Wildlife Specialist's Report Fossil Creek Range Allotment

Home , Fossil Creek

20130516FossilAllotmentWildlifeSpecRpt.doc

United States Department of Wildlife Specialist’s Agriculture

Report Forest Service

Fossil Creek Range Allotment

Analysis of Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Cumulative Effects for:

Listed, Proposed, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species; Neotropical Migratory Birds; and General Wildlife

Red Rock District, Coconino National Forest Yavapai County, Arizona

Date:

Prepared by: Janie Agyagos, Wildlife Staff, Red Rock Ranger District Jill Oertley, Wildlife Biologist, Mogollon Rim Ranger District

Signatures:

Completed by: /s/ Janie Agyagos 5/16/2013 District Wildlife Staff Date Red Rock Ranger District Coconino National Forest Completed by: /s/ Jill Oertley 5/16/2013 District Wildlife Biologist Date Mogollon Rim Ranger District Coconino National Forest

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 3 THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS ...... 21 FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES ...... 49 OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ...... 98 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) ...... 100 MIGRATORY BIRDS ...... 115 GENERAL WILDLIFE (NON-SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) ...... 130 LITERATURE CITED ...... 135 APPENDIX B ...... 151

2 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the affected environment and environmental consequences of the actions described in the Environmental Assessment for the Fossil Creek Grazing Allotment on threatened, endangered, Forest Service sensitive species, Management Indicator Species and migratory birds. A separate specialist report covers special status fish and plant species.

This report analyzes the alternatives as identified in the Fossil Creek Allotment Environmental Assessment of May 2013, which includes the resource protection measures discussed therein.

This report includes detailed information and analysis, which is used to inform the Fossil Creek Allotment Environmental Assessment (EA). In some situations, the EA presents the information in a slightly different manner. In these situations, the EA was the instrument used to inform the decision-making process. Specialist reports, including this report, are important reference sources for more detailed information on affected environment, methodology, and analysis that was not included in the EA. This is based on the Council for Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations (Section 1508.9), which identifies and Environmental Assessment as a “concise public document” to include “brief discussions” of the proposal, alternatives, environmental impacts of the alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

The Endangered Species Act, Forest Service Manual, Coconino National Forest Plan The Endangered Species Act (ESA, PL 93-205), Forest Service Manuals (FSM) 2670.11, 2670.21 and 2670.31 directions, the Coconino National Forest Plan standards (replacement page 23, 64) all require that National Forest System lands are not only managed for endangered, threatened and proposed (TEP) species, but also to recover TEP species. The ESA states that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve TEP species. FSM 2670 directs Forests to manage National Forest System habitats to achieve recovery of TEP species and to avoid the need to implement special protection measures under the ESA.

Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) declares that "…all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act." Section 7 directs Federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats (16 U.S.C. 1536 et sq.). Federal agencies also must consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service whenever an action authorized by the agency is likely to affect a species listed as threatened or endangered or to affect its critical habitat. The Act mandates conference with the Secretary of the Interior whenever an action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed for listing as threatened or

3 endangered, or whenever an action might result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed for listing (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)4).

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) The Eagle Act, originally passed in 1940, prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, or barter, transport, export, or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16U.S.C 668(a);50CFR 22). “Take” is defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb” a bald or golden eagle. The term “disturb” under the Eagle Act was recently defined via a final rule published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 31332). “Disturb” means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.

Forest Service Sensitive Species Forest Service Manual 2621.2 directs managers to display findings under the various management alternatives considered for individual projects. This assessment is based on the current geographic range of sensitive species on the Coconino National Forest and the area affected by the project. This assessment considers, as appropriate for the species and area, factors that may affect the current trend for the species population.

Sensitive species are defined as "those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution [FSM 2670.5(19)]". It is the policy of the Forest Service regarding sensitive species to 1. assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species, 2. as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species, 3. avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern, 4. if impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole (the Line Officer, with project approval authority, makes the decision to allow or disallow impacts, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing), and

4 5. Establish management objectives in cooperation with the State when projects on National Forest system lands may have a significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distributions.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Management guidance for management indicator species (MIS), other wildlife and fish resources, and diversity of plant and animal populations, is found in several key documents. The 1982 National Forest Management Act Regulations (planning regulations) at 36 CFR 219 set forth a process for developing, adopting, and revising land and resource management plans for the National Forest System (36 CFR 219.1) and identifies requirements for integrating fish and wildlife resources in forest land management plans (36 CFR 219.13). On January 5, 2005 the Department of Agriculture issued a final rule to remove the 2000 planning regulations at 36 CFR 219 (a) in their entirety, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023. Clarification for the forests MIS obligations is found at 36 CFR at 219.14 (f). For forests, like the Coconino, that developed their Forest Plan under the 1982 NFMA regulations the Responsible Official may comply with any obligations relating to MIS by considering data and analysis relating to habitat unless the Forest Plan specifically requires population monitoring or population surveys. On the Coconino, population data is required for: elk, mule deer, pronghorn and turkey. The appropriate scale for MIS monitoring is the area covered by the Forest Plan, 36 CFR 219.14 (f). The new planning regulations are intended to provide flexibility for MIS monitoring, which will allow for monitoring of habitat conditions as a surrogate for population trend data. 36 CFR 219.14 clarifies that MIS monitoring is appropriate at the times and places appropriate to the specific species and is not required within individual project or activity areas (70 Fed. Reg. 1021-1091).

Migratory Birds On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186 for the “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” which directed the federal agencies to develop an MOU with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to promote conservation of migratory birds. Agencies shall identify potential impacts to migratory birds and their habitats, avoid or minimize adverse impacts, restore and enhance habitats, and evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds. Where they exist, other analyses should be used, such as the Arizona Partners in Flight Conservation Plan.

GENERAL EFFECTS OF GRAZING TO WILDLIFE In order to avoid redundancy in the species-by-species analysis below, effects of grazing to wildlife are summarized here. This review of the literature summarizes the effects of grazing on wildlife in a variety of scenarios, not all of which are comparable to Fossil Creek Allotment. Additional, species-specific analysis is included in the species specific analysis below.

5 Upland Species Activities associated with the management of Fossil Creek Allotment include: grazing, construction and maintenance of infrastructure such as earthen water tanks, pasture and boundary fences, pipelines, troughs, cattle guards, and livestock management activities. These activities can directly affect wildlife species when ranch employees, vehicles, livestock, and dogs cause aural and visual disturbance to individuals that may be present in the allotment. Most bird, mammal, reptile, and aerial invertebrate species are mobile and are capable of dispersing from disturbance. However, disturbance that is frequent or of long duration can result in the abandonment of the area, which is equivalent to loss of habitat. Individuals incapable of dispersal (nestling, terrestrial invertebrates, young) or individuals unwilling to disperse (adults with immobile young) can experience negative effects including: trampling and crushing, collection and handling; increased physiological stress; flushing of birds from incubating eggs thus increasing potential for eggs to become unviable; premature fledging of young from nests; and increased potential for predation.

Disturbance to bats may occur when noise from livestock management activities such as personnel, vehicles, and dogs are present within close enough proximity to roost locations. Noise disturbance of high intensity can disturb bats in their roosts and result in premature exiting or unnecessary arousal from hibernation. Since hibernating bats often have only enough fat reserve to bring them out of hibernation once, disturbance during the winter can trigger bats to arouse from hibernation, only to go resume hibernation without enough fat reserves to come back out in the spring. Noise disturbance of long duration can cause temporary or permanent roost abandonment.

Livestock grazing can indirectly affect species by affecting their habitat. Southwestern arid grasslands have been drastically modified by grazing in that plant species composition has been changed, perennial grass cover has been reduced, and in some cases, conversion of former grasslands to desert scrub (Buffington and Herbel, 1965; Chew 1982, Bredy et a. 1989 all in Bock et al. 1990). A review by Jones (2000) found 11 of 16 response variable showed detrimental effects from livestock grazing. Soil related variables were most negatively impacted, followed by vegetative cover variables and biomass and rodent diversity and richness. Effects to soil include trampling, compaction, increased bulk density, erosion, infiltration, and biological soil crusts (Jones 2000). All these effects affect wildlife habitat, prey habitat, and herbaceous forage for wildlife or their prey.

Livestock grazing can also indirectly affect wildlife by affecting their prey such as small mammals, lizards, and arthropods. Small mammal prey is important for many species of higher trophic levels, including raptors, carnivorous mammals, snakes, and avian predators (Hayward et al. 1997; Saab et. al. 1995). When rodent prey decrease in response to reduced vegetative cover, so do the avian predators (Saab et.al 1995). When rodent prey decrease in response to reduced vegetative cover, so do the avian predators (Saab et.al 1995). Livestock grazing can directly impact rodents by

6 trampling and collapsing burrows, compacting soils which hinders burrow construction, and by removing rodent food sources such as seed heads (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997; Adler and Lauenroth, 2000). In one study, rodent burrow densities were higher in ungrazed plots when compared to grazed plots (Adler and Lauenroth, 2000). Numerous studies support that the abundance of rodents is higher in ungrazed and lightly grazed areas (Valone and Sauter, 2004; Jones and Longland, 1999; Bock and Bock 1984 Reynolds & Trost 1980). Indirect effects of livestock grazing on rodents can occur when grazing changes the composition of vegetative species (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997) and structure of vegetative species (Jones and Longland 1999; Hayward et al., 1997; Adler and Lauenroth, 2000).

In addition to rodents, lizards are prey for many carnivorous mammals, raptors and other avian predators, snakes, and other lizards. There are only a handful of studies that measure the effect of grazing on lizard habitat and only one was found to have addressed livestock grazing in similar habitats and with similar species as the proposed action area. In Arizona, the abundance and diversity of open-space and wide-ranging foraging lizards was higher on lightly grazed sites (versus heavily grazed sites) in four habitat types including chaparral and desert grassland (Jones 1981). Declines in the abundance and diversity of lizards were attributed to a change in vegetative structure which was described as a reduction of low vegetation, primarily perennial grasses (Jones 1981).

In addition to small mammal and lizards, arthropods are important food for various species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and other invertebrates. Songbirds of the grasslands primarily prey on arthropods (Milchunas et.al. 1998). Aboveground macroarthropods (insects and arachnids) experienced large decreases with moderate or heavy grazing, but conversely with light grazing showed slight increases (Lavigne et al. 1972 in Milchunas et al. 1998).

Birds are indirectly affected by the impacts grazing has on vegetation (Saab et. al. 1995). Livestock reduce forage production which reduces litter production, increases soil compaction, and reduces infiltration (see watershed section). These changes to the soil and consequently the vegetation as a result of livestock grazing affect some breeding birds negatively (Saab et. al. 1995). Birds that depend on dense herbaceous ground cover for nesting and/or foraging are most likely to be adversely affected by grazing (Saab et.al. 1995). Grazing during the breeding season of ground nesting birds can reduce herbaceous vegetation necessary for concealing nests (Saab et. al. 1995). A reduction in herbaceous vegetation can expose nests resulting in an increased chance for nest predation, nest parasitism, exposure to elements, and ultimately nest failure. In shrubsteppe habitats (which includes desertscrub and pinyon-juniper woodlands), Saab et. al. (1995) recommends managing livestock grazing to maintain current season growth through 15 July and then retain greater than 50% of perennial bunchgrass annual growth through the next nesting season. This would likely increase successful nesting for ground nesting birds.

7 Riparian Species Riparian habitat is a dwindling resource; in the Western U.S., less than 20% of historic levels of riparian still exist (Belsky et al. 1999). Confounding the loss of riparian habitat is the number of animals dependent either entirely or partly on riparian areas. Upwards of 80% of southwestern wildlife species (Chaney et al. 1990) and approximately 60 to 70 percent of western bird species (Ohmart 1996) depend on riparian areas. Despite their importance, riparian areas have historically experienced the most degradation. Belsky et al. (1999) concluded grazing has damaged approximately 80% of stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States, that “riparian recovery is contingent on total rest from grazing”, and that livestock grazing negatively affects riparian dependent wildlife.

Livestock grazing in riparian areas can directly affect aquatic species such as frogs, toads, salamanders, and garter snakes by trampling. Livestock can indirectly affect riparian obligate and aquatic species by: trampling aquatic vegetation in which these species use for hiding cover, temperature regulation, and substrate (that supports birds nest and frog and toad eggs masses); and by increasing sediments in and turbidity of the water body thereby decreasing water quality for these species and their prey base.

Southwestern riparian areas that were excluded from livestock grazing had 50% more small mammals when compared to plots with livestock grazing (Hayward et al. 1997). One third of riparian bird species showed significant differences in diversity between heavily and lightly grazed riparian sites (Mosconi and Hutto, 1982). Although the bark-foraging guild was unaffected, grazing affected three other guilds of riparian birds: flycatching, ground-foraging, and foliage-gleaning (Mosconi & Hutto 1982). In a study in Utah, there was a 350% increase in use and diversity of songbirds, raptors, and small mammals after eight years of no grazing in a riparian area (Duff, 1979 in Fleischner 1994). The abundance and diversity of lizards was higher on ungrazed sites in mixed riparian scrub and cottonwood-willow deciduous forests (Jones 1981, Jones 1988). Wandering garter snakes were five times more abundant in ungrazed riparian sites in New Mexico (Szaro et al. 1985).

The primary negative impacts to aquatic systems, riparian habitat, and their associated biota from livestock grazing come as indirect effects such as: increased sedimentation into stream channels, loss of riparian vegetation, altered macroinvertebrate assemblages, lowering of groundwater tables and decreased perennial flows, increased stream temperature, larger peak flows, stock tank impacts, and changes in channel form (Belsky et al. 1999; Fleischner 1994). Indirect effects to aquatic species from sediment can occur by modifications to stream habitat. These changes include: altered channel morphology, loss of fish spawning and rearing habitat, and changes in the macroinvertebrate assemblage (Lisle 1989; Miller and Benda 2000; Wood and Armitage 1997). When livestock grazing indirectly affect fish and macroinvertebrates, grazing subsequently affects those species that forage on fish and macroinvertebrates. Frogs and toads depend on invertebrates for food. Garter snakes depend at least partly on fish, frogs, toads, tadpoles, and salamanders for food. Insectivorous birds (flycatchers, warblers, and others) and bats depend at

8 least partly on the aerial life forms of aquatic macroinvertebrates for food. Birds such as blackhawks, herons and kingfishers depend on fish and other aquatic organisms for their food. Mammals such as raccoons and river otters depend at least partly on fish and aquatic invertebrates for their food.

In addition to natural riparian areas earthen livestock tanks are important habitats for native wildlife, especially since many natural riparian habitats have been altered or destroyed. Nutrients in livestock waste create algal growth in ponds. The decomposition of algae causes low dissolved oxygen concentration which negatively affects aquatic organisms (Belsky et al. 1999). Ponds used by livestock had been documented to have lowered amphibian reproduction due to increased levels of phosphorus and increased turbidity (Knutson et al. 2004). Accumulating evidence suggests that nitrates and ammonium, among other chemicals, can negatively impact amphibians, and that ranids are particularly sensitive to levels of these compounds (Baker and Waights 1994; Nebeker, et. al. 2000; Burgett, et. al. 2007; Johansson, et. al. 2001; Hatch and Blaustein 2000; Hatch and Blaustein 2003; Hecnar 1996; Rouse et. al. 1999; Macias et. al. 2007; and Marco et. al. 1999). Livestock commonly congregate around water sources such as tanks which are also important to aquatic wildlife and are some of the last refugia available to leopard frogs since natural systems have been invaded by non-native aquatic organisms such as fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish. Because leopard frogs often represent the most sensitive aquatic organisms to water quality indices such as nitrates and ammonium, certain levels could impact the existence of frog populations in a tank or preclude the water source from providing habitat for frogs. In times of drought, tanks with residual water attract more terrestrial wildlife and livestock, increasing input of nitrates and ammonium, which is concentrated as water continues to evaporate. In order to improve the quality of water and lower nitrogen input, Knutson et al. (2004) recommend reducing livestock access to ponds.

As demonstrated by the literature review above, livestock grazing can cause: a decrease in the quality and quantity of wildlife food, cover, and shelter; reduced animal abundance; reduced abundance of prey species; and decreased nest success.

COMARISON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ALL SPECIES

No Action - No Grazing Alternative versus the Proposed Action Alternative

Upland Species and Their Habitat Current upland conditions on the Fossil Allotment can be summarized (see full range and Soil and Watershed specialist reports): • The decline in range condition and trend are attributable to a reduction in ground cover (vegetation and litter), a reduction in perennial grasses (primarily cool-season grass species), and an increase in unpalatable shrub species. In some areas, the reduction in ground cover and perennial grasses is

9 due to encroachment of pinyon-juniper. Impacts from the 1998-2006 drought, and current climatic changes coupled with livestock grazing, are believed to be the primary factors in the decline in range condition and trend. • The three plots that were read in 2012 and compared to the data in 2006 showed an increase in frequency of grass species, forbs, and shrubs. This improvement could be attributed to the change in livestock numbers and use levels. • The 19,479 acres of soil in impaired condition generally occur in Pinyon- Juniper woodlands in Juniper-Semidesert grassland transitional areas and Semidesert Grassland/Shrublands. These soils have reduced nutrient cycling functions as a result from reduced species composition, diversity and litter cover or these units may show signs of accelerated erosion. These soils are potentially capable of supporting livestock grazing under conservative allowable use while still allowing maintenance of soil productivity which is dependent on utilization guidelines being met. • The 16,663 acres of soils in satisfactory, but inherently unstable condition, is mainly the portions of allotment with slopes above 40 percent slope. These soils currently do not have the capacity for grazing without risking long-term soil productivity. Though incidental use may occur, by assigning no capacity to these soils the impacts will be minimized to allow for soil conditions to improve. • The 5,294 acres in satisfactory condition mostly occur in the Ponderosa Pine vegetation type and have high amounts of effective ground cover from pine needle litter that protect the soil from accelerated erosion. Satisfactory soils occur where all three soil functions- the ability of the soil to resist erosion, infiltrate water and recycle nutrients, respectively, are properly functioning. These soils are fully capable of supporting livestock grazing and still allow for maintenance of soil productivity when utilization guidelines are not exceeded. • The 659 acres of soils in unsatisfactory condition occur mainly on flat slopes (less than about 10% slopes) and have visible signs of compacted soil surfaces, and vastly reduced nutrient cycling. Because unsatisfactory soils are at a higher risk of further losing long-term soil productivity, these soils are assigned no grazing capacity. Though incidental use may occur, by assigning no capacity to these soils the impacts will be minimized to allow for soil conditions to improve.

Under the proposed action alternative, livestock grazing and associated management activities would continue on the allotment. This would result in less than optimal habitat for wildlife, especially in areas where livestock congregate near water sources and holding areas, which make up approximately 260 acres or 0.6% of the allotment (USDAFS 2013). This alternative would not change the baseline environmental condition, but would continue to contribute the following effects:

• The sight and sound of vehicles and ranch personnel disturbing and displacing nearby wildlife. • Trampling of individual small mammals and burrows by livestock

10 • Reductions in vegetation cover by livestock grazing, needed by wildlife for food, hiding cover, and nesting substrate • Continued unsatisfactory and impaired soil conditions in areas where livestock congregate? • Trampling aquatic vegetation in which wildlife species use for hiding cover, temperature regulation, and substrate (which supports bird nests and frog and toad eggs masses).1 • Contribution of sediment to three springs and a 40-foot wide section of Fossil Creek thereby decreasing water quality for terrestrial and aquatic species and their prey base in these areas. • Livestock waste affecting water quality in tanks. Nutrients from livestock waste support the growth of algae. The decomposition of algae results in lower dissolved oxygen levels in water, degrading habitat for aquatic species in these areas.

Livestock grazing on the allotment would occur based on limited herd flexibility and controlled forage utilization levels determined by stocking and monitoring histories. While the effects identified above can occur in limited areas, grazing throughout the allotment is expected to occur at conservative levels to maintain important wildlife habitat elements including vegetation, soil, water quality (Ruyle 2003, Bradford 2003).

Even though the proposed changes in management will move the allotment toward desired condition, the no action alternative will attain desired conditions faster. The No Action Alternative will allow for optimal upland vegetative and soil conditions; increased vegetative diversity and biomass that provides food and cover for wildlife and their prey ultimately resulting in increased quality and quantity of wildlife food, cover, and shelter; increased rodent and small mammal density and diversity, increased rodent species richness, increase songbird and raptor diversity, increase abundance and diversity of lizards, and increased reproductive success.

The loss of available drinking water under this alternative could result in a cumulative impact with the impact of climate change, which is expected to result in less and less water availability due to region-wide increase in the occurrence, duration, and severity of drought. This would have the effect of decreasing habitat for many wildlife populations including terrestrial and aquatic species (Ford et al. 2012, Bagne and Finch 2012).

Riparian Obligates and Their Habitat Under the grazing action alternative, livestock grazing is permitted in all riparian areas with the exception of the perennial portion of Fossil Creek where livestock have

1 This effect is mitigated at five water tanks due to the installation of wedge fencing for the protection of the Chiricahua leopard frog

11 access to only one small water gap in Boulder Pasture. Access to the creek at the Boulder water gap is down a steep slope and ends at the creek where cobble and boulders are dominant but not so predominant as to preclude riparian vegetation from growing. The stream flow is swift at this location; chances of livestock crossing the creek are slim.

Current riparian conditions on the Fossil Allotment can be summarized (see full Watershed specialist reports for more details): o Of the 21.3 miles of riparian stream, 11.8 miles are properly functioning (Fossil Creek reaches 1-3 and 5, Lower Mud Tank Draw, Sandrock Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, Upper Boulder, and Stehr Lake Wash) and 4.9 miles are functioning at risk (Fossil Creek Reach 4, Lower Boulder, Sally May Wash, and Sycamore Canyon). A total of 4.6 miles are unknown (Sycamore Canyon headwaters and above the springs).

o Of the 20 springs and/or seeps identified within the Fossil Creek Allotment, 8 are in Proper Functioning Condition (Mud Seep, Unnamed Spring East, Unnamed Spring West, Sycamore Springs, 2 unnamed springs in Sycamore Canyon, 13 mile spring, and Ed’s Point Spring), 2 are Functional at Risk (Boulder Spring and 502 Roadside Spring), 3 are Nonfunctional (Sally May Springs, Chalk Springs, and Quail Springs), and 7 are Unknown (Kneecap 1 and 2, Shinbone, Indian Camp, Cimmaron, Willow Seep, and Burnt Sprins).

Indirect effects to riparian areas can occur when grazing in the uplands reduces the standing biomass, reduces soil litter, and compacts soil. This can result in increased sedimentation into stream channels, loss of riparian vegetation, altered macroinvertebrate assemblages, lowering of groundwater tables and decreased perennial flows, increased stream temperature, larger peak flows, stock tank impacts, and changes in channel form (Belsky et al. 1999; Fleischner 1994).

With proposed changes to grazing in riparian (intensity levels, utilization limits on woody riparian species, and a stubble height requirement), current condition of riparian areas will improve and move toward desired condition. The No Action Alternative will move riparian areas toward desired condition faster and allow for optimal riparian conditions.

Under the No Action Alternative, since no livestock grazing or management activities associated with grazing management would occur, effects to earthen livestock tanks would not occur or would be negligible (from wildlife use). Improvements such as earthen stock tanks that are also important to wildlife would remain and would be beneficial for as long as they are maintained or at least until they degrade to the point that they no longer hold water. Water quality in the absence of grazing is expected to be maintained or improved with no addition of waste products from livestock. The absence of livestock would also decrease the chances of the spread of diseases from one water source to another although wildlife usage presents a certain amount of risk even in the absence of livestock.

In summary, wildlife will benefit from the absence of pressure caused by direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on species and their habitat. Based on the a literature review, the No Action/No Grazing Alternative, when compared to the Proposed Action Alternative, can reasonably be expected to: increase in the quality and quantity of wildlife food, cover, and shelter; increase rodent and small mammal density and diversity, increase rodent species richness, increase songbird and raptor diversity, increase abundance and diversity of lizards, increase abundance of garter snakes, increasing/improving habitat components; and increased reproductive success. While the effects identified above can occur in limited areas such as areas where cattle congregate, grazing throughout the allotment is expected to occur at conservative levels to maintain important wildlife habitat elements including vegetation, soil, water quality (Ruyle 2003, Bradford 2003).

Overview of Cumulative Effects for All Species For the purpose of this analysis, the cumulative effects boundary is the Fossil Creek- Lower Verde River 5 th code watershed. The timeframe of the analysis will be 10- years because ground disturbing activities recover in this timeframe. The timeframe selected for this analysis is 20 years; 10 years in the past and 10 years in the future. Because no activities are proposed in the no action alternative, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from this alternative.

In addition to proposed activities, there are many other activities that occur in the uplands of the Fossil Creek Allotment that contribute to cumulative effects to species and their habitats. These other activities include: personal use activities; livestock grazing from other allotments, other ungulate grazing, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of upland hydropower structures; maintenance of utility lines; road management (Travel Management Rule), road maintenance; watershed improvement projects, wildfire, prescribed burning, fire use, and recreation. All these activities can directly and indirectly affect wildlife species as well as cause destruction or modification to wildlife and plant habitat.

Past Actions Past actions include livestock grazing for the past 100 to 125 years on a variety of allotments on the three National Forests that occur within the watersheds, diversion of water from Fossil Creek, wildfires and limited pinyon-juniper clearing through the use of fire, and sediment reduction projects on tank sites in the Fossil Creek Allotment.

Cattle numbers were very high at the turn of the 20th century and have decreased to present numbers for approximately the last 20-30 years (Barnett and Hawkins 2002). Approximately six large fires have occurred over the past 10 years within the

13 cumulative effects watershed area totaling about 1,900 acres. There have been multiple small fires within the watershed boundary, burning a total of about 250 acres. Almost all of the fires within the watershed have been lightning caused. Pre- treating juniper woodlands and then burning to remove juniper did occur on the Fossil Creek allotment in the early 1990’s.

Fires occurring within the last 15 years within the cumulative effects boundary. Fire Name Forest Year Acres Five Mile Coconino 2002 379 Backbone Coconino 2003 16 Cedar Bench Prescott 2004 71 Bull Run Coconino 2005 884 Black Tonto 2005 293 Towel Coconino 2006 278 Total 1,921

Additional past activities not including grazing are shown below.

List of past actions other than grazing occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area. Project Name Forest Description Dispersed Coconino, Non-developed recreation activities including: Recreation Prescott, hunting, fishing, camping, driving for pleasure, Tonto hiking, biking, bird-watching etc. Road Coconino, Only occurring on main roads on each forest maintenance Prescott, Tonto Pivot Rock- Coconino Authorize livestock grazing Hackberry Range Allotment EA Decommissioni Coconino Removal of Childs/Irving Power plant infrastructure. ng/restoration Completed to date summarized in Childs-Irving activities Hydroelectric Project 2005 – 2006 Decommissioning Progress Report (http://www.aps.com/images/CI/2006_Progress_Rep ort.pdf )

Coconino Sediment reduction activities at Sycamore Basin and Buckskin tanks. PJ lop and scatter on small acreages and installed erosion control filter sox around erosive soils on both tanks for frog sediment control.

Present Actions Present grazing actions that are occurring within the analysis area in addition to the Fossil Creek Allotment include cattle grazing within the Walker Basin, Thirteen-

14 Mile, Hackberry/Pivot Rock, Baker Lake/Calf Pen, Ike’s Backbone Range Allotments on the Coconino National Forest; Bald Hill, Brown Springs, Copper Canyon, Horner Mountain, Squaw Peak, Sycamore, and Young Allotments on the Prescott National Forest; and Cedar Bench, Deadman Mesa, Hardscrabble, Pine and Skeleton Ridge Allotments on the Tonto National Forest (see table below). Approximately 7% of the watershed boundary is not grazed by cattle. In addition, wildlife have access to graze the entire watershed area.

List of present grazing actions occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area. All acres are less no grazing and private land within the allotment boundaries. Allotment Name Forest Acres % of Watershed No Grazing Coconino 11,036 6% Walker Basin Coconino 2,700 1% Thirteen-Mile Rock Coconino 8,477 4% Hackberry/Pivot Rock Coconino 29,280 15% Baker Lake/Calf Pen Coconino 10,764 6% Fossil Creek Coconino 42,091 22% Ikes Backbone Coconino 3,187 2% Bald Hill Prescott 2,711 1% Brown Springs Prescott 16,148 8% Copper Canyon Prescott 7,993 4% Horner Mountain Prescott 669 0% Squaw Peak Prescott 11,216 6% Sycamore Prescott 1,434 1% Young Prescott 964 1% No Grazing Prescott 384 0% Cedar Bench Tonto 11,328 6% Deadman Mesa Tonto 16,846 9% Hardscrabble Tonto 1,114 1% Pine Tonto 2,818 1% Skeleton Ridge Tonto 8,797 5% No Grazing Tonto 2,282 1%

Grazing by ungulates other livestock also occurs on the allotment. Over the last several decade elk numbers increased to an all-time high raising concern over ungulate grazing particularly in wet meadows, riparian, and aspen stands. Over the last decade, Arizona Game and Fish Department has increased the number of issued permits, effectively reducing the number of elk in all game management units across the Coconino National Forest. Figures X and X demonstrate the climb and then reducing in elk populations on the Coconino National Forest.

Figure X: Elk Survey Numbers on the Coconino National Forest.

Figure X: Elk population trend for the Coconino National Forest.

Additional actions that are currently occurring in the cumulative effects boundary area include developed and dispersed recreation, road maintenance, fire suppression, permitted hunting, and special uses. Specific projects that are ongoing are listed within the following table.

List of present actions other than grazing occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area. Project Name Forest Description Deadman Mesa Tonto Cut junipers less than 8" diameter Grassland using a hydraulic cutting device Maintenance CE and chainsaws to maintain grassland vegetation type on 350 acres Dispersed Recreation Coconino, Prescott, Non-developed recreation Tonto activities including: hunting, fishing, camping, driving for pleasure, hiking, biking, bird- watching etc. Road maintenance Coconino, Prescott, Only occurring on main roads on Tonto each forest

16 Project Name Forest Description Wild animal grazing Coconino, Prescott, Grazing by wild animals and Tonto Coconino National Coconino Designate a system of roads, trails, Forest Travel and areas that will be open to Management Plan EIS public motorized use on the Coconino National Forest. Strawberry-Pine Tonto Use a variety of methods to reduce Wildland Urban fuel loading in various habitat Interface Fuel types. Reductions

Future and Foreseeable Actions The following future and foreseeable actions that are proposed to occur within the analysis area have been taken from the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests.

List of future and foreseeable actions occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area. Project Name Forest Description Repatriation of Native Coconino As determined in the Fossil Creek Fisheries Restoration Fish to Fossil Creek Tonto EA and Decision Notice the primary purpose of the project was to protect existing native species and to repatriate extirpated threatened and endangered species including spikedace, loach minnow and Gila topminnow. Integrated Treatment Tonto Eradication or control of noxious weed and invasive of Noxious and plant species forestwide using an integrated approach. Invasive Weeds Treatment methods may include cultural, physical, mechanical, biological, or chemical control measures. Personal Use Small Tonto Annually occuring program for the personal cutting Forest and/or gathering of forest products. Products include, Products Program CE but are not limited to: Christmas trees, mistletoe, posts, poles, manzanita, wildlings, etc. Fossil Creek Wild and Coconino Creation of a Comprehensive River Management Plan Scenic River Tonto for Fossil Creek as Comprehensive River described in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Management Plan EA project is on both the Coconino National Forest and the Tonto National Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project =27457 Glen Canyon to Coconino Continue vegetation management, including tree Pinnacle Peak removal, within a 420-foot corridor for the existing

17 Project Name Forest Description Transmission Line 345kV line traversing the Coconino National Forest. Vegetation Purpose is to increase transmission line reliability per Management EA the 2005 Energy Policy Act. http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project =35015 Plan Revision for the Coconino Revision of the Coconino National Forest's Land and Coconino National Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Forest EIS Plan guides the management activities on the Coconino NF such as recreation and the maintenance and improvement of ecosystem health. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coconino/landmanagemen t/planning/? Prescott National Prescott The Prescott National Forest will be revising its land Forest Revision of and resource management Land and Resource plan. Management Plan EIS http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/plan- revision/index.shtml Tonto National Forest Tonto The Tonto National Forest is in the process of Motorized Travel implementing the Travel Management Rule which calls Management EA for establishing a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized vehicle use and determining suitable locations for dispersed camping. http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/fs- usda-pop.php?project=28967

Other future and foreseeable cumulative effects involves climate change. Climate change can also contribute to effects on wildlife species by increasing the severity and frequency of drought, increasing the potential for high-severity wildfire, and affecting vegetation growth and composition. Climate change is expected to result in increased severity and frequency of drought which can result in reduced vegetative growth, animal reproduction, and increased susceptibility to insects and disease (Ford et al. 2012). Grazing on the Fossil Creek allotment is expected to account for drought conditions by managing according to conservative utilization, which accounts for decreased growth. Climate change can also increase the potential for high-severity wildfire on the Allotment. High severity fire on the allotment would remove vegetative cover and affect downstream water tanks and aquatic habitat. Moderate to low-severity wildfires can improve upland and riparian habitat over the long-term. Climate change can also result in plan mortality, changes in vegetation composition, or even a transformation of vegetative communities over several decades. Over the term of the permit, it is likely that drier or more variable conditions may shift timing and locations of foraging habitats (Bagne and Finch 2012). These impacts from climate change include uncertainty in regards to the intensity of the effects in the Fossil Creek Allotment as well as the time it will take for these

18 effects to manifest. They are expected to cumulatively contribute to other activities such as livestock grazing that result in livestock stressors or habitat degradation to many wildlife species (Beschta et al. 2012). In summary, the proposed action would combine with other projects designed to improve wildlife habitat for a cumulative effect contribution across the allotment and forest over the life of the TGP. The effects of climate change may reduce or override these habitat improvements depending on the extent and severity of drought during the next ten years.

Cumulative Effects - Riparian Species

While the decommissioning of the hydropower operations on Fossil Creek and the restoration of full flows have had an overall beneficial effect on wildlife, the subsequent increase in recreation has not. Other activities within the riparian zone, primarily recreation along four miles of Fossil Creek, may directly affect wildlife species, through aural and visual disturbance, particularly during critical periods such as breeding, roosting, and feeding. Disturbance can result in increased physiological stress, nest, roost, or site abandonment, flushing of birds from eggs, premature fledging of young from nests, and reduction in the amount of suitable nesting and foraging areas. Based on common black hawk nest monitoring by USGS between the bridge and above the dam, there is one nesting black hawk nest in the high-recreation use area (1/2 of the surveyed length) compared to three nests in the remainder of the survey area. This indicates that concentrated recreation activities may limit common black hawk nesting.

These other activities, particularly the recreation occurring along four miles of Fossil Creek, can indirectly affect riparian obligate wildlife species when those activities alter or destroy riparian habitat. Trails, roads, and recreation sites within the riparian corridor fragments habitat, disrupts wildlife movement, and reduces the amount of unaltered habitat. These social roads and trails from dispersed camp sites lead directly down to Fossil Creek and act as conduits facilitating sediment input into Fossil Creek. When these activities occur in the uplands they cause degraded upland conditions which subsequently cause increased water runoff, increased soil deposition, decreased water quality; further contributing to decreased quality of riparian habitat. Excessive sedimentation into Fossil Creek can result in the stream substrate becoming embedded with soil. This reduces the surface area for macroinvertebrates to attach. Macroinvertebrates are the food source for many for many aquatic and riparian obligate species; when macroinvertebrate populations decline, the effects carries over to predator species as well. With implementation of the Travel Management Rule, banning cross country travel and closing roads will reduce these impacts. It is anticipated that management of recreation in Fossil Creek will improve in the near future due anticipated designation of Fossil Creek as Wild and Scenic and with assistance (labor and funding) from the newly assembled Fossil Creek Stakeholders group.

Other activities in the uplands can indirectly affect aquatic and riparian obligate wildlife and their habitat. While they may have short-term negative effects on wildlife and habitat, watershed improvement projects, wildfires, prescribed burning, and fire use all generally improve wildlife habitat in the long-term.

Cumulative Effects - Upland Species Activities associated with the Fossil Allotment can directly affect wildlife species when ranch employees, vehicles, livestock, and dogs cause aural and visual disturbance to individuals that may be present in the allotment. Indirect effects occur when livestock grazing affects: the structure and composition of vegetative species; prey species and their habitat; reducing standing biomass that is needed for food, cover, nest substrate, and nest concealment; exposing nests resulting in an increased chance for nest predation, nest parasitism, exposure to elements, and ultimately nest failure; trampling burrows and compacting soils which hinders burrow excavation. Literature supports that grazing affects the abundance and diversity of wildlife lizards, rodents, and rodent-eating predators such as carnivorous mammals, snakes and avian predators.

Other activities in the watershed, above and beyond those associated with the grazing operation, can also affect wildlife and their habitat. The presence of people, vehicles, and equipment in the Fossil Creek area can result in aural and visual disturbance to wildlife species, particularly during critical periods such as breeding, roosting, and feeding. The presence of people, vehicles, and equipment can also directly affect species by: collecting, handling, and trampling individuals; disturbing rocks and vegetation to which some species may be attached; crushing non-aerial life forms such as eggs and caterpillars; and collapsing burrows. Disturbance that occurs frequently and over a period of time can result in increased physiological stress, nest, roost, or site abandonment, flushing of birds from eggs, premature fledging of young from nests, and reduction in the amount of suitable nesting and foraging areas. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule will ban cross country travel and close a percentage of roads. This will benefit wildlife and their habitat by reducing the extent of area where people and vehicles can travel.

In addition to direct disturbance to wildlife species, these other activities can indirectly affect wildlife habitat reducing the quality and quantity of vegetation which is used by wildlife for hiding cover, nesting cover, and forage. While watershed improvement projects, wildfires, prescribed burning, and fire use may have short- term negative effects on wildlife and habitat, they generally improve wildlife habitat in the long-term. Trails, roads, and recreation sites fragments habitat, reduces hiding cover, disrupts wildlife movement, all of which increase the potential for predation and loss of nesting, roosting, and hiding areas. With the Travel Management Rule, banning cross country travel and reducing the number of open roads will reduce these impacts. The proposal for the Hackberry grazing allotment is designed to improve effective ground cover and soil condition through increased retention of litter. This

20 will improve vegetation which is used as hiding cover, nesting cover, and forage for wildlife, including prey species. Fossil Allotment is bounded by other grazing allotments including Hackberry-Pivot Rock allotments, and the Fossil Allotment is used for moving livestock between Hackberry and Pivot Rock. Trailing from the additional cows from those segments of that allotment has short lived and localized trampling effects.

THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS The Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES) List for the Coconino National Forest was reviewed by forest biologists and a list of TES species was created for this project based on known occurrence or, in the absence of survey data, the presence of suitable habitat. This list was approved by a USFWS biologist. The following is a description of the species their habitat, and an analysis of the effects of implementation of each alternative on each species.

Rare wildlife species that are known to occur, or have existing or potential habitat within the project area include three Federally listed or proposed species: Mexican spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis lucida ), Southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii ), and Chiricahua leopard frog ( Rana chiricahuensis ). In previous analyses for the Fossil Creek area, the Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis ) was analyzed based on the presence of marginal habitat, primarily Stehr Lake. Since decommissioning (which resulted in Stehr Lake drying up and being recontoured) and upon further investigation, it has been determined that Yuma clapper rail habitat is no longer present and therefore this species is excluded from this analysis.

Birds Mexican Spotted Owl The Mexican spotted owl was listed as a threatened species in March 1993 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Critical Habitat was established in 1995, and the recovery unit that encompasses the Coconino National Forest is the Upper Gila Mountain Recovery Unit. (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).

On the Coconino National Forest, the Mexican spotted owl occupies mixed conifer and ponderosa pine/gambel oak vegetation types, usually characterized by high canopy closure, high stem density, large trees, multi-layered canopies within the stand, numerous snags and downed woody material. Frequently, suitable nesting and roosting habitat is located on steep slopes or in canyons with rocky cliffs, where dense vegetation or crevices or caves provide cool moist microsites for nests and roosts. Primary threats to Mexican spotted owls within this Recovery Unit, include catastrophic wildfire, recreation and grazing. (Ibid.)

Effects of cattle grazing on Mexican spotted owls and their habitat are described in the “Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Cattle Grazing

21 Activities” (USDA Forest Service 2005) and relate to grazing effects on habitat structure and composition, as well as the availability and diversity of food for the owl. The Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (USDI 1995) summarizes the effects of cattle grazing on Mexican spotted owls in four broad categories: 1) altered prey availability, 2) altered susceptibility to fire, 3) degeneration of riparian plant communities, and 4) impaired ability of plant communities to develop into spotted owl habitat.

Three levels of habitat management - PACs, recovery, and other forest and woodland types - are defined in the MSO Recovery Plan to achieve a diversity of habitat conditions across the landscape.

PAC Habitat No Mexican spotted owl PACs occur within the Fossil planning area.

Recovery Habitat A GIS query was performed to identify any other habitat outside PACs in pine-oak, mixed conifer forest, and/or riparian areas. No Pine-oak types occur in Fossil Allotment. There are seven acres of mixed conifer habitat. There are 333 acres of riparian forested habitats in the allotment. Adjacent to but outside the project area, is additional riparian restricted habitat along the Verde River (within 0.25 miles of the project boundary). Owl use of the perennial portion of Fossil Creek is expected to marginal (due to the distance from occupied habitat) and limited mainly to wintering and possibly dispersing owls.

Other Forest and Woodland Types All remaining acres within the Fossil allotment planning area, or 38,153 acres, would be considered “other forest and woodland types”, and consist primarily of Pinyon- Juniper woodlands and secondarily as transition grass with sparse Pinyon Juniper.

Critical Habitat The final critical habitat designation was completed August, 2004 in Federal Register 69: 53181-53230. On the Coconino National Forest, 197 entire or portions of PACs and approximately 422,500 acres of habitat occur in allotments within proposed critical habitat according to the 2004 Conferencing on Proposed Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat for Grazing Allotments, prepared by the Forest for USFWS conferencing (USDA Forest Service, 2004).

There is no canyon habitat within the designated critical habitat in Fossil allotment, so the canyon associated constituent elements of critical habitat will not be addressed.

The USFWS determined the primary constituent elements for Mexican spotted owl (USDI 1995; USDI 2004) as the following in mixed conifer, pine-oak, and riparian forest types:

22 High basal area of large diameter trees Moderate to high canopy closure Wide range of tree sizes suggestive of uneven-age stands Multi-layered canopy with large overstory trees of various species High snag basal area High volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris High plant species richness, including hardwoods Adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and regeneration to provide for the needs of prey species.

The Fossil allotment contains 1,867 acres of designated critical habitat, all in the easternmost portion, or 4% of the allotment. The habitat in most (68%) of the designated critical habitat is Juniper woodland, and the remainder is Ponderosa Pine. There are no mixed conifer, pine-oak, or riparian forests in Fossil Allotment that coincides with the designated critical habitat. Allotment pastures within the designated Mexican spotted owl critical habitat include: all of Manzanita pasture, more than half of Salmon Lake South pasture, and small portion of Tin Can pasture.

MSO critical habitat normally consists of mixed conifer, pine-oak, riparian forest or canyons. The designated critical habitat in the Fossil Allotment does not consist of these habitat types, however, it is unknown whether spotted owls use this area for foraging. Due to the adjacency of the Sandrock PAC, it is reasonable to assume that owls forage at the eastern edge of the allotment within the designated critical habitat area, at least occasionally. Therefore maintaining the critical element of adequate vegetative cover for prey is desired.

Grazing Consultation Guidance

According to the Forest Service Southwest Region’ “Framework for streamlining informal consultation for livestock grazing activities”, a determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect is appropriate if: 1) In the action area, cattle grazing or cattle management activities will occur within PACs, but no human disturbance or construction actions associated with the cattle grazing will occur in PACs during the breeding season; 2) Cattle grazing and cattle management activities within PACs, in the action area, will be managed for levels that provide the woody and herbaceous vegetation necessary for cover for rodent prey species, the residual biomass that will support prescribed natural and ignited fires that would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in the Forest, and regeneration of riparian trees; and 3) In owl foraging areas, forage utilization will be maintained at conservative levels, defined as forage utilization maintained between 30-40% of annual forage production by weight. Qualitative indicators of conservative use can be described by the following: forage plants have abundant seed stalks, areas more than a mile from water show little use, and about one third to one half primary forage plants show grazing on key areas (USDA FS 2005).

23 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects Grazing by ungulates such as elk, in restricted or critical habitat, has the potential for cumulatively impacting Mexican spotted owls, primarily their prey habitat.

Cumulative effects from the ongoing livestock and wild ungulate grazing in adjacent allotments include grazing within several nearby PACs.

Cumulative effects to MSOs include fire suppression which has resulted in much denser conditions and the threat of catastrophic fire, logging which has reduced the number of snags and large old trees, past and present watershed treatments such as juniper cutting, and recreation (mostly hunters). There have been various fires in the Fossil area and effects are expected from future wildland fire use. Fire regimes have been altered due to decades of livestock grazing. Fire suppression activities are also of concern, especially when they occur near activity centers in the breeding season.

Proposed Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed action, no livestock grazing or associated management activities would occur in spotted owl PACs during the breeding season because there is no PAC habitat within the allotment, and therefore criteria 1 and 2 of the “Framework for streamlining informal consultation for livestock grazing activities” above are met by default. The third criteria would be met in the proposed action by the conservative level of grazing utilization on the Fossil allotment.

Range improvements (fencing at frog sites, and vegetative treatments) occur in pinyon-juniper habitat. Aural and visual disturbance to owls is unlikely but may occur if owls use these habitats for foraging and roosting/foraging during the winter. While vegetative treatments may result in short term habitat disturbance, habitat conditions for prey species (and foraging owls) will improve in the long term. Fencing of any springs may have short term disturbance effects but, in the long term are expected to show improvements in vegetative growth and therefore potentially improve MSO prey habitat.

24 The existence of several water sources within the designated critical habitat and other MSO habitat, contribute to congregation of livestock and increase trampling and removal of vegetative forage above the moderate utilization objective in localized areas.

The amounts of remaining vegetative biomass resulting from different levels of grazing have been shown to have varying levels of impacts on small mammal popuations important to MSOs. Numerous studies support that the abundance of rodents is higher in ungrazed and lightly grazed areas (Valone and Sauter, 2004; Jones and Longland, 1999; Bock and Bock, 1984.) Ward and Block (1995) found that heavier livestock grazing can favor conditions for deer mice at the expense of voles, since deer mice are associated with areas of little herbaceous cover and extensive exposed soil. Long-tailed and Mexican voles use sites with greater herbaceous cover and less exposed ground, so would be associated with lighter or non-grazing regimes. Voles provide a greater biomass per individual as prey and per unit area. Therefore a shift from vole habitat with more vegetative cover, to deer mice habitat caused by removal of more vegetative cover could negatively affect foraging MSOs. Effects to MSO prey habitat are considered indirect effects as grazing would leave less vegetative biomass for MSO small mammal prey compared with the no action alternative.

Since it’s likely that Mexican spotted owls currently only use the portion of Fossil Creek with the Boulder water gap during dispersal and wintering, direct and indirect effects to owls from livestock use of the water gap is marginal. Direct effects may occur from visual and aural disturbance if owls co-occur with livestock at these water gaps. Indirect effects from grazing at the water gap include reduced condition of riparian vegetation and therefore reduced condition of owl foraging and wintering habitat in this small area. Given that the sum of all riparian on the allotment is less than one percent of the allotment, Boulder water gap constitutes a minute amount (a fraction of one percent) of owl riparian recovery habitat on the allotment.

In order to reduce the effects of livestock grazing and livestock management operations to Mexican spotted owl, its habitat, and prey species, the following various measures specific to the Mexican spotted owl will be attached to the Annual Operating Instructions and implemented. The purpose of these measures is to improve and protect habitat for prey species such as birds and small mammals in sensitive areas, and to protect nesting birds from disturbance associated with gathering or construction activities.

1. Follow these guidelines to meet the intent of the grazing guidelines listed in the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan:

A. Continue to monitor grazing use by livestock and wildlife in "key grazing" areas such as riparian areas (MA12), meadows (MA9), pine/oak types (MA3), and aspen (MA5). If cattle show an increasing utilization trend, then change management strategies to reduce the trend. If wild ungulates show an

25 increasing utilization trend, the Forest Service will work with the Game and Fish Department to reduce this trend.

B. Continue to implement and enforce grazing utilization standards to attain good to excellent range conditions in "key areas" over time.

C. Continue to restore good conditions to degraded riparian communities by maintaining or promoting three age classes in woody vegetation. If the mid- age class is absent, 5% utilization or less is required to promote three structural stages. If all three classes are present, utilization of 20% or less of woody vegetation is acceptable.

2. To reduce animal concentrations and trampling of vegetation which may impact prey species forage and cover, follow these guidelines for placing salt, mineral blocks or food supplements.

A. Do not place these items in riparian areas, mountain meadows, or non riparian drainages in ponderosa pine unless being used for a watershed restoration project.

B. Do not place these items in spotted owl habitat or near peregrine falcon nesting areas. The attached map shows areas (shown as mitigation) where salt, supplemental feeding, or mineral blocks should not occur.

C. Rotate salt and mineral supplement sites regularly.

3. To eliminate potentially disturbing activities in spotted owl habitat or near peregrine nesting areas during their breeding season, do not allow the following types of activities in areas displayed in red on the map between March 1 and August 31 without prior consultation with the District Range Staff.

A. Spring branding or fall gathering.

B. Construction activities such as; new construction of fences, corrals, or buildings, or cleaning or construction of tanks.

Grazing Criteria The “Framework for streamlining Informal Consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities” (2005), lists the following determination guidelines (and based on the old recovery plan):

No Effect 1. Mexican spotted owls are not present within the action area. 2. In the action area, no livestock grazing or livestock management activities will occur within protected and restricted habitats.

May Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect (must meet all criteria)

26 1. In the action area, cattle grazing or cattle management activities will occur within PACs, but no human disturbance or construction actions associated with the cattle grazing will occur in PACs during the breeding season 2 Cattle grazing and cattle management activities within PACs, in the action area, will be managed for levels that provide the woody and herbaceous vegetation necessary for cover for rodent prey species, the residual biomass that will support prescribed natural and ignited fires that would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in the Forest, and regeneration of riparian trees 3. In owl foraging areas, forage utilization will be maintained at conservative levels, defined as forage utilization maintained between 30-40% of annual forage production by weight. Qualitative indicators of conservative use can be described by the following: forage plants have abundant seed stalks, areas more than a mile from water show little use, and about one third to one half primary forage plants show grazing on key areas (USDA FS 2005).

Under the selected alternative, no livestock grazing or associated management activities would occur in spotted owl PACs and therefore criteria 1 and 2 for May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect above are met by default. The third criteria would be met in the preferred alternative by the conservative level of grazing utilization on the Fossil allotment.

In addition the grazing criteria above (which was based on the old recovery plan), the MSO Recovery Plan First Revision (USDI 2012), calls for managing livestock grazing in a manner that maintains or enhances prey availability, maintains potential for surface fires rather than stand-replacing , and promote natural and healthy riparian, meadow, and upland plant communities. In addition, and consistent with the Revised Recovery Plan (2013), the proposed action and the above measures call for managing for proper functioning condition, managing for species diversity, managing grazing effects, and minimizing construction activities. In summary, proposed management of conservative use, very limited access to perennial portion of Fossil Creek, utilization and stubble height requirement in other riparian areas, vegetative treatments, etc. will help achieve the objects of the recovery plan.

Critical Habitat The Fossil allotment contains 1,867 acres of designated critical habitat, all in the easternmost portion, or 4% of the allotment, mostly in Juniper woodland (68%) and the rest in Ponderosa without a Gambel oak component. Six of the eight primary constituent elements of forested MSO habitat pertain to tree diameter, canopy closure, uneven-aged character, multi-layered canopy of overstory trees, snag basal area, and woody debris, none of which would be negatively affected with the selected alternative.

The seventh constituent element relates to riparian areas and woody vegetation. Within riparian areas, allowable use will not exceed 20% on the woody vegetation, and therefore should maintain plant species richness, including hardwoods. The eighth constituent element relates to prey habitat. The level of

27 proposed utilization should provide overall residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and regeneration to provide for the needs of prey species in the allotment as whole. However, there may be localized areas that do not provide adequate prey. The selected alternative may affect but will not adversely affect MSO designated critical habitat.

Determination: The proposed action may affect but will not adversely affect Mexican spotted owls, their habitat or their designated critical habitat.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects No cattle would be present in the analysis area if this alternative was implemented, so no negative direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Mexican spotted owls would occur. Listed species will benefit from the absence of pressure caused by direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on species and their habitat. The absence of livestock grazing can cause: a increase in the quality and quantity of wildlife food, cover, and shelter; increased animal abundance and diversity; increased abundance and diversity of prey species; and increased reproductive success.

Determination: No effect on Mexican spotted owl or its habitat with the No Action Alternative. This is consistent with the “Framework for Streamlining Informal consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities”, which states for a no effect determination, “No livestock grazing or livestock management activities will occur within protected and restricted habitats, as defined by the species’ recovery plan”. (USDA 2005a)

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Nesting southwestern willow flycatchers prefer dense riparian thickets in areas where perennial flow, surface water, or saturated soil is present from April through September. In most riverine situations, associated channels are wide and shallow with a well-defined floodplain and a broad valley. Streams are slightly entrenched with well-defined meanders and riffle/pool bed features. Quiet water dominates, as in backwaters, pools, beaver ponds, or non-riffle stream stretches.

Vegetative species composition and structure varies across the range of the southwestern willow flycatcher. The variation ranges from homogeneous patches of one or several species with a single canopy layer to heterogeneous patches of numerous species with existing under, mid, and over stories. Canopy covers are consistently high (>90%) throughout the range (Spencer et al. 1996). In the Verde Valley, nesting willow flycatchers occur in tamarisk and mixed riparian habitats. Patch width of breeding sites in both tamarisk and mixed riparian habitat types tend to be more linear, varying from 460 feet to 1,640 feet in maximum width (Sferra et al. 1995). Overstory canopies average between 50 and 55 feet tall (Spencer et al. 1996).

28 Patch size varies from 5 to 121 acres in mixed riparian and tamarisk (Spencer et al. 1996).

Surveys and Habitat on the Allotment: Surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher have been conducted at several locations on the allotment. In 1994, USFS personnel conducted surveys at Fossil Springs and along Fossil Creek approximately six miles below the dam. Both sites were later determined to be unsuitable for nesting willow flycatchers. Environet surveyed additional sites along Fossil Creek in 1998. These sites included three sites; 800 feet, 1.2 miles, and 2 miles downstream of Irving. The three sites were selected by conducting an aerial inventory of habitat and selecting the portions of riparian where the vegetation was widest and thickest. However, compared to occupied sites in the Verde Valley, these three sites had little to no potential for supporting nesting willow flycatchers. Surveys conducted in 1994 and 1998 at these three sites failed to detect any southwestern willow flycatchers.

Prior to restoration of full flows in 2005, riparian habitat along Fossil Creek differed from habitats typically occupied by southwestern willow flycatcher in Arizona due to the narrow band of riparian vegetation and the relatively open mid- and under-story vegetation layers. Since full flows were restored, travertine dams are forming resulting in sections of slower water, resulting in better quality habitat for willow flycatchers. In 2011, Matt Johnson from NAU, through an agreement with the Forest Service, conducted surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher in Fossil Creek in five locations. Routes were placed at these locations based on the best, yet still marginal flycatcher habitat that is present. All surveys in 2011 were negative. Most other areas in Fossil Creek do not meet the habitat requirements. Because even the best habitat within Fossil Creek is marginal and surveys have been negative, it is the determination that there is a very low possibility that southwestern willow flycatchers would ever nest along Fossil Creek.

In 2002 and 2003, USFS personnel conducted float trips down the Verde from Beasley Flat downstream to Childs in order to find habitat and conduct surveys for willow flycatchers. Few patches of potential habitat were present and those patches that were surveyed were limited in suitability due to a lack of width. Surveys along the Verde River on the Coconino National Forest failed to detect any southwestern willow flycatchers.

There is no designated critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher on the allotment. Critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher occurs along the Verde River but not within the affected area of the proposed action. The closest critical habitat occurs upstream near Beasley Flat or downstream near the East Verde confluence with the Verde River.

Environmental Consequences In the final rule to designate the flycatcher as endangered, the FWS describes activities that could potentially harm the flycatcher and result in take of the

29 subspecies. The activities listed that involve livestock grazing are: 1) livestock grazing that results in direct or indirect destruction of riparian habitat; and 2) activities such as continued presence of livestock and fragmentation of flycatcher habitat that facilitate brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). On NF lands, the main cause of decline in flycatcher habitat can be attributed to the destruction, modification, and fragmentation of habitat. Livestock grazing has contributed to the destruction, modification, and in some cases, fragmentation of flycatcher habitat. Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater ) is also partly responsible for declines in flycatcher populations. These impacts are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. Impacts to flycatchers from livestock grazing on the Fossil Allotment are discussed in detail under the Direct and Indirect Effects section.

Livestock grazing in occupied areas may pose a direct threat to flycatchers by physically disturbing or damaging the nest, or spilling contents of the nest as they walk by (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). This is especially true in single-story or regenerating stands. Livestock grazing in potential flycatcher habitat can retard the growth of woody vegetative species, slowing or arresting progression towards suitable habitat. Improper livestock grazing in suitable habitat may not allow for retention of vegetative characteristics needed for flycatcher nesting.

Improper livestock grazing in riparian areas indirectly affects the flycatcher through habitat degradation and modification of riparian areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a). If given the opportunity, livestock can first overuse the herbaceous component and if they are not removed or redirected, they will begin feeding on riparian shrubs and young trees. This results in changes in plant structure and reduction of plant diversity and density (Bock et al. 1992). Year-round or summer livestock grazing appear to be particularly damaging to riparian habitats (Bock et al. 1992). During these periods, regeneration of critical tree species such as willow, boxelder, and cottonwood may be curtailed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a). In addition to direct herbivory of woody species, livestock can destroy riparian habitat by bedding, trampling, and trailing through it. These effects can be significant, especially if livestock concentrate in an area and the plants are small.

Other impacts that improper livestock grazing has on riparian habitats include compaction of surface soil that reduces infiltration and increases surface runoff, reduction of bank stability which leads to accelerated erosion and increased sedimentation, and removal of organic material due to reduction in plant vigor and density (Verde Natural Resources Conservation District 1993). These impacts result in increased susceptibility to destruction of a riparian area during heavy flow events. Livestock grazing during the sprouting and regeneration of the cottonwood/willow community after these flood events has led to increased fragmentation, reduced or eliminated recruitment, and ultimately, total degradation. As native plant species try to compete with non-natives, livestock’s preference for native plants favors establishment of non-natives. Changes in riparian areas as a result of improper

30 livestock grazing are often linked to more widespread changes in watershed hydrology.

Increases in flycatcher populations have been observed where livestock grazing has been reduced, modified, or eliminated in riparian areas. Harris et al. (1987) observed flycatchers increase by 61% over a 5-year period after grazing was reduced. Dramatic increases in other avian species associated with cottonwood/willow habitat were found on Arizona's San Pedro River 4 years after the removal of livestock.

Brown-headed cowbird parasitism is known to have detrimental effects on neotropical migratory birds including the flycatcher (Robinson et al. 1992). Cowbirds are brood parasites and parasitize smaller songbirds. Cowbird parasitism can impact host populations in several ways: 1) upon laying eggs, female cowbirds dispose of one or more host eggs; 2) the thick eggs of cowbirds often break the host eggs when laid; 3) cowbird eggs hatch earlier than host eggs; and 4) cowbird young are larger than host young and grow faster, beg louder, and have larger gapes (Robinson et al. 1992).

The expansion of agriculture, livestock grazing and widespread human activities have caused fragmentation of forest and woodland habitats. Habitat fragmentation has been documented to increase edge effects, increasing the potential for predation, including parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird. Riparian habitats in the Southwest are linear and naturally have a high amount of edge (Spencer et al. 1996). Tall, dense, impenetrable vegetation and large patch sizes will minimize the ability of cowbirds to see down through the canopy or in from the edge, and this may reduce parasitism rates.

Poor watershed conditions in the uplands can have adverse indirect effects on flycatcher habitat. Livestock grazing (as well as other activities such as timber harvesting, roads and trails construction, off-road-vehicle use, heavy recreational use in concentrated areas, large-scale fires, resource extraction, and other ground- disturbing activities) can contribute to poor watershed conditions. Such activities result in the removal of organic material on the soil surface. Removal of vegetation cover, in addition to compaction, decreases infiltration of the soil, which enhances surface runoff (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993b). Increased runoff in turn then results in increased silt loads, increased turbidity, decreased water quality, increased scouring during high flows, and altered pH levels. All of these impacts can have an indirect adverse effect to riparian areas, including flycatcher habitat.

Assessing the effects of various activities on the flycatcher requires consideration of the dynamic interactions within riparian ecosystems and their watersheds. Management of riparian ecosystems should consider their adaptation to flood events and the necessity of floods for regeneration of species like cottonwoods and willows. Fully functioning, healthy riparian ecosystems can readily absorb and quickly recover from relatively major flood events. Degraded systems cannot withstand flood events, and additional resource damage often occurs. Uplands degraded by improper

31 livestock grazing often promote surges that are flashier, with higher peak flows and reduced low flows. While flooding is very important to riparian habitat, unnaturally flashy flooding can be damaging and prevent further recruitment, particularly in degraded riparian systems.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to southwestern willow flycatchers (if present) and flycatcher habitat include dispersed recreation and restoration of full flows. The main cumulative effect on southwestern willow flycatchers are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas. Recreators in riparian areas can destroy flycatcher habitat over time by denuding stream banks and point bars, compacting soil thereby eliminating regrowth of riparian vegetation, removing vegetation for firewood, and affecting water quality directly through human wastes and indirectly by facilitating erosion and sediment runoff. The restoration of full flows in Fossil Creek has improved habitat conditions, thereby increasing the potential for flycatchers to occupy Fossil Creek.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed action, there is no livestock grazing along the Verde River; therefore there will be no direct affect to southwestern willow flycatchers, should they occur there. Indirect effects may occur from indirect watershed effects, from direct habitat modification, and from attracting foraging brown-headed cowbirds, that in turn parasitize southwestern willow flycatcher nests.

Because even the best habitat within Fossil Creek is marginal and surveys have been negative, it is the determination that there is a very low possibility that southwestern willow flycatchers nest along Fossil Creek. Should southwestern willow flycatchers nest on the allotment and within marginal habitat within Boulder water gap, flycatchers may be affected directly (via aural and visual disturbance) and indirectly affected (via impacts to habitat) by livestock grazing and livestock management activities. Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within the riparian corridor associated with Fossil Creek could result in visual and aural disturbance to nesting and foraging southwestern willow flycatchers. Frequent disturbance, disturbance of high intensity, or disturbance of long duration can disturb flycatchers resulting in increased predation of young and eggs, abandonment of nesting areas, flushing of adults incubating eggs long enough for the eggs to become unviable, abandonment of eggs or young, decreased success during foraging, and premature fledging of young.

Should southwestern willow flycatchers nest on the allotment, flycatchers may be affected indirectly (via impacts to habitat) by livestock grazing and livestock management activities. Livestock grazing in the uplands may indirectly affect flycatcher habitat by affecting watershed conditions. Livestock grazing in the uplands contribute to reduced leaf litter (less organic material available for the soil)

32 and compacting soils which can lead to decreased infiltration of water, increased surface runoff, increased silt loads, increased turbidity, decreased water quality, and increased scouring during high flows. However, under recent (since 2009) and proposed management, water quality standards are attaining in Fossil Creek and the Verde River indicating no excessive turbidity, total suspended solids, and embeddedness (see Watershed Specialist Report). Also, recent monitoring shows that soils conditions have improved from unsatisfactory to impaired across the allotment (see Watershed Specialist Report).

Other indirect effects may occur if livestock grazing within brown-headed cowbird traveling distance from foraging to egg-laying sites increases the potential for southwestern willow flycatcher nests to be parasitized. All of these impacts can have an indirect adverse effect to riparian areas, including flycatcher habitat.

Structural range improvements as proposed (frog habitat protection and fencing any springs needing additional protection) will not affect the southwestern willow flycatcher since these habitats are not capable of supporting suitable habitat.

Vegetative treatments in the uplands will have no adverse effect on southwestern willow flycatcher. Instead treatments in the uplands will contribute to reducing indirect effects to riparian habitats.

Determination: According to the “Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities” (2005), the following are determination quidelines:

No Effect (Must meet one of the criteria)

1. Southwestern willow flycatchers are not present within the action area during anytime of the year.

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (must meet all of the criteria)

1. Grazing activities in the action area, do not measurably or detectably reduce the suitability or regeneration of southwestern willow flycatcher habitat, 2. Indirect effects occurring within the action area resulting from livestock grazing on the allotment are determined to be insignificant or discountable, 3. Livestock grazing should comport with or be more conservative than the following guidelines (from Table 2, Appendix G of the 2002 USFWS Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final Recovery Plan, 2002). a. In restorable or regenerating habitat, no grazing, or provisional grazing (assuming grazing is not a strong stressor). b. In Suitable unoccupied habitat during the growing season, no grazing with the exception of USFWS-agreed upon experiments. c. In suitable unoccupied habitat during the non-growing season, conservative grazing utilization not to exceed 35% of palatable, perennial grasses and

33 grass-like plants in uplands and riparian habitats, and extent of alterable stream banks showing damage from livestock use not to exceed 10%. Woody utilization not to exceed 40% on average. d. In occupied habitats during the grazing season, no grazing until research in comparable unoccupied habitat demonstrates no adverse impact. e. In occupied habitats during the non-growing season, conservative grazing with average utilization not to exceed 35% of palatable, perennial grasses and grass-like plants in uplands and riparian habitats, and extent of alterable stream banks showing damage from livestock use not to exceed 10%. Woody utilization not to exceed 40% on average. f. For upland and watershed conditions adjacent to occupied and unoccupied habitat, the average utilization of palatable, perennial grasses and grass-like plants do not exceed 30-40%. Use stubble grass height guidelines of 3” for short grass, 6”for midgrass, and 12” for tall grass. Determine monitoring species prior to grazing.

Livestock are mostly restricted from accessing Fossil Creek and potential southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Livestock have access to a small area of potential flycatcher habitat at the Boulder water gap. The proposed action, therefore meets the guidelines under may affect not likely to adversely affect and so formal consultation is not required provided that grazing regimes meet the guidelines listed in the recovery plan.

Determination: Due to livestock access to Boulder water access point along Fossil Creek where potential southwestern willow flycatcher habitat occurs, it is the determination that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat. Since there is no critical habitat on the allotment, it is the determination that the proposed action will not affect flycatcher critical habitat.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Determination: Because livestock grazing and livestock management activities will not occur, the No Action Alternative will not negatively affect southwestern willow flycatchers or their habitat. Conversely, the flycatcher will benefit from the absence of pressure caused by direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on them and their habitat.

Amphibians

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Habitat on the Allotment:

34 As described in Sredl and Jennings (in press), Chiricahua leopard frogs are habitat generalists, breeding in slack waters in a variety of natural and man-made aquatic systems. Their elevational range is from 3,281 to 8,890 ft (USFWS 2002) but occur in the Buckskin Hills Conservation Management Zone between 5,020 and 5,780 ft . Adult frogs are found in perennial and near-perennial habitats, and reproduction is aquatic. Habitat heterogeneity is thought to be important in providing habitat for the frog’s different life stages and seasonal requirements.

Egg masses of Chiricahua leopard frogs have been reported in all months except November, December and January (see Sredl and Jennings, in press). In Arizona, Frost and Platz (1983) found that egg-laying occurred in two distinct periods, depending on elevation. Populations at elevations below 5,900 ft (1,800 m) tended to lay eggs from March through late summer, with most activity occurring before June, while populations above 5,900 ft (1,800 m) bred in June July and August.

Known populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs on the Forest are referred to as the Rim form, since these populations occur along the southern edge of the Colorado Plateau and are disjunct from the southeastern form that inhabits portions of southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico (Sredl et al 1997b). From 1993–1997, the Rim form Chiricahua leopard frogs were documented at 15 sites, 4 of which were on the Forest (Sredl et al 1997b). This represented 27% of occupied sites. Chiricahua leopard frogs are absent from many locations that previously supported populations as recently as the late 1970’s and early 1980’s (Sredl et al 1997b).

As natural habitats have been altered or destroyed, stock tanks constructed for watering livestock have become important habitats for Chiricahua leopard frogs (Sredl and Saylor 1998). As of 1997, 39% of known Rim form Chiricahua leopard frog sites are livestock tanks (Sredl et al 1997b). In some areas, tanks provide the only suitable habitat available (USFWS 2002). To date, the majority of extant populations within the Buckskin Hills/Mud Tanks area are located in stock tanks; in 2012 Chiricahua leopard frogs naturally recolonized Boulder drainage and a side tributary fed by Boulder Springs. While important for frogs, the dynamic nature of stock tank habitats and the relatively small populations they support makes it unlikely that frog populations that occupy them will persist indefinitely at any given tank (USFWS 2002). Tanks are susceptible to drying out in drought years, and flooding may breach impoundments or cause siltation, resulting in impacts to frogs and their habitats. Tanks that provide suitable habitat have open water and at least some perimeter vegetation. While bigger tanks often provide more diverse habitats, the permanency of water is more important than the size of the tank (M. Sredl, pers. comm., Sept. 2001).

The FWS published the final critical habitat rule in the Federal Register on March 20, 2012 (USDI 2012). The Fossil Creek Allotment is located in Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim – Verde River, Arizona and contains all of Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) 23, Buckskin Hills. This unit includes 232 ac (94 ha) of Coconino National

35 Forest lands in Yavapai County, Arizona. This unit is critical habitat because it was occupied at the time of listing and currently contains sufficient PCEs to support life- history functions essential for the conservation of the species.

Included as critical habitat are six tanks occupied at the time of listing (Sycamore Basin, Middle, Walt’s, Partnership, Black, and Buckskin) that form a metapopulation. Also included as critical habitat are Needed and Doren Defeat’s tanks.

Critical habitat also includes drainages and uplands likely used as dispersal corridors among these tanks, including: (1) From Middle Tank downstream in Boulder Canyon to its confluence with an unnamed drainage that comes in from the northwest, to include Black Tank, then upstream in that unnamed drainage to a saddle, to include Needed Tank, downstream from the saddle in an unnamed drainage to its confluence with another unnamed drainage, downstream in that drainage to the confluence with an unnamed drainage, to include Walt’s Tank, and upstream in that unnamed drainage to Partnership Tank; (2) from Doren’s Defeat Tank upstream in an unnamed drainage to Partnership Tank; (3) from the confluence of an unnamed drainage with Boulder Canyon west to a point where the drainage turns southwest, then directly overland to the top of Sycamore Canyon, and then downstream in Sycamore Canyon to Sycamore Basin Tank; and (4) from Buckskin Tank upstream in an unnamed drainage to the top of that drainage, then directly overland to an unnamed drainage that contains Walt’s Tank.

The PCEs for Chiricahua leopard frogs are:

(1) Aquatic breeding habitat and immediately adjacent uplands exhibiting the following characteristics:

(a) Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds.

(b) Emergent and or submerged vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, fractured rock substrates, or some combination thereof, but emergent vegetation does not completely cover the surface of water bodies.

(d) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if present, then environmental, physiological, and genetic conditions are such that allow persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs.

36 (e) Upland areas that provide opportunities for foraging and basking that are immediately adjacent to or surrounding breeding aquatic and riparian habitat.

(2) Dispersal and non-breeding habitat, consisting of areas with ephemeral (present for only a short time), intermittent, or perennial water that are generally not suitable for breeding, and associated upland or riparian habitat that provides corridors (overland movement or along wetted drainages) for frogs among breeding sites in a metapopulation with the following characteristics:

(a) Habitats are not more than 1.0 mile overland, 3.0 miles along ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 miles along perennial drainages, or some combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 mile.

(b) In overland and non-wetted corridors, provides some vegetation cover or structural features (e.g., boulders, rocks, organic debris such as downed trees or logs, small mammal burrows, or leaf litter) for shelter, forage, and protection from predators; in wetted corridors, provides some ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial aquatic habitat.

(c) Are free of barriers that block movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, including, but not limited to, urban, industrial, or agricultural development; reservoirs that are 50 acres or more in size and contain predatory nonnative fishes, bullfrogs, or crayfish; highways that do not include frog fencing and culverts; and walls, major dams, or other structures that physically block movement.

With the exception of impoundments, livestock tanks, and other constructed waters, critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries.

Surveys on the Allotment: Leopard frog and other herpetofauna surveys have been conducted on the Forest since the early 1990’s. Surveys in the early 19990’s were mostly conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and results have been documented in several reports (Sredl and Howland 1992, Sredl et. al 1993, Sredl et al 1995, Windes et al 1997). Sredl et al (1997b) summarized the results of statewide surveys for Arizona native ranid frogs, including the Chiricahua leopard frog, to describe their current status and distribution. Surveys since 1998 have been conducted by agency biologists from AGFD, USFWS and USFS.

Occupied Chiricahua leopard frog sites have been located through ongoing surveys by the agency biologists from 1997 to the present. The only extant populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs on the Forest occur in the southern part of the Forest, in an

37 area known as Buckskin Hills/Mud Tanks. Table Two lists tanks where Chiricahua leopard frogs have been observed on the Fossil Allotment. In summary, frog populations in the area crashed during the 2002 drought but have, as a result of numerous recovery actions, increased beyond pre-2002 levels.

Records exist from other locations along the Mogollon Rim, including East Clear Creek and West Clear Creek drainages, but these sites have been unoccupied since at least the mid-1980’s.

The Fossil Allotment contains currently occupied, previously occupied, and suitable unoccupied Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. The recently and currently occupied sites known on the Forest are stock tanks and occur in the central part of this allotment. Previously occupied sites are those areas where frogs were present in the 1990’s and early 2000’s but no longer occur as a result of drought, crayfish, non- native fish, or other unknown disturbances. Suitable unoccupied sites are those areas where suitable conditions exist (permanent water, no crayfish, non-native fish or other introduced predators, and within elevational range expected for this species) but that have not had frogs detected during any surveys. Sites may be unsuitable because they are out of elevational range of the species, have intermittent water, or have the presence of predators or certain pathogens. Table Two displays all the occupied or previously occupied tanks on the allotment as well as the tanks within the Proposed Action area that are suitable but unoccupied and unsuitable.

Table Two: Tanks Currently or Recently Occupied by Chiricahua Leopard Frogs or that are Suitable but Unoccupied or Unsuitable.

Currently Deemed Site Name Occupied Recently Potential Suitable Deemed Occupied Cause for Unoccupied Unsuitable Years Years Extirpation (because no due to: with with (even if non-natives Negative Positive temporary present) Survey Survey extirpation) Sycamore Tank naturally 97, 07 01-06 N/A Basin Tank recolonized in 2012. Berm repaired Oct 2012. Middle Tank Individuals re- 95-98, 93,94, Fish present introduced in 2008 00, 01, 99, 08 but removed in Occupied/breeding 07 2005 site 09-12 Buckskin Tank Individuals re- 07, 2010 97-02, Dried in 07 introduced in 04-06 but deepened 2011. in 2010 Occupied/breeding 2012

38 Currently Deemed Site Name Occupied Recently Potential Suitable Deemed Occupied Cause for Unoccupied Unsuitable Years Years Extirpation (because no due to: with with (even if non-natives Negative Positive temporary present) Survey Survey extirpation) Doren’s Defeat Tank naturally 96, 97, 00, 01 Tank dried in Tank recolonized in 99, 05 2002 2012. Black Tank Frogs introduced 96-98 99-02 Nonnative fish in 2010, breeding 09 removed in 05 confirmed 2011. More individuals released 2011 Occupied/breeding 2012 Walts Tank Frogs re- 04,05, 97-02 Dried in 2002 introduced in 09 09,10. Breeding confirmed 2010 Occupied/breeding 2011-12 Needed Tank Naturally 97, 99- Dry in 07 recolonized in 01, 03- 2012 06 Partnership Naturally 97, 05, 99-02, Dried during X Tank recolonized in 2012 02 2012 Freckles Tank Naturally colonized in 2012 Pine Tank Naturally 98, 99, 00 Unknown recolonized in 01 2012, reproduction confirmed Charley’s Naturally Tank colonized in 2012 Upper Boulder Naturally Canyon colonized in 2012 – may only be natural pools dispersal Boulder Spring Naturally Canyon colonized in 2012 – may only be natural pools dispersal Boulder Spring Naturally 2012 colonized in 2012 Little 03, 01 Tank dried in X Buckskin Tank 2012 2002 but repaired and deepened in Oct 2012

39 Currently Deemed Site Name Occupied Recently Potential Suitable Deemed Occupied Cause for Unoccupied Unsuitable Years Years Extirpation (because no due to: with with (even if non-natives Negative Positive temporary present) Survey Survey extirpation) Buck Tank 97,05, 00, 01 Tank dried in X 2012 2002? Powerline 2012 No crayfish Tank detected but no aquatic habitat Salmon Lake 93, 06 Pete’s/Turkey 06 Wan 01,06 Ernies 99,01,06 Herbies 01,06 Tin Can 01,06 Blue 93, 01,06 Yvette 93,06 Road Tank Dry in 07 Contractor 94-99, 93 Crayfish, then crayfish 01, 04 tank dried Divide 93-99, 83 Crayfish, but crayfish 01, 03, non-native fish 06 removed in 2005 Gnat Crayfish in 06 Mud Tank No. 93, Crayfish, then Crayfish 2 dried various present when years water present Tanque Aloma 94-01, 93 Crayfish Crayfish 04 Natural Crayfish in 06

Environmental Consequences There are various design features proposed that will reduce the impacts of livestock grazing on the Chiricahua leopard frog and critical habitat. The 1,200 acres of proposed vegetative treatment and maintenance in locations where soil impairment is exacerbated by canopy encroachment of juniper and woody shrubs vegetation treatments will help increase the nutrient cycling by increasing the cover of perennial grasses; increase the hydrologic function of the soils by increasing infiltration, decrease soil compaction, and decrease erosion on these treatment areas. Should these treatments occur adjacent or connected to frog habitat, treatments will reduce the sedimentation that fills tanks and makes them susceptible to drying during

40 drought years (PCE 1a). This will also improve cover for overland dispersal of frogs (PCE 2b). As frogs colonize additional sites that provide the habitat required for persistence, additional wedge fencing can be constructed (PCE 1b and e). Working collaboratively to renovate and remove Divide tank so that it is no longer suitable for crayfish will go far in removing the threat of crayfish invading sites within the occupied subwatersheds (PCE 1c). The recommendation of retaining water in select tanks will benefit this species and its habitat (PCE 1a and 1b) especially during times of drought. In order to minimize the risk for introducing and spreading disease among aquatic systems, approved protocols will be followed when conducting work in earthen livestock tanks (Appendix B). This protocol has been attached to the AOI, discussed with the permittee during AOI meetings, has been shared with all district personnel, as well as shared with outfitter/guides although they are not permitted to operate at any Chiricahua sites (PCE 1d). Biologists will be given at least 60 days notice prior to conducting work in earthen tanks. This notice will allow for surveys, if needed, and/or mitigation to reduce adverse effects to amphibians. The Forest will periodically monitor water quality in water bodies (especially tanks and springs) where livestock have access (PCE 1c and d). FWS, AGFD, and Forest Service biologists and hydrologist have determined the appropriate water quality parameters that can be feasibly monitored at this time are: pH, total dissolved solids, water temperature, conductivity, and occasionally test for the presence of Chytrid.

Much recovery work has been accomplished in this recovery unit, including captive rearing, population reestablishments, tank repair, tank cleaning, erosion control, fencing, and elimination of nonnative predators such as sport fishes and crayfish. Specifically, wedge fencing at Middle, Black, Walt’s, Sycamore Basin, and Buckskin tanks has been constructed to protect aquatic habitat required for egg laying, food, and shelter. Even with the fencing, livestock will still have access to portions of suitable and occupied frog sites and critical habitat.

The greatest threats to the species and its critical habitat are reintroduction of nonnative species and drought. Divide Tank, which is adjacent to Highway 260, has crayfish, has supported nonnative fish in the past and is a likely place for future illegal stockings of fish or bullfrogs. Nonnatives, including crayfish, in Divide tank can spread to sites listed as critical habitat. All of the tanks listed as critical habitat are filled by runoff; hence, they are vulnerable to drying during drought. When the species was proposed for listing, the populations in the Buckskin Hills were unknown; however, during 2000–2001, frogs were found at 11 sites. After a severe drought in 2002, frogs only remained at Sycamore Basin and Walt’s Tanks. Drilling a well to make one or more of the tanks less susceptible to drying is cost prohibitive because of the extreme depth to groundwater. Because the tanks depend on runoff, and as most tanks went dry in 2002, protecting more than the minimum four breeding sites needed for a metapopulation is warranted.

Chytridiomycosis (PCE 1h) has not been found in any wild frogs in the Buckskin Hills; however, the disease occurs in Arizona treefrogs ( Hyla wrightorum ) and western chorus frogs ( Pseudacris triseriata ) less than 10 mi (16 km) to the east, and

41 frogs collected from Walt’s Tank subsequently tested positive for the disease in captivity. It is unknown whether they contracted the disease in the wild or while in captivity. Surveys in October of 2012 detected dead frogs in perennial pools in natural drainages as well as in stock tanks. A specimen was collected for testing but results of which will take time to obtain. Mortality observed may have been from cooler temperatures and lack of suitable organic mud for aestivation rather than chytrid.

Livestock grazing effects on Chiricahua leopard frog habitat include both creation of habitat and loss and degradation of habitat (Sredl and Jennings, in press). Construction of stock tanks for livestock water has created leopard frog habitat, and in some cases has replaced destroyed or altered natural wetland habitats (Sredl and Saylor 1998). Sixty-three percent of extant Chiricahua leopard frog localities in Arizona are stock tanks, versus only 35% of extirpated localities (Sredl and Saylor 1998), suggesting Arizona populations of this species have fared better in stock tanks than in natural habitats. Stock tanks provide small patches of habitat that are often dynamic and subject to drying and elimination of frog populations.

Adverse effects to the PCEs of critical habitat as a result of livestock grazing and management actions can occur. Livestock can indirectly affect riparian obligate and aquatic species by: trampling aquatic vegetation in which these species use for hiding cover, temperature regulation, and substrate (that supports birds nest and frog and toad eggs masses); and by increasing sediments in and turbidity of the water body thereby decreasing water quality for these species and their prey base. In addition, nutrients in livestock waste create algal growth in ponds. The decomposition of algae causes low dissolved oxygen concentration which negatively affects aquatic organisms (Belsky et al. 1999). Ponds used by livestock had been documented to have lowered amphibian reproduction due to increased levels of phosphorus and nitrogen and increased turbidity (Knutson et al. 2004). Accumulating evidence suggests that nitrates and ammonium, among other chemicals, can negatively impact amphibians, and that ranids are particularly sensitive to levels of these compounds (Baker and Waights 1994; Nebeker, et. al. 2000; Burgett, et. al. 2007; Johansson, et. al. 2001; Hatch and Blaustein 2000; Hatch and Blaustein 2003; Hecnar 1996; Rouse et. al. 1999; Macias et. al. 2007; and Marco et. al. 1999). Livestock commonly congregate around water sources such as tanks which are also important to aquatic wildlife and are some of the last refugia available to leopard frogs since natural systems have been invaded by non-native aquatic organisms such as fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish. Because leopard frogs often represent the most sensitive aquatic organisms to water quality indices such as nitrates and ammonium, certain levels could impact the existence of frog populations in a tank or preclude the water source from providing habitat for frogs. For ensuring amphibian survival, total nitrogen levels should be 2.5 mg/L or less (the sublethal level for larvae) when tiger salamanders are abundant and fish are absent (Knutson et al. 2004). In times of drought, tanks with residual water attract more terrestrial wildlife and livestock, increasing input of nitrates and ammonium, which is concentrated as water continues

42 to evaporate. In order to improve the quality of water and lower nitrogen input, Knutson et al. (2004) recommend reducing livestock access to ponds.

The proposed action alternative allows access to earthen tanks, although perimeter habitat within the wedge-fenced portions of Sycamore Basin, Buckskin, Walt’s, Middle, and Black is protected from livestock grazing. Wedge fencing has allowed for recovery of emergent vegetation and immediately adjacent upland vegetation within portions of the tanks, which helps reduce input of animal waste and the buildup of nitrates and ammonium, but does not completely mitigate the potential for water contamination in the tank as a whole or potential for livestock to trample eggs, tadpoles or frog in the unfenced portions. Potential for trampling eggs, tadpoles or frogs exists; the Final Recovery Plan cites three documented cases in which trampling of other frog and toad species by livestock was documented (USDI 2006).

Creation or maintenance of livestock waters in arid environments may provide the means for non-native predators such as bullfrogs and crayfish to move across landscapes that would otherwise serve as barriers to their movement.

Increased erosion in the watershed caused by livestock grazing can accelerate sedimentation of sites used by frogs (Gunderson 1968). Sediment alters primary productivity and fills interstitial spaces in streambed materials with fine particulates that impede water flow, reduce oxygen levels, and restrict waste removal (Chapman 1988). Livestock concentrations at tanks is traditionally higher than away from water, therefore, livestock grazing in the uplands and adjacent to tanks indirectly affects Chiricahua leopard frogs and critical habitat when livestock grazing reduces perennial grasses, reduces ground litter, increases compaction, decreases infiltration, which leads to increased erosion, and increased sediment transport. An increase in sediment into earthen tanks reduces the water-holding capacity of the tank, making it susceptible to drying out during drought years. Leopard frogs are highly aquatic and need year-round water and aquatic vegetation during their active period. Livestock management as proposed will improve upland conditions over the next 10 years, therefore reducing the amount of sedimentation into earthen tanks.

Cattle can remove bankline vegetation that provides escape cover for frogs and a source of insect prey. However, dense shoreline or emergent vegetation in the absence of grazing may favor some predators, such as garter snakes ( Thamnophis spp .), and the frogs may benefit from some open ground for basking and foraging. At a tank in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona, Sredl et al. (1997) documented heavy cattle use at a stock tank that resulted in degraded water quality, including elevated hydrogen sulfide concentrations. A die-off of Chiricahua leopard frogs at the site was attributed to cattle-associated water quality problems, and the species has been extirpated from the site since the die–off occurred (USDI 2000). Wedge fencing at five occupied tanks on the Fossil Creek Allotment has been successful in that perimeter vegetation within the fencing is retain, frog are found basking in the mud where livestock have grazed perimeter vegetation outside of wedge fencing, and frog reproduction is occurring at robust rates. Livestock grazing

43 at the five wedge-fenced tanks will not result in grazing of all perimeter vegetation. Livestock grazing at tanks without wedge fencing will result in the grazing of some of the emergent vegetation and potentially all of the perimeter vegetation for periods that livestock are in those pastures. As frogs move into new sites and persistence is determined, additional wedge fencing can be constructed.

Chytrid fungus can survive in wet or muddy environments and could conceivably be spread by livestock carrying mud on their hooves and moving among frog habitats. Personnel working at an infected tank or aquatic site and then traveling to another site, thereby transferring mud or water from the first site could also spread this disease. Chytrids could be carried inadvertently in mud clinging to wheel wells or tires, or on shovels, nets, boots, or other equipment. Chytrids cannot survive complete drying; if equipment is allowed to thoroughly dry, the likelihood of disease transmission is greatly reduced. Bleach or other disinfectants can also be applied to tools and vehicles and will kill chytrids (Loncore 2000). As discussed above, a disease prevention protocol has been attached to the Fossil Creek AOI and has been discussed with the permittee. District employees as well as other permitted operators have also been given the protocol. Every year, the district biologist meets with fire employees during their annual Incident Commander meeting and discusses the disease prevention procedures and shares the protocol with them.

Another vector for chytrid transfer could be during intentional introductions of fish or other aquatic organisms. Maintenance of roads and tanks needed for livestock grazing could provide fishing opportunities and facilitate tank access by anglers, hunters, or other recreationists. These people (and possibly their dogs) may inadvertently introduce chytrids from other locales, or may intentionally introduce non-native predators for angling or other purposes. Such activities would also facilitate introduction of non-native predators with which the Chiricahua leopard frog cannot co-exist.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects to Chiricahua leopard frog include past and present watershed treatments (juniper cutting, filtersoxx installation), wildfires, fire use, personal use, and recreation (mainly hunters). Various watershed treatments have occurred including lop and scatter of juniper on small acreages and installation of erosion control filter sox around erosive soils. There have been various wildfires within the Fossil watershed. In addition to concerns with erosion and sedimentation that occurs after wildfire and planned fires reduces vegetative cover, suppression activities are also of concern. Withdrawing water from occupied sites and flying over suitable sites with contaminated water, are several concerns with suppression activities. Recreators can potentially (intentionally or accidentally) introduce and nonnative aquatic organisms to suitable and occupied frog sites. Recreators, as well as wild ungulates and birds, can also unintentionally spread the chytrid fungus when mud is transported from site to site.

44 Grazing by ungulates such as elk, particularly on herbaceous vegetation in and around occupied sites has the potential for cumulatively impacting Chiricahua leopard frogs.

Drought has affected upland vegetation and water levels within frog sites on this allotment. Drought around 2002 caused particularly poor upland vegetative conditions which can result in indirect effects to frog habitat, particularly excessive sedimentation into earthen tanks. The drought in 2002 also resulted in the extirpation of many frog sites; only through emergency and ongoing recovery actions (salvage, captive rearing, tank deepening, etc) have frog populations become reestablished post drought.

Climate change is expected to increase the severity and frequency of drought and can increase the susceptibility of ecosystems to disease or invasion of non-native species (Ford et al. 2012). Livestock grazing under the proposed action is designed to account for drought effects on forage, but can contribute as an ecological stressor resulting in a cumulative effect on the Chiricahua leopard frog meta-population in Fossil Creek Allotment.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects to Species The use of Boulder water gap will not affect the Chiricahua leopard frog since they do not occur in Fossil Creek and Fossil Creek is below the elevational range of the species. However, the proposed action allows livestock to access currently occupied sites (11 earthen stock tanks, two drainages with natural pools, and one spring) and various other sites that are suitable for the Chiricahua leopard frog. In order to mitigate some effect of livestock use of these waters, wedge fencing has been constructed at five tanks; Sycamore Basin, Middle, Black, Walt’s, and Buckskin tanks. Although these wedge fences will protect some of the frog habitat in these tanks, livestock will still be allowed access to a portion of these tanks. In addition livestock have access to the entirety of other unfenced occupied sites for watering. Therefore, there is potential for livestock to directly affect the Chiricahua leopard frog by disturbing aquatic vegetation to which frog and toad egg masses are adhered and inadvertently trampling tadpoles.

Proposed activities can indirectly affect the Chiricahua leopard frog by: trampling aquatic and aquatic vegetation in which these species use for hiding cover, temperature regulation, and substrate to support frog and toad eggs masses; and increasing sediments in and turbidity of the water body thereby decreasing water quality for these species and their prey base. In addition, nutrients in livestock waste create algal growth in ponds. The decomposition of algae causes low dissolved oxygen concentration which negatively affects aquatic organisms (Belsky et al. 1999). Ponds used by livestock had been documented to have lowered amphibian reproduction due to increased levels of phosphorus and increased turbidity (Knutson et al. 2004). In order to improve the quality of water and lower nitrogen input, Knutson et al. (2004) recommend reducing livestock access to ponds.

45 Other indirect effects to Chiricahua leopard frog occur when livestock grazing causes poor watershed condition characterized by reduced perennial grasses and reduced ground cover, increased erosion, and increased sediment transport. An increase in sediment into earthen tanks reduces the water-holding capacity of the tank, making it susceptible to drying out during drought years. Leopard frogs are highly aquatic and need adequate water year round. While the potential for these effects exist, recent monitoring shows that soils conditions have improved from unsatisfactory to impaired across the allotment (see Watershed Specialist Report). Also, under recent (since 2009) and proposed management, water quality standards are attaining in Fossil Creek and the Verde River indicating no excessive turbidity, total suspended solids, and embeddedness (see Watershed Specialist Report).

Structural range improvements, including wedge fencing at additional Chiricahua leopard frog sites and at spring/seep and riparian areas may result in short term adverse effects to frogs and their habitat (should they be present) during the time of construction. While fencing to protect frog habitat at earthen tanks may have short- term adverse effects on Chiricahua leopard frogs, the fencing is necessary for the long-term protection of frog breeding habitat at these sites. Should it be determined that fencing is necessary at occupied frog sites, close coordination between the permittees and agency biologists will ensure that fence construction is conducted during less critical periods, biological monitors will be present during construction to monitor for frogs and egg masses, and fences will be designed to cause the least amount of ground disturbance.

Even though Divide tank is unsuitable for Chiricahua leopard frog, the removal of crayfish habitat at Divide tank could adversely affect dispersing frogs thay may occur in the area should work occur during the months when moisture is sufficient to allow frog dispersal. Outside of this season, ground disturbing work at Divide tank will not result in direct effect to Chiricahua leopard frogs since frogs have not been detected in this tank since 1993 due to the presence of crayfish. Indirect effects to occupied frog sites downstream may occur in the form of downstream sedimentation that may occur from ground disturbing activities at Divide Tank. Best management practices would be employed to reduce the potential for downstream sedimentation. While further coordination between agencies and the permittee is needed to finalize an effective method for eliminating the crayfish, methods could include the following.

Replacing Divide Tank with a water collection, storage, pipeline, and trough system that does not provide suitable habitat for crayfish Replacing Divide Tank with fabricated troughs and having the permittee haul water to the troughs as needed.

Sites occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs on the Fossil Creek Allotment have been identified as important waters. The proposed action recommends that water to be retained for wildlife use after domestic livestock have been removed from the grazing unit.

46 The 1,200 acres of proposed vegetative treatment and maintenance in locations where soil impairment is exacerbated by canopy encroachment of juniper and woody shrubs vegetation treatments will help increase the nutrient cycling by increasing the cover of perennial grasses; increase the hydrologic function of the soils by increasing infiltration, decrease soil compaction, and decrease erosion on these treatment areas. This will reduce the sedimentation that fills tanks and makes them susceptible to drying during drought years. This will also improve cover for overland dispersal of frogs. Vegetative treatments will be conducted by hand using hand tools; therefore treatments will result in minimal disturbance of soil. Vegetation treatments will be designed and implemented in a way that does not adversely affect Chiricahua leopard frogs. One example of a design features is treating outside the dispersal period where treatments occur within dispersal habitats.

In order to reduce the effects of livestock management operations to Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitat, tank cleaning instructions and a hygiene protocol designed to minimize the spread of aquatic invasive nuisance species and pathogens will be attached to Annual Operating Instructions and will be implemented. These measures are included in detail in Appendix B.

Determination Criteria: According to the “Framework for Streamlining informal consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities” (2005), the following are determination quidelines:

No Effect (must meet all of the criteria) 1. Chiricahua leopard frogs are not present within the action area. 2. No livestock grazing or livestock management activities will occur within areas where frogs are reasonably certain to occur or where there is likely to be occupied habitat which includes: a. Currently suitable habitat where the frog has been documented within the last 5 years, but is apparently now absent or, b. Suitable habitat that is: i. within 1 miles overland of occupied habitat, ii. within 3 miles along an ephemeral or intermittent drainage from occupied habitat, or iii. within 5 miles along a perennial stream from occupied habitat.

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (must meet all of the criteria) 1. There will be no livestock use or livestock management activities where the species is reasonably certain to occur or there is occupied aquatic habitat (grazing is allowed in non-occupied suitable habitat). 2. Indirect effects occurring within the action area, where the frog is reasonably certain to occur, which result from upland livestock grazing are determined to be insignificant or discountable.

47 3. Proposed livestock management activities, within the action area, will not increase the likelihood that non-native predators or chytrid fungi will colonize or be introduced to such aquatic sites.

Species Determination: The proposed action allows for livestock grazing in occupied and suitable habitats and therefore does not meet the guidelines established under the streamlining agreement. As a result, formal consultation is required. With excellent cooperation from permittees, recovery actions in the Buckskin Hills have been numerous and successful. Further recovery actions will continue to ensure a viable metapopulation and contribute to the species recovery. Yet, livestock have access to portions of suitable and occupied frog sites; impact to frog habitat is inevitable and impact to individual frogs (including tadpoles and egg masses) may occur as well. Therefore, it is the determination that the proposed action may adversely affect the Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Under the no action alternative, there would be no livestock grazing. The Chiricahua leopard frog will benefit from the absence of pressure caused by direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on species and their habitat. However, after a number of years, this alternative would result in a decrease in suitable habitat as stock tanks would be maintenance would likely decrease and the proposed improvements to Divide Tank would not occur. The Forest Service would likely take over maintenance of a limited number of occupied tanks, but unoccupied tanks likely wouldn’t be maintained and this would decrease the amount of suitable habitat on the allotment. Cumulative effects such as climate change would result in an increase in the severity and frequency of drought. With more limited suitable habitat, recurring or severe drought would result in a population less resilient to disturbance and more likely to contribute to a loss of a viable meta-population. Determination: Under the no action alternative, there will be no livestock grazing and therefore no effect to the Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitat. This is consistent with the “Framework for Streamlining Informal consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities”, which states for a no effect determination, no livestock grazing or livestock management activities will occur within areas where frogs are reasonably certain to occur or where there is likely to be occupied habitat (USDA 2005a).

Determination of Effects to Critical Habitat

The Proposed Action Alternative allows for livestock grazing in critical habitat. Livestock management strategies and mitigations proposed in 2008 and amended here will reduce livestock grazing effects to Chiricahua leopard frog PCEs, particularly: • Presence of perennial water and prompt maintenance of earthen tanks (PCE 1a);

48 • Vegetative treatment over 1,200 acres which will reduce sedimentation that fills tanks making them susceptible to drying during drought years (PCE 1a); • Emergent and submergent vegetation within wedge-fenced areas of 5 tanks and possibly additional tanks in the future (PCE 1b); • Recommendation of retaining water in occupied tanks (PCE 1a and 1b); • Renovating Divide tank to eradicate crayfish (PCE1c); • Dissemination of and compliance with decontamination protocols (PCE 1d); • Periodic monitoring of water quality in occupied sites (PCE 1c and d); • Within wedge fencing and possible future fencing, protection of uplands adjacent to breeding sites that frogs use for basking and foraging (PCE 1e); • Dispersal habitat that is not > one mile overland, three miles along drainages, and five miles along perennial drainages (PCE 2a); • Vegetative treatment that will improve overland dispersal habitat for frogs (PCE 2b); and • Dispersal habitat is free of barriers that block movement by frogs (PCE 2c).

While the livestock management strategies proposed will reduce livestock grazing effects to Chiricahua leopard frog PCEs, there will still be potential for livestock grazing to affect:

Emergent and submergent vegetation in areas without wedge fencing (PCE1f); and Upland foraging and basking sites where wedge fencing does not exist (PCE1i).

In addition there is always potential for nonnative predators to be spread into critical habitat (PCE 1g) as well as for chytridiomycosis to be present (PCE 1h).

Therefore, it is the determination that the Proposed Action Alternative may adversely affect the critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog.

FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES The purpose of this biological assessment is to evaluate the potential effects of this action on sensitive species. This assessment is based on the current geographic range of sensitive species on the Coconino National Forest and the area affected by the project. This assessment considers, as appropriate for the species and area, factors that may affect the current trend for the species population. Additionally, this assessment will display findings under the various management alternatives considered for the project (FSM 2621.2).

49 Sensitive species are defined as "those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM 2670.5(19))". It is the policy of the Forest Service regarding Sensitive Species to 1) assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species, 2) as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species, 3) avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern, 4) if impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole (the Line Officer, with project approval authority, makes the decision to allow or disallow impacts, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing), and 5) establish management objectives in cooperation with the State when projects on National Forest system lands may have a significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distributions. Establish objectives for Federal candidate species, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona State (FSM 2670.32).

All species on the Coconino National Forest’s Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species List were considered in this analysis . Of these, twenty four sensitive species are present or have potential habitat within the analysis area and have been evaluated. Table Three summarizes these species and their status in the analysis area. Listing status refers to a species Forest Service designation as a sensitive species.

Table Three. List of Sensitive species or habitat on the Fossil Creek Grazing Allotment

Common Name Scientific Name Status Sensitive Mammals (9) Merriam’s Shrew Sorex merriami leucogenys Sen Western Red Bat Lasiurus blossevillii Sen Allen’s Lappet-browed Bat Idionycteris phyllotis Sen Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Sen Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum Sen Western Mastiff Bat Eumops perotis californicus Sen Plains Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys montanus Sen Wupatki Arizona Pocket Mouse Perognathus amplus cinerius Sen Mogollon Vole (formerly Navajo Microtus mogollonensis (formerly WC, Sen Mountain Mexican Vole) Microtus mexicanus) Sensitive Birds (7) Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus WC, Sen Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles WC, Sen, MIS American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum WC, Sen Common Black Hawk Buteogallus anthracinus WC, Sen, MIS Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C, WC, Sen Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Sen Abert’s Towhee Pipilo aberti Sen

50 Common Name Scientific Name Status Sensitive Amphibians (2) Lowland Leopard Frog Rana yavapaiensis SC, WC, Sen Arizona Toad Bufo microscaphus microscaphus SC, Sen Sensitive Reptiles (3) Narrow-headed Garter Snake Thamnophis rufipunctatus SC, WC, Sen Mexican Garter Snake Thamnophis eques megalops C, WC, Sen Reticulated Gila Monster Heloderma suspectum suspectum Sen Sensitive Invertebrates (3) Blue-black Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria nokomis nokomis SC, Sen Mountain Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria nokomis nitocris Sen Spotted Skipperling Piruna polingii Sen

Table Legend

E = Federally listed as Endangered under Endangered Species Act (ESA) EXNE = Federally Endangered, Experimental, Non-essential T = Federally listed as Threatened under ESA P = Federally Proposed for listing under the ESA C = Federally designated as Candidate for listing WC = Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (AGFD draft 3/16/96) Sen = On Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (7/21/99) HP = High Priority Species; “at high risk of imperilment” (Western Bat Species Regional Priority Matrix (1998) MIS = Tonto and Coconino Management Indicator Species from the Respective Forest Plans SC = Federal Species of Concern (former C2 species).

Mammals

Merriam Shrew

Habitat on the Allotment This shrew occupies cool grassy areas near conifer forest and can be found in similar areas as the Mexican vole. Although limited habitat occurs on the allotment, potential does occur in the northeast portion of the allotment where mixed conifer (10 acres) and ponderosa pine forests (1101 acres) occur. These insectivorous animals may occur in the burrows of other animals while hunting.

Surveys on the Allotment: Small mammal trapping on the Fossil allotment has been very limited. Trapping through the Sinagua High School program occurred in the uplands adjacent to the perennial portion of Fossil creek, but this is not within the habitat type that Merriam shrews would occupy.

Environmental Consequences

51 Cumulative Effects: Other activities in the watershed that may affect shrew habitat include watershed improvement projects, wildfire, prescribed burning, fire use, and livestock grazing on other allotments. These cumulative actions could contribute to potential loss of dense grass habitat required for cover. Grazing by wildlife, especially elk, contributes to the loss/modification of shrew habitat. Livestock grazing would be additive to the ongoing ungulate grazing.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Effects to this species from livestock grazing and management activities would include trampling and removal of grass needed for cover which may make them more susceptible to predation. The effects of livestock grazing on vegetation has been documented to affect insects, upon which this shrew feed. Aboveground macroarthropods (insects and arachnids) experienced large decreases with moderate or heavy grazing, but conversely with light grazing showed slight increases (Lavigne et al. 1972 in Milchunas et al. 1998). Light grazing (30% utilization ) has been found to leave a greater amount of standing vegetative crop than moderately grazed sites and forage production was 24% higher under light than moderate grazing (Holecheck et al. 2003 and 1999).

Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects.

Determination: A determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability would be made for the Merriam’s shrew with the proposed action, since cattle grazing can result in loss of cover and food and may make shrews more susceptible to predation.

Western Red Bat

Habitat on the Allotment This tree-roosting bat occurs along intermittent and perennial streams where they roost in deciduous trees. They emerge from their roosts several hours after dusk to forage on a variety of flying insects. Wintering behavior of this migratory bat is unknown, but other species of tree roosting bats over-winter in leaf litter.

Surveys on the Allotment

52 Until 2010, limited bat surveys were conducted on the Fossil Allotment and there was no record of red bat detection from those efforts. In 2011, a multi-agency effort resulted in hundreds of mist net hours along Fossil Creek and at upland stock tanks. Two western red bats were mist netted in the middle portion of Fossil Creek. None were captured in the Fossil Springs area or the earthen tanks in the uplands above the rim.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects: Other activities occurring in the watershed that may affect red bats include activities associated with recreation, livestock grazing on other allotments, and any burning activities where smoke may disturb roosting bats. These activities occur in riparian areas and could disturb roosting bats. The activities could also affect riparian habitat which is important to red bats for roosting and foraging.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Disturbance to any bat species may occur when noise from livestock management activities such as personnel, vehicles, and dogs are present within close enough proximity to roost locations. Noise disturbance at certain intensities can disturb bats in their roosts and result in premature exiting or unnecessary arousal from hibernation. Since hibernating bats often have only enough fat reserve to bring them out of hibernation once, disturbance during the winter can trigger bats to arouse from hibernation, only to go resume hibernation without enough fat reserves to come back out in the spring. Noise disturbance of long duration can cause temporary or permanent roost abandonment.

Livestock grazing and management activities in riparian areas are limited, but when they do coincide, they may disturb roosting red bats. Indirect effects may occur when grazing on woody vegetation affects the recruitment of large deciduous tree that are used for roosting. Direct effects to riparian vegetation are lessened in the action alternative since the maximum pasture grazing period is typically 30 days. Use at the Boulder water gap will be localized to the fenced lane for short periods of time generally during December through mid-March. The mitigation of 20% maximum utilization on woody riparian vegetation and the minimum stubble height requirement will reduce the amount of effects livestock have on riparian vegetation in riparian areas other than Fossil Creek (because creek access is limited to the water gap and these criteria do not apply). Livestock grazing and the subsequent reduction in host plants adversely affect insects that insectivorous bats eat.

Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur where this species roosts, these activities will not disturb roosting bats. Foraging bats may benefit from proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments when these species improve habitat conditions for prey species.

53 Determination: Due to the potential for livestock grazing and livestock management activities to disturb roosting and foraging red bats, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the red bat but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Determination: Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that this alternative will have no impact on the red bat. Conversely, the red bat would benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on them and their habitat. The absence of livestock grazing can cause: a increase in the quality and quantity of wildlife food, cover, and shelter; increased animal abundance; increased abundance of prey species; and increased nest success.

Allen’s Lappet-browed Bat

Habitat on the Allotment Although known to occur over a wide range of elevations and vegetation types, the Allen’s lappet-browed bat is found primarily in ponderosa pine forests where they roost underneath exfoliating bark on standing ponderosa pine snags. Some ponderosa pine forests occur on the northeast portion of the allotment and it is possible that these bats roost there .

Surveys on the Allotment Until 2011, limited bat surveys were conducted on Fossil Allotment and there was no record of Allen’s lappet-browed bat detection from those efforts. In 2011, a multi- agency effort resulted in hundreds of mist net hours. One Allen’s lappet-browed bat was mist netted in the drainage upstream of Fossil Springs (riparian with uplands of primarily pinyon juniper with some chaparral), but not in the uplands above the rim nor the middle section of Fossil Creek.

Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects: Other activities occurring in the watershed that may affect this bat include watershed health improvement projects, wildfire, prescribed burning, and fire use. Noise and smoke may disturb roosting bats and alter habitat. In addition to these activities, drought and insect mortality create snags, which are important for these bats for roosting.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects

54 It is not anticipated that livestock grazing will have direct effects to the lappet-browed bat. However, noise from livestock management activities (particularly people, equipment and vehicles) could disturb roosting bats. Mitigation measures such as retaining water in livestock tanks and supplying drinkers with wildlife escape ramps will benefit this species.

Noise from structural range improvement activities (fencing habitat in select frog sites and fencing springs) could disturb roosting bats. Foraging bats may benefit from proposed structural range improvements when these species improve habitat conditions for prey species. Proposed vegetative treatment on 1000 acres may result in the removal of roosts. However this species is only known to roost in ponderosa pine snags, not in pinyon or juniper trees, and so the potential for disturbing roosting bats is low.

Determination: Due to the potential that livestock management activities may disturb lappet-browed bats, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the Allen’s lappet-browed bat, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Habitat on the Allotment This wide-ranging bat roosts in caves, mines, and other man-made structures including cliff dwellings and abandoned shacks. On the Fossil allotment, possible roosting habitat occurs; in caves, in various abandoned APS flume tunnels, cliff dwellings near Fossil Springs, and abandoned buildings. AGFD’s Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) database shows one record of a Townsend’s roost in a cliff dwelling within five miles of Fossil creek.

Surveys on the Allotment Until 2010, limited bat surveys were conducted on Fossil Allotment and there was no record of Townsend’s big-eared bat detection from those efforts. In 2011, a multi- agency effort resulted in hundreds of mist net hours. One Townsend’s big-eared bat was mist netted in the drainage upstream of Fossil Springs, but not in the uplands above the rim nor the middle section of Fossil Creek.

55 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects: Other activities occurring in the watershed that may affect this bat include watershed health improvement projects, wildfire, prescribed burning, fire use, recreation, and other activities where humans may enter occupied roosts. Smoke from wildfire, prescribed burning, or fire use could disturb roosting bats.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock management activities in particular may disturb roosting bats when activities occur near occupied roosts. Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur where this species roosts, these activities will not disturb roosting bats. Foraging bats may benefit from proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments when these species improve habitat conditions for prey species. In addition, mitigation measures such as retaining water in livestock tanks and supplying drinkers with wildlife escape ramps will benefit this species.

Determination: Since it is possible that livestock management activities may disturb roosting bats, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Spotted Bat and Greater Western Mastiff Bat

Habitat on the Allotment Both of these bat species roosts in cracks and crevices along high cliff ledges. Prominent rock features are required for spotted bat roosts. The spotted bat occurs across a range of elevations and habitat types. The mastiff bat occurs at lower elevation and roost in rugged canyons where there are abundant crevices. Due to their body shape and adaptation for straight, fast flight, mastiff bats require longer stretches of water to drink and this requirement likely is a limiting factor for where they occur on the landscape.

Surveys on the Allotment Until 2010, limited bat surveys were conducted on Fossil Allotment and there was no record of these two bat species from those efforts. In 2011, a multi-agency effort

56 resulted in hundreds of mist net hours, however, no spotted or greater western mastiff bats were mist netted. There are plans in 2013 for additional survey work using acoustical methods which have better chances than mist netting for detecting these high-flying bat species.

Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects: Because these bats roost high up in cliff ledges, not many activities have the potential for disturbing these bats. Smoke from wildfire, prescribed burning, or fire use could disturb roosting bats. Rock climbing within the allotment could cause to disturbance and potential abandonment if this activity coincides with spotted and mastiff bat roost occupancy.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Both species roost in cracks and crevices along high cliff ledges that would not be accessible to livestock grazing and management activities and would not be as susceptible to noise disturbance. Livestock grazing and the subsequent reduction in host plants adversely affect insects that insectivorous bats eat. Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur where this species roosts, these activities will not disturb roosting bats. Foraging bats may benefit from proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments when these species improve habitat conditions for prey species. In addition, mitigation measures such as retaining water in livestock tanks and supplying drinkers with wildlife escape ramps will benefit this species.

Determination: Although livestock grazing and management activities are unlikely to disturb bats roosting in cliff ledges and fissures, there is potential for livestock grazing to affect the macro arthropods upon which these bats forage. Therefore, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Plains Harvest Mouse

Habitat on the Allotment

57 The plains harvest mouse may be found in desert scrub, chaparral, and riparian habitats and are known to occur in the Verde Valley. They feed on the green parts and seeds of a variety of plants and use grasses for constructing nests above ground. They over-winter in burrows. Hoffmeister (1986) reports one specimen from along the Verde River near Camp Verde.

Surveys on the Allotment Small mammal trapping on the Fossil allotment has been very limited. Trapping through the Sinagua High School program occurred in the uplands adjacent to the perennial portion of the creek, however no plain’s harvest mice were detected.

Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects: Other activities occurring in the watershed that may affect this mouse include livestock grazing on other allotments, watershed improvement projects, wildfire, prescribed burning, fire use, and road use and maintenance. These activities may reduce the amount of vegetation needed for food and/or collapse burrows. Grazing by wildlife, including elk, likely contributes to the loss of harvest mouse habitat in the allotment and watershed as a whole.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing can directly impact rodents by trampling and collapsing burrows, compacting soils which hinders burrow construction, and by removing rodent food sources such as seed heads (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997). Indirect effects of livestock grazing on rodents can occur when grazing changes the composition of vegetative species (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997) and structure of vegetative species (Jones and Longland 1999; Hayward et al., 1997; Adler and Lauenroth, 2000). Pocket mice and harvest mice were significantly more abundant in ungrazed areas when compared to grazed areas (Bock and Bock 1984). Livestock grazing that results in loss of cover and food for the plains harvest mouse can make them more susceptible to starvation and predation. Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects.

Determination: Due to the potential for livestock grazing to collapse burrows and remove vegetation upon which this mouse forages, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the plains harvest mouse but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

58 Determination: Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that this alternative will have no impact on the plains harvest mouse. The harvest mouse will benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on them and their habitat

Wupatki Arizona Pocket Mouse

Habitat on the Allotment Although the type locality is known from the Wupatki area, north of Flagstaff, Hoffmeister (1986) and Heritage Data Management System (AGFD) indicates that this pocket mouse is potentially more wide-spread and may be found in desert scrub habitats and on the Fossil allotment, where creosote bush, cactus, mesquite, and scrub oak occur. They sleep and rear their young in burrows and feed extensively on seeds. They over-winter in burrows .

Surveys on the Allotment Small mammal trapping on the Fossil Allotment has been very limited. Trapping through the Sinagua High School program occurred in the uplands adjacent to the perennial portion of the creek, however no Wupatki Arizona pocket mice were detected.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects: Other activities occurring in the watershed that may affect this mouse include livestock grazing on other allotments, watershed improvement projects, wildfire, prescribed burning, fire use, and road use and maintenance. These activities may reduce the amount of vegetation needed for food and/or collapse burrows. Grazing by wildlife, including elk, likely contributes to the loss of pocket mouse habitat in the allotment and watershed as a whole.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing can directly impact rodents by trampling and collapsing burrows, compacting soils which hinders burrow construction, and by removing rodent food sources such as seed heads (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997). Indirect effects of livestock grazing on rodents can occur when grazing changes the composition of vegetative species (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997) and structure of vegetative species (Jones and Longland 1999; Hayward et al., 1997; Adler and Lauenroth, 2000). In one study there were significantly more pocket mice in areas with > 30% ground cover when compared to grazed areas with less than 25% ground cover (Valone and Sauter, 2004). In another study, pocket mice were more abundant in lightly grazed areas than in heavily grazed areas (Jones and Longland, 1999). Pocket mice and harvest mice were significantly more abundant in ungrazed areas when compared to grazed areas (Bock and Bock 1984). Rodent burrow

59 densities were higher in ungrazed plots when compared to grazed plots (Adler and Lauenroth, 2000). Livestock grazing that results in loss of cover and food for pocket mice can make them more susceptible to starvation and predation.

Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects.

Determination: Due to the potential for livestock grazing to collapse burrows and remove vegetation upon which this mouse forages, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the pocket mouse but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Mogollon Vole (Formerly Navajo Mountain Mexican Vole) Microtus mogollonensis was formerly included in Microtus mexicanus. The latter is now considered a separate species restricted to Mexico (NatureServe 2007). Also, genetic analysis of the 3 formerly recognized subspecies ( Microtus mexicanus mexicanus, M. m. navaho, and M. m. hualapiensis) indicates that these populations are not distinct subspecies, but rather one species, and will probably be renamed Mogollon vole (Chambers and Lesh, 2005) and will be referred to as such here. In Arizona, Mogollon voles are found along the Mexican Plateau, White Mountains, near the mouth of the Little Colorado River west to Prospect Valley, and in some isolated mountain ranges including the Hualapais, Bradshaws, Navajo Mountain, Sierra Ancha and Nanatanes Plateau. (ibid.). Mogollon voles typically occupy dry grassy or dry grass-forb vegetation in association with ponderosa pine or other coniferous forests. They also can occur in low dense, shrubby thickets, or within the forested areas where tree densities are low. Although in Northern Arizona, this vole is commonly found in grassy meadows in ponderosa pine, it can also be found in more mesic habitat including montane riparian areas and marshes. They rely on grasses and other herbaceous vegetation for food and cover, and are usually more abundant where grass biomass is high, such as in dense bunch grasses. Cattle and other grazing ungulates tend to concentrate in this species’ habitat and forage on its main food and cover. Grazing may disturb the reproduction, foraging or other life requirements of this species.

Habitat on the Allotment There are no documented populations or sightings of voles in the project area; however, suitable habitat exists within the allotment. The following habitat types were queried for Mogollon vole habitat in the Fossil Allotment: Ponderosa pine

60 forest, mixed conifer forest, and montane willow riparian forest for a total of 1,117 acres of potentially suitable habitat (Table Four).

Table Four: Mogollon Vole Habitat by Vegetation Type on Fossil Allotment Vegetation Type Acres in Allotment Ponderosa Pine 1,101 Mixed Conifer 10 Montane willow riparian forest 6 TOTAL 1,117

Results of Studies done in Northern Arizona on Mogollon Voles Studies showed that capture rates were highest in areas excluded from livestock and elk. Trap stations with the highest probability of capturing Mogollon voles had greater grass biomass and were farther from forest edges. Presence of ungulates (elk as well as livestock) negatively affected Mogollon voles, because voles use this grass for both food and cover. (Chambers and Lesh, 2005). More specifically, this study found that trap stations where this vole was trapped had an average biomass of 3,300 kilograms per hectare of grass (and were 18.6 meters from a forest edge), whereas stations where no Mogollon voles were trapped had an average grass biomass of 1,700 kilograms per hectare (and were an average of 12.3 meters from a forest edge). (ibid)

Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects: The Fossil Allotment area makes up 22% of the watershed. In addition, grazing actions are currently taking place on most of the rest of the watershed as well, with ony 7% of the watershed not being grazed. These cumulative actions would also contribute to potential loss of dense grass habitat required by Mogollon voles in the watershed. Grazing by wildlife, especially elk, contributes to the loss of vole habitat in the allotment and watershed as a whole. Livestock grazing would be additive to the ongoing ungulate grazing.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Since livestock can compete directly with Mogollon voles for forage, grazing by cattle would directly result in loss of cover and food and may make them more susceptible to predation. Livestock also tend to concentrate along ephemeral washes and associated moist meadows. Even though pastures will not be grazed every year, voles have limited ability for movement. Certain individuals may therefore be impacted but only during years that their home ranges are grazed, since regrowth of graminoids is expected between grazing periods.

The proposed construction and de-construction of fences may affect Mogollon voles on a localized scale, but are not expected to have direct effects on this species or its habitat, due to the short duration and limited habitat modification. In vole habitat that

61 occurs in pastures that will be excluded by fencing in this alternative, small mammal habitat, including vole habitat, is expected to improve.

Livestock grazing can directly impact rodents by trampling and collapsing burrows, compacting soils which hinders burrow construction, and by removing rodent food sources such as seed heads (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997). Indirect effects of livestock grazing on rodents can occur when grazing changes the composition of vegetative species (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997) and structure of vegetative species (Jones and Longland 1999; Hayward et al., 1997; Adler and Lauenroth, 2000).

Since proposed structural range improvements (associated with fencing Chiricahua leopard frog habitat and springs) and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects.

Determination: A determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability would be made for the Mogollon vole with the proposed action, since cattle grazing can result in loss of cover and food for Mogollon voles and may make them more susceptible to predation.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Under the no action alternative, there would be no livestock grazing, nor any fence construction or deconstruction in any vole habitat and therefore no effects to Mogollon voles or their habitat. Determination: Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that the no action alternative will have no impact on the Mogollon vole. The vole will benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on them and their habitat

Birds

Bald Eagle

Nesting Bald Eagles: Bald eagles in central Arizona prefer to nest on cliff ledges or pinnacles or in tall trees (USDI 1982). They mainly forage on waterfowl and fish found along major streams, however, they do hunt in the uplands and forage on various mammal species, especially in the winter. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has been conducting and coordinating surveys and monitoring of nesting eagles for many years.

62 Bald eagles are known to nest along the Verde River on the Prescott, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests. The Coldwater bald eagle breeding area (BA) occurs along the Verde River several miles upstream of the Fossil confluence. Nests associated with the Coldwater BA are located as far upstream as 6.0 miles upstream of the Child’s power plant and downstream to halfway between the Child’s Power Plant and the confluence of Fossil with the Verde. According to James Driscoll, Bald Eagle Program Manager for the Arizona Game and Fish (J. Agyagos pers. comm., June 5,2000), the Coldwater eagles, even when nesting 6.0 miles upstream of Child’s frequently use the Verde River between Child’s and the Fossil confluence for foraging. It is likely they venture up Fossil for foraging as well. No bald eagle nest sites are known to occur in Fossil Creek, although one immature bald eagle was observed constructing a nest by an agency biologist in 2004 near the Irving power plant. More recently, AGFD does periodically fly up Fossil creek and observed eagles in the area but no nesting so far but AGFD will continue flying up Fossil Creek to investigate(personal comm. Kenneth Jacobson 1Feb10). The East Verde BA occurs along the Verde downstream of the East Clear Creek confluence and may forage along Fossil Creek. Refer to Table Five for the reproductive success of these two bald eagle breeding areas.

Table Five: Nesting Results for Coldwater and East Verde Bald Eagles

Site Name Year Nesting Status Coldwater 1999 Failed Coldwater 2000 Failed Coldwater 2001 Failed Coldwater 2002 2 Fledged Coldwater 2003 1 Fledged Coldwater 2004 1 Fledged Coldwater 2005 2 Fledged Coldwater 2006 1 Fledged Coldwater 2007 2 fledged Coldwater 2008 1 Fledged Coldwater 2009 Failed Coldwater 2010 Failed Coldwater 2011 2 Fledged Coldwater 2012 1 Fledged East Verde 1995 1 Fledged East Verde 1996 1 Fledged East Verde 1997 Failed East Verde 1998 Failed East Verde 2000 2 Fledged East Verde 2001 Failed East Verde 2002 Failed East Verde 2003 Occupied, Nesting Success Unknown East Verde 2004 1 Fledged

63 East Verde 2005 Occupied, Nesting Success Unknown East Verde 2006 Failed East Verde 2007 Failed East Verde 2008 Occupied, Nesting Success Unknown East Verde 2009 Failed East Verde 2010 Failed East Verde 2011 Failed East Verde 2012 2 Fledged

Wintering & Roosting Bald Eagles: Wintering bald eagle populations tend to be scattered and highly mobile, usually foraging and roosting in small groups. Wintering eagles tend to concentrate in areas of plentiful food resources, usually near water, although individual or small groups of eagles occur in terrestrial habitats not associated with water, especially when lakes freeze over. Grubb and Kennedy (1982) reported that the Forest provided habitat for the most significant concentrations of wintering eagles in Arizona. Wintering bald eagles can be found foraging throughout the Fossil Allotment, particularly along highways where they feed opportunistically on carrion and along riparian zones where they forage on fish and waterfowl. Wintering bald eagles will also forage opportunistically throughout the uplands.

National bald eagle winter surveys have been ongoing since 1979. They were initiated and organized by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) from 1979-1991, and have since been coordinated by the Raptor Research Technical Assistance Center (Bureau of Land Management). The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) is the coordinating agency for the annual statewide survey. Mid-winter surveys were conducted on the Coconino National Forest in 1979-1985 and 1992- present.

There is one route that occurs adjacent to the Fossil Creek Allotment. Highway 87S from Clint’s Well to Verde Route occurs from the intersection of Hwy. 87 and FH-3 at Clint's Well southeast to Highway 87 and west on Highway 260 to the Verde Ranger Station just outside of Camp Verde (both Coconino and Yavapai Counties). Bald eagles were detected in 8 of 12 years of surveys. Of the 8 years in which eagles were detected, more than one bald eagle was detected on counts for 5 years. Refer to Table Six for a summary of winter bald eagle county survey results.

Table Six: Bald EagleWinter Count Survey Results for Routes on the Fossil Creek Allotment. Route 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 Name Hwy 87 South 2 3 2 1 n/c 1 3 1 0 0 0 n/c Route

Name 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Hwy 87 2 0 3 3 3 1 3

64 South n/c = Route was not surveyed that year.

In addition to the two vehicle routes already discussed, Arizona Game and Fish conducts annual flights along the Verde River (Yavapai county) during the midwinter bald eagle count period. Eagles are consistently detected during midwinter surveys in the reach of the Verde River from the East Verde up to the West Clear Creek confluence (Beatty 1992, Beatty et. al 1995a, Beatty et. al 1995b, Beatty et. al 1999).

Fossil Creek above its confluence with the Verde River (Yavapai county) is not included in any midwinter survey routes. Prior to restoration of flows, the fishery supported by minimal flows in Fossil Creek provided limited foraging habitat for eagles. Now that full flows have been restored Fossil will support suitable food sources for bald eagles.

Bald eagles use night communal roosts that may be related to food finding (Hansen et al. 1980) or energetic considerations (Keister 1981, Knight et al. 1983). Night roosts are often on slopes (Platt 1976, Hansen et. al 1980, Dargan 1991) or are protected from prevailing winds by surrounding vegetation (Sabine 1981, Steenhof 1976). Individual roost trees are larger than trees in adjacent stands and have open canopies (Stalmaster and Newman 1979, Hansen et al. 1980, Anthony et al. 1982, Keister and Anthony 1983, Dargan 1991).

On the Fossil Creek Allotment, communal roosting may potentially occur in mixed conifer (10 acres), ponderosa pine and pine/oak vegetation types (1,101 acres) where suitable conditions such as steep slopes, wind protection, open canopy, and larger trees occur. Grubb and Kennedy (1982) document Fossil Springs (Yavapai County) as an area where there was either historic or reported use. Due to the presence of large trees protected from the wind by adjacent slopes along portions of the creek, potential roosting habitat occurs along Fossil Creek.

Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects: The main cumulative effects on bald eagles are those occurring to nesting bald eagles from recreational use of the Verde River, particularly during the breeding season. Recreationists that walk in, drive in, or float through, can all disturb adult and fledgling bald eagles while foraging, roosting, or incubating, and nestling bald eagles when activities occur too close to individuals. As part of the Verde Wild and Scenic Comprehensive River Management Plan, various beaches along the river have been closed to boaters for camping. These locations are signed on site and are included in the Verde River Recreation Opportunity Guide, which is a set of maps and guidelines made available to recreators running the river. In addition, roads occurring within the ¼ mile wild and scenic river corridor have been closed, further reducing impacts to eagle from recreation. Other activities in the project area that affect the bald eagle

65 include the occasional wildfire, restoration of full flows as a result of the decommissioning of the Child’s and Irving powerplants, watershed/grassland improvement projects, personal use (collecting of forest products), and potentially in the future, fire use.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed action, there is no livestock grazing along the Verde River where bald eagles are currently known to nest. The proposed action will not affect known nesting eagles and their habitat.

Due to the restoration of full flows, an improvement in riparian habitat, and a past attempt by bald eagles to nest in Fossil, it is likely that bald eagles nest along Fossil in the future. Should eagles nest within line-of-site of the Boulder water gap, eagles may be affected directly and indirectly by livestock grazing and livestock management activities.

Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within the riparian corridor associated with Fossil Creek could result in visual and aural disturbance should eagles establish a nest. Frequent disturbance, disturbance of high intensity, or disturbance of long duration can disturb bald eagles resulting in increased predation of young and eggs, abandonment of nesting areas, flushing of adults incubating eggs long enough for the eggs to become unviable, abandonment of eggs or young, decreased success during foraging, and premature fledging of young.

Livestock grazing along riparian areas can affect nesting and foraging habitat by causing stream bank compaction, loss of stream bank vegetation, loss of emergent vegetation, loss of hiding cover, decreased recruitment of nest substrate; increase in sedimentation; decreased water quality; all of which reduces the quality of habitat for bald eagles and their prey (fish and waterfowl). Should monitoring determine riparian conditions are not improving, adaptive management changes will be made (refer to details described under proposed action).

In addition, livestock grazing in the uplands can result in reduced watershed conditions which ultimately contribute to increased sedimentation and decreased water quality. However, under recent (since 2009) and proposed management, water quality standards are attaining in Fossil Creek and the Verde River indicating no excessive turbidity, total suspended solids, and embeddedness (see Watershed Specialist Report). Also, recent monitoring shows that soils conditions have improved from unsatisfactory to impaired across the allotment (see Watershed Specialist Report).

Livestock grazing and livestock management activities may occur in areas where wintering bald eagles roost. These activities, particularly livestock management activities, could disturb roosting bald eagles.

66 Proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments would occur in pinyon juniper woodlands where bald eagles may incidentally occur while foraging. While individually roosting bald eagles may choose a juniper, the majority of wintering eagles roost in ponderosa pine forests. Proposed range improvements and vegetative treatment would not be allowed to occur within X meters of nesting bald eagles during the breeding season (December 1 through June 30).

Determination : Due to the potential for livestock grazing and livestock management activities to disturb roosting bald eagles and bald eagles that may potentially nest along Fossil Creek, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the bald eagle but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

American Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in August 1999 (USDI 1999a) and is now a Forest Service Sensitive species. The essential habitat for the peregrine falcon includes rock cliffs for nesting and a large foraging area. Suitable nesting sites occur on rock cliffs with a mean height of 200 to 300 feet. The subspecies anatum breeds on isolated cliffs and is a permanent resident on Coconino National Forest. Peregrines prey mainly on birds found in wetlands, riparian areas and meadows within a 10 to 20 mile radius from the nest site. They also prey on doves, pigeons and passerines. The peregrine breeding season is from March 1 to August 31.

The main threat to the peregrine falcon is the continued contamination of its environment by synthetic organ chlorine contaminants, especially DDT. These contaminants result in eggshell thinning and direct mortality to this species. Other threats include disturbance from rock-climbing near eyries and mortality from power lines.

Surveys and Habitat on the Allotment Suitable nesting habitat occurs in the project area where cliff faces greater than 200 feet in elevation occur. AGFD conducted habitat suitability surveys along the Fossil Creek road. AGFD biologists did not consider the cliffs along Fossil Creek from one mile below Fossil Springs to Stehr Lake as suitable nesting habitat. Surveys were not conducted below Stehr Lake yet cliffs in excess of 200 feet do occur there and along

67 other sections of Fossil Creek. Since the peregrine’s recovery, peregrine nests are being discovered in habitat previously thought to be less than suitable. Therefore, it is now believed that peregrine falcons could occur throughout most of Fossil Creek. Environet biologists identified and mapped 7,230 acres of potential nesting habitat along Fossil Creek. Additionally, peregrine falcons may forage all along Fossil Creek, the Verde River, and at Stehr Lake where prey species such as swallows, swifts, and waterfowl may occur. In addition peregrine falcons may use the seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands or stock tanks as foraging areas within the allotment. The pastures with these types of habitats include Basin, Boulder, Chalk Springs, Sally May, Stehr Lake, Surge, Sycamore Canyon and Upper and Lower Wilderness pastures.

There are no known Peregrine falcon eyries within the Fossil Allotment. The nearest known eyries are Nash Point, 1.1 miles south of the allotment boundary, and Calf Pen 2.1 miles southeast of the allotment boundary. The following table displays the reproductive history for these two eyries.

Table Seven: Reproductive Summary for Peregrine Falcons nearest the Planning Area

Eyrie 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Name Calf Pen NI O O 2F O O NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI O O, 1F Nash 1F 2F O 1F F 2Y O O NI NI NI NI NI NI NI O O O Point NI = No information O = Occupied F = # Young fledged Y = # Young in nest

Environmental Consequences Livestock grazing and livestock management activities could result in visual and aural disturbance to nesting and foraging peregrine falcons. Frequent disturbance, disturbance of high intensity, or disturbance of long duration can disturb falcons resulting in increased predation of young and eggs, abandonment of nesting areas, flushing of adults incubating eggs long enough for the eggs to become unviable, abandonment of eggs or young, decreased success during foraging, and premature fledging of young.

In addition, livestock grazing can affect peregrine falcon foraging habitat by causing stream bank compaction, loss of stream bank vegetation, loss of emergent vegetation, loss of hiding cover, decreased recruitment of nest substrate; increase in sedimentation; decrease in water quality; all of which reduces the quality of habitat for peregrine prey species. Cattle tend to congregate around water sources, which also attract waterfowl, wading birds and passerines on which peregrine falcons prey. Important avian cover could be removed potentially reducing the number of prey using these habitat areas associated with water. Should monitoring determine riparian

68 conditions are not improving, adaptive management changes will be made (refer to details described under proposed action).

Cumulative Effects Peregrine falcons are known to forage up to 20 miles from their nests. There are ten known peregrine falcon eyries within this potential foraging distance of Fossil Allotment: Nash Point (1.1 miles south), Calf Pen (2.1 miles southeast), Wet Beaver Creek (10 miles north), West Clear Low Rent (5 miles to east), Maxwell (7 miles to east), Tramway (7 miles to east), Webber, (11 miles east), Burnt Point (18 miles east), Tonto Narrows (8 miles southeast), and Tonto Cedar Bench (5 miles south). Therefore the following grazing allotments and their activities would also be considered in the cumulative effects boundary for peregrine falcons: Hackberry/ Pivot Rock (29,280 acres), Baker Lake /Calf Pen (10,764 acres), and possibly some on the Tonto National Forest, directly below the rim. Grazing associated impacts especially near water sources in these adjacent allotments, are additive to the peregrine falcon prey habitat impacted on the Fossil Allotment. There is concurrent planning on the Hackberry Pivot Rock allotment, and soil, vegetation and riparian areas are expected to improve with modified management.

Grazing by wildlife, especially elk, contributes to the degradation of habitat used by peregrine falcon prey in the allotment and watershed as a whole. Livestock grazing would be additive to the ongoing ungulate grazing. Cumulative effects to peregrine falcon include fire suppression which has resulted in much denser conditions and the threat of catastrophic fire, past and present watershed/grassland improvement projects, personal use (collecting of forest products), and recreation (mostly hunters). There have been various fires in the Fossil area and effects are expected from future wildland fire use. Fire regimes have been altered due to decades of livestock grazing. Fire suppression activities are also of concern, especially when they occur near activity centers in the breeding season. The restoration of full flows as a result of the decommissioning of the Child’s and Irving powerplants, should have a positive cumulative effect on peregrine falcon prey associated with riparian areas.

There are at least 12 miles of a major powerline in Fossil allotment that poses a mortality threat to peregrine falcons and other raptors that forage there. Rock climbing within the allomtment could cause to disturbance and potential abandonment if this activity coincides with peregrine falcon occupancy. Collection of falcons for falconry is another potential threat to local peregrines.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Although peregrine falcons are not known to nest on the Fossil Allotment, they have been observed foraging at various area tanks, along Fossil Creek and in Sandrock Canyon. Therefore, peregrines may be affected directly and indirectly by livestock grazing and livestock management activities. Grazing activities may cause

69 disturbance to local falcons, or degrade the habitat for bird species on which they prey. Cattle ranching associated activities such as those that involve off road vehicles, or even horses, and general motorized traffic close to nesting sites, can cause disturbance, stress or even abandonment by peregrine falcons, especially during breeding season.

Livestock grazing can result in impacts to peregrine falcon’s prey habitat which is primarily birds. These prey depend on seeds and insects as their food source. Livestock grazing can indirectly affect wildlife by affecting their prey such as arthropods. Arthropods are important food for various species of birds, including species upon which peregrine falcon prey. Aboveground macroarthropods (insects and arachnids) experienced large decreases with moderate or heavy grazing, but conversely with light grazing showed slight increases (Lavigne et al. 1972 in Milchunas et al. 1998). Birds, including peregrine falcon prey species, are indirectly affected by the impacts grazing has on vegetation (Saab et. al. 1995). Livestock reduce forage production which reduces litter production, increases soil compaction, and reduces infiltration (see watershed section). These changes to the soil and consequently the vegetation as a result of livestock grazing affect some breeding birds negatively (Saab et. al. 1995). Birds that depend on dense herbaceous ground cover for nesting and/or foraging are most likely to be adversely affected by grazing (Saab et.al. 1995). Grazing during the breeding season of ground nesting birds can reduce herbaceous vegetation necessary for concealing nests (Saab et. al. 1995). A reduction in herbaceous vegetation can expose nests resulting in an increased chance for nest predation, nest parasitism, exposure to elements, and ultimately nest failure.

The proposed construction and de-construction of fences are not expected to have direct effects on this species or its habitat. This allotment provides year-round grazing so therefore overlaps bird (i.e. peregrine falcon prey) migration periods in both spring and fall. The proposed action includes enhancement actions for riparian areas in pastures with perennial and intermittent streams, springs and seeps by deferring grazing during the spring growing period in alternate years, or, if desired conditions are not met through deferment, constructing exclosures. Prey habitat for peregrine falcons should improve as a result in these pastures identified for enhancement: Basin, Boulder, Chalk Springs, Sally May, Stehr Lake, Surge, Sycamore Canyon and Upper and Lower Wilderness pastures.

Pastures with riparian areas that are grazed in the fall may have reduced use by fall migrants, and possibly result in a reduction of cover vegetation for breeding birds the following spring. The use of a rotational grazing system and adaptive management, should help mitigate any significant effects of grazing on peregrine falcon prey species.

Peregrine falcons may occur in areas undergoing vegetative treatments while foraging and vegetative treatments may result in visual and aural disturbance during implementation. Vegetative treatments could result in aural and visual disturbance to

70 nesting falcons should treatments occur near cliff nests occupied by nesting falcons. Known nesting sites occur too far from the allotment and will not be disturbed.

Determination: Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the determination of effect is may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability , with the proposed action, since cattle grazing can result in impacts to peregrine falcon’s prey habitat.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Under the no action alternative, there would be no livestock grazing, nor any fence construction or deconstruction in any peregrine falcon habitat and therefore no effects to peregrine falcons or their habitat. Determination: Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that the no action alternative will have no impact on the American peregrine falcon or its habitat. Peregrines could benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing their habitat and their prey’s habitat.

Northern Goshawk The northern goshawk uses a wide variety of forest stages in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat in the southwest. Nest stands are typically in later successional stages, especially old growth. Post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) have patches of dense trees, developed herbaceous or shrubby understories, snags, downed logs, and small openings, which provide cover and prey species. Goshawks prefer stands of intermediate canopy cover for nesting and more open areas for foraging. Foraging area, by virtue of its size, is a mosaic of various successional stages and cover types. Goshawk foraging use is associated with ponderosa pine vegetation. Although juniper or pinyon-juniper habitat types are not heavily used by northern goshawks, some foraging may occur those habitat types, especially in transition areas between ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper habitats. The goshawk preys on large to medium sized birds and mammals.

All ponderosa pine (1101 acres) and mixed conifer (10 acres) above the rim is considered goshawk habitat, including associated pine or mixed conifer stringers that may extend below the rim. The amount of potential Northern goshawk habitat in the Fossil Creek allotment based on GIS queries of these two ecotypes is 1,111 acres.

Threats to northern goshawks are generally related to timber management. However, fire suppression, livestock grazing, drought, and toxic chemicals may also be involved (Reynolds et al., 1992). Large-scale wildfires are also threats to northern goshawks. Declines in goshawk populations may be related to decreases in prey populations associated with changes in structure and composition of forests.

Population Trend

BBS data (Sauer et al., 2001) for Arizona from 1966-2000 shows a significant (p = 0.03), positive population trend of 32.3% per year. The goshawk is listed as G5, N4, and S3 on the NatureServe (2001) database.

Most of the ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine/Gambel oak and mixed-conifer habitats on the Forest have been surveyed according to USFS Regional protocol for the northern goshawk. Some surveys may have been conducted during nonbreeding or low breeding years thereby reducing survey success rates. Additionally, much of the habitat not associated with projects (i.e. wilderness) has not been surveyed. Therefore, the number of goshawk territories is likely underestimated on the Forest. In 2001, there were 66 known goshawk territories on the Coconino National Forest. Of those territories, 57 produced young at least once from 1991-2001. Additionally, there are an unknown number of nonbreeding adults (males are 3 years old, and females are 4 years old, on average when first recruited into the breeding population) and juveniles. Therefore the total population for the Forest may be larger than monitoring results indicate. Goshawks are relatively abundant and widespread, and although population trends are difficult to determine, there is no hard evidence of a considerable decline overall, but populations could be declining in some areas (NatureServe 200y). On the Coconino National Forest, some northern goshawk territories have been monitored every year since 1989, with an average of 43 territories monitored from 1991 to 2001. The occupancy rate of territories declined over these eleven years; however, this does not signify a corresponding trend in population numbers. This decrease in PFA occupancy could be an artifact of finding more nesting sites and establishing more PFAs, and then monitoring most if not all PFAs when the goshawks may be moving around and breeding in different areas in some years. It is likely that nonbreeding goshawks would not be observed. During the later years of this time period, precipitation amounts have been below average. Climate may very well play an important role in whether or not northern goshawks breed in a given year, and would also influence nesting success of northern goshawks.

Forest Trend

The 1987 LMP emphasized even-aged management and horizontal vegetative diversity in the ponderosa pine type. In 1996, the Forest Plan was amended to shift from even-aged to uneven-aged management and vertical vegetative diversity. This amendment changed habitat management specifically for goshawks and Mexican spotted owls, and adjusted old-growth direction (USDA Forest Service 1996). There is an ongoing shift in management with an increasing emphasis on ecosystem restoration.

Improving the age class distribution of ponderosa pine was a major goal of the original LMP. Existing data at the time showed that the vast majority of the pine type

72 was in the mid-seral stage, with a limited amount in older age classes. Vegetation management projects have been designed to improve this age class distribution, however, a combination of factors led to disproportionate harvest of trees in the older, larger, age classes, especially early in the implementation of the LMP. About 20% of the ponderosa pine type outside of Wilderness areas has been treated since 1987, but the mid-seral stage continues to dominate forest structure (70% or more of the acres), and on average, pine forests have become denser. Although the emphasis has shifted from even-aged to uneven-aged management and forest restoration, relatively few projects have been implemented with the new guidance.

Over 50,000 acres of the forest have burned in wildfires since 1989, with more than half in ponderosa pine cover type. Half the ponderosa burned acres were the result of stand-replacing fires. This created early seral stage classes in a small (<3%) amount of the ponderosa pine, with some acres burned so severely that they will remain nonstocked for the foreseeable future.

The age class distribution of ponderosa pine has remained essentially the same, dominated by mid-seral stage stands, with some loss of old-growth and older trees. This decrease in older trees has probably affected nesting habitat for goshawks. Some early seral-stage habitat has been created, mostly by wildfire. Regeneration of ponderosa pine is limited, but is better on limestone soils, which occur primarily on the southern half of the forest. Because this species is dependent on the forest’s ability to provide a continuous flow of habitat structural types over time to provide nesting and foraging habitat, the habitat trend for goshawks should improve as vegetation management projects are implemented with the newer standards and guidelines.

Summary The Forestwide habitat trend for late-seral ponderosa pine has declined. The age class distribution of ponderosa pine has remained essentially the same, dominated by mid- seral stage stands, with some loss of old-growth and older trees, and some early seral- stage habitat created by wildfire.

Data collected on the Forest are not designed to detect changes in population trend. The goals of monitoring are to gain some information of territory occupancy and reproduction. Total number of territories has increased and the statewide BBS data indicates a significant increase, but some indicators of occupancy and productivity appear to be declining on the Forest, although year-to-year variability is high. At this time, the Forestwide population trend is considered to be inconclusive on the Coconino National Forest. Monitoring and surveys are ongoing.

There are no known northern goshawk territories within the Fossil Allotment boundary. The nearest known post-fledging family area (PFA) is located 3.3 miles from the northeast boundary, and is called the Jack Pine Territory (40407). Refer to Table Eight for a summary of reproductive success for the Jack Pine Territory.

73 Table Eight: Reproductive Success of Jack Pine PFA 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2011 A IM-NR P-2Y P-2Y P-2Y IM-NR U O-NN IM-NR IM- NR

Environmental Consequences Small mammal prey is important for many species of higher trophic levels, including raptors, carnivorous mammals, snakes, and avian predators (Hayward et al. 1997; Saab et. al. 1995). When rodent prey decrease in response to reduced vegetative cover, so do the avian predators (Saab et.al 1995). Livestock grazing can directly impact rodents by trampling and collapsing burrows, compacting soils which hinders burrow construction, and by removing rodent food sources such as seed heads (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997; Adler and Lauenroth, 2000). In addition to mammalian prey, northern goshawks also prey on birds. Birds are indirectly affected by the impacts grazing has on vegetation (Saab et. al. 1995). Livestock reduce forage production which reduces litter production, increases soil compaction, and reduces infiltration (see watershed section). These changes to the soil and consequently the vegetation as a result of livestock grazing affect some breeding birds negatively (Saab et. al. 1995). Birds that depend on dense herbaceous ground cover for nesting and/or foraging are most likely to be adversely affected by grazing (Saab et.al. 1995). Grazing during the breeding season of ground nesting birds can reduce herbaceous vegetation necessary for concealing nests (Saab et. al. 1995). A reduction in herbaceous vegetation can expose nests resulting in an increased chance for nest predation, nest parasitism, exposure to elements, and ultimately nest failure.

Cattle grazing has the potential to modify the understory vegetation by reducing its height, potentially affecting seed head production, and encouraging growth in years with good precipitation. Cattle grazing can modify food and cover for some prey species that nest or feed in these areas. Habitat for deer mice may be improved because they are associated with areas of little herbaceous cover. Several studies have shown that voles and ground nesting birds are more abundant where there is denser herbaceous cover, so are potentially impacted by cattle grazing, and more so by heavier grazing, than light. Other prey species, such as squirrels, are less affected since their habitat requirements are more closely tied to the pine overstory, which would not be affected in any alternative. Within the Fossil Allotment, goshawk habitat is mostly associated with the ponderosa pine stands.

Cumulative Effects The Fossil Allotment area makes up 22% of the watershed. In addition, grazing actions are currently taking place on most of the rest of the watershed, with only 7% of the watershed not being grazed. These cumulative actions would also contribute to potential loss or degradation within the watershed of small mammal and habitat used by ground nesting birds that goshawks depend on for prey. Grazing by wildlife, especially elk, contributes to the loss of small mammal and ground nesting bird habitat in the allotment and watershed as a whole. Grazing by ungulates such as elk,

74 in goshawk foraging habitat, has the potential for cumulatively impacting Northern goshawks in the area.

Drought and insect mortality have affected habitat within the project area, mostly by killing the largest ponderosa pines in the few stringers along the easternmost boundary of the allotment, and within the goshawk habitat. The rate and extent of future tree mortality is not known. If precipitation increases, tree mortality may continue to a small degree since host trees would still be present, yet trees would eventually gain resistance to insect attacks. The extent of tree mortality may increase if dry years persist, and could negatively affect nest trees or foraging habitat for owls. Drought and insect infestation also create snags, which are important habitat features for goshawks. Cumulative effects to northern goshawks include fire suppression which has resulted in much denser conditions and the threat of catastrophic fire, past logging, past and future watershed/grassland improvement projects, and recreation (mostly hunters). There have been various fires in the Fossil area and effects are expected from future wildland fire use. Fire regimes have been altered due to decades of livestock grazing. Fire suppression activities are also of concern, especially when they occur near activity centers in the breeding season.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Grazing can impact the density and abundance of a number of prey species that northern goshawks hunt, including ground nesting birds and most rodents. The use of a rotational grazing system and adaptive management should help mitigate any significant effects of grazing on goshawk prey species. The proposed construction and de-construction of fences are not expected to have direct effects on goshawk prey species or their habitat, due to the short duration and limited habitat modification. Vegetative treatment may result in visual and aural disturbance to foraging goshawks. However, these treatments are not planned within this species nesting habitat and will therefore not disturb nesting goshawks.

Determination: A determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability would be made with the proposed action, since cattle grazing can result in loss of habitat or habitat quality for ground dwelling prey of northern goshawks.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Under the no action alternative, there would be no livestock grazing, nor any fence construction or deconstruction in any goshawk habitat and therefore no effects to northern goshawks or their habitat. Determination: Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that the no action alternative will have no impact on the northern goshawk. Goshawks will benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on them and their habitat.

Common Black Hawk The common black-hawk can be found in low elevation riparian areas. The black- hawk is dependent upon a mature, relatively undisturbed habitat supported by a permanent flowing stream. Groves of tall trees must be present along the stream course for nesting. Black-hawks are still hunters, hunting from tree and cliff perches although they will also wade into water and chase after prey including crayfish, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. Streams of low to moderate gradient and less than one foot deep with scattered boulders are ideal for foraging.

Habitat on the Allotment The common black-hawk has been observed in all reaches of Fossil Creek and along the Verde River. Suitable nesting habitat is present along both of these riparian corridors. Some information exists for recent black hawk nest sites along Fossil creek due to decommissioning monitoring conducted by USGS, however these surveys were conducted from Fossil Springs down to the upper most part of Mazatzal Wilderness. In addition to Fossil Creek and the Verde River, potential exists for the common black hawk to nest along Boulder Canyon and Sally May Wash.

Surveys Along Fossil Creek The black-hawk has been observed in all reaches of Fossil Creek. Suitable nesting habitat is present from Fossil Springs downstream to the Verde. Some information exists for black-hawk nest sites along Fossil creek due to monitoring conducted by NAU. Since this monitoring from 2005 through 2009 was for APS decommissioning activities, only the portion of Fossil Creek from the Springs to just downstream of Irving was monitored. The remaining downstream portion of Fossil with high recreation use was not monitored in those years. In 2009, NAU incidentally found two additional nests further downstream, however, this downstream portion was not thoroughly monitored until 2011. In 2011, the Forest Service funded NAU to continue monitoring nesting black-hawks, but to extend surveys from downstream of Irving to downstream of the last designated recreation site called Mazatzal. Following is a summary of results by year.

In 2005 NAU detected 37 black-hawks and 4 active nests. NAU confirmed one nest with a single nesting and a second nest with one fledgling. The third nest was abandonded and the disposition of the fourth nest was undetermined.

In 2006 NAU detected 28 black-hawks and 3 active nests. One nest had a single nestling, one nest was unsuccessful and the outcome of the third nest was undetermined. A fourth nest was discovered post fledling/failure; outcome was undetermined.

In 2007 NAU detected 45 black-hawks and 4 active nests all of which had a single nesting and 3 of the 4 nests successfully fledged their single young.

In 2008, NAU detected only 9 black-hawks and 2 active nests. The two nests each had one nestling but it was undetermined whether the nestlings fledged. NAU

76 reported on the decline of black-hawk detections in 2008 (9) from 2007 (45) and predicted that the decline was due to disturbance from increased dam decommissioning activity. In addition, they noted an increase in raven activity, including the documentation of ravens occupying an 07 black-hawk nest.

Four black-hawk nests were located and monitored in 2009 during the breeding season, two nests (#1 and #2) were located in historical nesting patches and two downstream locations (#3 and #4) were newly discovered in 2009. The surveys in previous years did not extend into this lower reach of the creek where nests #3 and #4 were observed. All nests fledged one young in 2009, however, it was confirmed that nests #1 and #2 initially had at least two nestlings. The cause of mortality of these two nestlings is unknown. Fledglings were sited at all four nests during post fledging monitoring. Note that detections in 2009 were lower than the black-hawk detections in 2007 (45). NAU, in their report, speculated the decrease was a result of high visitor numbers in 2008 and 2009.

In 2011, surveys were extended to also include the lower half of middle Fossil Creek (just downstream of the Mazatzal site). In 2011 NAU detected 38 black-hawk detections and six active nests. Nest 1 had two nestlings but subsequent visits did not result in the detection of nestlings or fledglings. Nests 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 each successfully fledged one young.

Cumulative Effects The main cumulative effects on common black hawks are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas, particularly during the breeding season. Recreationists that walk in, drive in, or float through, can all disturb adult and fledgling black hawks while foraging, roosting, or incubating, and nestling common black hawks when activities occur too close to individuals. As part of the Verde Wild and Scenic Comprehensive River Management Plan, various beaches along the river have been closed to boaters for camping. These locations are signed on site and are included in the Verde River Recreation Opportunity Guide, which is a set of maps and guidelines made available to recreators running the river. In addition, roads occurring within the ¼ mile wild and scenic river corridor have been closed, further reducing impacts to black hawks from recreation.

While the decommissioning of the hydropower operations on Fossil Creek and the restoration of full flows have had an overall beneficial effect on wildlife, the subsequent increase in recreation has not. Recreation and other activities within the riparian zone, primarily recreation along four miles of Fossil Creek, may directly affect wildlife species, through aural and visual disturbance, particularly during critical periods such as breeding, roosting, and feeding. Disturbance can result in increased physiological stress, nest, roost, or site abandonment, flushing of birds from eggs, premature fledging of young from nests, and reduction in the amount of suitable nesting and foraging areas. During the seven years of black-hawk monitoring in Fossil Creek a decline in nesting activity and detections has been observed in the

77 upper reach of Fossil Creek. Prior to increase in recreation there were four black- hawks nesting from the Fossil Springs area downstream to just below Irving, more specifically at the dam, near the sunfish barrier, at the waterfall, and just downstream of Irving. By 2011, black-hawks breeding areas in this reach decreased by 50% with black-hawks no longer nesting at the dam or the waterfall site. A likely explanation is the increase in recreational activity in this section. Before restoration of full flows in 2005, this portion of the stream was largely dewatered and recreation activity was extremely low. Since restoration of full flows in 2005, areas denuded from camping in the Fossil Springs area more than doubled between 2005 and 2011 (0.41 acres to 0.88 acres). The number of campsites increased from 87 in 2005 to 106 open campsites (or 158 campsites when including campsites upstream of the bridge) in 2011. Areas denuded from camping at the waterfall increased by 406% from 2005 to 2011. In addition, the period of high recreational use in Fossil Creek is from May through August and coincides with the most critical portion (1 June – mid July) of the black-hawks breeding period (April- July). There is concern that increasing levels of recreation will further alter black-nesting in areas where recreation activity is high.

While monitoring shows the upper portion of Fossil Creek recently supported twice as many nesting black-hawks than in 2011, there are other inferences to be made from seven years of monitoring. First it helps to have an understanding of the current (2011) distribution of nesting black-hawks in Fossil Creek: • From the Springs to the downstream-most surveyed area (below Mazatzal) which is approximately 7 miles, there are 6 nesting pairs of black-hawks. • In the upper reach from the Springs down to Irving (approximately 3 miles), there is only one nesting pair. • From Irving downstream to Purple Mountain (the last recreation area with current high use), there are only two nesting pairs occupying this three mile reach. • From Purple Mountain downstream of Mazatzal (a little over a mile reach), there are three nesting pairs.

There is a strong correlation between the location of black-hawk nests in Fossil Creek and areas with high recreational use. Once restoration of full flows occurred and recreation increased, black-hawks abandoned their nest near the waterfall. In addition, increased recreation levels at the Springs, combined with decommissioning activity in 2008, resulted in abandonment of the nest just downstream of the historic dam. This is a shift from three nests to just one nest from the Springs down to Irving. To further strengthen the correlation between nesting and recreation, in areas where recreation use is fairly low black-hawk nest much closer together; from just upstream of the Mazatzal site, there were 3 active nests in 2011 within a little over a mile reach. Compare this to only one black-hawk nest in 2011 between Fossil Springs and Irving and this is an approximate 3.5 mile reach.

Another concerning factor is that the reach with the highest nesting densities (from below Purple Mountain downstream of the Mazatzal site) also has the highest abundance of crayfish. So, although black-hawks may choose to nest there in higher

78 densities based on lower recreation levels, prey composition there is not the most optimal. Crayfish are non-native and take more energy for birds (adults and nestlings) to consume due to the hard exoskeleton. Unfortunately the portion of Fossil Creek where most black-hawk nest displacement has occurred (from the historic dam downstream to the waterfall) is largely crayfish-free. If it were not for the abundant native fish in Fossil (above the fish barrier), black-hawk nesting success would likely be lower in this reach with abundant crayfish. Should the native fishery ever be compromised and not maintained, nesting black-hawks would eventually have to switch to feeding their young crayfish and therefore nesting success would very likely decline (as indicated by nest success rates in other Verde Valley streams dominated by crayfish).

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed action, there is no livestock grazing along the Verde River; therefore there will be no affect to common black hawks that may nest there. Common black hawks are known to nest along Fossil Creek. Inventory and monitoring of black hawks in Fossil Creek show that currently no nesting occurs near the Boulder water gap. Use at the Boulder pasture water gap will be localized to the fenced lane for short periods of time generally during December through mid-March. The mitigation of 20% maximum utilization on woody riparian vegetation and the minimum stubble height requirement will reduce the amount of effects livestock have on riparian vegetation in riparian areas other than Fossil Creek (because creek access is limited to the Boulder water gap where these criteria do not apply).

Should common black hawks nest within line-of-site of the water gap, or within the other riparian corridors throughout the allotment, this species may be affected directly and indirectly by livestock grazing and livestock management activities. In addition to Fossil Creek and the Verde River, potential exists for black hawks to nest along Boulder Canyon and Sally May Wash, where livestock grazing and livestock management activities could disturb both black hawks and their habitat.

Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within the riparian corridors on the allotment could result in visual and aural disturbance to nesting and foraging riparian obligates. Frequent disturbance, disturbance of high intensity, or disturbance of long duration can disturb birds resulting in increased predation of young and eggs, abandonment of nesting areas, flushing of adults incubating eggs long enough for the eggs to become unviable, abandonment of eggs or young, decreased success during foraging, and premature fledging of young.

Livestock grazing in riparian corridors can affect nesting and foraging habitat by causing stream bank compaction, loss of stream bank vegetation, loss of emergent vegetation, loss of hiding cover, decreased recruitment of nest substrate; increase in sedimentation; decrease in water quality; all of which reduces the quality of habitat for common black hawks. Should monitoring determine riparian conditions are not

79 improving, adaptive management changes will be made (refer to details described under proposed action).

Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects.

Determination: Due to the potential for the common black hawk to nest along riparian corridors on the allotment and for livestock grazing and livestock management activities to cause direct and indirect effects to the species and its habitat, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the common black hawk, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo The yellow-billed cuckoo is a late migrant associated with large tracts of undisturbed riparian deciduous forest where willow, cottonwood, sycamore, or alder occur. Yellow-billed cuckoos in higher elevations may be found in mesquite and tamarisk. The yellow-billed cuckoo feeds almost entirely on large insects, and if food stressed, may also feed on berries and fruit.

Habitat and Surveys on the Allotment A query of the Fossil Creek database (Appendix B) shows that a yellow-billed cuckoo was detected in the Fossil Creek riparian area in 1999 by former Coconino biologist Cathy Taylor. AGFD conducted a survey for the cuckoo at Verde Hot Springs along the Verde River, however no cuckoos were detected. Although recent surveys, conducted by USGS in 2005 and 2006 as required by the decommissioning process, have not detected yellow-billed cuckoos in Fossil Creek, surveys were not conducted in two thirds of Fossil Creek and there is potential for them to establish occupancy now that full flows have been restored. In addition to Fossil Creek, suitable habitat

80 for yellow-billed cuckoo also occurs along the Verde River, Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and a number of springs and seeps.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects: The main cumulative effects on yellow-billed cuckoos are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas, particularly during the breeding season. Recreators that walk in, drive in, or float through, can all disturb adult and fledgling black hawks while foraging, roosting, or incubating, and nestling common black hawks when activities occur too close to individuals. Maintenance of powerlines in the Fossil area fragment riparian and mesquite bosque habitat. These impacts would contribute to potential disturbance of Cuckoos should they occur in the Fossil Creek riparian habitat.

Climate change is expected to result in increases in severity and frequency of drought, which may increase use and stress on the riparian vegetation along Fossil Creek. This would cumulatively contribute to further impacts to potential habitat.

As part of the Verde Wild and Scenic Comprehensive River Management Plan, various beaches along the river have been closed to boaters for camping. These locations are signed on site and are included in the Verde River Recreation Opportunity Guide, which is a set of maps and guidelines made available to recreators running the river. In addition, roads occurring within the ¼ mile wild and scenic river corridor have been closed, further reducing impacts to cuckoos from recreation.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed action, there is no livestock grazing along the Verde River; therefore there will be no affect to yellow-billed cuckoos that may nest there.

Although surveys have not detected nesting yellow-billed cuckoos in Fossil Creek, potential exists for cuckoos to nest along Fossil as well as other riparian corridors within the allotment including Boulder Canyon and Sally May Wash.

Use at the Boulder pasture water gap will be localized to the fenced lane for short periods of time generally during December through mid-March. The mitigation of 20% maximum utilization on woody riparian vegetation and the minimum stubble height requirement will reduce the amount of effects livestock have on riparian vegetation in riparian areas other than Fossil Creek (because creek access is limited to the Boulder pasture water gap where these criteria do not apply). The change in management of Stehr Lake Pasture to trail through only will decrease impacts to riparian habitat along this portion of Fossil Creek.

81 Should cuckoos nest within line-of-site of the Boulder water gap, or within the other riparian corridors throughout the allotment, cuckoos may be affected directly and indirectly by livestock grazing and livestock management activities.

Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within the riparian corridor could result in visual and aural disturbance to nesting and foraging yellow-billed cuckoos. Frequent disturbance, disturbance of high intensity, or disturbance of long duration can disturb cuckoos resulting in increased predation of young and eggs, abandonment of nesting areas, flushing of adults incubating eggs long enough for the eggs to become unviable, abandonment of eggs or young, decreased success during foraging, and premature fledging of young.

In addition, livestock grazing in riparian areas can affect nesting and foraging habitat by causing stream bank compaction, loss of stream bank vegetation, loss of emergent vegetation, loss of hiding cover, decreased recruitment of nest substrate; increase in sedimentation; decrease in water quality; all of which reduces the quality of habitat for yellow-billed cuckoos. Should monitoring determine riparian conditions are not improving, adaptive management changes will be made (refer to details described under proposed action).

Livestock grazing in the uplands can result in reduced watershed conditions which ultimately contribute to increased sedimentation and decreased water quality. However, under recent (since 2009) and proposed management, water quality standards are attaining in Fossil Creek and the Verde River indicating no excessive turbidity, total suspended solids, and embeddedness (see Watershed Specialist Report). Also, recent monitoring shows that soils conditions have improved from unsatisfactory to impaired across the allotment (see Watershed Specialist Report).

Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects. Juniper removal treatments are expected to slightly improve watershed condition and thus have an indirect improvement on potential Cuckoo habitat.

Determination: Due to the potential for cuckoos to nest along riparian corridors on the allotment and for livestock grazing and livestock management activities to cause direct and indirect effects, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the yellow-billed cuckoo but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Ferruginous Hawk

Habitat on the Allotment The ferruginous hawk may occur in grassland (874 acres) and open woodlands (portions of 40,926 acres) on the allotment. Ferruginous hawks are known to nest on the forest, but they are more commonly present during the winter. Nesting occurs on the ground, rocky outcrops or pinnacles, and in trees. They feed on mammals, mainly rabbits, hares, ground squirrels and pocket gophers .

Environmental Consequences Cumulative effects Cumulative effects to ferruginous hawks include fire suppression which has resulted in much denser conditions and the threat of catastrophic fire, past logging, past and future watershed/grassland improvement projects, and recreation (mostly hunters). There have been various fires in the Fossil area and effects are expected from future wildland fire use. Fire regimes have been altered due to decades of livestock grazing. There are at least 12 miles of a major powerline in Fossil allotment that poses a mortality threat to raptors that forage there. Grazing by wildlife, especially elk, contributes to the loss of small mammal habitat in the allotment and watershed as a whole. Grazing by ungulates such as elk has the potential for cumulatively impacting ferruginous hawks in the area.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Avian predators (raptors) are dependent on small-mammal prey. When rodent prey decrease in response to reduced vegetative cover, so do the avian predators (Saab et.al 1995). In a review of studies measuring the relative abundance of birds in grazed habitats compared to either ungrazed or lightly grazed areas, Saab et al. (1995) summarized that the ground-nesting ferruginous hawk show a negative response to grazing where nesting cover is limited but show a positive response in areas where they prefer open grasslands for hunting.

The 1,200 acres of proposed vegetative treatment and maintenance in locations where soil impairment is exacerbated by canopy encroachment of juniper and woody shrubs vegetation treatments will help increase the nutrient cycling by increasing the cover of perennial grasses; increase the hydrologic function of the soils by increasing infiltration, decrease soil compaction, and decrease erosion on these treatment areas. This will improve conditions for ferruginous hawks and their prey species.

Vegetative treatments and structural range improvements may occur in this species habitat during the breeding season resulting in visual and aural disturbance. Vegetative treatments, in the long run, will improve foraging for this species that prefers grasslands and open woodlands.

83 Determination: Due to the potential for livestock grazing to reduce forage upon which ferruginous hawk prey species depend, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the ferruginous hawk but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Abert’s Towhee

Habitat on the Allotment The Abert’s towhee occurs in dense brush and woodlands found along riparian areas. This ground forager feeds on insects and seeds. There are no records of occurrence for Abert’s in the Fossil Creek database, however, Abert’s towhees are found nesting in dense scrub along riparian corridors throughout the Verde Valley.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative effects Other activities occurring along riparian areas within the watershed include recreation and activities associated with the decommissioning of the hydro power facilities along Fossil Creek. These activities may directly affect wildlife species, through aural and visual disturbance, particularly during critical periods such as breeding, roosting, and feeding. Disturbance can result in increased physiological stress, nest, roost, or site abandonment, flushing of birds from eggs, premature fledging of young from nests, and reduction in the amount of suitable nesting and foraging areas.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing in riparian areas has been implicated in the decline of Abert’s towhees through the modification and loss of riparian habitat. Direct effects to riparian vegetation are lessened in the action alternative since the maximum pasture grazing period is typically 30 days. Use at the Boulder pasture water gap will be localized to the fenced lane for short periods of time generally during December through mid-March. The mitigation of 20% maximum utilization on woody riparian vegetation and the minimum stubble height requirement will reduce the amount of effects livestock have on riparian vegetation in riparian areas other than Fossil Creek (because Fossil Creek access is limited to the Boulder pasture water gap where these criteria do not apply).

84 Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects.

Determination: Despite mitigation to reduce the effects of livestock in riparian areas, livestock will still have access to the Boulder water gap and much of the other smaller streams and springs on the allotment. Therefore, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact Abert’s towhees but is not likely to result in federal listing or the loss of viability.

Amphibians

Lowland Leopard Frog The lowland leopard frog prefers permanent stream pools, springs, stock tanks, and side channels of major rivers from sea level to 4,800 feet in elevation but more commonly under 3,300 feet. Leopard frogs are seldom found in association with bullfrogs or crayfish. The main cause for the decline of leopard frogs is attributed to the introduction of predacious non-native organisms including fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs.

Surveys on the Allotment: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Environet, and the Forest Service have conducted surveys for the lowland leopard frog in Fossil Springs, Fossil Creek, and nearby stock tanks. Based on all known surveys of lowland leopard frogs conducted throughout the Coconino National Forest, Fossil Creek supports the only viable population of lowland leopard frogs on the Coconino.

Prior to restoration of flows and the restoration of the native fishery, very few leopard frogs were found below the Fossil Springs dam. Historically, lowland leopard frogs were found near the Forest Boundary in 1950 but not in 1985, 1990, 1992, or 1995. A survey in 1998 by Environet did not turn up any leopard frogs from the bridge to the Irving Power Plant and further upstream to ca 3,840.

Post full-flow frog surveys from 2005 through 2009, conducted by F.S. biologists, show that leopard frogs responded well to more flows, complex habitats created by travertine dams, and lack of non-native fish. Between restoration of full flows in

85 2005 and dam-lowering activities in 2009, lowland leopard frogs recolonized Fossil Creek below the dam and reached viable population levels.

After APS lowering of the historic dam in the fall of 2009, the new channel height above the lowered dam was very unstable with raw exposed banks and no vegetation to hold soil in place. Exacerbating this condition were several large flood events in 2009 and 2010 that further scoured the banks and channels and blew out established frog habitat below the dam. As a result frog monitoring showed much lower population levels. Surveys in 2012 show an increase in population levels at from the Springs down below the dam but no frogs have made it as far downstream as 1/3 mile above the Waterfall Trailhead.

In addition to the perennial waters associated with Fossil Creek and the Verde River, suitable habitat for this frog also occurs in intermittent washes where perennial pools persist. This includes Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and a number of springs and seeps; surveys of select sites have been negative.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects: The main cumulative effect on lowland leopard frogs are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas and the presence of non-native aquatic organisms. Recreators in riparian areas can destroy frog habitat over time by denuding stream banks and point bars, compacting soil thereby eliminating regrowth of riparian vegetation, removing vegetation for firewood, and affecting water quality directly through human wastes and indirectly by facilitating erosion and sediment runoff. The restoration of full flows Fossil Creek has improved habitat conditions, thereby increasing the potential for leopard frogs to re-occupy Fossil Creek. Recreators can potentially (intentionally or accidentally) introduce and nonnative aquatic organisms to suitable and occupied frog sites. Recreators, as well as wild ungulates and birds, can also unintentionally spread the chytrid fungus when mud is transported from site to site.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects The lowland leopard frog is a riparian obligate and may occur in the Verde River, Fossil Creek, Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and various springs. Lowland leopard frogs occur in Fossil Creek from above the springs downstream to just above Irving power plant.

Under the proposed action, livestock do not access the Verde River so there is no impact to either the riparian habitat or lowland leopard frog. Livestock access Fossil Creek only at the Boulder pasture water gap. Should any of frogs occur in Fossil creek at this water access point, or in the other riparian corridors, livestock grazing could impact lowland leopard frog and its habitat.

86 Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within the riparian area can directly affect wildlife species when ranch employees, vehicles, livestock, and dogs cause aural and visual disturbance to individuals that may be present in the allotment. In addition, these activities can directly affect this species by: disturbing aquatic vegetation to which frog and toad egg masses are adhered; collecting and handling tadpoles, frogs, and garter snakes; and inadvertently trampling tadpoles. Proposed activities can indirectly affect leopard frogs by: grazing and trampling aquatic and streamside vegetation in which these species use for hiding cover, temperature regulation, and substrate to support frog and toad eggs masses; and increasing sediments in and turbidity of the water channel thereby decreasing water quality for these species and their prey base.

Direct effects to riparian vegetation are lessened in the action alternative since the maximum pasture grazing period is typically 30 days. Use at the Boulder pasture water gap will be localized to the fenced lane for short periods of time generally during December through mid-March. The mitigation of 20% maximum utilization on woody riparian vegetation and the minimum stubble height requirement will reduce the amount of effects livestock have on riparian vegetation in riparian areas other than Fossil Creek (because creek access is limited to the Boulder pasture water gap where these criteria do not apply).

Grazing in the uplands can indirectly affect frog habitat and aquatic prey. Livestock grazing can indirectly affect water quality when upland grazing removes biomass, reduces the protective vegetative ground cover that normally traps sediments, increases soil compaction, reduces water infiltration, increases sediment production and non-point source pollution into streams.

Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects.

Determination: Due to the presence of lowland leopard frogs along Fossil Creek; the potential for lowland leopard frog to occur along other riparian corridors on the allotment; and for livestock grazing and livestock management activities to cause direct and indirect effects; it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the lowland leopard frog but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability .

Arizona Toad The Arizona toad occurs in rocky streams, canyons, and floodplains with dense riparian vegetation in elevations between 2,000 and 6,000 feet. They breed in gently flowing waters generally with well-developed riparian vegetation and feed on insects and snails.

Habitat on the Allotment: Sullivan (1991) reported Arizona toads from the Verde River just northwest of Child’s power plant. Sullivan and Richardson (1993) reported that Arizona toads could potentially occur along the Verde River from West Clear Creek to the East Verde confluences. Although not detected during herpetological surveys, Fossil Creek offers suitable habitat for the Arizona toad. Suitable habitat for this toad also occurs in intermittent washes where perennial pools persist. This includes Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and a number of seeps and springs.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects: The main cumulative effect on Arizona toads are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas and the presence of non-native aquatic organisms. Recreators in riparian areas can destroy toad habitat over time by denuding stream banks and point bars, compacting soil thereby eliminating re-growth of riparian vegetation, removing vegetation for firewood, and affecting water quality directly through human wastes and indirectly by facilitating erosion and sediment runoff. The restoration of full flows Fossil Creek has improved habitat conditions, thereby increasing the potential for Arizona toads to re-occupy Fossil Creek. Recreators can potentially (intentionally or accidentally) introduce and nonnative aquatic organisms to suitable and toad habitat. Recreators, as well as wild ungulates and bird, can also unintentionally spread the chytrid fungus when mud is transported from site to site.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects The Arizona toad is a riparian obligate and may occur in the Verde River, Fossil Creek, Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and a number of springs and seeps. Under the proposed action, livestock do not access the Verde River so there is no impact to either the riparian habitat or the Arizona toad which depend on riparian habitat. Livestock have access to Fossil Creek at the Boulder pasture water gap. Should this species occur in Fossil creek at this water gap, or in the other riparian corridors, livestock grazing could impact the toad and its habitat.

88 activities can indirectly affect the toad by: trampling aquatic and streamside vegetation in which this species uses for hiding cover, temperature regulation, and substrate to support frog and toad eggs masses; and increasing sediments in and turbidity of the water channel thereby decreasing water quality for the Arizona toad and its prey base. Should monitoring determine riparian conditions are not improving, adaptive management changes will be made (refer to details described under proposed action).

Since proposed vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects. Proposed structure range improvements around springs may have short term effects but in the long term will improve conditions for reproduction, egg laying, and tadpole development.

Determination: Due to the potential for the toad to occur along riparian corridors on the allotment and for livestock grazing and livestock management activities to cause direct and indirect effects, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the Arizona toad but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

89 Reptiles

Narrow-headed Garter Snake The narrow-headed garter snake is the most aquatic of the garter snakes, seldom found far from quiet, rocky pools in large streams and rivers. It is primarily a Mexican species, but occurs in various areas along the Mogollon Rim. Food items include fish (native species preferred), frogs, tadpoles, and salamanders. Population declines have been attributed to loss of habitat, decline in native fish that are prey items, introduction of predaceous nonnative aquatic organisms (crayfish, bullfrogs, and fish), and killing by humans (Nowak and Santana-Bendix 2002). Narrow-headed gartersnakes escape from threatening situations by diving underwater and hiding under rocks. Narrow-headed gartersnakes are highly aquatic, but move to the uplands during periods of shedding and during brumation. During brumation narrow-headed gartersnakes have been radio-tracked and found underneath rocks.

Surveys on the Allotment Arizona Game and Fish Department and Forest Service biologists have conducted herpetological surveys on the allotment at Towel and Cimarron tanks, Towel Creek, and various springs including Hackberry, Dorens, Big Willow, Willow, Cedar, Keg, Phroney, and Wet Prong as well as along Fossil Creek. No narrow-headed garter snakes were detected. However, in 2005, an AGFD fish survey crew documented a narrow-headed gartersnake on the Verde River near the Verde confluence. This observation was validated to be an accurate identification of species (J. Agyagos pers. comm. with Bill Burger,).

Habitat on the Allotment The narrow-headed garter snake can occur in the Verde River from West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek (Sullivan and Richardson 1993). Additionally, Erika Nowak, herpetologist with the USGS, has indicated that Fossil Creek riparian is potential habitat for the narrow-headed garter snake.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects The main cumulative effects on garter snakes are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas and the presence of non-native aquatic organisms. Recreators in riparian areas can destroy garter snake habitat over time by denuding stream banks and point bars, compacting soil thereby eliminating re-growth of riparian vegetation, removing vegetation for firewood, and affecting water quality directly through human wastes and indirectly by facilitating erosion and sediment runoff. The restoration of full flows Fossil Creek has improved habitat conditions, thereby increasing the potential for the narrow-headed garter snake to re-occupy Fossil Creek. Recreators can potentially (intentionally or accidentally) introduce and nonnative aquatic organisms to suitable habitat; thereby increasing predation upon garter snakes as well as decreasing their suitable forage base.

Proposed Action Alternative

90 Direct and Indirect Effects The narrow-headed garter snake is a riparian obligate and may occur in the Verde River, Fossil Creek, Boulder Canyon, and Sally May Wash.

Under the proposed action, livestock do not access the Verde River so there is no direct impact to either the riparian habitat or this garter snake which depends on riparian habitat. Livestock have access to Fossil Creek at the Boulder pasture water gap. Should any garter snakes occur in Fossil creek at this water access point, or in the other riparian corridors, livestock grazing could impact them and their habitat.

In addition to direct effects, livestock grazing in the uplands can result indirectly affect species habitat by reducing watershed conditions which ultimately contribute to increased sedimentation and decreased water quality. However, under recent (since 2009) and proposed management, water quality standards are attaining in Fossil Creek and the Verde River indicating no excessive turbidity, total suspended solids, and embeddedness (see Watershed Specialist Report). Also, recent monitoring shows that soils conditions have improved from unsatisfactory to impaired across the allotment (see Watershed Specialist Report).

Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within the riparian area can directly affect wildlife species when ranch employees, vehicles, livestock, and dogs cause aural and visual disturbance to individuals that may be present in the allotment. In addition, these activities can directly affect this garter snake by collecting, handling, and trampling individuals. Proposed activities can indirectly affect this garter snake by: disturbing aquatic vegetation to which frog and toad egg masses (prey) are adhered; trampling aquatic and streamside vegetation in which this species uses for hiding cover, temperature regulation, and substrate to support frog and toad eggs masses; increasing sediments in and turbidity of the water channel thereby decreasing water quality for this species and its prey base; and inadvertently trampling tadpoles.

Since proposed structural range improvements and vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects.

Determination: Due to the potential for this riparian obligate to occur along riparian corridors on the allotment and for livestock grazing and livestock management

91 activities to cause direct and indirect effects, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the narrow-headed garter snake but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability .

Mexican Garter Snake The Mexican garter snake is usually found in or near streams and ponds in canyons up to 6,200 feet in elevation. This garter snake is most closely linked to shallow slow-moving or impounded waters, though it also occurs in other aquatic environments. Where Mexican gartersnakes currently exist along Oak Creek, they occur in marsh-like situations where slow water is shallow enough to support dense stands of emergent vegetation. The Mexican garter snake's diet consists of leopard frogs, toads, tadpoles, and various native fishes. Lizards and small rodents are taken during occasional terrestrial forays. The Mexican garter snake is known to be associated with leopard frogs which are a major prey species. As a result of telemetry work on the extant population on Oak Creek, Mexican gartersnakes have been detected in the uplands mostly during brumation where they occur under rocks but also during summer months.

Habitat on the Allotment: Mexican garter snakes have been sighted along the Verde River and several of its tributaries, particularly Oak Creek but also Houston Creek on the Tonto. There is a historic record for Mexican garter snakes north of the Fossil Creek Allotment. A 1970 record is from 7.8 miles S.S.E. of Happy Jack which is approximately the Banfield Spring area. While no herpetological surveys have detected Mexican garter snakes on the allotment, Erika Nowak, USGS herpetologist, has indicated that Fossil Creek riparian is potential habitat for the Mexican garter snake. In addition, it is possible for Mexican garter snakes to occur along perennial portions of Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and other springs and seeps.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects: The main cumulative effects on garter snakes are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas and the presence of non-native aquatic organisms. Recreators in riparian areas can destroy garter snake habitat over time by denuding stream banks and point bars, compacting soil thereby eliminating re-growth of riparian vegetation, removing vegetation for firewood, and affecting water quality directly through human wastes and indirectly by facilitating erosion and sediment runoff. The restoration of full flows Fossil Creek has improved habitat conditions, thereby increasing the

92 potential for the Mexican garter snake to re-occupy Fossil Creek. Recreators can potentially (intentionally or accidentally) introduce and nonnative aquatic organisms to suitable habitat; thereby increasing predation upon garter snakes as well as decreasing their suitable forage base.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects The Mexican garter snake is a riparian obligate and may occur in the Verde River, Fossil Creek, Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and numerous other springs and seeps. Under the proposed action, livestock do not access the Verde River so there is no direct impact to either the riparian habitat or this garter snake which depends on riparian habitat. Livestock have access to Fossil Creek at the Boulder pasture water gap. Should any garter snakes occur in Fossil creek at this water access point, or in the other riparian corridors, livestock grazing could impact them and their habitat.

Since proposed vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat, these activities will have no negative effects. Proposed structure range improvements around springs may have short term effects but in the long term will improve habitat for prey species including frogs and toads.

Determination: Due to the potential for this riparian obligate to occur along riparian corridors on the allotment and for livestock grazing and livestock management activities to cause direct and indirect effects, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the Mexican garter snake but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that the no action alternative will have reduce impacts in areas such as Boulder water gap and in intermittent canyons (Boulder Canyon and Sally May Wash) in the allotment that currently receive some grazing pressure. This will slightly increase habitat for the Mexican garter snake. This will cumulatively combine with the effects of the Fossil Creek CRMP to cumulatively decrease impacts to riparian vegetation along Fossil Creek.

Determination: Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that the no action alternative will have no impact on the Mexican garter snake. Garter snakes will benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on them and their habitat.

Reticulated Gila Monster

Habitat on the Allotment: The Gila monster is known to occur in the Verde Valley and has been sighted in the Fossil Creek area. It spends most of its time in burrows; only a handful of weeks are spent above ground each year. Gila monsters may only feed four to five times a year on nestling mammals and birds, the eggs of lizards and birds, lizards, and even carrion.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects: Other activities occurring in the watershed that may affect this lizard include livestock grazing on other allotments, watershed improvement projects, wildfire, prescribed burning, fire use, and road use and maintenance. Some of these activities may directly disturb individuals and/or reduce the amount of vegetation. Watershed improvement projects, prescribed fire and fire use may have short term effects, but would, in the long term, improve prey species habitat.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Gila monsters spend most of their time in burrows. They eat small mammals, lizards and lizard eggs. Livestock grazing can trample and collapse burrows, and compact soils which hinders burrow construction. Livestock grazing can remove plant seeds on which Gila monsters’ small mammal prey depend, and it can decrease arthropods on which their lizard prey depend (Heske and Campbell, 1991; Hayward et al., 1997). In Arizona, the abundance and diversity of open-space and wide-ranging foraging lizards was higher on lightly grazed sites (versus heavily grazed sites) in four habitat types including chaparral and desert grassland (Jones 1981). Declines in the

94 abundance and diversity of lizards were attributed to a change in vegetative structure which was described as a reduction of low vegetation, primarily perennial grasses (Jones 1981). Many species of lizards feed on insects. Aboveground macroarthropods (insects and arachnids) experienced large decreases with moderate or heavy grazing, but conversely with light grazing showed slight increases (Lavigne et al. 1972 in Milchunas et al. 1998). Therefore, grazing can affect the insects which are food for lizards, upon which Gila monsters prey.

Structural range improvements and vegetative treatments may result in short term disturbance to Gila monsters, but in the long term would benefit prey species.

Determination: Because livestock grazing may affect Gila monster prey and collapse burrows, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the Gila monster but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Mountain Silverspot Butterfly and Blue-black Silverspot Butterfly

Scattered populations of mountain silverspot butterflies occur throughout the southwest in wet meadows, grassy springs in mountainous woody areas, seeps, or riparian canyons. An extensive population is thought to occur above and below the Mogollon Rim at least from Kehl Springs (in the adjacent Pivot Rock allotment) to the White Mountains.

The blue black silverspot’s range was very local in Arizona and New Mexico where it has been extirpated from most of its known sites.

The mountain silverspot and blue-black silverspot are riparian dependent butterflies. The larvae of both silverspots feed on species of Viola while the adults feed on thistle nectar. No surveys have been conducted within the planning area and the population status is unknown. TES soil map units were queried for Viola and thistle plants. The results show less than one percent of the allotment has soils that could support these host plants (refer to Table Nine). Table Nine: Potential Habitat for Sensitive Butterflies Based on Host Plant Presence.

Common Name Habitat Acres Percentage of Fossil Creek Habitat Within

95 Planning Area* Mountain Silverspot butterfly 175 0.4 Blue-black Silverspot butterfly 175 0.4 *based on Fossil Allotment being approximately 42,000 acres.

Cumulative Effects Other activities in the project area include recreational activities, watershed/grassland improvement projects, personal use (collecting of forest products), an occasional wildfire, and potentially in the future, fire use. Since these silverspot butterflies are tied to specific host plant species, impacts to Viola and thistles could affect these butterflies. Concurrent grazing by wildlife (i.e. elk and antelope) will have a contributing impact to vegetation important to these butterflies.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Terrestrial special status invertebrates such as the two sensitive silverspot butterfly species can be affected by livestock grazing and livestock management activities when these activities: cause aural and visual disturbance to individuals, affect those host plants upon which these invertebrates are dependent; disturb plants to which these species may be attached; crush non-aerial life forms such as caterpillars; and denude stream banks and compact soils.

In general, livestock grazing affects above ground macroarthropods which is a group of invertebrates in which butterflies belong. Aboveground macroarthropods experienced large decreases with moderate or heavy grazing, but conversely with light grazing showed slight increases (Lavigne et al. 1972 in Milchunas et al. 1998). Livestock grazing and livestock management activities have the potential to have direct and indirect effects to potential habitat and host plants of the two butterflies.

Structural range improvements to protect springs may result in short-term visual and aural disturbance to these butterflies, however, habitat protection and improvement will be a long-term benefit. Vegetative treatments in pinyon juniper habitat will not result in negative effects to this species.

Determination: Because livestock grazing may affect host plants and their habitat, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the mountain and blue-black silverspot butterflies, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability .

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects No cattle would be present in the analysis area if this alternative was implemented, so no direct or indirect effects on these two species of butterfly would occur. Determination: Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that the no action alternative will have

96 no impact on the mountain and blue-black silverspot butterflies. Butterflies would benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on their host plants.

Spotted Skipperling The habitat of the spotted skipperling consists of moist meadows and streamsides in low to mid elevation mountains. In southeast Arizona, this species takes nectar avidly along cool, deep canyons and along forested road margins. The species has been seen congregating on moist cliffsides. Dactylis glomerata (Poaceae) is a strongly suspected food plant.

Habitat on the Allotment While extensive plant surveys have occurred in the riparian area associated with Fossil Springs and creek, there has been one survey conducted in the uplands. Dactylis glomerata was not found in any plant surveys conducted in the project area. Despite this, grassing openings with various species of grasses are present throughout the pinyon juniper, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer vegetation types. Therefore, it appears that there is an abundance of potential habitat for this species on the allotment. The vegetation coverage was queried for pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer to determine potential habitat within the planning area. Based on this query, approximately 40,831 acres (39,720 acres of P/J woodland, 1,101 acres of ponderosa pine, and 10 acres of mixed conifer) occur on the allotment.

Cumulative Effects Activities in the uplands include the recreational activities, watershed/grassland improvement projects, personal use (collecting of forest products), an occasional wildfire, and potentially in the future, fire use. Since skipperlings depend on host plants, these activities can impact sensitive hairstreaks particularly when host plants are disturbed.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Special status invertebrates such as the spotted skipperling, can be affected by grazing and livestock management activities when these activities: cause aural and visual disturbance to individuals, affect riparian plant species, especially those host plants upon which these invertebrates are dependent; disturb plants to which these species may be attached; crush, non-aerial life forms such as caterpillars; and denude stream banks and compact soils.

97 direct and indirect effects to potential habitat and host plants for the spotted skipperling.

The 1,200 acres of proposed vegetative treatment and maintenance in locations where soil impairment is exacerbated by canopy encroachment of juniper will help increase grassy areas where these butterflies can find host plant species.

Structural range improvements to protect springs may result in short-term visual and aural disturbance to these butterflies, however, habitat protection and improvement will be a long-term benefit.

Determination: Because livestock grazing may affect host plants, it is the determination that the proposed action may impact the spotted skipperling, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability .

OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

Status of Golden Eagle

The golden eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. There appears to be no outstanding threats to golden eagles in Arizona; however, urban encroachment and increased recreational activity may soon be affecting some local breeding areas (AGFD 2005). A long-term population monitoring study is needed to determine population numbers and trends (AGFD 2005).

Habitat on the Allotment: Golden eagles are found nesting in a wide variety of habitats from arid desert scrub to open conifer forests. No matter what habitat they choose in the state, topography features include tall cliffs or canyon in which to construct a nest and nearby large open areas to forage for prey (AGFD 2005).

Most golden eagles nesting in Arizona are primarily residents, remaining within or near their home range throughout the year. In Arizona, cliff ledges are the most common nesting substrate used by Golden eagles, but they will also use tall trees

98 (esp. ponderosa pine), junipers, rock outcrops, and in rare cases, transmission towers (Glinski et.al. 1998 in AGDF 2005). Golden eagles often nest in areas of high rabbit populations. Golden eagles are well known for subduing large prey; however most of their diet consists of ground squirrels, rabbits, and prairie dogs.

There is potential for golden eagles to nest on the allotment where cliffs and canyons occur. A query of the Fossil Creek database shows a golden eagle was detected at Irving power plant in 2000 by Northern Arizona Audubon Society. Golden eagles may be present anywhere on the allotment while foraging.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative effects: Reasonable foreseeable actions that can affect nesting golden eagles and their habitat include watershed improvement projects, recreation management (obliteration of social trails and dispersed campsites, designation of trails and campsites), lands special use permits (new issuances and maintenance on existing structures), wildlife grazing, and personal use activities. While these activities can directly and indirectly affect nesting golden eagles as well as cause destruction or modification to habitat, these actions are planned to minimize (and when possible, to eliminate) effects to species and their habitat above current conditions and have mitigation measures and Best Management Practices designed to mitigate disturbance that may occur from project implementation.

Unauthorized and unmanaged dispersed recreation, while not continuous across the forest like grazing does result in adverse impacts to wintering golden eagles and their roosting and foraging habitat. Social trails, social roads, dispersed camping areas, and the use of these by the public can disturb wintering golden eagles as they roost or forage and can disturb eagle prey. : Travel Management Rule will benefit most species by reducing cross country motorized travel and the densities of roads within species habitat.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Livestock grazing would not directly affect nesting golden eagles. Livestock management activities are not likely to disturb nesting golden eagles since the terrain they nest in is rugged and inaccessible. Livestock grazing may indirectly affect golden eagles by affecting conditions necessary for prey which include rabbits and ground squirrels. With the proposed grazing management, adequate vegetation will be available for golden eagle prey, therefore grazing is not expected to affect golden eagles.

Improvements, watershed restoration efforts, and riparian protection measures may result in disturbance (aural, visual) to golden eagles. These improvements may result in a slight loss/modification of their foraging habitat but are not expected to have direct effects on this species or its habitat, due to the short duration and limited

99 habitat modification. In the long term, watershed improvements will have overall beneficial effects to golden eagles with the anticipated improvement to prey habitat.

The 1,200 acres of proposed vegetative treatment and maintenance in locations where soil impairment is exacerbated by canopy encroachment of juniper and woody shrubs vegetation treatments will help increase the nutrient cycling by increasing the cover of perennial grasses; increase the hydrologic function of the soils by increasing infiltration, decrease soil compaction, and decrease erosion on these treatment areas. This will improve habitat for golden eagle prey species such as rabbits and jackrabbits.

Determination: Livestock grazing and livestock management activities, including proposed improvements, will not result in take as defined by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Effects to golden eagles are insignificant and discountable and will not cause 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Since neither livestock grazing nor livestock management activities would occur under the no action alternative, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to golden eagles.

Determination: Because there will be no livestock grazing and no livestock management activities, it is the determination that this alternative will not result in take of golden eagles.

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS)

Management guidance for management indicator species (MIS), other wildlife and fish resources, and diversity of plant and animal populations, is found in several key documents. The 1982 National Forest Management Act Regulations (planning regulations) at 36 CFR 219 set forth a process for developing, adopting, and revising land and resource management plans for the National Forest System (36 CFR 219.1) and identifies requirements for integrating fish and wildlife resources in forest land management plans (36 CFR 219.13). On January 5, 2005 the Department of Agriculture issued a final rule to remove the 2000 planning regulations at 36 CFR 219 (a) in their entirety, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023. Clarification for the forests MIS obligations is found at 36 CFR at 219.14 (f). For forests, like the Coconino, that developed their Forest Plan under the 1982 NFMA regulations the Responsible Official may comply with any obligations relating to MIS

100 by considering data and analysis relating to habitat unless the Forest Plan specifically requires population monitoring or population surveys. On the Coconino, population data is required for: elk, mule deer, pronghorn and turkey. The appropriate scale for MIS monitoring is the area covered by the Forest Plan, 36 CFR 219.14 (f). The new planning regulations are intended to provide flexibility for MIS monitoring, which will allow for monitoring of habitat conditions as a surrogate for population trend data. 36 CFR 219.14 clarifies that MIS monitoring is appropriate at the times and places appropriate to the specific species and is not required within individual project or activity areas (70 Fed. Reg. 1021-1091). A working draft forest-wide assessment entitled “Management Indicator Species Status Report for the Coconino National Forest, Version 2” (USDA 2013b) summarizes current knowledge of population and habitat trends for management indicator species on the Coconino National Forest. The analysis in this document tiers to the 2013 updated forest-wide assessment. Table Ten displays MIS by management area for the project and lists the habitat feature the MIS were chosen to represent and the monitoring requirements on the Coconino National Forest. Table Ten displays MIS, the habitat they were selected for, and what monitoring is required.

Table Ten: Management indicator species by management areas found on the Fossil Creek Allotment

Management Area (MA) Management Indicator Species Acres within Project Area

MA-3: Ponderosa pine and mixed Mexican spotted owl, red squirrel, Abert 133 conifer, less than 40 percent slopes squirrel, elk, northern goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, turkey, and hairy woodpecker MA-4: Ponderosa Pine and mixed Turkey, goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, elk, abert 8 conifer on greater than 40% slope squirrel, red squirrel, hairy woodpecker, Mexican spotted owl MA-7: Pinyon Juniper on less than Plain (juniper) titmouse, mule deer, elk 11,081 40% slope MA-8: Pinyon Juniper on greater Plain (juniper) titmouse, mule deer, elk 143 than 40% slope MA-10 : Grassland and sparse pinyon- Pronghorn 5,727 juniper above the rim MA-11 : Verde Valley Pronghorn 21,162 MA-12 : Riparian and open water Yellow-breasted chat, Lucy’s warbler, and 72 Lincoln’s sparrow

Red-naped sapsuckers, cinnamon teal, and Lincoln’s sparrows are all excluded from this analysis. Red-naped sapsucker is the management indicator for aspen which does not occur on this allotment and is therefore excluded from this analysis. Cinnamon teal is the management indicator for wetlands/aquatic habitat. Although streams and springs occur on the allotment, these do not provide suitable nesting habitat for Cinnamon teal. Cinnamon teal occur on open water habitat such as lakes and semi-

101 permanent and seasonal wetlands; none of which occur on the allotment. Therefore Cinnamon teal is excluded from this analysis. Lincoln’s sparrow is the management indicators for the high elevation riparian scrub which does not occur on this allotment and is therefore excluded from this analysis.

Table Elevn: Coconino National Forest MIS, the habitat they were chosen to represent, and whether habitat or population monitoring is required

Monitoring Species Habitat Requirement* Red squirrel Late seral mixed conifer and spurce-fir Habitat Abert squirrel Early seral ponderosa pine Habitat Mexican spotted owl Late seral mixed conifer and spruce-fir Habitat Northern goshawk Late seral ponderosa pine Habitat Pygmy nuthatch Late seral ponderosa pine Habitat Turkey Late seral ponderosa pine Population Elk Early seral ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and Population spruce-fir Hairy woodpecker Snag component of ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, Habitat and spruce-fir Mule deer Early seral aspen and pinyon-juniper Population Juniper (Plain) titmouse Late seral and snag component of pinyon-juniper Habitat Pronghorn antelope Early and late seral grasslands Population Lucy’s warbler Low elevation riparian Habitat Yellow-breasted Chat Low elevation riparian Habitat *Coconino National Forest Plan, Table 14, pp. 211-214 Abert squirrel, goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, turkey, elk, hairy woodpecker, Mexican spotted owl, red squirrel, mule deer, and juniper titmouse are all excluded from this analysis because the habitat feature for which these species are indicators for will not be affected by authorization of grazing. More specifically, Abert squirrel, goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, and turkey, are all indicators for some stage (early to late seral) of ponderosa pine. Since there are no livestock management activities that involve the removal of trees and livestock grazing will not affect ponderosa pine, the proposed project will not affect the habitat feature of ponderosa pine and the analysis for these species is not required. The habitat feature for which elk are indicators for include early seral pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce fir. There is no spruce fir habitat on the allotment and livestock management activities and livestock grazing will not affect the other habitat features (early seral pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer); therefore elk are excluded from this analysis. The habitat features for which Mexican spotted owl and red squirrel are indicators of include late seral mixed conifer and spruce fir. There is no spruce fir habitat on the allotment and livestock management activities and livestock grazing will not affect late seral mixed conifer; therefore Mexican spotted owls and red squirrels are excluded from this analysis. The habitat feature for which mule deer are indicators of include early seral aspen and pinyon-juniper. There is no aspen on the allotment and

102 livestock management activities and livestock grazing will not affect pinyon juniper habitat; therefore mule deer are excluded from this analysis. The habitat feature for which juniper titmouse are indicators of include late seral and snag component of pinyon-juniper. Livestock management activities and livestock grazing will not affect late seral and snag component of pinyon juniper habitat; therefore juniper titmice are excluded from this analysis. Since livestock grazing can affect low elevation riparian and grasslands, Lucy’s warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and pronghorn will be fully analyzed in this document. The total amount of habitat in the project area for each MIS and the forest-wide habitat and population trends are summarized in Table Twelve.

Table Twelve: Summary of Trend and Acres of Habitat for three MIS MIS Species Forest Forest Acres Habitat in Project Area Habitat Population Trend Trend Pronghorn Stable to Stable 333 acres of semi-desert Declining Grassland plus open portions of woodlands (~3,000 acres) plus 1,101 acres of Ponderosa pine

Lucy’s Warbler Stable to Stable 206 acres mixed deciduous Improving riparian 121 acres of cottonwood willow riparian 21.3 miles of riparian stream ~7 stream reaches Yellow-breasted Stable to Inconclusive 206 acres mixed deciduous Chat Improving riparian 121 acres of cottonwood willow riparian 21.3 miles of riparian stream ~7 stream reaches

Table Thirteen: Effects to MIS habitat quantity by alternatives and summary of habitat effects as % of Forest-wide habitat quantity and quality. MIS Species Current No Action Proposed Action No Action Proposed Forest-wide Net Change Action Net Habitat (%) Change (%)

103 Pronghorn 151,000 acres 333 acres of semi- MA10 desert Grassland + (grasslands and open portions of sparse P/J with pinyon-juniper less than 10% (~3,000 ac) + 1,100 canopy cover + 0 acres of Ponderosa 25,000 ac MA11 pine = Total of = Total of ~4,450 176,000 0% 2.5%

Lucy’s Warbler Acreage not 206 acres mixed available deciduous riparian

129 riparian 121 acres of reaches forest- cottonwood willow wide riparian 0 ~min of 7 reaches 0% 5.4% Yellow- Acreage not 206 acres mixed breasted Chat available deciduous riparian

129 riparian 121 acres of reaches forest- cottonwood willow wide riparian ~min of 7 reaches 0 0% 5.4%

Pronghorn Antelope Pronghorn antelope are indicator of early and late seral grasslands. Pronghorn are grassland and opening dependent species. Throughout their range, they use areas where slopes are less than 30%, precipitation of about 10 to 15 inches per year, and water every 1 to 4 miles. Pronghorn appear to prefer areas recovering from wildfire. Low vegetative structure, averaging 10 to 15 inches in height is preferred. Vegetation greater than 30 inches in height is not used much (Lee et al. 1998).

Pronghorn diet consists of forbs, grasses and shrubs and varies seasonally depending on availability, palatability and succulence. Pronghorn diet is generally higher in forbs and shrubs when compared to other ungulates. There is a higher diet overlap with mule deer. However, deer tend to choose more rugged areas compared to more open areas preferred by pronghorn so spatial segregation offsets this competition to some degree. Pronghorn diet also overlaps with elk and less so with cattle since both cattle and elk have relatively higher proportion of grasses in their diet. Ockenfels et al. (1996) found that plant species richness varies by month in many grassland and shrubsteppe habitats in Arizona, with the greatest species richness expressed in spring. Forb abundance and diversity is strongly influenced by precipitation and they are especially important during the fawning period. Pronghorn does choose fawning areas within ½ mile or so of water due to increased nutritional and water needs during pregnancy and lactation.

Antelope are shy and do not respond well to disturbance. Adults have been known to leave fawns when disturbed by humans. Disturbance is a concern due to the potential for disruption during breeding or fawning (Neff 1986).

104

Fences can be complete or partial barriers to pronghorn movements depending on location, size of area fenced, design and snowfall depth. (Neff 1986, Lee et al. 1998). “pronghorn have not learned to go through most fences (as do bison) or vault them (as do elk and deer). Instead, many have learned to negotiate certain fences by crawling underneath. But, if the bottom wires of fences are too low, by virtue of design or buildup of vegetation or snow, pronghorn mobility can be impeded” (O’Gara and Yoakum 2004). Additionally, fences can impede pronghorn when constructed adjacent to highways or railroads, or fences constructed of woven wire or logs.

Barbed wire fence is generally considered wildlife friendly with bottom and top wire heights that allow for easier animal passage below or above the fence. Yoakum, in O’Gara and Yoakum 2004, recommends a smooth bottom wire 16-inches off the ground to help alleviate access problems for pronghorn without compromising control of cattle. For new or reconstructed fence the Coconino Forest Plan Amendment 11 (1996) specifies an 18-inch smooth bottom wire height, which exceeds the recommended 16-inch bottom wire height of Yoakum and the Pronghorn Management Guides (Lee et al. 1998) and a 42-inch top wire height, which is intended to accommodate wildlife that jump over fences.

Pronghorn antelope populations have declined although not equally on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2002d). The Fossil Creek Allotment occurs within Game Management Unit (GMU) 21. Arizona Game and Fish Department survey data suggest declining trends in number of observed animals in all but GMU 7. GMU 7 appears to be maintaining at the breakeven point, while other GMUs remain below the break even point of 20 to 35 fawns per 100 does in many years.

105

The 2002 Forest-wide MIS Status Report summarized the amount of grassland habitat and evaluated the trend since the Forest Plan was signed in 1987. The amount of grassland forest wide had generally remained stable, with the exception of about a 4 percent increase in seral grasslands due to firewood treatments and fire. The forest- wide habitat trend was determined to be stable to declining, showing a great deal of variability across the forest. Negative impacts on trend include tree encroachment, fire suppression, long- and short-term climate and overgrazing (USDA 2002d). Historic overgrazing combined with fire suppression and favorable climatic conditions has lead to the encroachment of woody vegetation in meadows, grasslands and previously treated openings. Positive impacts on the forest-wide habitat trend include improved grazing management and fuelwood cutting that has helped to maintain or improve grasslands.

Antelope habitat on the project area In some areas, young fawns avoided shrub cover (Barrett 1981), preferring grass and forbs over 25 cm tall. Tucker and Garner (1983) found that fawns chose sites with taller vegetation than random sites, while in Texas; fawns chose bed sites with less shrub density and cover than random sites (Cannon and Bryant 1997). Alldredge et al. (1991) found bed sites had greater shrub cover than random sites, but heaviest shrub cover was not used. In a semi-desert grassland in central Arizona, Ticer and Miller (1994) found that fawns selected areas with mean grass height of 29 cm and mean forb height of 12 cm, while Ticer (1998) found that fawns avoided sites with tall grass (> 15 cm) in a short-grass prairie.

106 Recreation use within suitable pronghorn habitat within the analysis area is generally low with the main recreational activity in the area coming from hunters. Several historic trails, the Mail trail and the General Crook trail, occur in the area and receive light use. Most roads are in poor condition which restricts traffic to high clearance vehicles.

Cattle and wildlife grazing, historic and current, can affect shrub and tree encroachment by removing fine fuels that might otherwise carry fire that would kill woody growth. Climate also influences the establishment of trees in existing openings. Recent drought conditions have created abnormally high amounts of dead pinyon, which have fueled fires in the pinyon/juniper woodlands consuming over 25,000 acres in 2003 & 2004, resulting in type conversions to early seral woodlands and the potential for grassland.

Understory species composition and residual height of vegetation is influenced by climate and grazing. This in turn influences forage, nutritional status, as well as fawn hiding cover. Grazing species have overlapping diets. Vegetation height is reduced when grazed. The ability of the area to recover from grazing is influenced by climate and rest. Amount, distribution and quality of fawn hiding cover varies spatially and temporarily on these allotments and is influenced by amount and timing of precipitation, timing and intensity of grazing by ungulates and area productivity. Cover heights can be low at fawning time compared to other areas in the state and the west. This is due to low productivity soils, soils with a high clay content, plant phenology, climate and grazing.

In pinyon and juniper grasslands below the Anderson Mesa rim, range conditions have generally remained static to downward responding to an increase in pinyon and juniper trees since the early 1960’s. There are some areas with high plant cover and others with low. Likewise, there are some areas with litter and bare soil ranging from high to low. Overall forage production is low on slopes greater than 40% and where there is relatively closed canopy of pinyon juniper. Forage production in formerly cleared pinyon and juniper areas is lower than potential (USDA Forest Service 2005c).

Tree encroachment is a concern within the project area because it reduces the amount and quality of pronghorn habitat. Pinyon-juniper woodland and young ponderosa pine have established in areas that were historically grassland, savannah-like grassland interspersed with trees, and in areas where antelope were historically more common. Many areas have been treated to remove or limit this encroachment and to increase grass and forb production. Growth of shrub and tree species since the treatments were done has reduced the quality of habitat for antelope in these areas. As tree density and canopy cover increases, predator hiding cover may increase; herbaceous understory can decline in vigor, abundance and diversity, and erosion may increase.

Environmental Consequences

107 Diet overlap between cattle and antelope is usually minimal, but competition for early spring forage may occur (Lee et al. 1998). Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include those associated with wild ungulate grazing; hunting; recreational use; highways and right-of-way fencing; fires; and vegetation treatments within the cumulative effects area.

Cumulatively wildlife grazing within the cumulative effects area for these pronghorn would remove fawning cover, influence vegetation around waters, result in some forage competition and diet overlap. This can fall within a range of effects that pronghorn successfully live with under good conditions or may stress adults or young if predators, forage, nutrition, climate or other factors have an undue influence on populations or habitat.

Pronghorn may be disturbed at critical time periods like fawning, breeding or wintering or when human uses increase above a certain level. This could result in increased stress to animals, fawning spread over a long time period or less time spent with young. Human use in this area is expected to increase over the life of the permit.

As a result of hunting, gut piles, animals wounded and not recovered and other human related food sources could provide a nutritional boost to predators resulting in higher reproductive output and better condition. Hunting or scouting during the breeding season may result in disturbance that could extend the breeding and parturition dates out to the point where predators may have a longer advantage period when fawns are small and unable to outrun predators. Hunting is not expected to affect the population through over-harvest, as only very small portion of the males are harvested.

The fences built along the highway 260 on the north end of the cumulative effects boundary are considered a negative cumulative effect because the combination of traffic and fence barriers have been shown to be barriers to pronghorn movements in both central and northern Arizona. Old fences within and outside the project area, both on Federal and non-Federal lands, that do not meet the recommended standards for pronghorn passages are also considered negative effects. Fence inventories and improvements as described in the Pronghorn Plan will continue to improve these fences during the period of cumulative affects.

Past wildfires have created or improved grassland within the cumulative effects boundary. The result of these fires for pronghorn is greater visibility; fewer obstructions between winter and summer habitats, and more nutritious plants are expected to germinate in the fire areas.

Proposed Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action calls for re-authorize grazing on the Fossil Creek Allotment. Several new fences are proposed and these will be built to pronghorn specifications. Grazing impacts to pronghorn antelope can be both negative and positive. Early

108 season grazing by cattle or wildlife has the potential to reduce fawn hiding cover provided by new growth and residual growth from the prior year. Reduced hiding cover may facilitate predation of pronghorn fawns. Grazing effects on hiding cover is dependent on: the amount of growth that occurs between cattle removal in the fall and fawn use the following spring; as well as the density and height of the residual vegetation following cattle grazing; the amount and timing of wildlife grazing and how these variables interact with the timing and amount of precipitation. The proposed action would allow for year long grazing and which results in the potential to impact residual vegetation that could otherwise be available as fawning habitat the following spring. The magnitude of effects varies by the number of animals, and timing and duration of graze during the fawning season as directed in the AOIs.

Over time, cattle grazing can alter plant composition, species diversity, vegetative ground cover, plant community structure, and plant vigor over large areas. These changes are largely dependent on the grazing intensity, number of cattle grazed, season of use, climatic conditions, and amount of rest an area receives. Competition for forage between domestic cattle and antelope is usually minimal, but competition for early spring forage occurs at times (Lee et al. 1998). Loeser et al. (2001) compared the effects of four grazing regimes on plant communities in semiarid grassland for 3 years. Their preliminary results suggested that interannual variability is high and that different grazing strategies did not have a dramatic short-term effect on the plant community in regards to native and exotic species richness and ground cover of grasses and forbs (ibid). The proposed action does not propose rest-rotational grazing schemes, which on a rotational basis, would give pastures a full year of rest. Though studies conducted by Loeser et al. (ibid) did not show dramatic short-term effects in species richness as a result of grazing, pasture rest would increase forage resilience and vigor. The effects of grazing from this project would not change the habitat trend for grasslands, meadows, open pinyon-juniper, or the population trends for pronghorn on the forest.

The 1,200 acres of proposed vegetative treatment and maintenance in locations where soil impairment is exacerbated by canopy encroachment of juniper and woody shrubs vegetation treatments will help increase the nutrient cycling by increasing the cover of perennial grasses; increase the hydrologic function of the soils by increasing infiltration, decrease soil compaction, and decrease erosion on these treatment areas. This will open up pronghorn habitat on the allotment and improve forage conditions.

Modifications to the Divide Tank would not have any impact to pronghorn on the Allotment.

Determination Despite grazing in pronghorn county, when compared to the total amount of grassland habitat on the forest, the proposed action alternative is not likely to result in a change in the forest-wide trend for pronghorn.

109

No Action Alternative If the no action alternative was selected, no cattle grazing or improvements would be implemented so there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects associated with the project. MIS will benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on species and their habitat. However, the absence of grazing may not result in a change in the forest-wide trend for MIS species. Determination The no action alternative will not result in a change in the forest- wide trend for pronghorn.

Lucy’s Warbler Lucy’s warbler is an indicator for late seral, low elevation (<7,000 feet) riparian forest. Low elevation riparian communities are comprised of various species of deciduous, broadleaf trees including Fremont cottonwood ( Populus fremontii ), Arizona sycamore ( Platanus wrightii ), willow ( Salix spp.), ash ( Fraxinus spp.), alder (Alnus oblongifolia ), boxelder ( Acer negundo ), walnut ( Juglans major ), and both the exotic tamarisk ( Tamarix pentandra ) and Russian olive ( Elaegnus angustifolia ). Dominant tree and shrub species that occur further from the water and also in ephemeral drainages include seepwillow ( Baccharis glutinosa ), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis ), and mesquite ( Prosopis spp.).

The Lucy’s warbler is one of the earliest non-wintering warblers to arrive in Arizona in the spring, with territorial males singing by late March (Phillips set. al 1964). This is the only wood warbler to nest in the hot deserts of the southwest (Monson 1957). While this warbler does nest in riparian habitat consisting of cottonwood and willow, its preferred habitat is dense mesquite bosques. Lucy’s warblers are secondary cavity nesters and select nest sites in natural cavities, under loose bark, in abandoned woodpecker holes and deserted verdins' nests, and occasionally in holes located in stream banks. Nests are located 2 to 15 feet above the ground. The female builds a nest of bark, weeds, mesquite leaf stems and lines the nest with fine bark, horse and cow hair, and rabbit fur. Usually 4-5 eggs are laid between April and June. The females are shy around their nest and may desert their nests if disturbed. The Lucy’s warbler feeds mainly on insects in the foliage and flowers of mesquites and other desert trees and shrubs. Lucy’s warblers pursue their prey by gleaning from foliage or by hawking, sallying from their perch to catch insects in the air. The Lucy’s warbler is a frequent local host to cowbirds with records of cowbird parasitism occurring in Arizona.

Habitat on the Allotment Lucy’s warblers have been sighted at Fossil Springs and in the reach above Irving. Suitable habitat occurs on the allotment in along Fossil Creek, Verde River, Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and a number of springs and seeps.

Environmental Consequences

110 Cumulative Effects: The main cumulative effects on Lucy’s warblers are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas, particularly during the breeding season. Recreationists that walk in, drive in, or float through, can all disturb adult and fledgling warblers while foraging, roosting, or incubating, and nestling warblers when activities occur too close to individuals. As part of the Verde Wild and Scenic Comprehensive River Management Plan, various beaches along the river have been closed to boaters for camping. These locations are signed on site and are included in the Verde River Recreation Opportunity Guide, which is a set of maps and guidelines made available to recreators running the river. In addition, roads occurring within the ¼ mile wild and scenic river corridor have been closed, further reducing impacts to Lucy’s warblers from recreation. Recreation activities in other riparian areas including Fossil Creek, Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, springs and seeps can result in disturbance to Lucy’s warblers and their habitat. The presence of cows can result in an increase of cowbirds and the threat of cowbird parasitism on this and other migratory bird species.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Potential exists for this riparian obligate to nest along Fossil as well as other riparian corridors within the allotment including Boulder Canyon and Sally May Wash, Should the Lucy’s warbler nest within line-of-site of the Boulder pasture water gap, or within the other riparian corridors throughout the allotment, this species may be affected directly and indirectly by livestock grazing and livestock management activities. Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within riparian corridors on the allotment could result in visual and aural disturbance to nesting and foraging riparian obligates. Frequent disturbance, disturbance of high intensity, or disturbance of long duration can disturb birds resulting in increased predation of young and eggs, abandonment of nesting areas, flushing of adults incubating eggs long enough for the eggs to become unviable, abandonment of eggs or young, decreased success during foraging, and premature fledging of young. In addition, livestock grazing in riparian corridors can affect nesting and foraging habitat by causing stream bank compaction, loss of stream bank vegetation, loss of emergent vegetation, loss of hiding cover, decreased recruitment of nest substrate; increase in sedimentation; decrease in water quality; all of which reduces the quality of habitat for this riparian obligate. Should monitoring determine riparian conditions are not improving, adaptive management changes will be made (refer to details described under proposed action).

111 improved from unsatisfactory to impaired across the allotment (see Watershed Specialist Report).

Proposed vegetative treatments do not occur in this species habitat and therefore will have no effect. Structure range improvements of fencing riparian areas may result in short term disturbance to the species but will result in an overall benefit through protection and enhancement of riparian vegetation.

Determination: Despite access to some riparian, when compared to the total riparian on the forest, this alternative will not result in a change in the forest-wide trend for Lucy’s warbler.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects If the no action alternative was selected, no cattle grazing or improvements would be implemented so there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects associated with the project. MIS will benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on species and their habitat. However, the absence of grazing may not result in a change in the forest-wide trend for MIS species. Determination : This alternative will not result in a change in the forest-wide trend for Lucy’s warbler.

Yellow-breasted Chat The yellow-breasted chat is an indicator for late seral, low elevation riparian habitat. Low elevation riparian communities are comprised of various species of deciduous, broadleaf trees including Fremont cottonwood, Arizona sycamore, willow, ash, alder, boxelder, walnut, and the exotic tamarisk and Russian olive. Dominant tree and shrub species that occur further from the water and also in ephemeral drainages include seepwillow, desert willow, and mesquite.

The yellow-breasted chat is a secretive, elusive bird that usually stays under cover in dense thickets. This migratory warbler largely eats insects including grasshoppers, beetles, bugs, ants, weevils, bees, wasps, moths, mayflies, tent caterpillars, and currant worms but it will also eat blackberries, raspberries, strawberries, elderberries, and wild grapes. Nests are built in small bushes, vines, briars, about 2-8 feet above ground but occasionally on ground. The nest is built of dead leaves, coarse straws,

112 grapevine bark and is lined with grasses, fine plant stems, and leaves. Three to six eggs are laid between late April and August 1 in Arizona. The eggs are incubated for 11-12 days and young first fly 8-11 days after hatching. The yellow-breasted chat is a frequent host to brown-headed cowbirds and an infrequent host to bronzed cowbirds (Friedmann 1963 in Terres 1991).

Habitat on the Allotment According to a query of the Fossil database, yellow-breasted chats have been observed at Fossil Springs, along Fossil Creek and at Stehr Lake. Suitable habitat is also present along the Verde, Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and a number of springs and seeps.

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects The main cumulative effects on yellow-breasted chats are those occurring from recreational use of riparian areas, particularly during the breeding season. Recreationists that walk in, drive in, or float through, can all disturb adult and fledgling chats while foraging, roosting, or incubating, and nestling chats when activities occur too close to individuals. As part of the Verde Wild and Scenic Comprehensive River Management Plan, various beaches along the river have been closed to boaters for camping. These locations are signed on site and are included in the Verde River Recreation Opportunity Guide, which is a set of maps and guidelines made available to recreators running the river. In addition, roads occurring within the ¼ mile wild and scenic river corridor have been closed, further reducing impacts to chats from recreation. Recreation activities in other riparian areas including Fossil Creek, Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and a number of springs and seeps can result in disturbance to yellow-breasted chats and their habitat.

New AMPs for other livestock grazing allotments on the Red Rock District and Tonto National Forest, which contribute to the same 5 th code watershed, are expected to result in a cumulative improvement riparian vegetation and vegetative ground cover in areas with accelerated erosion over the next ten years. For example in February 2010, a decision was made on the Hackberry and Pivot Rock Allotments to stop the trailing of livestock from the Hackberry Allotment through the Fossil Creek Allotment, which was expected to decrease riparian and soil impacts to Sally May Wash. The decision also included rest of 8,000 acres in Kehl and Teepee pasture to address unsatisfactory and impaired soils and exclosure fencing around three springs. On the Tonto National Forest, the Skeleton Ridge Allotment is currently being considered for reauthorization of grazing for the first time since 1990, and the proposed action includes changing allotment management to include conservative utilization levels and adaptive management, to improve vegetative ground conditions through the length of the permit. On the Prescott National Forest, the reauthorization of grazing permits for Bald Hill Allotment, Copper Canyon Allotment, Squaw Peak Allotment, and Young Allotment included vegetative treatments to improve vegetative ground cover and protection of

113 riparian areas, which were assessed to improve soil conditions and watershed conditions throughout the allotment (USDAFS 2006). These activities are expected to cumulatively improve the condition of riparian habitat available in and adjacent to the Fossil Creek Allotment, benefting species such as the chat. Other activities on the allotment would likely result in impacts that degrade or remove riparian habitat and go against the effects of the proposed action. For example, the Glen-Canyon Pinnacle Peak Transmission Line Vegetation Maintenance project is expected to effect almost 1,000 feet of riparian habitat along Fossil Creek (both banks where the powerline crosses). Of more consequence, climate change is expected to result in the increase in severity and frequency of drought, which could lead to loss or degradation of riparian habitat in some areas of the allotment (intermittent drainges with pools including Boulder Canyon and Sally May Wash). Depending on the magnitude of effects of climate change in the allotment over the next ten years, climate change may limit the improvement of riparian condition in the Allotment or could affect natural processes to such an extent as to result in impacts beyond the magnitude and scale of the proposed action.

Proposed Action Alternative Under the proposed action, there is no livestock grazing along the Verde River; therefore there will be no affect to this riparian obligate that may nest there.

Potential exists for the yellow-breasted chat to nest along Fossil as well as other riparian corridors within the allotment including Boulder Canyon, Sally May Wash, and numerous other springs and seeps. Should this riparian obligate nest within line- of-site of the Boulder pasture water access point, or within the other riparian corridors throughout the allotment, this species may be affected directly and indirectly by livestock grazing and livestock management activities. Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within the riparian corridor within the allotment could result in visual and aural disturbance to nesting and foraging riparian obligates. Frequent disturbance, disturbance of high intensity, or disturbance of long duration can disturb birds resulting in increased predation of young and eggs, abandonment of nesting areas, flushing of adults incubating eggs long enough for the eggs to become unviable, abandonment of eggs or young, decreased success during foraging, and premature fledging of young. In addition, livestock grazing in riparian corridors can affect nesting and foraging habitat by causing stream bank compaction, loss of stream bank vegetation, loss of emergent vegetation, loss of hiding cover, decreased recruitment of nest substrate; increase in sedimentation; decrease in water quality; all of which reduces the quality of habitat for the yellow-breasted chat. Should monitoring determine riparian conditions are not improving, adaptive management changes will be made (refer to details described under proposed action).

114 excessive turbidity, total suspended solids, and embeddedness (see Watershed Specialist Report). Also, recent monitoring shows that soils conditions have improved from unsatisfactory to impaired across the allotment (see Watershed Specialist Report).

Determination: Despite access to some riparian, when compared to the total riparian on the forest, this alternative will not result in a change in the forest-wide trend for yellow-breasted chats.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects If the no action alternative was selected, no cattle grazing or improvements would be implemented so there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects associated with the project. MIS will benefit from the absence of direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing on species and their habitat. However, the absence of grazing may not result in a change in the forest-wide trend for MIS species. Determination: Despite access to some riparian, when compared to the total riparian on the forest, the no action alternative will not result in a change in the forest-wide trend for yellow-breasted chats.

MIGRATORY BIRDS

President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186 on January 10, 2001, placing emphasis on conservation of migratory birds. This order requires that an analysis be made of the effects of Forest Service actions on species of concern listed by Partners in Flight; the effects on important bird areas (IBA) identified by Partners in Flight (Latta et al. 1999); and the effects to important over-wintering areas. There are no IBAs within the project area. Considered for these analyses were 1) birds identified as priority species in the Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Latta, et

115 al. 1999)(APIF Plan) and 2) birds in Bird Conservation Regions 33, 34 and 16 of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). Important Bird Areas (IBA’s) and important overwintering areas are also addressed. There are no IBAs within or near the project area.

There are 10 species listed as Partners in Flight species of concern that have already been addressed in this specialist report under listed species, sensitive species, and/or management indicator species and will therefore not be addressed again in this section. These birds include: Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, bald eagle, western yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, ferruginous hawk, common black-hawk, Lucy’s warbler, Abert’s towhee, and yellow-breasted chat. The following species (Table Fourteen) are the remaining neotropical migratory bird species identified by either Partners in Flight as a priority species or by Fish and Wild as a bird of conservation concern. Table Fourteen. Migratory Birds Analyzed for the Fossil Creek Allotment Species Relative Status Habitat Preference Abundance

Three-toed Woodpecker Uncommon Resident Mixed conifer Olive-sided Flycatcher Rare Migrant Mixed conifer Cordilleran Flycatcher Uncommon Summer Ponderosa pine Olive Warbler Rare Migrant Ponderosa pine Greater Pewee Intermittent Summer Ponderosa pine Grace's Warbler Fairly Common Summer Ponderosa pine Lewis' Woodpecker Rare Transient Ponderosa pine Flammulated Owl Fairly Common Summer Ponderosa pine Purple Martin Uncommon Summer Ponderosa pine MacGillivray's Warbler Fairly Common Migrant High-elevation riparian Red-faced Warbler Fairly Common Summer High-elevation riparian Pinyon Jay Fairly Common Irregular Pinyon-juniper Gray Vireo Rare Summer Pinyon-juniper Gray Flycatcher Uncommon Summer Pinyon-juniper Black-throated Gray Warbler Fairly Common Summer Pinyon-juniper Band-tailed Pigeon Fairly Common Summer Drainages in pinyon-juniper Loggerhead Shrike Fairly Common Winter Pinyon-juniper, chaparral, desert scrub, grasslands Virginia’s Warbler Pinyon juniper, oak woodlands, chaparral Black-chinned Sparrow Uncommon Summer Chaparral Canyon Towhee Fairly Common Resident Desert scrub Costa's Hummingbird Rare Summer Desert scrub Crissal Thrasher Fairly Common Resident Desert scrub Sage Sparrow Fairly Common Winter Desert scrub Bendire's Thrasher Rare Summer Desert scrub Lawrence's Goldfinch Intermittent Migrant Riparian, desert scrub, grasslands Elf Owl ( whitneyi ) Rare Summer Desert scrub, riparian Bell's Vireo ( arizonae ) Fairly Common Summer Riparian Yellow Warbler ( sonorana) Common Summer Riparian

116 Gila Woodpecker Common Permanent Riparian Phainopepla Common Summer Riparian American bittern Rare Migrant Riparian

Migratory Birds Habitat Requirements

Three-toed Woodpecker These quiet woodpeckers are found predominately in forests with Engelmann spruce, blue spruce and subalpine fir. They are also, but less often, found in mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forest one to two years after fires or insects have resulted in a large die off of trees. They remain in these areas of die off and nest for several years. There were no records of this species in the Fossil Species Database.

Olive-sided Flycatcher The olive-sided flycatcher prefers forest openings and edges within mature ponderosa pine forests with snags. There are ponderosa pine woodlands in the proposed planning areas and individuals were detected in survey blocks on the allotment during breeding bird surveys. Olive-sided flycatchers prefer areas abundant with snags and trees with dead limbs where they forage on insects. They prefer to nest in live mature pine trees. The Fossil Creek Species database shows olive-sided flycatchers were detected in riparian areas.

Cordilleran Flycatcher Cordilleran flycatchers are considered a common summer resident and uncommon transient (Morrall and Coons 1996). They are associated with snags and high overstory canopy closure. Stands of old growth ponderosa pine and closed canopy forest within the project area occur in small patches, on steep slopes, or in pine stringers in small drainages. Cordilleran flycatchers are considered to be on the increase, but at risk due to concerns about loss of suitable habitat and habitat components such as snags, downed logs, and loss of closed canopy. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show one record for Cordilleran flycatcher and that detection was made within the riparian area of Fossil Creek. Within the project area, it is expected that this species is static to increasing. There were no records of this species in the Fossil Species Database.

Olive Warbler Distribution of olive warblers in the state extends along the Mogollon rim but they also occur in south eastern Arizona. Olive warblers are found primarily in open ponderosa pine forests, including those forests with a Gambel oak component. The are also found regularly in mixed-conifer forests. In southeastern Arizona, they occur in madrean pine-oak forests characterized by an overstory of ponderosa pine with an understory of several species of evergreen oaks and alligator juniper. Subcommunities of madrean pine-oak occur on the Forest within pinyon-juniper and desertscrub; such exist in Oak Creek Canyon and Towel Creek. The migratory birds arrive in March to nest and have been heard singing through July. Cup nests are built in conifers. These birds have been document hosts for brown-headed cowbirds in

117 Arizona. This species was detected on the Coconino during the Breeding Bird surveys. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for olive warblers near Fossil Creek.

Greater Pewee Arizona is the very northern portion of this species range and greater pewees occur along the Mogollon rim and in southeastern Arizona. They occupy open ponderosa pine forests, including those forests with a Gambel oak component. Greater pewees are also found regularly in mixed-conifer forests. In southeastern Arizona, where they are found more frequently, they occur in madrean pine-oak forests characterized by an overstory of ponderosa pine with an understory of several species of evergreen oaks and alligator juniper. Subcommunities of madrean pine-oak occur on the Forest within pinyon-juniper and desertscrub; such exist in Oak Creek Canyon and Towel Creek. This species was detected on the Coconino during the Breeding Bird surveys. Greater Pewees arrive in March, nest in mid-May through mid-July, and are still feeding fledglings into August. Nests are typically constructed in ponderosa pines and are placed on a horizontal limb in the top half to third of the tree. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for the greater pewee near Fossil Creek.

Grace’s Warbler Grace’s warblers primarily occur in ponderosa pine forests, but are occasional found in mixed conifer and pinyon-juniper woodlands. Grace’s warblers arrive mid to late April, nest mainly in mid-June and mid-July, with nesting occurring as late as the end of July. These warblers place their compact, cups-like nests well away from the trunk in the cluster of needles at the end of branches. Their range within Arizona is mainly along the Mogollon rim, with some occurrences in the northeast, southeast, and northwest portions of the state. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for Grace’s warblers near Fossil Creek.

Lewis’Woodpecker Levis’ woodpeckers are found in open ponderosa pine (including pine/oak) forests and riparian woodlands from about 6,200 to 8,900 feet in elevation. They use brushy understories, snags for perching, and open areas for foraging; all of which is frequently provided in burn areas. They nest in the abandoned cavities of other woodpeckers, in natural cavities, or make their own cavities. They nest most frequently in ponderosa pine or cottonwood trees. While most Lewis’ woodpeckers are resident some migrate to lower elevations. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for Lewis’ woodpeckers near Fossil Creek.

Flammulated Owl These owls nest in old growth coniferous forests including ponderosa pine, pine/oak, and mixed conifer, where they nest in natural cavities of live trees, snags, and dead limbs or abandoned cavities of flickers and sapsuckers. Flammulated owls arrive mid-April, with breeding occurring into July. Migration south occurs from August

118 through October. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for flammulated owls near Fossil Creek.

Purple Martin Purple martins are an uncommon summer resident in ponderosa pine (Morrall and Coons, 1996; USDA 2000b). This species has been nearly extirpated from ponderosa pine forests since fire suppression has resulted in much denser conditions and logging has reduced the number of snags and large old trees. Breeding bird survey (BBS) data indicates that this species is static to slightly declining in the project area. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for purple martins near Fossil Creek.

Pinyon Jay These birds occur mostly in pinyon juniper woodlands and nearby conifer forests. This omniviorous bird feeds on pine seeds, berries, and insects. They are colonial nesters and nest in stands of pinyon and juniper trees. These birds are powerful fliers and are able to move distances, including into other vegetation types, when seed crops are scarce. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for pinyon jays near Fossil Creek.

Gray Flycatcher Gray flycatchers primarily occupy pinyon pine and juniper, or ponderosa pine with an open overstory. These birds may need some ground cover to support insect populations for foraging. Larger taller stands of sagebrush and greasewood are also used. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show a few records for gray flycatchers along Fossil Creek and in the uplands.

Black-throated Gray Warbler Phillips et al. (1964) described black-throated gray warblers as common summer residents in pinyon pine-juniper woodlands. This species favors open woodlands and is commonly encountered nesting in pinyon pine-juniper woodlands. This species is encountered much more frequently in tall stands with a higher density of mature pinyon pine. During Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas surveys, they were frequently absent in drier stands primarily composed of juniper (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). This species is thought to be stable or slightly increasing in Arizona. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show a few records for black-throated gray warbler in the uplands along Fossil Creek and one along Fossil Creek riparian.

Band-tailed Pigeon Listed as a species in madrean oak woodlands, which on the Coconino fall within pinyon-juniper communities. The occur in flocks where they feed on seeds and acorns. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for band- tailed pigeons near Fossil Creek.

Virginia’s Warbler

119 This warbler nests in dense brush on arid chaparral slopes. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show six records for Virginia’s warblers and those detections were made in Fossil Springs and along Fossil Creek and one detection in the uplands at the end of April, possibly before breeding.

Phainopepla In the Verde Valley, phainopeplas are closely tied to riparian streams, although they can occur in washes within deserscrub. They construct cup nests in deciuous riparian trees. They are resident but can migrate locally. Database show many records for Phainopeplas and those detections were at the Springs, along Fossil Creek, and at Stehr Lake.

Yellow Warbler Yellow warblers are closely tied to low elevation cottonwood willow riparian. These migrants arrive around April. They are common hosts for brown-headed cowbirds and this, coupled with their tendency to not brood more than once, can result in reduced recruitment. Database show several records for Yellow warblers and those detections were at the Springs, along Fossil Creek, and at Stehr Lake.

Bendire Thrasher, Toxostoma benderei This thrasher is found across the state in open habitat from brushy grasslands with scattered mesquite and yucca, to desertscub, and even rural areas. Breeding birds were detected in the Verde Valley. In the south and central portions of Arizona, this species is a resident and much more abundant than in northern Arizona. They arrive in the north around March to April and nest mainly in mid June, although nesting is possible later into the monsoon period. Thrashers build stick nests in shrubs, trees, and cacti. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for Bendire thrashers near Fossil Creek.

Crissal Thrasher, Toxostoma crissale This thrasher is a resident below the rim but migratory above the rim. It occurs throughout a variety of biotic communities but only where dense brush and shrub thickets occur. Preferred vegetation includes mesquite, graytorn, wolfberry, and hackberry below the rim. At higher elevations they nest in juniper, shrub live oak barberry, cliffrose, and skunkbush. On the Coconino, this thrasher could occur in desert, semi-desert grasslands, chaparral, pinyon juniper, and low and mid elevation riparian. They nest as early as the end of January, with a peak in nesting around May and with nesting mostly completed by mid-July. Nests are built in the densest portion of a shrub or tree. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show one record for Crissal thrashers within the riparian area of Fossil Creek and one detection in the uplands outside of the breeding season.

Elf Owl, Micrathene whitneyi The range of elf owls in Arizona is below the Mogollon Rim. Elf owls nest mainly in open Sonoran desertscrub in the Sonoran desert, but may occur on the Coconino in desert scrub habitats and the canyon bottoms dominated by sycamores. They arrive at

120 higher elevation sites in mid-April, nest mainly in May and June but can have fledglings though mid-August. Migration occurs in late August and September. They nest in natural and abandoned woodpecker holes. On the Coconino, they could nest in mesquite, cottonwood, willow, sycamore, walnut, cypress, and evergreen oak. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for elf owls near Fossil Creek.

Sage Sparrow, Amphispiza belli While the Breeding Bird Atlast shows this species as nesting in the north and northeastern portion of the state, Northern Arizona Audubon Society shows this species as a common summer residents and fairly common winter residents in the desert areas of the Verde Valley. It has been observed on the Coconino in the Verde Valley. In the summer, they occur in desert and semi-desert grasslands. In the winter, they also occur in pinyon-juniper, chaparral, and mid-elevation grasslands. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for sage sparrows near Fossil Creek.

Costa’s Hummingbird These hummingbirds prefer dry washes, canyons and rocky slopes within Sonoran desertscrub habitats. Nesting often occurs where ocotillo and other tubular flowering plants are found. They will also nest in higher elevations along riparian corridors and this is mostly likely where they’d occur within the analysis area. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show several records for Costa’s hummingbirds; one in the SW block of the Strawberry Quad during Breeding Bird Atlas surveys and one at Fossil Springs.

Lawrence’s Goldfinch These birds are mostly erratic fall visitors and migrate out of the state by April. However, several individuals have been observed nesting on the lower Verde River. Nesting occurs in riparian areas; nests have been observed in tamarisk trees and in cottonwood groves. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for Lawrence’s goldfinches near Fossil Creek.

Gila Woodpecker While Gila woodpeckers occur primarily in desertscrub with Saguaro cacti, this habitat type is not present within the analysis area. Instead, in the analysis area, Gila woodpeckers occur along the riparian corridor where they excavate cavities, in which they nest, in large deciduous trees. Gila woodpeckers have been observed all along Fossil Creek and even up in the uplands.

American Bittern

121 American bitterns prefer riparian and wetlands with dense stands of cattail, bulrush and other tall emergent vegetation. While they prefer larger stands of emergent vegetation (greater than 10 acres), they do occur in smaller stands. They also prefer water depths of less than four inches, moist soil. American bitterns may nest in upland vegetation adjacent to wetland vegetation. When foraging, they avoid stands of old, dense, or dry vegetation. A review of the Fossil Creek Species Database show no records for American bitters along Fossil Creek. Gray Vireo Habitat for gray vireos consists mainly in arid thorn scrub, chaparral, and piñon– juniper ( Pinus edulis -Juniperus spp.) or oak ( Quercus spp.) – scrub associations and/or chaparral in hot, arid mountains and high plains scrubland (Barlow et al. 1999). In Arizona and New Mexico they occur in chaparral – juniper and dwarf conifer species, as well as sites with Graves’s oaks ( Quercus gravesii ), mixed piñon, and madrone ( Arbutus spp.) (ibid.). Gray vireos in Arizona frequent juniper habitats of the Upper Sonoran Zone and mesquite ( Prosopis spp.), usually preferring large juniper or chaparral with scattered trees (Phillips 1964). They require either extensive shrubland or scattered shrubs among piñon – juniper woodlands. They may prefer shrublands that are mature or late in post-fire succession (USDA Forest Service 1994). Shrub cover that is continuous and dense between 1.0 and 5.0 feet tall is a common habitat factor (Grinnell and Miller 1994). In Arizona, and Texas, territories were near a water supply available during at least part of the breeding season (Barlow 1977). Gray vireos have been documented to occur in the uplands along Fossil Creek. This species was selected as an indicator for tree density within pinyon juniper woodlands.

Loggerhead Shrike This passerine occurs in open country such as grasslands where there are scattered trees in which they nest and use as lookouts. The predominately eat insects, although they will also each lizards, rodents, small birds, and small mammals.

Black-chinned Sparrow During the summer, this species prefers rocky slopes of mixed chaparral, arid scrub, or sagebrush, from near sea level to almost 8,200 feet in elevation (Tenney 1997). The brush inhabited by black-chinned sparrows is usually 3 to 6.5 feet tall. Very dense, mixed shrub species interspersed with scattered tall shrubs or trees and rocky outcrops on slight to steep slopes are preferred (Shuford 1993, Burridge 1995, Tenney 1997). Black-chinned sparrows prefer young stands with openings through the brush, and avoid overgrown stands. In montane chaparral, this species is associated with Ceanothus spp. and scrub oak (Quercus turbinella ) dominated habitats (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Habitat quality may benefit with recurrent fires, dependent on the vegetation type and region (Tenney 1997). Black chinned sparrows have been observed in the uplands of the Fossil corridor. This species was selected as an indicator for shrub diversity in chaparral. Chaparral does not occur in pure enough

122 stands to be mapped as chaparral and instead is contained within the pinyon juniper woodland acreage.

Canyon Towhee This species occurs in a variety of the drier habitats in the southwest, except in heavily urbanized areas. Elevations range from near sea level in Mexico to over 8,000 feet in New Mexico and occasionally in Colorado. They most typically are found in the Upper Sonoran desert grasslands, often in remote, rocky areas with dense shrubs. They also occupy scrub along dry desert washes, desert mesquite in riparian areas, upland desert scrub at lower elevations, plus grasslands with dense stands of chaparral or pine-oak-juniper (P inus-Quercus-Juniperus spp.) and some coniferous forest (Johnson and Haight 1996). Miller (1995) reports their occurrence in “canyon mouths and open, rocky canyon walls up to 5,200 feet, with scattered mesquite (Prosopis spp.), catclaw ( Acacia spp.), and barberry ( Berberis spp.) shrubs. “Canyon towhees prefer open spaces for feeding on bare ground, plus dense shrubs or trees for hiding (Marhsall and Johnson 1968). A query of the Fossil Creek database shows records for Canyon towhees in the uplands. This species was selected as an indicator for ground cover in desert scrub. Desert scrub does not occur in pure enough stands to be mapped as such and instead is contained within the juniper/semi-desert grassland transition and in semi-desert grassland acreage.

Bell’s Vireo Bell's Vireos occupy dense, low, shrubby vegetation, generally in the early successional stages in riparian areas, brushy fields, young second-growth forest, scrub oak (Quercus turbinella), coastal chaparral, or mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and brushlands usually near water (Brown 1993). They are also found in dense streamside willow (Salix spp.) thickets. During the migration and non-breeding season they are mainly found in dense scrub adjacent to watercourses, riparian gallery forests, tropical deciduous forest, and arid tropical scrub on the west coast of Mexico and in Honduras (AOU 1988, Hutto 1989). Bell’s vireo nesting habitat is dependent

123 on an optimum microclimate, with adequate shade possibly being critical for nesting success at low elevations. Tree canopies provide a cooler microclimate for bird eggs while the adults are off the nest (Thelander and Crabtree 1994). Bell’s vireos have been detected in the Fossil corridor, particularly in the uplands immediately adjacent to the creek where mature stands of mesquite trees are present. This species was selected as an indicator for well-developed riparian understory, even though they also occur in mesquite uplands adjacent to riparian.

Forest-wide Trend for Migratory Birds In 2009, 2010 and 2011, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory conducted bird point count surveys in randomly selected plots across the Coconino National Forest. Data obtained from this monitoring was analyzed to estimate densities, population size, robustness, and trend for breeding birds. Despite being random, few (if any) plots occurred in spruce fir, low and mid elevation riparian, high elevation riparian, cienega/wetlands, and upper Sonoran desertscrub because these habitat types represent a small proportion of the forest. Therefore data for species dependent on these biotic communities are under-represented.

In 2009 RMBO conducted 689 point counts. In 2010 RMBO conducted 624 point counts resulting in the detection of 5,447 birds of 119 species. In 2011 RMBO conducted 571 point counts resulting in the detection of 123 species.

Table Fifteen shows monitoring data for NTMB species that are either Partners In Flight priority species, or that are listed within USFWS Bird Conservation Region 34 and 33 and that fall within biotic communities within the analysis area. RMBO data is displayed in Table Fifteen for species with a sufficient number of detections to be statistically sound. Species for which there was no data indicate that either their habitat type was not assigned a random plot, that they occupy a specific niche within a broader biotic community and plots did not cover those niches, or that the species was not detected during surveys.

Based on the data, trend for the following species is increasing (third year density per km2 is not less than both previous years): gray flycatcher, pinyon jay, and black- throated gray warbler.

Based on the data, trend for the following species is stable (third year is not less than either first or second year): Cordilleran flycatcher, and Virginia’s warbler.

Based on the data, trend for the following species is decreasing (third year is less than both first and second years): Grace’s warbler, canyon towhee, black-chinned sparrow, and Phainopepla.

124 Species rarely detected (and therefore have no trend data) include: olive warbler, Lewis woodpecker, purple martin, McGillivray’s warbler, Red-faced warbler, Gray vireo, olive-sided flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, and yellow warbler.

Species not detected or their habitat was not surveyed include three-toed woodpecker, greater pewee, grasshopper sparrow, Bell’s vireo, Flammulated owl, Swainson’s hawk, band-tailed pigeon, Costa’s hummingbird, crissal thrasher, sage sparrow, Bendire’s thrasher, Lawrence’s goldfinch, elf owl, Gila woodpecker, and American bittern.

Table Fifteen: RMBO Bird Point Count Monitoring Results for Coconino National Forest from 2009-2011.

Year Estimated Population Density # of Species Densities Size Estimates Detections per km2 (Robust if <50)

No Data- This species is uncommon within Mixed Three-toed Woodpecker Conifer and was not detected.

No Trend Data - This species was rarely detected and only in 2010 and 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine density and population estimates. This species Olive-sided Flycatcher is a rare migrant in mixed conifer.

2009 4.29 31,887 36 23

Cordilleran Flycatcher 2010 3.64 26,995 34 25

2011 4.99 37,052 23 37

2009 9.56 71,009 24 40

Gray Flycatcher 2010 13.96 103,697 24 75

2011 14.38 106,807 16 105

2009 4.08 30,319 34 41

Black-throated Gray Warbler 2010 3.52 26,129 34 32

2011 8.2 60,894 23 60

125 Year Estimated Population Density # of Species Densities Size Estimates Detections per km2 (Robust if <50)

Band-tailed Pigeon No Data- This species is fairly common in drainages in pinyon-juniper. Either this species was not detected or no plots occurred in drainages in PJ.

No Trend Data - This species was rarely detected and only in 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine Loggerhead Shrike density and population estimates.

2009 0.75 5,584 42 6

Virginia’s Warbler 2010 3.46 25,693 43 25

2011 2.13 15,847 34 10

2009 2.03 15,078 34 14

Canyon Towhee 2010 1.09 8,072 40 12

2011 0.51 3,792 54 5

2009 2.06 15,294 33 21

Black-chinned Sparrow 2010 4.55 33.774 40 42

2011 1.71 12,697 39 25

Costa's Hummingbird No data – Microhabitat needs with desertscrub either under-surveyed (and the species wasn’t detected) or not surveyed at all.

Crissal Thrasher No data – Breeding habitat is only below the rim. If any plots occurred in dense thickets of brush and shrub within a variety of veg types, then this species was not detected.

Sage Sparrow No data – Common nester in desert areas below the rim which were either under-represented (and the species was not detected) or not surveyed at all.

No data – Open desertscrub and grasslands below the rim Bendire's Thrasher were under represented and this species wasn’t detected.

126 Year Estimated Population Density # of Species Densities Size Estimates Detections per km2 (Robust if <50)

No data – Mostly migrants; the few nesting along Verde Lawrence's Goldfinch riparian was not surveyed.

Elf Owl ( whitneyi ) No data – Nest in desert scrub which was not surveyed.

Yellow Warbler ( sonorana) No Trend Data - This species was rarely detected and only in 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine density and population estimates..

No data – Low-elevation riparian not surveyed or under- Gila Woodpecker represented (and no individuals were detected).

2009 8.55 63,521 26 52

Phainopepela 2010 3.32 24,641 38 28

2011 0.42 3,116 65 3

No data – Wetlands not surveyed or under-represented American bittern (and this species was not detected).

2009 19.43 144,284 17 156

Grace’s Warbler 2010 27.78 206,290 15 202

2011 16.48 122,384 19 141

2009 0.56 4,193 60 11

Pinyon Jay 2010 0.58 4,299 30 21

2011 0.82 6,049 38 33

Olive Warbler No Trend Data - This species was rarely detected and only in 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine density and population estimates.

Lewis Woodpecker No Trend Data - This species was rarely detected and only in 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine density and population estimates.

127 Year Estimated Population Density # of Species Densities Size Estimates Detections per km2 (Robust if <50)

Purple Martin No Trend Data - This species was detected in 2010 and 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine density and population estimates.

McGillivray’s Warbler No Trend Data - This species was rarely detected and only in 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine density and population estimates.

Red-faced Warbler No Trend Data - This species was detected in 2010 and 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine density and population estimates.

Gray Vireo No Trend Data - This species was detected in 2010 and 2011 but in too low of numbers to determine density and population estimates.

No data – This species is intermittent in ponderosa pine Greater Pewee forests and was not detected during surveys.

No data – This species only occurs as an accidental and only transiently in high elevation grasslands and Grasshopper Sparrow wetlands. It was not detected during surveys.

No data – Low-elevation riparian not surveyed or under- Bell’s Vireo represented (and no individuals were detected).

No data – This nocturnal species was not detected during Flammulated Owl diurnal surveys.

No data – This species occurs only rarely as a migrant Swainson’t Hawk and therefore was not detected during surveys.

Effects to Migratory Birds

Cumulative Effects

128 To avoid redundancy here, refer to the “overview of Cumulative Effects for All Species” section on page 28.

Direct and Indirect Effects The Fossil Creek Allotment occurs adjacent to the Salt and Verde Riparian Ecosystem Important Bird Area which occurs along the Verde River from Childs downstream to Fossil confluence. Since livestock are excluded from the Verde by fencing and topography, there are no direct effects to the habitat within the IBA. Livestock grazing will not affect the structure of pinyon juniper woodland, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests so impacts those migratory birds using those habitat will be minimal. Ground and shrub nesting migrants could be disturbed by grazing livestock directly through trampling and indirectly by reducing nesting structure. Visual and aural disturbance from livestock grazing and livestock management activities will be of short duration and low intensity; therefore, habitat and disturbance impacts are expected to be minimal. While livestock grazing may affect riparian habitat, direct effects to riparian vegetation are lessened in the action alternative since the maximum pasture grazing period is typically 30 days. Use at the Boulder pasture water gap will be localized to the fenced lane for short periods of time generally during December through mid- March. The mitigation of 20% maximum utilization on woody riparian vegetation and the minimum stubble height requirement will reduce the amount of effects livestock have on riparian vegetation in riparian areas other than Fossil Creek (because creek access is limited to the Boulder pasture water gap where these criteria do not apply).

The 1,200 acres of proposed vegetative treatment and maintenance in locations where soil impairment is exacerbated by canopy encroachment of juniper and woody shrubs vegetation treatments will help increase the nutrient cycling by increasing the cover of perennial grasses; increase the hydrologic function of the soils by increasing infiltration, decrease soil compaction, and decrease erosion on these treatment areas. This will improve habitat for gray flycatcher, black-throated gray warbler, loggerhead shrike, and sage sparrow. Vegetative treatments will impact habitat structure for the Grace’s warbler, pinyon jay, Crissal thrasher, gray vireo, sage sparrow, and Canyon towhee.

Proposed structural range improvement of fencing key Chiricahua leopard frog habitat may result in short term aural and/or visual disturbance to Grace’s warbler, pinyon jay, gray flycatcher, black-throated gray warbler, Crissal thrasher, Sage sparrow, gray vireo, loggerhead shrike, and Canyon towhee.

Proposed structural range improvements of fencing riparian habitats may have short term effects to phainopeplas, yellow warbler, elf owl, Lawrence’s goldfinch, Gila woodpecker, Costa’s hummingbird, Virginia warbler, and Bell’s vireo in terms of visual and aural disturbance, but will have overall beneficial effects through enhances habitat conditions.

129 The proposed action alternative may result in unintentional take of individuals in pinyon juniper treatment areas, but overall will not lead to a decline in population.

The proposed action alternative would not result in: direct effects to Important Bird Areas; unintentional take of individuals; and will not lead to a decline in population. The Fossil Creek Allotment is not known to be an important over-wintering area for migratory birds.

No Action Alternative If no action is taken there will be no cattle grazing or improvements and therefore no direct effects to migratory bird species. With the no action alternative, most tanks (those not maintained for rare species) would eventually fill in and go dry which would eliminate some water sources for migratory birds.

GENERAL WILDLIFE (Non-Special Status Species) The Fossil Creek Allotment provides a variety of habitat types that support an abundance of wildlife. The habitat types found in the area include mixed conifer (10 acres), ponderosa pine (1,101 acres), pinyon/juniper (39,720 acres), Madran encinal woodland (95 acres), less than one acre each of chaparral and desert scrub, grasslands (333 acres desert grassland and 541 acres higher elevation grasslands), and riparian (327 acres low elevation riparian and 6 acres of high elevation riparian). This diversity supports hundreds of species of reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals. Mammals Game species in the Fossil Creek area include elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, bear, mountain lion, bobcat, gray fox, coyote, javelina, cottontail and jackrabbits, squirrels, and raccoons. Elk are primarily found in mixed conifer and pondersa pine woodlands during the spring, summer and fall months but move into pinyon-juniper woodlands during the winter, especially when deep snows preclude access to forage in the higher country. Deer, mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, fox, cottontails and jackrabbits occur throughout all biotic communities within the Fossil planning area. Javelina occur in desertscrub, grassland, riparian, and chaparral and pinyon/juniper slopes with abundant prickly pear cacti. Raccoons occur primarily within riparian and other vegetative zones within close proximity to riparian areas. Refer to Appendix C for a list of actual mammal observation in Fossil Creek as well as a list of species for which suitable habitat occurs. Non-game mammal species include chipmunks, mice, rats, woodrats, skunks, ring- tailed cats, and numerous species of bats (some of which are analyzed in the sensitive species section. Spotted and striped skunks occur primarily within riparian and other vegetative zones within close proximity to riparian areas. Cliff chipmunks, white- footed mouse, and white-throated woodrat are a few small mammal species that occur within the chaparral and pinyon-juniper habitats. Rock squirrel, cliff chipmunk,

130 western harvest mouse, and brush mouse are other small mammals that likely occur in the planning area. Approximately 22 species of bats may occur on the Fossil Creek allotment (Table Sixteen). Few surveys have been conducted for bats in the planning area but several occupied bat roosts are known to occur in cliff dwellings and an abandoned shack along Fossil Creek. Other roosts likely occur in natural structures such as underneath loose bark on snags, in tree and snag cavities, under rocks, in the cracks and crevices of cliffs, and in man-made structures such as bridges, buildings, and flume tunnels. All of the bat species occurring or potentially occurring in the area are insectivorous. Water sources such as earthen stock tanks, springs, seeps, and streams are important for bat foraging due to the abundance of insects found flying above the water. Refer to Table Sixteen for Bat Species potentially occurring in Fossil allotment and their habitat types. Until 2011, limited surveys for bats had been conducted in Fossil Creek. Bat surveys on the Tonto National Forest in 93 and 94 detected Myau (1), Nyfe (1) , Epfu (5) in Fossil near Flume Trailhead, and Epfu (1) at a tank on Hardscrabble Mesa in pinyon- juniper woodland. In 2010, surveys at Fossil Springs resulted in the detection of Myve (1), Epfu (5), Laci (4), Myca (1), and Myyu (1). In 2011, a multi-agency effort resulted in mist netting 7 locations along Fossil Creek at the canyon bottom and on the rim 1600 feet above the creek. Two teams hiked into Fossil Springs the first night (a 9-mile round trip on top of the night of netting) while 3 teams using triple-high nets captured bats over the creek. The second night we netted livestock ponds. A total of 266 net-hours yielded 157 bats representing 15 of the 28 species found in Arizona. The dominant species captured were Mexican free- tailed bat (32% of captures), pallid bat (23%), and California myotis (15%). Some of the more unusual species captured included Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Western red bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, cave myotis, and big free-tailed bat. A fascinating finding was the dominance of reproductive females; 90% of the 105 females we captured were pregnant, lactating, or post-lactating. Species detected in 2011 included Tabr (50), Anpa (36), Myca (23), Epfu (12), Pahe (12), Myci (8), Myau (3), Myyu (3), Labl (2), Myve (2), Coto (1), Idph (1), Lano (1), Myvo (1), and Nyma (1). Despite these surveys, mist netting at the lower end of Fossil Creek in the desert scrub and at the upper end of the W&S corridor in pine stringers as well as using acoustical monitoring methods may result in the detection of additional species.

131

Table Sixteen: Potential Bat Species and their Habitat Requirements*.

Common Name Scientific Name Roost Habitat Requirements S R C T F MC PP PJ C DS G R California leaf-nosed bat Macrotus californicus X X X Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis X X X X X X X X Cave myotis Myotis velifer X X X Occult little brown bat Myotis lucifugus occultus X X X X Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis X X X X X X X X Southwestern myotis Myotis auriculus X X X X Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes X X X X X X X X X Long legged myotis Myotis volans X X X X X X California myotis Myotis californicus X X X Western small-footed Myotis ciliolabrum X X X X X X myotis Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus X X Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans X X X Western pipistrelle Pipistrellus Hesperus X X X X X X Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus X X X X X X X X Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus X X X Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis X X X X X X Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis X X X

Legend S = Structures such as buildings, barns, bridges R = Cracks and crevices in cliffs, and under rocks C = Caves, cliff dwellings, mines, tunnels T = Hollow trees, snags, underneath loose tree bark F = Among foliage of trees and leafy shrubs MC = Mixed Conifer PP = Ponderosa Pine PJ = Pinyon Juniper C = Chaparral DS = Desert Scrub G = Grassland R = Riparian * Table information obtained from AGFD Heritage Data Management System; Tuttle and Taylor, 1994; Hoffmeister, 1986; Morrell et al, 1999; Chung-MacCoubrey, 1995; and AGFD, 1992. Birds There are many species of birds that occur on the Fossil Creek Allotment. The majority of these birds are passerines but other groups of birds include waterfowl, wading birds, fowl-like birds, raptors, and various non-passerine birds such as kingfishers, doves, hummingbirds, and woodpeckers. Refer to Table Seventeen for

132 selected bird species that have been detected along Fossil Creek. Refer to Appendix B for a list of actual bird observation in Fossil Creek. Table Seventeen: Selected Birds with Potential to Occur on the Allotment. Habitat Preference Species Mixed Ponderosa Pinyon Chaparral Desert Savannah Riparian Conifer Pine Juniper Scrub Great blue heron X Gambel’s quail X X X X X Zone-tailed hawk X X X Red-tailed hawk X X X X X Turkey vulture X X X X X X X Cooper’s hawk X X X X American goldfinch X X X Belted Kingfisher X Gila woodpecker X X Ladder-backed woodpecker X Northern flicker X X X X Ash-throated flycatcher X X X Phainopepla X Bewick’s wren X X X X X Black-chinned X X X X X X X hummingbird Broad-tailed hummingbird X X X X Common Raven X X X X X X X Bell’s vireo X X Yellow warbler X Common Yellowthroat X Solitary vireo X Black-throated sparrow X X X Song sparrow X X X X House finch X X Bridled titmouse X X X Brown-headed cowbird X X X X X X X Canyon wren X X X X X Great-tailed Grackle X Northern Mockingbird X X X X Mourning dove X X X X X X Northern cardinal X X X Scrub jay X X X X Violet-green swallow X X X X X X X White-throated swift X X X X X X X Scott’s oriole X X X Black-headed grosbeak X X X Western kingbird X X X Summer tanager X X X Western tanager X X X

133

Reptiles & Amphibians Amphibian and reptiles on the allotment include several species of toads, frogs, lizards, and snakes. Non-special status amphibians include canyon tree frogs, striped chorus frogs, and tiger salamanders. While the canyon tree frog and striped chorus frogs don’t require perennial waters as adults, they are dependent on pools of water for laying eggs as are the tadpoles until they metamorphose into subadults. Adult salamanders require water for laying eggs and the larvae require perennial waters due to the length of their metamorphic life stages. Numerous species of lizards occur throughout the uplands (non-riparian areas); collared, fence, earless, side-blotched, and tree. Snake species that occur in the area include: various garter snakes such as the black-necked and wandering; whip snakes; king snakes; gopher (bull) snake; and rattlesnakes such as the black-tailed and Western diamondback. Springs, seeps, creeks, and rivers are important for amphibians and garter snakes during at least a portion of their life cycle. Refer to Appendix D for a list of actual reptile and amphibian observations in Fossil Creek as well as a list of species for which suitable habitat occurs.

Terrestrial Invertebrates Invertebrate surveys in Fossil Creek have been numerous but have almost exclusively focused on aquatic invertebrates (see Fisheries specialist report). Some terrestrial invertebrates that have been observed and documented in the Fossil corridor include the tarantulas, glorious scarab, ten-lined June bug, various beetles including alder leaf flea beetle, tiger beetles, and two dot click beetle, cicadas, tarantula hawk, tiger sphinx, Virginia sphinx moth, glover silkmoth, Io moth, Southern dogface, pipevine swallowtail, mourning cloak, painted lady, Arizona sister, Queen, common buckeye, yellow sulphur, antlion and katydid. Semi terrestrial invertebrates include six-spotted fishing spider, and numerous species of damselflies, skimmers, and dragonflies.

Environmental Consequences for General Wildlife Cumulative Effects To avoid redundancy here, refer to the “overview of Cumulative Effects for All Species” section on page 28.

Comparison of Alternatives for General Wildlife To avoid redundancy here, refer to the “General Effects of Grazing to Wildlife” section on page 19 and the “Comparison of Alternatives For All Species” section beginning on page 22 for a comparison of the effects of each alternative on wildlife species.

134 LITERATURE CITED Adler, P.B. and W.K. Lauenroth. 2000. Livestock Exclusion Increases the Spatial Heterogeneity of Vegetation in Colorado Shortgrasss Steppe. Applied Vegetation Science, Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 213-222.

Anderson, B.W., and R.D. Ohmart. 1985. Habitat use by clapper rails in the lower Colorado River Valley. Condor 87: 116-126.

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B. Riley McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 47:332-342.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Various dates. Unpublished abstracts compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1992. Special Status Bats of the Coconino National Forest: An Overview. Prepared for the Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Baker J.M., Waights V. The effects of nitrate on tadpoles of the tree frog (Litoria caerulea). Herpetol J 4:106-108 (1994).

Barrett, M. W. 1981. Environmental Characteristics and functional significance of pronghorn fawn bedding sites in Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45:120-131.

Beatty, Gregory L. 1992. 1992 Arizona bald eagle winter count. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Nongame and Endangered Widlife Program. Phoenix, Arizona. November 1992.

Beatty, Gregory L., James T. Driscoll, and Mitch C. Siemens. 1995. Arizona Bald Eagle Winter Count: 1994. Technical Report 68. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Arizona Game and Fish Depratment. Phoenix, Arizona. May 1995

Beatty, Gregory L., James T. Driscoll, and John G. Koloszar. 1995. Arizona Bald Eagle Winter Count: 1995. Technical Report 82. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Arizona Game and Fish Depratment. Phoenix, Arizona. September 1995.

Beatty, Gregory L. and James T. Driscoll. 1999. Arizona Bald Eagle Winter Count: 1997-1998. Technical Report 137. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Arizona Game and Fish Depratment. Phoenix, Arizona. February 1999.

135 Belsky, A.J., Matzke, A. and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United State. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431. . Bock, C.E. and J.H.Bock. 1984. Responses of Birds, Rodents, and Vegetation to Livestock Exclosure in a Semidesert Grassland Site. Journal of Range Management 37(3) pp. 239-242.

Bock, C.E. and J.H. Bock. 1990. The effect of livestock grazing upon abundance of the lizard, Sceloporus scalaris, in Southeastern Arizona. Journal of Herpetology. Vol. 24, No. 4, pp 445-446.

Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich and D.S. Dobkin. 1992. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory land birds in western North America. In : Finch, D.M. and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. RM-GTR-229. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bredy et al. 1989, in Bock, C.E., H.M.Smith, and J.H.Bock. 1990. The Effect of Livestock Grazing Upon Abundance of the Lizard, Sceloporus scalaris , in Southeastern Arizona. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 445-446.

Bridges, C.M., F. J. Dwyer, D. K. Hardesty and D.W. Whites. 2002. Comparative contaminant toxicity: Are amphibian larvae more sensitive than fish? Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 69:562-569

Buffington and Herbel, 1965, in Bock, C.E., H.M.Smith, and J.H.Bock. 1990. The Effect of Livestock Grazing Upon Abundance of the Lizard, Sceloporus scalaris , in Southeastern Arizona. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 445-446.

Bull, E.L. and M.P. Hayes. 2000. Livestock effects on reproduction of the Columbia spotted frog. Journal of Range Management 53:291-294.

Burgett, Amber A., Christian D. Wright, Geoffrey R. Smith, Doran T. Fortune, and Samuel L. Johnson. 2007. Impact of ammonium nitrate on wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles: Effects of survivorship and behavior. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 2(1): 29-34.

Cannon, S. K. and F. C. Bryant. 1997. Bed-site characteristics of pronghorn fawns. Journal of Wildlife Management, 61:1134-1141.

Chambers, C. and Tamara D. Lesh. 2005. Effects of ungulate grazing on Mogollon vole abundance and runway densities in wet meadows in northern Arizona. Unpublished paper submitted to Southwest Naturalist, February 1, 2005.

136 Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:1- 21.

Chaney, E. W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livetock grazing on Western riparian areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. : Eagle, ID.

Chew 1982, in Bock, C.E., H.M.Smith, and J.H.Bock. 1990. The Effect of Livestock Grazing Upon Abundance of the Lizard, Sceloporus scalaris, in Southeastern Arizona. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 445-446.

Chung-MacCoubrey, A. 1995. Bat Species Using Water Sources in Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. In Desired Future Conditions For Southwestern Riparian Ecosystems: Bringing Interests And Concerns Together. USDA Forest Service Genderal Technical Report RM-GTR-272. Pages 168-170.

Corman, T. and C. Wise-Gervais, editors, 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. University of New Mexico Press.

Dargan, Cecelia M. 1991. Roost site characteristics of bald eagles wintering in north- central Arizona. M.S. Thesis. N. Arizona Univer. 73 pp.

Driscoll, James. Personal communication with Janie Agyagos on June 5, 2000 regarding nesting bald eagles along the Verde River.

Duff, 1979 in Fleischner 1994. Duff, Donald A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. In Proceedings: Forum—Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 91.

Knutson, M.G., W.B.Richardson, S.M.Reineke, B.Jeffrey, R.Parmelee, and S.E.Weick. 2004. Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecolcogical Applications, 14(3), 2004, pp. 669-684.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology, Volume 8, No. 3. Pages 629-644.

Frost, J.S. and J.E. Platz. 1983. Comparative assessment of modes of reproductive isolation among four species of leopard frogs ( Rana pipiens complex). Evolution 37:66-78.

Grubb, T.G. and C.E. Kennedy. 1982. 1978 Bald Eagle Winter Habitat on the National Forest System in the Southwest. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region. Wildl. Unit Tech. Series. 116 pp.

Gunderson, D.R. 1968. Floodplain use related to stream morphology and fish populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 32(3):507-514.

137

Hansen, A.J., M.V. Stalmaster, and J.R. Newman. 1980. Habitat characteristics, function, and destruction of bald eagle communal roosts in western Washington. Pages 221-229. In: R.L. Knight et al., eds. Proc. Washington Bald Eagle Symposium. Seattle, Washington.

Harris, J.H., S.D. Sanders and M.A. Flett. 1987. The status and distribution of the willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii ) in the Sierra Nevada. Administrative Report 87-2. Wildlife Management Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Hatch, Audrey C. and Andrew R. Blaustein 2000. Combined effects of UV-B, nitrate, and low pH reduce the survival and activity level of larval cascades frogs (Rana cascadae). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 39, pp. 494-499.

Hatch, Audrey C. and Andrew R. Blaustein 2003. Combined effects of UV-B radiation and nitrate fertilizer on larval amphibians. Ecological Applications, 13(4): 1083-1093.

Hayward, B., E.J.Heske, C.W.Painter. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on small mammals at a desert cienaga. Journal of Wildlife Mangement, Vol. 61., No. 1. pp. 123-129.

Hecnar, S.J. 1996. Acute and chronic toxicity of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to amphibians from southern Ontario. Environmental Pollution, Vol. 93, No. 3, 1996: 365.

Heske, E.J., M.Campbell, 1991. Effects of an 11-Year Livestock Exclosure on rodent and Ant numbers in the Chihuahuan Desert, Southeastern Arizona. The Southwest Naturalist, Vol. 36, No. 1. (Mar., 1991), pp. 89-93.

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona. 602 pp.

Johansson, Markus, Katja Rasanen and Juha Merila. 2001. Comparison of nitrate tolerance between different populations of the common frog, Rana temporaria. Aquatic Toxicology, Vol. 54, Issues 1-2: 1-14.

Jones, Allison. 2000. Effects of cattle grazing on North American arid ecosystems: A quantitative review. Western North American Naturalist vol 60 (2), pages 155-164.

Jones, A.L. and W.S.Longland. 1999. Effects of Cattle Grazing on Salt Desert Rodent Communities. The American Midland Naturalist. Vol. 141, pp. 1-11.

138

Jones, K.B. 1981. Effects of grazing on lizard abundance and diversity in western arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 26(2): 107-115.

Jones K.B. 1988. Comparison of herpetofaunas of a natural and altered riparian ecosystem. Pages 222-227 in R.C. Szaro, K.E. Severson, and D.r. Patton, technical coordinators. Management of amphibans reptiles and small mammsl in North America. General Technical REport RM-166. U.S. Forest Serivce, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Keister, G.P. 1981. Characteristics of winter roosts and populations of bald eagles in the Klamath Basin. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State Univ. 82 pp.

Keister, G.P. and R.G. Anthony. 1983. Characteristics of bald eagle communal roosts in the Klamath Basin, Oregon and California. J. Wild. Manage. 47(4):1072- 1079.

Knight, R.L., V. Marr, and S.K. Knight. 1983. Communal roosting of bald eagles in Washington. Page 11. In: Proc. Workshop on Habitat Manage. for Nesting and Roosting Bald Eagles in the Western United States.

Knutson,M.G., W.B. Richarson, D.M.Reineke, B.Jeffrey, R.Parmelee, and S.E.Weick. 2004. Agriculural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecological Applications, 14(3), 2004. pp. 669-684.

Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Lee, R. M., J. D.Yoakum, B.W. O’Gara, T. M. Pojar and R. A. Ockenfels, eds. 1998. Pronghorn Management Guidelines. 18th Pronghorn Antelope Workshop, Prescott, Arizona.

Loeser, Matt R., T. D. Sisk and T. E. Crews. 2001. Plant Community Responses to Cattle Grazing: an Assessment of Alternative Management Practices in Semi- Arid Grassland in USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P22, Ponderosa pine ecosystems restoration and conservation: steps toward stewardship. Ogden, UT. pp. 80-87.

Longcore, J.E. 2000. Information excerpted from Joyce Longcore. Biosafety chapter in the workbook for the Amphibian Health Examinations and Disease Monitoring Workshop, February 17-18, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, West Virginia.

139 Macias, Guadalupe, Adolfo Marco and Andrew R. Blaustein 2007. Combined exposure to ambient UVB radiation and nitrite negatively affets survival of amphibian early life stages. Science of the Total Environment, 385: 55-65.

Marco, Adolfo, Consuelo Quilchano and Andrew R. Blaustein 1999. Sensitivity to nitrate and nitrite in pond-breeding amphibians from the Pacific northwest, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 18, Issue 12: 2836

Milchunas, D.G., W.K. Lauenroth, and I.C.Burke. 1998. Livestock grazing: animal and plant biodiversity of shortgrass steppe and the relationship to ecosystem function. OIKOS 83: 65-74.

Monson, G. 1957a. Lucy's warbler. In The warblers of America, ed. L. Griscom and A. Sprunt, Jr. New York: The Devin-Adair Co.

Morrell, T.E., M.J.Rabe, J.C. DeVos, H.Green, and C.R. Miller. 1999. Bats Captured in Two Ponderosa Pine Habitats in North-Central Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 44(4): 501-506.

Mosconi,S.L. and R.L. Hutto. 1982. The effect of grazing on the land birds of a wetern Montana riparian habitat. Pages 221-223 in L.Nelson, J.M.Peek, and PlD. Dalke, editors. Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. U.S. Forest, Wildlie and Ranger Experiment Station., Univeristy of Idaho, Moscow, Idahow.

NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed June 12, 2002).

Nebeker, Alan V. and Gerald S. Schuytema. 2000. Effects of ammonium sulfate on growth of larval Northwestern salamanders, red-legged frog and Pacific treefrog tadpoles, and juvenile fathead minnows. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 64: (2)271-278.

Neff, Don J. Sept. 1986. Pronghorn Habitat Description and Evaluation. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-78-R. 17 pp.

Nowak, E.M., M.A.Santana-Bendix. 2002. Status, distribution, and management recommendations for the narrow-headed garter snake ( Thamnophis rufipunctatus ) in Oak Creek, Arizona. Final Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Grant I99007. 56 pps.

Ockenfels, R. A., C. L. Ticer, A. Alexander, J. A. Wennerlund, P.A. Hurley, and J. L. Bright. 1996. Statewide evaluation of pronghorn habitat in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Fe. Aid Wildl. Restor. Proj. W-78-R Final Rep., Phoenix. 296 pp.

140

Ohmart R.D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife resources in western riparian habitats. Pp. 245-279. In: P.R. Krausman (ed.), Rangeland Wildlife. Society for Range Management: Denver CO.

O’Gara, Bart W., M. E. McNay and W.A. Bodie. 1986. Effects of Fawn Activity and Bedding Cover on Susceptibility to Predation in Proceedings of the 12th Pronghorn Antelope Workshop, Reno, Nevada. March 11-13, 1986.

Phillips, A.R.; Marshall, J.; and Monson, G. 1964. The birds of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona.: University of Arizona Press.

Platt, J.B. 1976. Bald eagles wintering in a Utah desert. Amer. Birds 30(4):783-788.

Platts, W.S. 1981. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fih habitat in Western North America, No. 7. Effects of livestock grazing. General Technical Report PNW-124, :US. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Hildegard, et al. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-17. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, CO. 90 pp.

Reynolds T.D., and C.H. Trost. 1980. The response of native vertebrate populations to crested wheatgrass planting and grazing by sheep. Journal of Range Management 33: 122-125.

Robinson, S.K., J.A. Grzybowski, S.I. Rothstein, M.C. Brittingham, L.J. Petit and F.R. Thompson. 1992. Management implications of cowbird parasitism on neotropical migrant songbirds. In : Finch, D.M. and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. RM-GTR-229. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Rouse, Jeremy David, Christine A. Bishop and John Struger. 1999. Nitrogen pollution: An assessment of its threat to amphibian survival. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 107, No. 10: 799-803.

Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.D. Rich and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory land birds in western North America. In: Finch, D.M. and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. RM-GTR-229. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

141 Sabine, N. 1981. Ecology of bald eagles wintering in eastern Illinois. M.S. Thesis, Southern Illinois Univer., Carbondale.

Sauer, HJ.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1996-2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.

Sferra, S.J., R.A. Meyer, and T.E Corman. 1995. Arizona Partners in flight 1994 southwestern willow flycatcher survey. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 69. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Spencer, J.A., S. Sferra, T. Corman, J. Rourke and M. Sumner. 1996. Arizona Partners in Flight 1995 southwestern willow flycatcher survey. Draft Technical Report. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Sredl, M.J., J.M. Howland, J.E. Wallace and L.S. Saylor. 1997. Status and distribution of Arizona's native ranid frogs. Pages 45-101, In : M.J. Sredl, ed. Ranid frog conservation and management. Technical Report 121, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Sredl, M.J. and L.S. Saylor. 1998. Conservation and management zones and the role of earthen cattle tanks in conserving Arizona leopard frogs on large landscapes. Pages 211-225, In : Proceedings of the symposium on environmental, economic, and legal issues related to rangeland water developments, November 13-15, 1997, Tempe, Arizona.

Sredl, M.J. and R.D. Jennings. in press. Rana chiricahuenis (Platz and Mecham 1979) Chiricahua Leopard Frogs. In Lannoo, M.J. (Ed.), Status and conservation of U.S. Amphibians. Volume 2: Species Accounts. university of California Press, Berkely, CA.

Sredl, M.J., S.G. Seim, D.L. Waters, and J.M. Howland. 1993. Coconino National Forest Riparian Amphibians and Reptiles Survey: Locality Information and Survey Results for 1992 Field Season. Submitted to Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona, by Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Sredl, MJ., S.G. Seim, D.L. Waters, and J.M. Howland. 1995. Coconino National Forest Riparian Amphibians and Reptiles Survey: Locality Information and Survey Results for 1993 Field Season. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 65. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

142 Sredl, M.J. and L.S. Saylor. 1998. Conservation and management zones and the role of earthen cattle tanks in conserving Arizona leopard frogs on large landscapes. Pages 211-225 in Proceedings of Symposium on Environmental, Economic, and Legal Issues Related to Rangeland Water Developments. November 13-15, 1997, Tempe, AZ.

Sredl, M.J., E.P. Collins, and J.M. Howland. 1997a. Mark-recapture of Arizona leopard frogs. Pages 1-20 in M.J. Sredl, editor. Ranid frog conservation and management. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 121. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Sredl, M.J., J.M. Howland, J.E. Wallace, and L.S. Saylor. 1997b. Status and distribution of Arizona’s native ranid frogs. pages 37-89 in M.J. Sredl, editor. Ranid frog conservation and management. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 121. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of wintering bald eagles in northwest Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(1):221-224.

Steenhof, K. 1976. The ecology of wintering bald eagles in southeastern South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Missouri, Columbia. 148 pp.

Sullivan, B.K. 1991. Distribution and status of the Arizona toad, Bufo microscaphus microscaphus . Report submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department. 24 pp. plus locality information.

Sullivan, Marie E. and Mary E. Richardson. 1993. Functions and Values of the Verde River Riparian Ecosystem and an Assessment of Adverse Impacts to These Resources. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office. Phoenix, Arizona. 364 pp.

Szaro, R.C., and S.C. Belfit, J.K.Aitkin, and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Impact of grazing on a riparian garter snake. Pages 359-363 in R.R> Johnson, CD. Ziebell, D.R> Patton, P.F.Ffolliott, and F.H.Hamre, techincal coordinators. Riarian ecosstems and their management: Rconciling conflicting uses. General Technical Report RM-120. U.S> Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Terres, John. K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1109 pp.

Ticer, C. L. 1998. Pronghorn fawn bed site selection in a shortgrass prairie of central Arizona. Masters Thesis, Arizona State University.

143 Ticer, C. L., and W. H. Miller. 1994. Pronghorn fawn bed site selection in a simidesert grassland community of central Arizona. Proceedings of the Biennial Pronghorn Antelope Workshop. 16:86-103.

Tucker, R. D., and G. W. Garner. 1983. Habitat selection and vegetational characteristics of antelope fawn bed sites in West Texas. Journal of Range Management. 36:110-113.

Tuttle, M.D. and D.A.Taylor. 1994. Bats and Mines. Bat Conservation International, Inc., Resource Pulication No. 3. 41 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Record of Decision to Amend National Forest Plans in the Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Cattle Grazing Activities. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. 112 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Range Specialist Report – Deep Lake Allotment.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, final rule to list the Mexican spotted owl as a threatened species. Federal Register 58: 14248-14271.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982. Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (Southwestern Population). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 65 pp.

USDI 1993. MSO listing

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Threatened and endangered wildlife and plants: Proposed rule to list the southwestern willow flycatcher as endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register 58:39495-39522.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Functions and values of the Verde River riparian ecosystem and an assessment of adverse impacts to these resources: A supporting document for the initiation of the Verde River advanced identification. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 364 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol.I. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 172 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Threatened and endangered wildlife and plants: Final rule determining endangered status for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Federal Register 60:10694-10715.

144 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Draft recovery plan for the California red- legged frog ( Rana aurora draytonii ). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog ( Rana chiricahuensis ); Final rule Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 114, pages 40790-40811.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery plan. Albuquerque, New Mixico. I-ix +210 pp. Appendices A-O.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife; Final rule Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 130, pages 37346-37372.

Valone, T.J. and P.Sauter. 2004. Effects of long-term cattle exclosure on vegetation and rodents at a desertified arid grassland site. Journal of Arid Environments Volume 61 pp. 161-170. Verde Natural Resources Conservation District. 1993. Surface irrigated lands of the Verde Valley. Prepared by Sedona Environmental Consultants for Verde Natural Resources Conservation District. 5 pp.

Windes, J.D., M.J. Sredl, J.E. Wallace, and B.L. Cristman. 1997. Wet Beaver Creek Wilderness Herpetefauna Inventory. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 107. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

145 APPENDIX A

Grazing Allotment Annual Operating Mitigation Instructions for Chiricahua Leopard Frog

General Activities:

Please refer to the document “Hygiene Protocol For Control of Disease and Aquatic Organism Transmission” for specific prevention and equipment cleaning guidelines to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive nuisance species and pathogens.

Prior to Tank Maintenance:

At least 60 days prior to maintaining or cleaning out livestock tanks the permittee shall inform the Coconino of planned activities. The permittee is responsible for submitting a proposal that details when the work is to be completed, who and contact information for who will be conducting the work, details about what work is to be completed, and a list of all equipment that will be used.

Authorized personnel shall assess and evaluate the need to survey the tank for leopard frogs. If Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to occur or found during surveys, the Forest and permittee shall work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop and implement a plan to minimize take of frogs. Plans to minimize take shall be approved by the USFWS. If other leopard frog species are found, a plan to minimize impacts will be developed and implemented. Measures to minimize take should include salvage and temporary holding of frogs, limiting disturbance and work areas to the minimum area practicable, leaving stands of emergent vegetation in place, and/or measures to minimize the likelihood of disease transmission.

All ranch hands, construction personnel, and others implementing the maintenance shall be given a copy of these terms and conditions, and informed of the need to comply with them. These instructions will be given to workers carrying out the maintenance in advance so that the appropriate equipment (screens for pump tanks, off-site water, disinfecting solution and sprayer, etc) can be secured and brought out to the site.

During Tank Maintenance:

For tanks occupied by frogs (including those dry tanks that could have frogs persisting in moist cracks in the tank bottom or along the tank berms) it is required that a representative from one of the agencies (USFWS, Forest Service, or Game and Fish) be present to monitor tank cleaning or repair efforts.

146 Live fish, crayfish, bullfrogs, leopard frogs, salamanders, or other aquatic organisms shall not be moved among livestock tanks or other aquatic sites.

If a site is identified as occupied by leopard frogs, water shall not be hauled to the site from another aquatic site or tank that supports leopard frogs, bullfrogs, crayfish, or fish. When water is needed, such as for bentonite application, all precautions shall be taken (use of fish screens of 1/8 inch or smaller mesh and adding bleach if water is used from another tank or municipal water source) to ensure that fish, bullfrogs, and their tadpoles, and crayfish are not moved among tanks.

For situations that require water to be pumped from a tank with frogs, the following mitigations apply: Use of tank water will be judicial and if the water level is low, it may be required that water be hauled in. Mesh filters of 1/8inch will be used to avoid sucking up eggs, tadpoles or juvenile frogs. Pumps will be placed as far away from the water as possible. Pumps will be moved during refueling in order to avoid contaminating the tank water and vegetation immediately around the tank.

147 Hygiene Protocol For Control of Disease and Aquatic Organism Transmission

Executive Order 13112 (February 3, 1999) directs all Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. Please comply with the following prevention and equipment cleaning guidelines to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive plants and animals as well as diseases.

This protocol is to be implemented when: 1) employees, contractors, permittees, or outfitter/guides will be working between different bodies of water before equipment has had 5 days to dry thoroughly; and/or 2) after entering bat roosts or handling bats. In these cases, it is required that all gear/equipment be properly treated using either a 10% bleach solution, an acceptable hospital-grade fungicide/virucide, or 70% isopropyl. Following are examples of equipment that would need to be treated before reusing at another site. Examples of equipment used at aquatic sites: • Waders or shoes/boots • Pygmy meters, weirs, flumes, tape measures and other hydrologic instruments • Dip nets, seines, traps, nets and other aquatic sampling gear • Fire engines, pumps, drafting hoses, helicopter dip buckets, and other fire- fighting equipment • Backhoes, frontend loaders, bobcats, and other equipment used to clean/fix earthen tanks.

Examples of equipment used in bat roosts or when monitoring bats: • Spelunking equipment • Rulers, calipers, headlamps, gloves, bat bags • Mist nets, mist net poles, stakes, and guy wires

Procedure : 1) Inspect - Before leaving site, inspect all gear for mud, vegetation, and aquatic organisms 2) Clean- Wash, in site water, as much of the mud/dirt on equipment and gear and remove any vegetation or detritus attached to gear by shaking, rinsing in water and hand picking. 3) Disinfect - Complete all sterilizing well away from streams or ponds . Cleaning solutions fall in these categories: hospital-grade fungicide/virucide (eg. Quat 128 or Sparquat 256), 10% bleach/water solution, 70% isopropyl alcohol, and drying equipment for a minimum of 5 days. Note that if using a bleach solution, do not store the solution for more than 24 hours as the bleach will begin to break down once it is diluted.

If equipment is coated in thick mud, follow these instructions: • Fill a large container (bucket, ice chest, rubber tub, etc.) with clear water (from pond or spigot).

148 • Mix the appropriate amount of disinfectant with the needed amount of water (see following table).

Volume of Volume of Bleach Volume of Quat Volume of Water 128 Sparquat 256 100 mL 10.4 mL or 0.35 4.62 mL or 0.16 3.00 mL or 0.1 oz oz oz 1 liter 104 mL or 3.5 oz 46.2 mL or 1.6 oz 30.0 mL or 1.0 oz, or 7.0 Tbsp or 3.1 Tbsp or 2.0 Tbsp 1 gallon 400 mL or 13.5 oz 6.35 liquid oz or 4.12 liquid oz or or 27 Tbsp or 1.7 12.7 Tbsp or 0.79 8.2 Tbsp or 0.51 cups cups cups

• Stir to mix with brush. • Clean off any remaining vegetation or mud with brush that may have been missed earlier. • Dip and rotate equipment in solution, shake off, open and lay out in sun/wind to dry • Dip shoes/waders in solution and scrub with a brush, shake off and let dry in sun. • Don’t forget to sterilize brushes in solution.

If equipment is wet but clean of mud and vegetation, follow these instructions: Instead of making a solution to dip equipment in, fill a spray bottle with same solution concentration and spray down equipment.

For vehicles and heavy equipment, follow these instructions for disinfecting: If possible, power wash with clean hot water (>140F). Make the appropriate amount of disinfecting solution needed:

Volume of Water Volume of Quat 128 Volume of Sparquat 256 100 mL 4.62 mL or 0.16 oz 3.00 mL or 0.1 oz 1000 mL 46.2 mL or 1.6 oz or 30.0 mL or 1.0 oz, or 3.1 Tbsp 2.0 Tbsp 1 gallon 6.35 liquid oz or 12.7 4.12 liquid oz or 8.2 Tbsp or 0.79 cups Tbsp or 0.51 cups 100 gallons 4.96 gallons 3.22 gallons 1000 gallons 49.6 gallons 32.2 gallons

149 Tanks, hoses, pumps, buckets and other equipment that comes into contact with raw water should be sanitized with 5% cleaning solution (Quad 128, or Sparquat 256). Set up a portable disinfection tank using 5% cleaning solution of Quat 128 or Sparquat 256. For engines and tenders, empty the tank then circulate the 5% solution for 10 minutes. Float portable pumps in the disinfection tank and pump cleaning solution through for 10 minutes. Pump cleaning solution through hose, then rinse with water. Discard cleaning solution back into the disinfection tank for re-use. Dip gear or equipment (e.g. helicopter buckets) into the cleaning solution. Or, put the 5% cleaning solution in backpack spray pumps to clean portable tanks, helicopter buckets, and other equipment. The solution must be in contact with the surface being sanitized for at least 10 minutes and then rinsed with water.

Other Important Information Sometimes it’s possible and prudent to save remaining disinfecting solution in a sealable container for later use, but only if solution doesn’t have too much suspended solids.

If solution must be discarded, dispose of on asphalt, cement or hard roadbed, well away from and not connect to any water bodies.

If at all possible, allow all gear and equipment to dry completely before reuse at next site.

Note that the same procedures are required for anyone entering bat roosts or handling bats. This is to prevent the introduction and spread of White Nose Syndrome.

Quat 128 and Sparquat 256 are available from GSA and local janitorial and swimming pool chemical suppliers.

150

Appendix B

Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Acorn woodpecker Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual American coot Stehr Lake 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual American dipper Fossil Creek Riparian October 11, 2004 Agyagos Actual American dipper Fossil Creek Riparian November 7, 2004 Agyagos Actual American dipper Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Agyagos Actual American dipper Fossil Creek Riparian September 30, 2004 AgyagosOverby Actual American Goldfinch Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual American goldfinch Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/199105/1991- AZ Public Service Co. 07/199105/1991-07/1991 Actual American goldfinch Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual American Kestrel Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual American Robin Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Agyagos McPhail Actual American robin FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual American robin Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Agyagos Actual Anna's Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Hummingbird Actual Anna's Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS hummingbird Actual Anna's FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos hummingbird Sunfish barrier Actual Ash-throated Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith flycatcher Actual Ash-throated Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey flycatcher Boulder Canyon Actual Ash-throated Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos flycatcher Actual ash-throated Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story flycatcher Actual Ash-throated RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender flycatcher Actual Ash-throated Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor flycatcher Actual Ash-throated FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos flycatcher Sunfish barrier Actual Ash-throated Fossil Creek above 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby flycatcher large waterfall Actual Ash-throated Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD woodpecker Actual Asth-throated Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca flycatcher Actual Audobon's warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Bell's Vireo Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Bell's vireo Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Bell's Vireo RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Bell's Vireo Fossil Creek Riparian 06/16/1994 Agyagos Actual Bell's Vireo Fossil Creek Old Corral 25Aug2009 Agyagos

151 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Bell's vireo Fossil Creek Mesquite 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby Bosque Actual Bell's vireo Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos Actual Bell's vireo Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Bell's vireo Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Bell's vireo Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Bell's Vireo Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Bell's Vireo Aqueduct Spring 06/16/1994 Agyagos Actual Bell's vireo 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Bell's vireo Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Bell's vireo Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Belted kingfisher Fossil Creek Riparian November 7, 2004 Agyagos Actual Belted kingfisher Fossil Springs 04/29/2000 NAAS Riparian-below dam Actual Belted kingfisher Fossil springs 00/00/1974 Bill Burbridge Actual Belted Kingfisher RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Belted kingfisher Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Belted Kingfisher Fossil Creek Riparian September 17, 2004 Agyagos Actual Belted kingfisher Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Belted kingfisher Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Belted Kingfisher Fossil Creek Riparian October 11, 2004 Agyagos Actual Bewick's wren Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Bewick's Wren Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos Actual Bewick's Wren RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Bewick's Wren Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Bewick's wren FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Bewick's wren Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Bewick's wren Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Bewick's wren Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Bewick's wren Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Bewick's Wren Fossil Creek Old Corral 25Aug2009 Agyagos Actual Bewick's wren Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Black phoebe Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Black phoebe Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos Actual Black phoebe Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Black Phoebe Fossil/Verde 00/00/1992 Sullivan Confluence Actual Black phoebe Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Black phoebe Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Black phoebe Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Black phoebe FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Black phoebe Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Black phoebe Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Black phoebe Fossil Creek Upland February 17, 2010 Agyagos Actual Black Phoebe Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Actual Black Phoebe RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender

152 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Black Phoebe Fossil Creek Riparian 06/16/1994 Agyagos Actual Black phoebe Fossil springs 00/00/1974 Bill Burbridge Actual black phoebe Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Black phoebe Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Black phoebe Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Black phoebe Fossil Creek Riparian April 7, 2006 AgyagosOverby Actual Black phoebe Fossil Creek @ Irving 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Actual Black phoebe Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Black Phoebe Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Black-chinned Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos hummingbird Actual black-chinned Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos hummingbird Actual Black-chinned Not specified 05/08/1999 Taylor hummingbird Actual Black-chinned Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith hummingbird Actual Black-chinned Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD hummingbird Actual Black-chinned FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos hummingbird Sunfish barrier Actual Black-chinned Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story hummingbird Actual Black-chinned RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender hummingbird Actual Black-chinned Flume Rd, 1 mile 04/29/2000 NAAS sparrow above Irving Actual Black-chinned Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Sena sparrow P/J Actual Black-chinned Uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD sparrow Actual Black-crowned Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca sparrow Actual Blackheaded Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Grosbeak Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Black-headed Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith grosbeak Actual black-headed Fossil Creek Riparian July 20, 2006 Agyagos grosbeak Actual Black-headed Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD grosbeak Actual Black-headed Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey grosbeak Actual Black-headed Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story grosbeak Actual Black-headed Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor grosbeak Actual Black-headed FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos grosbeak Sunfish barrier Actual Black-headed Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. grosbeak Actual Black-headed RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender grosbeak

153 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Black-headed Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby grosbeak P/J Actual Black-throated gray Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca warbler Actual black-throated gray Fossil Creek Riparian July 20, 2006 Agyagos warbler Actual Black-throated gray Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor warbler Actual Black-throated Fossil Creek Upland February 17, 2010 Agyagos sparrow Actual Black-throated Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor sparrow Actual Black-throated Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis sparrow Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Black-throated Uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD sparrow Actual Black-throated Fossil Creek Upland 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos sparrow Actual black-throated FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos sparrow Sunfish barrier Actual Blue grosbeak Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Blue grosbeak Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual blue grosbeak Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Blue-gray Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca gnatcatcher Actual Blue-gray Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby gnatcatcher P/J Actual Blue-gray Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor gnatcatcher Actual Blue-gray Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS gnatcatcher Actual Blue-gray Uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Gnatcatcher Actual Boat-tailed grackle Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Bridled titmouse Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Actual Bridled titmouse Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Bridled titmouse RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Bridled titmouse FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Bridled Titmouse Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Bridled titmouse Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Bridled titmouse Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Bridled titmouse Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Broad-tailed Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor hummingbird Actual Broad-tailed Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca hummingbird Actual Bronzed cowbird Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Brown Creeper Fossil springs 00/00/1974 Bill Burbridge Actual Brown-crested Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS flycatcher Actual Brown-headed Fossil Creek Mesquite 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby Cowbird Bosque

154 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Brown-headed Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor cowbird Actual Brown-headed FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos cowbird Sunfish barrier Actual brown-headed Fossil Creek Riparian July 20, 2006 Agyagos cowbird Actual Brown-headed Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD cowbird Actual Brown-headed Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS cowbird Actual Brown-headed Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey cowbird Actual brown-headed Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca cowbird Actual Bushtit Fossil Creek Mesquite 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby Bosque Actual Bushtit Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Bushtit Fossil Creek Riparian April 7, 2006 AgyagosOverby Actual Bushtit Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Bushtit Irving Powerplant- 04/29/2000 NAAS trailhead Actual Cactus wren Uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Cactus wren Stehr Lake 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Canyon towhee Fossil Creek Upland February 17, 2010 Agyagos Actual Canyon towhee Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Canyon towhee Uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Canyon Wren Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Agyagos McPhail Actual Canyon Wren RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Canyon wren Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Canyon Wren Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos Actual Canyon wren Fossil/Verde 00/00/1992 Sullivan Confluence Actual Canyon wren Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Canyon wren Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Canyon wren Above springs 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Canyon wren Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Canyon wren Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Canyon wren Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Actual Cassin's kingbird RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Cassin's kingbird Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Cassin's Kingbird Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Cassin's Kingbird FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Cassin's kingbird Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Cassin's kingbird Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Cassin's kingbird Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Chipping Sparrow Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Cinnamon teal FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Common black Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby hawk Actual Common black Fossil Creek Riparian September 17, 2004 Agyagos

155 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type hawk Actual common blackhawk Fossil Springs Riparian 16Sept2010 Agyagos, Sena, Cress Actual Common FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Blackhawk Sunfish barrier Actual Common Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS blackhawk Actual Common Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis blackhawk Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Common Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS blackhawk Actual common blackhawk Fossil Creek 21March2012 Agyagos Permanent Barrier Actual Common Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos Blackhawk Actual Common Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey blackhawk Boulder Canyon Actual Common Fossil Creek Riparian April 7, 2006 AgyagosOverby blackhawk Actual Common Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey blackhawk Actual Common Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca blackhawk Actual Common Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Agyagos McPhail Blackhawk Actual Common Fossil Creek above 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby Blackhawk large waterfall Actual Common Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor blackhawk Actual Common black- Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. hawk Actual Common Mallard FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Common raven Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Common raven Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Common raven Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Common Raven Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Common Raven Aqueduct Spring 06/16/1994 Agyagos Actual Common raven Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Common raven Fossil Creek Upland 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Common Raven Riparian & Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Common raven Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Common raven RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Common raven Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Common Raven Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Common Raven Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Agyagos McPhail Actual Common Raven Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Common raven Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Agyagos Actual Common raven Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Common raven FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Common Raven Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby

156 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Common Raven Fossil Creek Old Corral 25Aug2009 Agyagos Actual Common Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith yellowthroat Actual Common Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story yellowthroat Actual Common Stehr Lake 05/127/1998 Groschupf, McKinstry Yellowthroat Actual Common Stehr Lake 04/28/1998 Groschupf, McKinstry Yellowthroat Actual Common Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos yellowthroat Actual Common FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos yellowthroat Sunfish barrier Actual Common yellow- RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender throat Actual Cooper's hawk Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Cooper's hawk Stehr Lake 00/001998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Cooper's hawk Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Cooper's hawk Fossil Creek Upland February 17, 2010 Agyagos Actual Cordilleran Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS flycatcher Actual Costa's Strawberry SW Block 06/15/1999 AGFD hummingbird Actual Costa's Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD hummingbird Actual Crissal thrasher Fossil Creek Upland February 17, 2010 Agyagos Actual Crissal thrasher Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Dark-eyed junco Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Eared grebe Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Eurasian Collared FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Dove Sunfish barrier Actual Gambel Quail Fossil Creek Upland February 17, 2010 Agyagos Actual Gambel's Quail Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Gambel's Quail Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Sena P/J Actual Gambel's Quail Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Gambel's quail Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Gambel's quail Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Gambel's quail Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Gambel's quail Irving Powerplant-3 04/29/2000 NAAS miles below Actual Gamble's Quail Child's Powerplant 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Gila Woodpecker RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Gila woodpecker Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Gila woodpecker Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Gila woodpecker Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Gila woodpecker FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Gila woodpecker Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Gila woodpecker Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Gila woodpecker Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Gila woodpecker Fossil Creek @ Irving 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby

157 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Golden eagle Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual golden eagle Child's Powerplant 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual gray flycatcher Child's Powerplant 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Gray flycatcher Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Gray flycatcher Uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Gray vireo Uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Gray vireo Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Gray vireo Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Gray-headed junco Fossil springs 00/00/1974 Bill Burbridge Actual Great blue heron Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Great blue heron Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Great Blue Heron RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Great blue heron Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Great Blue Heron FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Great blue heron Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Great blue heron Fossil Creek Riparian July 20, 2006 Agyagos Actual Great blue heron Fossil/Verde 00/00/1992 Sullivan Confluence Actual Greater roadrunner Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Greater Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Sena Roadrunner P/J Actual Great-horned owl Stehr Lake 21March2012 Agyagos Actual Great-horned owl Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Great-tailed grackle Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Great-tailed grackle Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Great-tailed grackle Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Great-tailed Stehr Lake 04/28/1998 Groschupf, McKinstry grackles Actual Great-tailed Stehr Lake 05/127/1998 Groschupf, McKinstry grackles Actual Green-tailed Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor towhee Actual Hairy woodpecker Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Hairy woodpecker Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Hairy Woodpecker Fossil springs 00/00/1974 Bill Burbridge Actual Hepatic tanager FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Hermit thrush RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Hermit thrush Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Hermit Thrush Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Hooded Oriole Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Hooded Oriole FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Hooded Oriole RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Hooded oriole Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Hooded oriole Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Hooded oriole Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Hooded oriole Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Hooded oriole Fossil Creek Riparian July 20, 2006 Agyagos Actual Hooded oriole Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca

158 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Hooded Oriole Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Hooded oriole Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual hooded oriole Child's Powerplant 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Hooded Oriole Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Hooded oriole Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Hooded oriole Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Hooded oriole Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Hooed oriole Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual House finch Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual House finch Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual House finch Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co.AZ Public Service Co. Actual House finch Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual House finch Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual House finch Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual House Finch FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual House finch Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual House finch RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual House wren FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual House wren Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual House Wren Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Hutton's vireo Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Hutton's vireo Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Indigo bunting Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Juniper titmouse Fossil Creek Riparian September 30, 2004 AgyagosOverby Actual killdeer Child's Powerplant 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Ladder backed Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD woodpecker Actual Ladder-backed Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor woodpecker Actual Ladder-backed Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS woodpecker Actual Ladder-backed Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD woodpecker Actual Ladder-backed Fossil Creek Old Corral 25Aug2009 Agyagos woodpecker Actual Lark Sparrow Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Lazuli bunting Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Lazuli bunting Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Le Conte's thrasher Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Lesser goldfinch Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Agyagos McPhail Actual Lesser Goldfinch Fossil Creek Old Corral 25Aug2009 Agyagos Actual Lesser goldfinch Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual lesser goldfinch Fossil Creek Riparian July 20, 2006 Agyagos Actual Lesser goldfinch Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Lesser goldfinch Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Lesser goldfinch Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith

159 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Lesser Goldfinch FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Lesser goldfinch RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Lesser goldfinch Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Lesser goldfinch Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Loggerhead shrike Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Loggerhead shrike RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Loggerhead shrike Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Lucy's warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 06/16/1994 Agyagos Actual Lucy's warbler Fossil Springs Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Lucy's Warbler Fossil Creek Mesquite 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby Bosque Actual Lucy's warbler Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Lucy's Warbler FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Lucy's warbler Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual MacGillivray's Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Warbler Actual MacGillivray's Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith warbler Actual MacGillivray's RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Warbler Actual Magnificient Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor hummingbird Actual Mallard Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Mexican Jay Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Mockingbird Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Mockingbird Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Mockingbird RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Mockingbird Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual morning dove Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Morning Dove Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Mourning dove Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Mourning dove Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Mourning dove Many locations 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Mourning dove Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Mourning dove Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Mourning dove Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Mourning dove Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Mourning dove Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Northern cardinal Fossil Creek Riparian 06/16/1994 Agyagos Actual Northern cardinal Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Northern cardinal Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Northern cardinal Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual northern cardinal Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Northern Flicker Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Agyagos Actual Northern Flicker Fossil Creek Riparian September 17, 2004 Agyagos Actual northern flicker Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos

160 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Northern flicker Fossil Creek Riparian October 11, 2004 Agyagos Actual Northern flicker Fossil Creek Riparian October 19, 2004 Agyagos Actual Northern flicker Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Northern flicker Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Northern flicker Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Northern flicker FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Northern Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos mockingbird Actual Northern uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor mockingbird Actual Northern Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Mockingbird Actual Northern Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby mockingbird P/J Actual Northern Stehr Lake 04/29/2000 NAAS mockingbird Actual Northern oriole Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Northern oriole Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/199105/1991- AZ Public Service Co. 07/1991 Actual Northern oriole Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Northern rough- FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos winged swallow Sunfish barrier Actual Northern rough- Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS winged swallow Actual Northern saw-whet Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos owl Actual Nothern cardinal Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Olive-sided RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender flycatcher Actual Olive-sided Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith flycatcher Actual Olive-sided Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. flycatcher Actual Osprey Fossil Springs Old 04Oct2011 Agyagos, Sena Corral Actual Osprey Fossil Creek Riparian November 7, 2004 Agyagos Actual Peregrine Falcon RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Peregrine falcon Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Phainopepela Fossil Creek Riparian 06/16/1994 Agyagos Actual Phainopepla Fossil Creek Old Corral 25Aug2009 Agyagos Actual Phainopepla Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Phainopepla Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos Actual Phainopepla Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Phainopepla Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Phainopepla Many locations 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Phainopepla Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Phainopepla Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Phainopepla FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Plain titmouse Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Plain Titmouse Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD

161 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Plumbeous vireo Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Pyrrhuloxia Child's Powerplant 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Red-faced warbler Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Red-shafted flicker Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Red-shafted flicker RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Red-shafted flicker Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Red-tailed hawk Fossil Creek on Flume 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Road Actual Red-tailed hawk Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Red-tailed hawk Fossil Creek Upland 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Red-tailed hawk Uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual red-tailed hawk Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Red-tailed hawk Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Red-tailed hawk Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Red-winged Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. blackbird Actual Red-winged Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos blackbird Actual Red-winged Stehr Lake 05/127/1998 Groschupf, McKinstry blackbirds Actual Robin Fossil springs 00/00/1974 Bill Burbridge Actual Rough-legged RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender hawk Actual Rough-legged Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith hawk Actual Rough-legged Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story hawk Actual Ruby-crowned Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby kinglet Actual Ruby-crowned Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos kinglet Actual Ruby-crowned FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos kinglet Sunfish barrier Actual Ruby-crowned Fossil Creek @ Irving 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby kinglet Actual Rufous Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. hummingbird Actual Rufous-crowned Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor sparrow Actual rufous-crowned Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD sparrow Actual Rufous-sided Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor towhee Actual Rufous-sided Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. towhee Actual Say's phoebe Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Scott's Oriole RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Scott's oriole Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Scott's oriole Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Scott's oriole Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Scott's oriole Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Scrub jay Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor

162 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Scrub Jay Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Scrub jay Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Scrub jay RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Scrub jay Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Scrub jay Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Scrub Jay Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Soliatry vireo Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Solitary Vireo RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Solitary vireo Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Solitary vireo Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Solitary vireo Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Solitary vireo Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Solitary vireo Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Song Sparrow Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Song sparrow Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Actual Song sparrow Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Song sparrow Strawberry SW Block 06/15/1999 AGFD Actual Sparrow hawk RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Sparrow hawk Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Sparrow hawk Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Sparrow sp Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Spotted towhee FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Spotted towhee Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Spotted towhee Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Spotted towhee Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Spotted towhee Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Spotted Towhee Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Starling Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Sulphur-bellied Strawberry SW Block 06/21/1996 AGFD flycatcher Actual Summer tanager Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Summer tanager Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Summer tanager Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Summer Tanager Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Summer tanager Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Summer tanager Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Summer tanager Child's Powerplant 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Summer tanager Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Summer tanager Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Summer tanager Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Summer tanager FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier

163 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Summer Tanager Fossil Creek Mesquite 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Sena Bosque Actual Townsend's Fossil Creek Upland February 17, 2010 Agyagos Solitaire Actual Tree Swallow FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Turkey Vulture Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Turkey vulture Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Turkey Vulture Fossil Creek on Flume 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Road Actual Turkey vulture Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Turkey vulture Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Turkey vulture Along length of canyon 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Turkey vulture Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Turkey vulture Fossil Creek Upland 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual turkey vulture Fossil Creek Riparian July 20, 2006 Agyagos Actual Turkey Vulture Fossil Creek above 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby large waterfall Actual Turkey Vulture RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Turkey vulture Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Turkey Vulture Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Turkey Vulture Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Agyagos McPhail Actual Verdin Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Verdin Riparian & uplands 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual Verdin Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Vermillion Fossil/Verde 00/00/1992 Sullivan flycatcher Confluence Actual Violet green FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos swallow Sunfish barrier Actual Violet-green Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. swallow Actual Violet-green Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. swallow Actual Violet-green Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD swallow Actual Violet-green Riparian & uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor swallow Actual Violet-green All locations 04/29/2000 NAAS swallow Actual Violet-green Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos swallow Actual Violet-green Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Swallow Actual Violet-green Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey swallow Actual Violet-green Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey swallow Boulder Canyon Actual Vireo sp Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Virginia warbler Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Virginia's warbler Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Virginia's Warbler RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Virginia's warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Virginia's warbler Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story

164 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual Virginia's warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Virginina's warbler Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Warbling vireo Fossil Springs Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Warbling vireo Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Warbling vireo Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual Warbling Vireo RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Weid's Crested RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender flycatcher Actual Western bluebird Child's Powerplant 03/10/2000 Overby, Agyagos Actual Western bluebird Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Western kingbird Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Western kingbird Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual western kingbird Fossil Creek Riparian July 20, 2006 Agyagos Actual Western kingbird Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Western kingbird Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Western Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor meadowlark Actual Western screech Stehr Lake 21March2012 Agyagos owl Actual Western tanager Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Western tanager Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Western tanager Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Western tanager Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Western tanager Stehr Lake 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Western tanager Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Western Tanager Fossil Creek Uplands 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby P/J Actual Western Tanager Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Western tanager FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Western wood Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor pewee Actual Western wood Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca pewee Actual Western wood Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos pewee Actual Western wood Fossil Creek Riparian 06/16/1994 Agyagos pewee Actual Western wood Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story pewee Actual Western wood Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith pewee Actual Western Wood RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Pewee Actual Western wood FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos pewee Sunfish barrier Actual Western wood Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. pewee Actual Western wood Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey pewee Actual Western wood- Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD

165 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type pewee Actual White-crowned Fossil Creek Upland February 17, 2010 Agyagos sparrow Actual White-crowned Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor sparrow Actual White-crowned Fossil Creek Old Corral 25Aug2009 Agyagos sparrow Actual White-throated swift Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual White-throated swift Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual White-throated swift Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual White-winged dove Riparian 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual White-winged dove Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Wied's crested Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith flycatcher Actual Wied's Crested Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story flycatcher Actual Wilson Warbler Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Wood duck FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Yellow warbler RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender Actual Yellow warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. Actual Yellow Warbler Stehr Lake 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Yellow warbler Fossil/Verde 00/00/1992 Sullivan Confluence Actual Yellow warbler Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Yellow warbler Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Yellow warbler Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos Actual Yellow warbler Child's Powerplant 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Yellow warbler Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Actual yellow warbler Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Yellow warbler Irving to bridge 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Actual Yellow Warbler Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Agyagos McPhail Actual Yellow warbler Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey Boulder Canyon Actual Yellow warbler Fossil Springs Riparian 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Yellow warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Actual Yellow warbler Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos Actual Yellow warbler Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Yellow warbler Irving Powerplant 04/29/2000 NAAS Actual Yellow warbler FS from springs below 2011 Deluca, Agyagos Sunfish barrier Actual Yellow warlber Fossil Creek above 20 May 2008 Agyagos, Overby large waterfall Actual Yellow-bellied Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 AZ Public Service Co. sapsucker Actual Yellow-billed Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor cuckoo Actual Yellow-breasted Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca chat Actual Yellow-breasted Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith chat

166 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Actual yellow-breasted Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story chat Actual yellow-breasted Stehr Lake 06/18/1994 Agyagos chat Actual Yellow-breasted RNA and vicinity 05/18/1973 Smith/Bender chat Actual Yellow-breasted Riparian 05/08/1999 Taylor chat Actual yellow-breasted Fossil - Bridge to 00/00/1998 Scott Bailey chat Boulder Canyon Actual Yellow-breasted Fossil Springs Riparian 06/28/1994 Agyagos chat Actual Yellow-breasted Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD chat Actual Yellow-breasted Aqueduct Spring 06/16/1994 Agyagos chat Actual Yellow-rumped Fossil Creek @ Dam 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby warbler Actual Yellow-rumped Fossil/Verde 00/00/1992 Sullivan warbler Confluence Actual Yellow-rumped Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca warbler Actual Yellowwarbler Fossil Springs Riparian November 1974 Bill Burbridge Mark Story Actual zone-tailed hawk Fossil Creek Riparian April 27, 2010 LoomisDeLuca Actual Zone-tailed hawk Fossil Creek on Flume 24March2000 Agyagos, Overby Road Actual Zone-tailed hawk Fossil Creek/Spring 00/00/1998 Robert Magill- AGFD Actual Zone-tailed hawk Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Zone-tailed hawk Uplands 05/08/1999 Taylor Actual Zone-tailed hawk Not specified 07/27/1999 AGFD Hypothetical American goldfinch Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical American kestrel West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical American white West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan pelican Fossil Creek Hypothetical American wigeon West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Audobon's warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Bald eagle Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Bald eagle West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Band-tailed pigeon Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Bank swallow West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Belted kingfisher West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Black phoebee West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Black-chinned West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan hummingbird Fossil Creek Hypothetical Black-crowned West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan night heron Fossil Creek Hypothetical Black-headed West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan

167 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type grosbeak Fossil Creek Hypothetical Black-throated gray Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith warbler Hypothetical Blue grosbeak West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Blue-gray Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith gnatcatcher Hypothetical Broad-tailed West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan hummingbird Fossil Creek Hypothetical Brown creeper Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Brown towhee Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Brown-headed Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith cowbird Hypothetical Bullock's oriole Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Bushtit Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Canada goose West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Canyon wren West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Cassin's finch Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Cedar waxwing Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Chipping sparrow Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Cinnamon teal West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Cliff swallow West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Cliff swallow Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Common black West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan hawk Fossil Creek Hypothetical Common West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan goldeneye Fossil Creek Hypothetical Common West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan merganser Fossil Creek Hypothetical Common nighthawk Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Common raven West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Common screech Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith owl Hypothetical Cooper's hawk Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Cooper's hawk West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Costa's West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan hummingbird Fossil Creek Hypothetical Coue's flycatcher Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Crissal thrasher Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Empidonax Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith flycatcher Hypothetical Ferruginous hawk West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Gadwall West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Gambel's quail West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Gila woodpecker Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Sullivan Verde

168 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Hypothetical Golden eagle West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Golden eagle Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Gray vireo Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Gray-headed junco Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Great blue heron West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Great egret West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Great horned owl Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Great horned owl West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Great-tailed grackle West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Green heron West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Green-tailed Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith towhee Hypothetical Green-winged teal West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Hepatic tanager Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Hermit warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Hooded merganser West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Hooded oriole West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical House finch Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Sullivan Verde Hypothetical House wren Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Indigo bunting Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Killdeer West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Ladder-backed Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith woodpecker Hypothetical Ladder-backed West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan woodpecker Fossil Creek Hypothetical Lazuli bunting Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Lesser scaup West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Lincoln's sparrow Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Loggerhead shrike West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Mallard West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Marbled godwit West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Marbled godwit Fossil Creek Hypothetical Merlin West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Mourning dove West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Mourning dove Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Northern cardinal West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Northern flicker West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan East Verde

169 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Hypothetical Northern harrier West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Northern West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan mockingbird East Verde Hypothetical Northern pintail West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Northern shoveler West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Orange-crowned Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith warbler Hypothetical Oregon junco Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Osprey Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Osprey West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Painted redstart Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Peregrine falcon West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Phainopepla West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Pine siskin Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Plain titmouse Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Prairie falcon West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Pygmy owl Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Redhead West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Red-tailed hawk Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Ring-necked duck West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Roadrunner Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Robin Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Rock wren Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Ruby-crowned Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith kinglet Hypothetical Rufous Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith hummingbird Hypothetical Rufous-sided Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith towhee Hypothetical Say's phoebe Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Scott's oriole West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Sharp-shinned West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan hawk Fossil Creek Hypothetical Snowy egret West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Solitary sandpiper West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Song sparrow West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Song sparrow Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Spotted sandpiper Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Swainson's hawk West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Townsend's warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith

170 Fossil Creek Species Bird Query Observation Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Hypothetical Turkey vulture West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Verdin Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Vermilion flycatcher West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Violet-green Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith swallow Hypothetical Water ouzel Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Western bluebird West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Western bluebird Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Western kingbird Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Western tanager Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical White-breasted Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith nuthatch Hypothetical White-crowned Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith sparrow Hypothetical White-faced ibis West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical White-throated swift West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical White-throated swift Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical White-winged dove Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Willet West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Wilson's warbler Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith Hypothetical Wood duck West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Yellow warbler Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Yellow-bellied Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 E.L.Smith sapsucker Hypothetical Yellow-rumped Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Sullivan warbler Verde Hypothetical Zone-tailed hawk West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Sullivan Fossil Creek

171

Appendix C

Fossil Creek Mammal Query Observation Group Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Name Actual Allen's lappet-browed Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz bat Actual Arizona gray Squirrel Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Mammals Agyagos McPhail Actual Arizona gray squirrel Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, Mammals Agyagos 2004 Actual Arizona Gray Squirrel Fossil Creek Riparian October 28, Mammals Cecelia Overby 2009 Actual Big Brown Bat Fossil Creek Irving August 4, 1993 Mammals FS crew Trailhead Actual Big brown bat Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Big brown bat Ed's Tank June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Big brown bat Fossil Springs Riparian June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Big free-tailed bat Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Big free-tailed bat Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Black bear Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, Mammals Agyagos 2004 Actual Black-tailed jackrabbit Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual Bobcat Fossil Creek Riparian 22Feb2011 Mammals Agyagos, Sena Actual California myotis Mail Trail Tank No. 1 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual California myotis Fossil Springs Cave 1992 Mammals Hans Bodenhamer Dwellings Actual California myotis Ed's Tank June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual California myotis Mail Trail Tank No. 2 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Canyon pipistrelle Mail Trail Tank No. 2 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Canyon pipistrelle Mail Trail Tank No. 1 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Canyon pipistrelle Ed's Tank June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Cave myotis Fossil Springs Riparian June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Cliff chipmunk Fossil Springs Riparian November Mammals Bill Burbridge Mark 1974 Story Actual Cliff chipmunk Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Actual Coyote Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual Coyote Stehr Lake 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual Desert cottontail Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual Desert cottontail Stehr Lake 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual Gray fox Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual javelina Fossil Creek Riparian October 11, Mammals Agyagos 2004 Actual Javelina Fossil Springs Riparian 18Aug2009 Mammals Agyagos McPhail Actual Javelina Fossil Springs Riparian 16June2010 Mammals Agyagos, McPhail Actual Mexican free-tailed bat Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Mexican free-tailed bat Fossil Springs Riparian June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Mexican free-tailed bat Mail Trail Tank No. 2 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Mexican free-tailed bat Mail Trail Tank No. 1 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Mule deer Fossil Springs Riparian November Mammals Bill Burbridge Mark

172 Fossil Creek Mammal Query Observation Group Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Name 1974 Story Actual Mule deer Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Actual Mule deer Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual Pallid bat Mail Trail Tank No. 2 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Pallid Bat Cabin at Irving 1992 Mammals Hans Bodenhamer Powerplant Actual Pallid bat Mail Trail Tank No. 1 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Pallid bat Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Pallid bat Ed's Tank June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Pallid bat Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Pocketed free-tailed Fossil Creek Irving August 4, 1993 Mammals FS crew bat Trailhead Actual Raccoon Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual Red bat Fossil Springs Riparian June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Ring-tailed cat Fossil Springs Riparian 16June2010 Mammals Agyagos McPhail Actual Rock squirrel Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991- Mammals AZ Public Service 07/1991 Co. Actual Rock squirrel Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Actual Rock Squirrel Fossil Springs Riparian November Mammals Bill Burbridge Mark 1974 Story Actual Southwestern myotis Mail Trail Tank No. 1 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Southwestern myotis Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Southwestern Myotis Fossil Creek Irving August 4, 1993 Mammals FS crew Trailhead Actual spotted skunk Fossil Creek Riparian October 11, Mammals Agyagos 2004 Actual Townsend's big-eared Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz bat Actual Western small-footed Mail Trail Tank No. 2 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz bat Actual Western small-footed Mail Trail Tank No. 1 June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz bat Actual Western small-footed Fossil Springs Riparian June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz bat Actual white-tail deer Fossil Creek Riparian October 11, Mammals Agyagos 2004 Actual white-tailed deer Stehr Lake 21March2012 Mammals Agyagos Actual Yuma myotis Ed's Tank June 29, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Actual Yuma myotis Above Fossil Springs June 28, 2011 Mammals Bat Blitz Hypothetical Allen's big-eared bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical American free-tailed West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan bat Fossil Creek Hypothetical Badger Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Beaver West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Big brown bat Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Big Brown Bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Big free-tailed bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Black-tailed jack rabbit Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Bobcat Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Brush mouse Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith

173 Fossil Creek Mammal Query Observation Group Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Name Hypothetical California leaf-nosed Mammals Agyagos bat Hypothetical California myotis Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Cave Myotis Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Coyote West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Coyote Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Deer mouse Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Desert cottontail Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Desert cottontail West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Elk West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Fringed myotis Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Fringed myotis West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Gray fox Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Harris' antelope West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan squirrel Fossil Creek Hypothetical Hoary Bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Hoary bat Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Hoary bat West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Javelina West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Javelina Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Long-eared myotis Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Long-legged myotis Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Mexican free-tailed bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Mountain lion West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Mountain lion Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Mule deer West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Northern grasshopper West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan mouse Fossil Creek Hypothetical Ord's kangaroo rat West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Pale Townsend's Big- Mammals Agyagos eared bat Hypothetical Pallid bat Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Plains harvest mouse West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Pocket gopher Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Porcupine Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Pronghorn West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Raccoon Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Raccoon Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Red bat Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Red Bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Ringtail Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith

174 Fossil Creek Mammal Query Observation Group Common Name Observation Location Date Observer Type Name Hypothetical River otter West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Rock squirrel West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Silver-haired bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Silver-haired bat West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Southwestern myotis Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Spotted bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Spotted skunk Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Striped skunk Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Townsend's big-eared West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan bat Fossil Creek Hypothetical Western harvest West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan mouse Fossil Creek Hypothetical Western harvest Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith mouse Hypothetical Western mastiff bat Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Western pipistrelle Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith Hypothetical Western small-footed Mammals Agyagos myotis Hypothetical Wetern pipistrelle Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical White-tailed deer West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Mammals Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical White-throated wood Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith rat Hypothetical Yuma Myotis Mammals Agyagos Hypothetical Yuma myotis Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Mammals E.L.Smith

175 Appendix D

Fossil Creek Species Herp Query Observation Observation Group Common Name Date Observer Type Location Name Actual Arizona Black Fossil Creek Riparian September 17, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Rattlesnake Actual Black-necked Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 Reptiles AZ Public Service garter snake Co. Actual black-necked Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos gartersnake Actual Black-necked Fossil upstream large July 22, 2009 Reptiles Janie Agyagos et. gartersnake falls al. Actual Bullsnake Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Actual Canyon tree frog Fossil Creek Riparian October 21, 2004 Amphibians Agyagos Actual Canyon tree frog Fossil Creek Riparian April 7, 2006 Amphibians AgyagosOverby Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil above large June 27, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. falls al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Irving to large April 7, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. falls al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil above large August 25, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. falls al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil below Irving July 15, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Creek below July 20, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. Dam al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil above large May 31, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. falls al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil from below August 18, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. dam to above springs al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil above sunfish July 20, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. barrier al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Springs May 25, 2005 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. Riparian al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Springs August 18, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. Riparian al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil @ Irving July 18, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. Trailhead al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil upstream of May 20, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. large falls al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Creek Riparian September 30, 2004 Amphibians AgyagosOverby Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil below sunfish August 15, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. barrier al. Actual canyon treefrog Fossil Creek Riparian October 11, 2004 Amphibians Agyagos Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil below Irving June 2, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil below trail July 20, 2007 Amphibians Shaula Hedwall, down to sunfish Susi Macvean barrier Actual Canyon treefrog Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Amphibians Agyagos Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Dam July 20, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. downstream to trail al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil downstream July 13, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. dam al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Irving trailhead June 21, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. up to large falls al. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil upstream large July 22, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. falls al.

176 Fossil Creek Species Herp Query Observation Observation Group Common Name Date Observer Type Location Name Actual Canyon Treefrog Unnamed Spring 00/00/1998 Amphibians Ken Abbott Actual Canyon treefrog FC above Irving 2011 Amphibians Agyagos Trailhead Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Creek @ 00/00/1995 Amphibians AGFD Forest Boundary Actual Canyon Treefrog FC below sunfish 2010 Amphibians Agyagos barrier Actual Canyon treefrog Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 Amphibians AZ Public Service Co. Actual Canyon Treefrog Fossil Creek @ 00/00/1992 Amphibians AGFD Forest Boundary Actual Canyon Treefrog Lower Fossil Creek 00/00/1998 Amphibians Ken Abbott Actual Canyon treefrog Upper Fossil Creek 2010 Amphibians Janie Agyagos Intermittent Actual Canyon treefrog FC above Irving 2012 Amphibians Agyagos Trailhead Actual Canyon treefrog Fossil Springs 2010 Amphibians Janie Agyagos Riparian Actual Canyon treefrog Fossil Creek above 16Sept2010 Amphibians Agyagos, Sena, Springs Cress Actual Canyon treefrog Fossil Creek above 17Sept2010 Amphibians Agyagos, Sena, waterfall Cress Actual Canyon treefrog Fossil Creek @ 06May2011 Amphibians Agyagos, Loomis Deadman Mesa confluence Actual Collared lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Actual Eastern fence lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 Reptiles AZ Public Service Co. Actual Eastern fence lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Actual Garter snake Fossil Springs 2010 Reptiles Janie Agyagos Riparian Actual Gartersnake Fossil Dam July 20, 2007 Reptiles Janie Agyagos et. downstream to trail al. Actual Gartersnake Fossil below sunfish August 15, 2008 Reptiles Janie Agyagos et. barrier al. Actual Gartersnake Fossil below Irving July 15, 2009 Reptiles Janie Agyagos et. al. Actual Gartersnake Fossil upstream of May 20, 2008 Reptiles Janie Agyagos et. large falls al. Actual Gila monster Barrier trail 27March2012 Reptiles Libby Langston Actual Greater earless Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith lizard Actual Greater earless Fossil Creek Upland April 27, 2010 Reptiles LoomisDeLuca lizard Actual Leopard frog Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Amphibians E.L.Smith Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Creek below Sept. 2004 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog sunfish barrier al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Springs May 26, 2005 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog Riparian al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Creek below 2004 Amphibians Allen Haden frog sunfish barrier Actual lowland leopard Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Amphibians Agyagos frog Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 Amphibians AZ Public Service frog Co. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil above large May 31, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et.

177 Fossil Creek Species Herp Query Observation Observation Group Common Name Date Observer Type Location Name frog falls al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Creek Riparian October 19, 2004 Amphibians Agyagos frog Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Below Sunfish July 21, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog barrier al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Irving to large July 19, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog falls al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Springs May 25, 2005 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog Riparian al. Actual lowland leopard Fossil Creek Riparian September 17, 2004 Amphibians Agyagos frog Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Springs July 20, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog Riparian al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil above sunfish July 20, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog barrier al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Creek above 17Sept2010 Amphibians Agyagos, Sena, frog waterfall Cress Actual Lowland leopard Fossil upstream large July 22, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog falls al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Springs July 11,2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog Riparian al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil above dam July 11, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil below dam July 11, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog al. Actual Lowland leopard FC above Irving 2011 Amphibians Agyagos frog Trailhead Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Springs August 18, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog Riparian al. Actual Lowland leopard FC btw dam and 2012 Amphibians Edwards, Lockward frog sunfish barrier Actual Lowland leopard Fossil from below August 18, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog dam to above springs al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Irving trailhead June 21, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog up to large falls al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil above large August 25, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog falls al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Creek below July 20, 2006 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog dam al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil upstream of May 20, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog large falls al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Creek above 16Sept2010 Amphibians Agyagos, Sena, frog Springs Cress Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Springs 16Sept2010 Amphibians Agyagos, Sena, frog Riparian Cress Actual Lowland leopard Fossil below trail July 20, 2007 Amphibians Shaula Hedwall, frog down to sunfish Susi Macvean barrier Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Springs 2012 Amphibians Edwards, Lockward frog Riparian Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Dam July 20, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog downstream to trail al. Actual Lowland leopard Fossil Springs 2010 Amphibians Janie Agyagos frog Riparian Actual Lowland leopard Fossil downstream July 13, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog dam al.

178 Fossil Creek Species Herp Query Observation Observation Group Common Name Date Observer Type Location Name Actual Lowland leopard Fossil below sunfish August 15, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. frog barrier al. Actual Madrean Alligator Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos lizard Actual Mojave rattlesnake Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 Reptiles AZ Public Service Co. Actual Red spotted toad Fossil below Irving July 15, 2009 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. al. Actual Red spotted toad Fossil Springs 16Sept2010 Amphibians Agyagos, Sena, Riparian Cress Actual Red spotted toad Fossil upstream of May 20, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. large falls al. Actual Red spotted toad Fossil below Irving June 2, 2008 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. al. Actual Red spotted toads Fossil Irving trailhead June 21, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. up to large falls al. Actual Red spotted toads Fossil above large May 31, 2007 Amphibians Janie Agyagos et. falls al. Actual Side-blotched lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991-07/1991 Reptiles AZ Public Service Co. Actual Sonora mud turtle FC above Irving 2012 Reptiles Agyagos Trailhead Actual Sonoran Mountain Fossil Dam July 20, 2007 Reptiles Janie Agyagos et. Kingsnake downstream to trail al. Actual Sonoran mud turtle Fossil Creek Riparian November 7, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Actual Sonoran mud turtle Fossil Creek Riparian October 19, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Actual Sonoran mud turtle Fossil Creek Riparian November 7, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Actual Sonoran Mud turtle Fossil Creek Riparian October 21, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Actual Sonoran Mud turtle Fossil Springs August 18, 2009 Reptiles Janie Agyagos et. Riparian al. Actual Sonoran whipsnake Fossil Creek Riparian 05/1991- Reptiles AZ Public Service 07/199105/1991- Co. 07/1991 Actual Spiny lizard Fossil Creek Riparian October 19, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Actual Toad sp. FC below sunfish 2010 Amphibians Agyagos barrier Actual Tree lizard Fossil Creek above 17Sept2010 Reptiles Agyagos, Sena, waterfall Cress Actual Tree lizard Fossil Creek Riparian October 21, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Actual Tree lizard Fossil Creek Riparian October 20, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Actual Tree lizard Fossil Creek Riparian September 30, 2004 Reptiles AgyagosOverby Actual Tree lizard Fossil Springs 16June2010 Reptiles Agyagos, McPhail Riparian Actual Tree lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Actual Tree lizard Fossil Creek Riparian April 7, 2006 Reptiles AgyagosOverby Actual tree lizard Fossil Creek above 16Sept2010 Reptiles Agyagos, Sena, Springs Cress Actual True frog or toad Fossil Creek @ 00/00/1995 Amphibians AGFD Forest Boundary Actual Whipsnake Fossil Creek Riparian September 30, 2004 Reptiles AgyagosOverby Actual Whipsnake Fossil Creek Riparian October 11, 2004 Reptiles Agyagos Actual Zebra-tailed lizard Fossil Springs 16June2010 Reptiles Agyagos, McPhail Riparian Hypothetical Alligator whiptail Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Arizona black Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak

179 Fossil Creek Species Herp Query Observation Observation Group Common Name Date Observer Type Location Name rattlesnake Hypothetical Arizona coral snake Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Hypothetical Arizona glassy Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan snake Verde Hypothetical Arizona toad West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Banded sand snake Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Black-necked Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith garter snake Hypothetical Black-necked West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan garter snake East Verde Hypothetical Black-necked Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak garter snake Hypothetical Black-tailed West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan rattlesnake East Verde Hypothetical Black-tailed Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak rattlesnake Hypothetical Black-tailed Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith rattlesnake Hypothetical Bullfrog West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Bullfrog Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Amphibians Erika Nowak Hypothetical Canyon treefrog Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Amphibians E.L.Smith Hypothetical Canyon treefrog West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Canyon treefrog Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Amphibians Erika Nowak Hypothetical Checkered garter Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak snake Hypothetical Checkered garter Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan snake Verde Hypothetical Chiracahua leopard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Amphibians Erika Nowak frog Hypothetical Clark spiny lizard Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Clark's spiny lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Coachwhip Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Coachwhip West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Common West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan chuckwalla East Verde Hypothetical Common collared Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak lizard Hypothetical Common kingsnake West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Common kingsnake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Coral snake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Couch spadefoot West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Desert grassland West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan whiptail East Verde Hypothetical Desert iguana Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Desert night lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Desert patch-nosed West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan

180 Fossil Creek Species Herp Query Observation Observation Group Common Name Date Observer Type Location Name snake East Verde Hypothetical Desert spiny lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Desert striped Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak whiptail Hypothetical Desert tortoise West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Eastern fence lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Gila monster West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Fossil Creek Hypothetical Gila monster Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Gila spotted Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak whiptail Hypothetical Gila spotted West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan whiptail East Verde Hypothetical Glossy snake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Gopher snake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Great plains skink Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Great plains skink West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Great plains skink Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Hypothetical Great plains toad West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Greater earless Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak lizard Hypothetical Greater earless Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan lizard Verde Hypothetical Ground snake Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Ground snake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Long-nosed Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan leopard lizard Verde Hypothetical Long-nosed snake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Lowland leopard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Amphibians Erika Nowak frog Hypothetical Lowland leopard West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan frog East Verde Hypothetical Lyre snake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Madrean alligator West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan lizard East Verde Hypothetical Many-lined skink Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Mexican garter Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak snake Hypothetical Mojave rattlesnake West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Narrow-headed Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak garter snake Hypothetical Narrow-headed West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan garter snake Fossil Creek Hypothetical Narrow-headed Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith water snake Hypothetical Night snake Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Hypothetical Night snake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Night snake West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde

181 Fossil Creek Species Herp Query Observation Observation Group Common Name Date Observer Type Location Name Hypothetical Plateau striped Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak whiptail Hypothetical Plateau whiptail Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Hypothetical Red-spotted toad Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Amphibians Erika Nowak Hypothetical Red-spotted toad Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Amphibians E.L.Smith Hypothetical Red-spotted toad West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Regal horned lizard West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Ringneck snake Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Hypothetical Ringneck snake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Ringneck snake West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Short-horned lizard West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Short-horned lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Side-blotched lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Side-blotched lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Hypothetical Side-blotched lizard Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Sidewinder Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Verde Hypothetical Smooth green Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak snake Hypothetical Sonora mountain Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith kingsnake Hypothetical Sonoran desert West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan toad East Verde Hypothetical Sonoran gopher West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan snake East Verde Hypothetical Sonoran lyre snake West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Sonoran mountain West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan kingsnake East Verde Hypothetical Sonoran mud turtle Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Sonoran mud turtle West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Sonoran spotted Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan whiptail Verde Hypothetical Sonoran whipsnake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Sonoran whipsnake West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Southern plateau West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan lizard East Verde Hypothetical Southern spadefoot West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Southwestern West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan black-headed East Verde snake Hypothetical Southwestern Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak black-headed snake Hypothetical Southwestern toad Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Amphibians Erika Nowak Hypothetical Spiny softshell Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Spiny softshell West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan

182 Fossil Creek Species Herp Query Observation Observation Group Common Name Date Observer Type Location Name turtle Fossil Creek Hypothetical Striped whipsnake Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Striped whipsnake Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Hypothetical Tiger rattlesnake West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Tiger salamander Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Amphibians Erika Nowak Hypothetical Tree lizard West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Tree lizard Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Wandering garter West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan snake Fossil Creek Hypothetical Western banded West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan gecko East Verde Hypothetical Western banded Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak gecko Hypothetical Western blind West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan snake East Verde Hypothetical Western collared West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan lizard East Verde Hypothetical Western coral West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan snake Fossil Creek Hypothetical Western West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan diamondback Fossil Creek rattlesnake Hypothetical Western Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak diamondback rattlesnake Hypothetical Western longnosed West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan snake East Verde Hypothetical Western patch- Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak nosed snake Hypothetical Western Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith rattlesnake Hypothetical Western West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan rattlesnake East Verde Hypothetical Western shovel- Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan nosed snake Verde Hypothetical Western whiptail Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Reptiles Erika Nowak Hypothetical Western whiptail West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Western whiptail Fossil Creek Riparian 05/18/1973 Reptiles E.L.Smith Hypothetical Woodhouse toad Fossil Creek Riparian 00/00/1999 Amphibians Erika Nowak Hypothetical Woodhouse toad West Clear Creek to 03/00/1993 Amphibians Sullivan East Verde Hypothetical Zebra-tailed lizard Fossil Creek to East 03/00/1993 Reptiles Sullivan Verde

183