland access is not feasible (SC 6). Therefore, access for heavy equipment and heavy materials would be accomplished via helicopter, while access for lighter equipment and materials will probably be accomplished using ATVs or similar machinery.

The purpose of the barrier is to block upstream movement of fish during period of high flow from Queen Creek into perennial portions of Arnett Creek, above the barrier. Fish species which occur in Queen Creek are green sunfish and mosquitofish. These fish are aggressive, non-native fish that are known to negatively impact many fish native to Arizona. The barrier will not restrict downstream movement of fish from Arnett to Queen Creek.

Cumulative Effects:

Macroinvertebrate populations can be impacted by a variety of activities and situations, including fish toxins, flood events, and loss of habitat. While short-term impacts to macroinvertebrate populations are likely to occur due to this project, it is doubtful that these will accumulate with other impacts such as flood events and loss of perennial flow to a level that is detrimental to the long-term survival of the macroinvertebrate community. This is largely due to the ability of most macroinvertebrates to rapidly recolonize an impacted site and to the pockets of undisturbed macroinvertebrate communities that are expected to remain in untreated waters within the Arnett Watershed.

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

47 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNEIT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Most effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B. One exception to this is the effects of the different bather location. Below is an evaluation of the barrier location.

Barrier Site Evaluation - Site 2

Barrier Site 2 is located in an ephemeral reach of Arnett Creek, in T2N, R12E, Section 7 SW4NW4. The valley width at this site is approximately 150 feet, while the floodprone width is approximately 90 feet. South of the active channel is a terrace and stable hill There is no evidence of flood waters being present on this terrace and hill. Although there is no riparian vegetation near the stream channel, the terrace supports a stand of mesquite trees. The following discussion refers to the Fish Barrier Selection Criteria discussed earlier in the Affected Environment - Fisheries section of this document.

This site conformed to all the critical (2-4) Selection Criteria (SC), as well as Criteria lb, 5, and 6. The width of the floodprone area is high, resulting in a lower possibility of high-force flood events damaging the barrier (SC lb), the anchoring substrates are bedrock and large boulders embedded into the terrace (SC 2), the gradient is relatively high (SC 3), The adjacent floodplain is stable, with no evidence of floodwaters (SC 4), and the amount of habitat protected from reinvasion by exotic fish is maximized at this site (SC 5). Access is possible via an abandoned road (SC 6)and access impacts would be minimized due to the presence of an abandoned road which will need rehabilitation, but not new construction (SC 7). Therefore, the site is considered to conform reasonably well to SC 7.

This site does not conform to Criteria la. The width of the floodprone area is high, thereby resulting in a greater barrier cost (SC la). These costs, however, will be offset by the reduced transportation costs associated with Site 1.

Barrier Site 2 is the preferred site from a fisheries standpoint.

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1, Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from the fish barrier, and the use of fish toxins to remove the exotic fish are similar to those described for Alternative B. The difference between Alternatives B and D involve supporting the reintroduction of Gila chub and Gila topminnow by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. As described in the Affected Environment - Fisheries and Soil/Water sections, fish habitat inventories and watershed characteristics suggest that the habitat will not currently support Gila chub and Gila topminnow. In addition to this, if the Gila topminnow were

48 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT reintroduced and it was found that exotic fish had not been completely extirpated from the Arnett Creek Watershed, it would not be advisable to spot treat the creek with fish toxins because those fish toxins would result in take of the Gila topminnow, a federally listed species. The presence of the exotic fish would then continue to negatively impact the native fish and amphibian populations indefinitely. This alternative would contribute to reversing the decline of longfin dace, desert sucker, and Gila chub populations, as well as contributing to the recovery of the Gila topminnow.

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from the fish barrier, and the use of fish toxins to remove the exotic fish are similar to those described for Alternative C. Effects from the species for reintroduction by the Arizona Game and Fish Department are similar to those described in Alternative D.

D. AIR

Air quality will not be significantly affected by any alternative. No alternative proposes prescribed burns. Very little dust and other air pollutants will be produced by any actions in any of the alternatives.

E. MINERALS AND GEOLOGY

Affected Environment

Arnett and Telegraph Creek are located near the southern edge of the Transition Zone between the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range Provinces of Arizona. The area is characterized by widespread plutonic and volcanic activity, Tertiary in age and Basin & Range type in deformation. Volcanics include flows, intrusive rocks, and tuffs interbedded with sand, gravel, and conglomerate. These units form steep cliffs along the creeks and offer excellent exposure of the flow rhyolite which has been identified as the Arnett Member of the Sleeping Buffalo Rhyolite here named for its type section along Arnett Creek.

Approximately 170 existing mining claims have been identified in the sections containing Arnett Creek and Telegraph Creeks within the project area (BLM Records, August 28, 1995). The project area, as it could relate to mineral and geological resources is defined as Arnett and

49 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Telegraph Creeks within the following legal description: T2S, R12E, Sections 7, 8, 16, and 17. These sections contain the reaches of stream proposed for reintroduction of native fish as well as construction of the barrier.

There are no oil or gas leases within the project area, which is within a zone identified as exhibiting low probability for economic petroleum reserves. Only two known thermal wells are located in the vicinity, approximately two miles to the south. Geochemical evidence does not substantiate geothermal resources in the region. There are no active mining operations or quarries located within the project area, however, the area is adjacent to numerous known occurrences of copper, zinc, silver, gold, lead, manganese, and perlite.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts to either the geologic resources or mining industry are expected under this alternative.

Alternative B (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

No impacts to the geologic resources are expected under this alternative.

A concern that the establishment of native fish would impact mining in the area was expressed. Longfin dace and desert sucker are not federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Therefore, no possible restrictions under the ESA would be imposed on mining activities in the area.

No impacts are expected from the other fascets of the project, including the fish barrier, which is so small in scale and is located in an area hidden from most of the areas view shed as not to detract from the viewing the geologic formations near Picketpost Mountain.

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

50 PICKETPOST MOUNTALN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from Alternative D differ from effects from Alternatives B and C with respect to the reintroduction of a federally listed fish, the Gila topminnow. The Gila topminnow is listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Based on past Biological Opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Tonto National Forest, Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) and corresponding Terms and Conditions have been imposed on other land uses such as livestock grazing. These RPMs generally involve expenditures on fish population and habitat monitoring programs. To date, however, the RPMs generally have not imposed significant changes to other land uses. This may be due to the Forest Service's attempts to minimize impacts to TE&S species during informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and during the NEPA process. No examples of Biological Opinions regarding impacts to the Gila topminnow from mining activities have occurred on the Tonto National Forest. Therefore, it is not possible to infer from specific past mining experiences.

Although past Biological Opinions have not resulted in significant changes to other land uses, it is possible that restrictions could occur in future Biological Opinions. Such restrictions could result in the modification of the activity, but would probably not stop the project.

Other effects are similar to those described in Alternative B.

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from Alternative E are similar to those in Alternative D.

F. LIVESTOCK

Affected Environment

Historic livestock use in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek varies with the area in question. Picketpost Mountain itself is inaccessible to livestock due to the steep topography. Therefore, the Mountain, including the plateau on top has never been grazed by livestock. The area to the north of Picketpost Mountain, between the Mountain and the Boyce Thompson Southwest Arboretum has been under a Special Use Permit since 1929. As part of

51 PICKETPOST MOUNTA1N/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT this Special Use Permit, the area was to be fenced as an exclosure. Such extensive repair of the fence is now necessary, that it is preferable to replace the fence with new materials rather than patch the old fence. Under full LMP implementation, the Management Area 2E is to be excluded from livestock until a decision is made on the Proposed RNA. Since full funding has never been realized, full LMP implementation has not been accomplished and the rest of the Proposed RNA has not been fenced and some existing fences are in disrepair. As stated above, the Mountain itself naturally excludes itself from livestock and the area under a Special Use Permit has been historically fenced as part of the permit requirements.

Until 1993, Arnett Creek, upstream of the Proposed RNA, was included in a larger pasture as part of the Superior Allotment. It was under a standard three-pasture rotation system. Telegraph Canyon and the area to the west and south of Picketpost Mountain is also included in a larger pasture, under a standard three-pasture rotation system. 315 adult cattle are permitted in the Superior Allotment. In 1993, the Arnett Creek Riparian Pasture was created, drastically limiting the amount of time and number of livestock that have access into Arnett Creek, thereby benefiting the other resource values of the area.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts to livestock are expected under this alternative.

Alternative B (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

A concern that the establishment of native fish would impact livestock resources in the area was expressed. Longfin dace and desert sucker are not listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Therefore, no possible restrictions under the ESA would be imposed on the livestock in the area.

No impacts are expected from the other aspects of the project, including the fish barrier. As discussed in the wildlife and public safely sections of this chapter, no impacts from the fish toxin are expected on mammals, including livestock.

52 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Under this alternative a gap fence would no longer be necessary at the downstream edge of the existing riparian pasture because the barrier, in conjunction with the fence on the terrace would block access by livestock.

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B, except that the barrier would not block livestock access from the Riparian Pasture as it does in Alternative B.

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from Alternative D differ from effects from Alternatives B and C with respect to the reintroduction of a federally listed fish, the Gila topminnow. The Gila topminnow is listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. On the Tonto National Forest, past Biological Opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have contained Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) and corresponding Terms and Conditions which have been imposed on other land uses such as livestock grazing. These RPMs generally involve expenditures on fish population and habitat monitoring programs. To date, however, the RPMs generally have not imposed significant changes to other land uses. This may be due to the Forest Service's attempts to minimize impacts to TE&S species during informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NEPA process. Such attempts generally result in reduced livestock numbers, managed season of use within occupied habitat, limitations on the amount of time livestock are permitted access to occupied habitat, or the complete removal of livestock from the occupied habitat.

Effects from the barrier are similar to those described in Alternative B.

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

53 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Effects from the reintroduction of listed fish are similar to those described in Alternative D. Other effects are similar to those described in Alternative C.

G. LANDS AND SPECIAL USES

Affected Environment

A special use permit was issued to the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum on January 3, 1929, for 726 acres on the north end of the analysis =a, between Picketpost Mountain and the Arboretum. The permit was issued for the purpose of studying the exclusion of livestock and conducting experiments in re-vegetation. The permit is outdated and is in need of revision if it is to be reissued to the Arboretum.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts are expected to lands or special uses as a result of this alternative.

Alternatives B (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker)

This alternative will not affect the special use permit issued to the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. The permit was issued to study the exclusion of livestock and vegetative research. Neither the livestock exclosure nor the vegetation would be impacted by this project.

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Bather at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

54 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfin Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

H. RECREATION

Affected Environment

Recreational use in the area is mainly dispersed recreation and hiking. Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek are popular dispersed recreation sites for people in the local area, as well as people visiting the area. Visitors from the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum sometimes hike into the area, drawn by the riparian zone, the impressive geological form. ations, and the areas scenic values. Visitor use is Moderate as compared to other forest areas. Camping is relatively common on a terrace of Arnett Creek downstream of Telegraph Canyon, near an abandoned road. Unauthorized ORV use is occurring in the area, but has not caused significant resource damage to date. It is possible, however, that unauthorized ORV use could result in significant resource damage in the future.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A ( No Action)

Wildlife viewing, a popular recreational activity, would be impacted by this alternative. The Yavapai leopard frog can be easily observed while walking along perennial waterways. Continued predation on leopard frogs would affect recreational wildlife viewing activities. No other recreational impacts are expected from this alternative.

Alternative B (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker)

55 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

No negative impacts to the visitor experience are expected from the native fish re-establishment project. Arnett Creek and Telegraph Canyon are not considered a significant sport fishery. Arizona Game and Fish Department is continuing work with the town of Kearney to rebuild an urban lake that would provide anglers a place to fish in the area. In addition, Roosevelt Lake and the Upper Salt River are within a couple hours driving distance from the town of Superior. Excellent fishing opportunities are provided at these sites.

It is expected that the removal of green sunfish will benefit the leopard frog population in the long term. Leopard frogs are easily seen by people hiking along riparian zones.

Alternative C (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

Alternative D (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 1; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topmimiow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

Alternative E (Use of fish toxins to remove fish; Fish Barrier at Site 2; Fish Species: Longfm Dace, Desert Sucker, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow)

Effects from this alternative are similar to those for Alternative B.

I. OTHER EFFECTS

1. Public Safety

Affected Environment

Arnett Creek is a popular site for dispersed recreational activities near the Town of Superior, Arizona, which is located just a few miles to the north. In addition, the Arizona Trail is located to the west, along Alamo Canyon.

56 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNEIT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)

No impacts to public safely are expected under this alternative.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Under the action alternatives (Alternative B, C, D, and E), no effects to humans are expected to occur. Extensive studies have been conducted regarding the toxicity of Antimycin A and Rotenone. The rate of degradation of Antimycin A is rapid in natural waters, being accelerated in the presence of high pH and high temperature, and light. Complete degradation can take from 1-14 days, but usually occurs between 4 and 7 days. The half-life of Antimycin A in laboratory tests ranged from 310 hours at pH 6.0 to 1.5 hours at pH 10 at water at 12 C. The rate of degradation of Rotenone in warm water systems is strongly affected by the water temperatures. Dissipation time has been reported to vary from 1-26 days, depending on the water temperature. Complete degradation in Arnett Creek, at wanner temperatures is expected to occur within 1-7 days. The half life of Rotenone in field tests was 0.94 days in warm water (24 degrees C) and 10.3 days in cold water (5 degrees C).

Potassium permanganate will be on site, if needed to neutralize the Antimycin A or Rotenone. Potassium permanganate deactivates Antimycin A and Rotenone within a few minutes.

It has been calculated that low concentrations of Antimycin A are not hamrdous to humans whether it is consumed in water or in food (such as fish). If a standard man (70 kg) drinks 1 day's water (1.5 liters) from a very recently treated body of water (containing a concentration of 10 ppb Antimycin A), he would take in 15 micrograms of Antimycin. A standard man when eating 0.5 kg of fish tissue containing 200 micrograms/kg of Antimycin would ingest 100 micrograms of Antimycin. In consuming both water and fish, the total maximum daily intake of Antimycin would be 115 micrograms or 1/17,000 times the oral LD50 of the rat. For comparison purposes, an average person would have to drink more than 50,000 gallons of recently treated water, or consume more than 22,000 pounds of treated fish per day to receive a toxic dose of Antimycin.

Similarly, a 150 pound person would have to consume 608 pounds of raw fish containing 100 parts per billion (ppb) rotenone, or drink 17,940 gallons of treated water to acquire a toxic dose. Cooking or boiling the substance would further destroy the dose.

57 PICK1TPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Studies indicate that Antimycin A and Rotenone has some irritation potential to the eye and skin. However, the inflammation to the skin and eyes even at high concentrations can be prevented by 1) wearing protective eye gear and clothing; 2) washing with soap and clean water if contact occurs; 3) notifying publics in or near the renovation zone prior to Antimycin A or Rotenone treatment.

The above discussion also applies to birds and other mammals including, but not limited to, dogs, cats, and cattle.

2. Special Area Designations

Affected Environment

Barrier Site 1 is located on the boundary of the Proposed RNA, while Barrier Site 2 is located in the Proposed RNA. The Proposed RNA has been removed from consideration for designation due to the high number of mineral claim conflicts in the area.

There is a current proposal to designate the Picketpost Mountain area as a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area. FS Manual Direction (FSM 2372) indicates that Geological, Botanical and Zoological Areas are managed as an integral part of the National Forest System with emphasis on its unique values. Other values or resources are to be managed at a level compatible with the area's primary values and overall National Forest management objectives.

Environmental Consequences

Under alternative A, the native fish would not be re-established. This would contribute to the continuing decline of native fish species in Arizona and would not support the primary values of this area.

Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, the re-establishment of native fish will contribute to the values of the aquatic, zoological resources associated with Arnett and Telegraph Creeks. Re- establishment activities (including the barrier construction) are compatible with the values for the area, and does not conflict with the other geological, botanical or zoological values in the area. This project is therefore compatible with the unconnected proposals to give a special

58 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT designation such as a Geological, Zoological, and Botanical Area designation to the Picketpost Mountain/Arnett Creek vicinity.

3. Private Lands

Affected Environment

There are two pieces of private land that contain permanent waters which may need to be treated for the removal of exotic fish. These parcels are located within the following legal location:

Part of Sections 22, 26, and 27 of T 2 S, R 12 E, Salt River Base and Meridian.

Environmental Consequences

Permission has been obtained from these land owners to remove the exotic fish from their. property if necessary. See the discussion under 1. Public Safely (this section) for a human and domestic animal safety analysis.

J. NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT (NFMA) FINDINGS

The native fish re-establishment project furthers LMP Standards and Guidelines for all Management Areas, which states that wannwater, non-game type streams are to be managed to support Gila sucker and longfin dace. Gila sucker is a synonym of desert sucker.

The project design specifications adhere to the standards and guidelines (LMP, pages 35-51, 84-90). The project does not involve timber harvest nor is it located in suitable timber land; therefore, the other required NFMA findings do not need to be addressed.

59 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNEIT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 4- LIST OF PREPARERS

Identification of Interdisciplinary Team _OD Team) Lisa Bizios, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Team Leader, Fisheries Lew Myers,Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Riparian Janet Johnson, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Riparian Stuart Herkenhoff, Globe Ranger District, Recreation, Lands, Minerals Don Pollock, Tonto Basin Ranger District, Wildlife Carolyn Cox, Tonto Basin Ranger District, Wildlife Janie Agyagos, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Wildlife Anthony Miller, Globe Ranger District, Range Grant Loomis, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Watershed Lisa Schaalman, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Lands and Minerals Karyn Harbour, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Minerals

Identification of Recommendation Team*

Leanne Olmstead, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Engineer Steve Wendland, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Engineer Milada Pajaczkowski, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Geoteclmical Engineer Roy Jameson, Rocky Mountain Range and Experimental Station, Scientist Larry Soehlig, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Lands and Minerals Eddie Alford, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Range Larry Widner, Globe Ranger District, District Ranger Mike Ross, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Wildlife Jerry Stefferud, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Fisheries Rich Martin, Tonto NF Supervisor's Office, Watershed Bob Dunblazier, Tonto NF, Supervisor's Office, NEPA Coordinator and Group Leader Bill Wessell, Tonto NF, Supervisor's Office, NEPA Coordinator Paul Stewart, Tonto NF, Supervisor's Office, NEPA Coordinator

* At various points in the NEPA process, certain recommendations were requested from knowledgeable persons. The above referenced "Recommendation Team" was comprised of Forest Service personnel who's input was solicited because of their expertise or their knowledge of Policy, the Forest Plan, and Internal Directives.

60 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 5- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Extensive public involvement was conducted. The need for initiation of the NEPA process was brought forward at a meeting between the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum, the Forest Service and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. After the NEPA process was formally initiated, over 300 people were sent a scoping letter which solicited comments. All known interested parties were sent this scoping letter including, but not limited to, those on the Tonto National Forest LMP Commenter Mailing List and the Globe Ranger District Integrated Resource Management (IRM) Mailing List.

Excluding Forest Service Representatives, approximately 23 people were invited to the November 1, 1994, meeting to review and identify Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities, and to develop draft objectives. Those invited included, but were not limited to, the Globe Ranger District IRM Mailing List, and local agencies such as the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Several representatives from the Arizona Game and Fish Department attended. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not able to send a representative to this meeting.

On June 22, 1994, interested parties were mailed a letter soliciting comments regarding the draft objectives and alternatives, which were enclosed. Those receiving the letter included, but were not limited to, the Globe Ranger District IRM Mailing List, those persons on the LMP Commenters List who either responded to the first scoping letter or returned the "Information Request" Slip, the local livestock permittee, and mining companies with local claims or interests.

On October 11, 1995, several members of the ID Team, including the District Ranger, met with representatives of Kennecott Exploration and Harborlite Corporation, two mining companies with significant interests in the area. The alternatives developed as of that date were presented and questions answered. Updated mining claim information was solicited. On November 1, 1995, several members met with a second Hathorlite representative to present the alternatives and answer questions. On December 4, 1995, the ID Team leader and the District Ranger met with the permittee to present the alternatives and answer questions. On the same day, the ID Team leader and the District Ranger met with Mr. Bill Feldman from the Boyce Thompson Southwest Arboretum to present the alternatives and answer questions. The above meetings were primarily regarding the unconnected proposal to withdraw the area from future mining claims and an analysis of the livestock grazing within the area proposed as a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area. These proposals are being evaluated in a separate Environmental Assessment. During these meetings, the fisheries project was described and questions from the arboretum, mining companies and livestock permittee were answered.

61 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Because the Arizona Game and Fish Department has the primary responsibility for the management of fish populations in Arizona, the Department was significantly involved in this project. Will Hayes, Region Five Fisheries Program Manager, Craig McMullen, Wildlife Manager, and Kirk Young, Native Fish Biologist from the Arizona Game and Fish Department consulted on technical aspects of the native fish re-establishment proposal. Funding for the Arnett Creek Native Fish Re-establishment Project has been provided, in part, by the Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Fund through an IIPAM grant.

The Bureau of Reclamation and Arizona State University were contacted regarding the design of the fish barrier. Bureau employees and two fisheries professors from the university contributed to the development of the selection criteria for the barrier site as well as the barrier specifications.

Below are agencies, organizations, and individuals who have been contacted regarding this project. As stated earlier in this section, in addition to those persons listed below, over 300 people from the Tonto National Forest LMP Commentor Mailing List were mailed an initial scoping letter and an "Information Request" Slip to be returned if they were interested in participating further in this project development. All persons who returned the Information Request Slip are included in the list below. Also included in the following list are persons on the Globe IRM Mailing List and any agencies, organizations, or individuals who were thought to have an interest in the area or project. Kim Sweetman, Boyce Thompson Arboretum Bill Feldman, Boyce Thompson Arboretum Sherry Ruther, Arizona Game and Fish Department Daryl Magnuson, Arizona Game and Fish Department Will Hayes, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Region 5 Fisheries Program Manager Kirk Young, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Native Fish Program Manager Dave Weedman, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix Office, Native Fish Biologist Craig McMullen, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Manager Mike Sredl, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix Office, Herpetologist Linus Keating, Kennecott Exploration Richard Moorhead, Kennecott Exploration Joey Wilkins, Kennecott Exploration Harvey Smith, Harborlite Corporation Louis Lucero, Harborlite Corporation Sam Spiller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rob Clarkson, Bureau of Reclamation, Fisheries Biologist Gus Zebian, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineer Dr. W.L. Minckley, Arizona State University, Professor Dr. Paul Marsh, Arizona State University, Professor

62 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

James, Frank, and Phyllis Herron, TU Ranch Carolyn Gronlund American Fisheries Society, AZ/NM Chapter Arizona Wildlife Federation, Mesa AZ Ronald and Dolly Armstead Barbara Bair Michelle Buzan Jim Clark Jane B. Cole Richard Foster Mike Guzman, Guzman Corporation Cathy Nelson and Nancy Win stein, Mothers for Clean Water Dennis E. Ashcroft Bill Blunt, Harborlite Corporation Tom Cassidy, American Rivers Ron Clawson, Environmental Protection Agency Al Crossman Glen Frederick, Tucson Office, Arizona Game and Fish Department Lisa Anderson, Phoenix Office, Arizona Game and Fish Department David Babcock Jeff Burgess Larry Caudell, Wildlife Legislative Council Anne Coe, Superstition Area Land Trust Barry Gartell, Arizona Association of Counties David Hogan, Southwest Center for Biological Diversity John Lacy Sue Morgensen, Arizona Game and Fish Department S.J. and J.E. Quinney Library, Utah State University Peter Warren, The Nature Conservancy Larry and Rose Marie Huff James Keating, Kennecott Exploration Company Bill Marshall, Chaparral Guides and Outfitters Don Moniak James W. Norton Wayne D. Rainey John Williams, Tame Tic Committee Terry Johnson Nicholas C. Krauja

63 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Leonard Pax Mike Seidman Don Steuter, Sierra Club Conservation Chair Leonard Wister

64 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX

A. Project Record Index

B. Additional Issues

65 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT• CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX A PROJECT RECORD INDEX

_ DOC DOCUMENT NAME DOC DOC ADDRESSEE DATE # AUTHOR 1 Comments received regarding Biological USFWS Larry Widner, 04/21/93 Evaluation for Arnett Creek Riparian Pasture Globe Dist. Fence. Ranger 2 Confirmation of meeting to discuss Proposed Forest Bill Feldman, 06/24/93 Picketpost RNA and Arnett Creek areas. Supervisor, Boyce Thompson TNF Southwestern Arboretum 3 Agenda and Information Packet for July 22, Lisa Bizios, File 07/22/93 1993 Meeting. TNF 4 July 22, 1993 Meeting Sign-In Sheet. Attendees File 07/22/93 5 Issues, Comments, and Opportunities from Lisa Bizios, File 07/22/93 7-22-93 Meeting at Boyce Thompson TNF Arboretum. 6 Letter designating IDT Leader and Members Larry Forest 08/24/93 - Arnett Creek/Picketpost Mountain Widner, Supervisor, TNF Globe Dist. Ranger 7 Scoping letters and request for comments, Forest Public, Interested 09/23/93 (a-d) September 23, 1993. Picketpost Supervisor, Agencies Mountain/Arnett Creek Analysis Area TNF . 8 Input letters from public responding to Various Forest 09/30/93 (a,b) 9/23/93 request for comment letter. Supervisor, TNF to 10/05/93 9 Input letter responding to 9/23/93 request for Mark H. Forest 10/12/93 comment letter. Hibpslunan, Supervisor, TNF Bureau of Mines 10 November 1, 1993 Meeting Sign-In Sheet. Attendees File 11/01/93 11 Agenda and Information Packet for Lisa Bizios, File 11/01/93 November 1, 1993 meeting. TNF 12 Letter: Proposal summary & cost estimate Forest EPA 11/09/93 for Arnett Creek Native Fish Supervisor, Reestablishment Project. TNF

66 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNEIT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT _ DOC DOCUMENT NAME DOC DOC ADDRESSEE DATE # AUTHOR 13 March 22, 1994 Meeting Sign-In Sheet. Attendees File 03/22/94 14 Letter: Request for comments regarding draft ID Team Public, Interested 06/22/94 management objectives and alternatives for Agencies Picketpost Mountain/Arnett Creek Analysis Area, June 22, 1994. 15 Input letters from public responding to June Various Forest 07/15/94 (a-g) 22, 1994 request for comment letter Supervisor, TNF 16 Input letter responding to June 22, 1994 Jerome A. Forest 07/21/94 request for comment letter. Stefferud, Supervisor, TNF TNF 17 Input letter responding to June 22, 1994 USFWS Forest 07/25/94 request for comment letter. Supervisor, TNF 18 Summary of public comments responding to Lisa Bizios, Various 08/17/94 June 22, 1994 request for comment letter. TNF 19 Response to July 14, 1994 letter. Forest Jeff Burgess 09/01/94 Supervisor, TNF 20 Response to July 12, 1994 letter. Forest Mike Seidman 09/13/94 Supervisor, TNF 21 January 13, 1995 ID Team Meeting Sign-In Attendees File 01/13/95 Sheet 22 Agenda for January 13, 1995 meeting Lisa Bizios, File 01/13/95 TNF 23 IDT Meeting Notes (1-13-95) Lisa Bizios, File 01/13/95 TNF 24 Agenda - Arnett Creek Field Trip (2-16-95) Lisa Bizios, File 02/16/95 TNF 25 Request for species list. Forest USFWS 06/20/95 Supervisor, . TNF 26 Letter requesting permission to remove Forest Frank Herron 10/05/95 exotic fish from private land. Supervisor, TNF 27 Letter requesting permission to remove Forest Carolyn 10/05/95 exotic fish from private land. Supervisor, Gronlund TNF

67 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DOC DOCUMENT NAME DOC DOC ADDRESSEE DATE # _ AUTHOR 28 Fisheries Report - Picketpost Lisa Bizios, File 12/05/95 Mountain/Arnett Creek Area, as amended TNF (amend date 3-14-96) 29 Riparian Vegetation Specialists Report Janet File 01/96 Johnson _ 30 Species list of threatened, endangered, or USFWS File 03/06/96 proposed species in the Arnett Creek vicinity _ 31 Letter regarding 401 permit. Forest Arizona 04/11/96 Supervisor, Department of TNF Environmental Quality 32 Letter confirming discussions between Kirk Lisa Bizios, 04/15/96 AGFD and FS biologists regarding barrier Young, TNF site, species proposed for reintroduction, and AGFD use of fish toxin. 33 Letter requesting access through state Forest Bill Feldman, 04/16/96 property for construction of fish barrier. Supervisor, Boyce Thompson TNF Southwestern , Arboretum

68 PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX B

This appendix contains issues that were dismissed if the issue was outside the proposed action scope, irrelevant to the decision being made, or beyond the geographical influence of the proposed action. Many of these issues are within the scope of other current proposals in the Picketpost Mountain/Arnett Creek vicinity. These issues will be addressed in a separate Environmental Assessment.

Bl. Why was this stream chosen for reintroduction of native fish instead of other streams, which "would not require the construction of a fish barrier"? This issue is beyond the geographic influence of the proposed project, whose purpose is to support the re-establishment of native fish in the Arnett Creek watershed. This project does not preclude fish re- establishment projects in other areas.

B2. There was concern that mineral entry and development would be restricted in the area as a result of proposed mineral withdrawal. Important mineral resources are present in the vicinity. This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal to withdraw the Picketpost Mountain/Arnett Creek vicinity from future mining claims and designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that EA.

B3. There was a concern that livestock would be cut off from permanent waters, and that the costs and difficulty level of the construction and maintenance of the livestock fences necessary for any exclosure or expansion of the riparian pasture would be excessive. This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal to change livestock management in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek and designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that EA.

B4. An issue regarding the accessible grazing comparison area opportunity was identified. It was suggested that grazing is not an appropriate use in a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area. This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal to change livestock management and designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that EA.

69 PICICETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

B5. There was a suggestion that the Special Designation area be expanded to include the entire watershed.. This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue to address regarding the proposal to designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmerual Assessment. This issue will be addressed in that EA.

B6. Lands within the Picketpost Mountain/Arnett Creek vicinity are currently available for exchange under the Tonto National Forest base for exchange plan. . This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that EA.

B7. Minerals issues included the possible impacts by mining to other resources and the high number of mining claims in the area. This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal to withdraw the area from future mineral claims and designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that EA.

BS. It was suggested that we use the following information in the analysis: "a map of mining claims, information regarding exploration activities in the last five years, and mitigation proposals regarding access needs of owners of patented claims." This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal to withdraw the area from future mineral claims and designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that E4.

B9. Illegal off-road vehicle use in the area may be having negative impacts on other resource values. This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal to designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that EA.

70 *

PICKETPOST MOUNTAIN/ARNETT CREEK AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT B10. In earlier draft alternatives, the location of the riparian pasture was incorrectly identified on the map. This error has been corrected. Because of this error there was concern that a riparian area formerly closed to grazing would now be open to grazing. Had this been the case, the quality and potential of the riparian vegetation in Arnett Creek would have been higher in the Riparian Pasture than in the proposed exclosure, and comparisons could not have been made between the two areas. This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal to change livestock management and designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity of Pickegrost Mountain and Arnett Creek. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that EA.

B11. Issues pertaining to the possibility of issuing a special use permit included fees, size limits, maintenance of fence responsibility, length of permit, and other terms and conditions. There were also concerns that the Special Use Permit would give the permit holder "regulatory and resource management authority over the area". This concern was beyond the scope of the fisheries project, but is an appropriate issue regarding the proposal to re-issue a Special Use Permit to the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum and designate a Geological, Botanical, and Zoological Area in the vicinity of Picketpost Mountain and Arnett Creek. That proposal is being analyzed in a separate Environmental Assessment. This issue will be included in that EA.