Bradshaw Vegetation Management Aquatics Report

0075

Bradshaw Vegetation Project

Aquatic Resources Report

Prepared by: Dan Kenney Fishery Biologist Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests

for: Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest

June 12, 2012 Revised July 10, 2012

Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 1/52 0075

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 2/52 0075

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Overview of Issues Addressed ...... 1 Affected Environment ...... 2 Existing Condition ...... 2 Desired Condition ...... 13 Environmental Consequences ...... 21 Methodology ...... 21 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis ...... 26 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 27 Alternatives 2 and 3 – Proposed Action and Smoke Reduction ...... 28 References (Literature Cited) ...... 43

List of Tables

Table 1. 5th and 6th HUC watersheds within the Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project Area 3 Table 2 Special status species discussed in this report, with Federal status and effects of action alternatives...... Error! Bookmark not defined.9

List of Figures

Figure 1. Water and watershed features of the Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project ...... 5 Figure 2. “Perennial” Upper Hassayampa River near Groom Creek confluence, April 2010 ...... 6 Figure 3. “Intermittent” Mint Wash a few hundred feet below Granite Basin Dam, April 2010 ... 6 Figure 4. “Ephemeral” Aspen Creek near Forest Boundary; April 2010 ...... 6 Figure 5. Canyon tree frog (Hyla arenicolor) near upper Hassayampa River (considered perennial), April 2010 ...... 7 Figure 6. Blackfly (Simuliidae) larvae on boulder in unnamed tributary (considered ephemeral) of the Hassayampa River; April 2010 ...... 7 Figure 7. Caddis (Trichoptera) larval case from the upper Hassayampa River (considered perennial), April 2010 ...... 7

i Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 3/52 0075

Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 4/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Introduction The purpose of this report is document the effects of the proposed Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project (BVMP) proposed action, one additional action alternative, and the “No Action” alternative on aquatic and riparian-dependent animal species (not including mammals and birds, which are analyzed in the Wildlife Specialist Report).

The project area encompasses approximately 55,660 acres of public land managed by the Prescott National Forest (PNF) in Yavapai County, Arizona and surrounding or nearby the city of Prescott. The BVMP is designed to reduce hazardous fuels using a combination of treatments such as commercial thinning, prescribed burning and both mechanized and non mechanized fuel treatments. The project area encompasses several different vegetation and landtypes including chaparral, ponderosa pine-evergreen oak, ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, evergreen oak, Gambel oak and mixed conifer. This document analyzes the two proposed action alternatives (2 and 3) for the BVMP and the No Action alternative. The action alternatives for the project also include construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of temporary or permanent road and adoption of Interdisciplinary Team recommendations that arose from a Travel Analysis Process (TAP) for the existing roads and motorized trails that would be used in implementation of BVMP. The protected riparian areas (as defined by restriction of activities inherent in the Project Design Features listed in the description for Alternatives 2 and 3) associated within these vegetation types make up about 1% of the BVMP project area.

Given that an unknown number of aquatic or riparian animal species may be affected by the proposed project, this report focuses on species which have special status, including those listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) as occurring in Yavapai County, those on the Regional Forester’s list of “Sensitive” species, and those on the PNF’s list of Management Indicator Species (MIS). Aquatic and riparian species without special status are likely to be affected by the BVMP in a similar manner to those discussed in this report. The report also discusses the existing conditions of the project area regarding aquatic and riparian-dependent animals and PNF direction relating to management of these animals and their habitat. Substantial portions of parcels of private inholdings exist within the BVMP area, but would not receive fuels treatments as a part of the project and so aquatic and riparian habitat on these inholdings will not be discussed in this report except in the cumulative effects analysis.

No aquatic or riparian-dependent species listed under the ESA appear to be present in the BVMP area, although four “Sensitive” species are probably or possibly present. MIS aquatic macroinvertebrates exist in many project streams.

This report serves as the Biological Evaluation that documents the effects on federally listed or proposed species and any designated or proposed critical habitat under ESA, and Forest Service Region 3 sensitive species. This report also serves as the Specialist Report that documents the effects of the alternatives on Prescott National Forest MIS. This report was developed after considering the best available science for assessing resource conditions and then determining the effects associated with project activities.

Overview of Issues Addressed The project area has a relatively small amount of perennial stream and of other potential habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent species, so this analysis of effects on special-status species focuses on the potential presence of individuals in the project area and the likely effects of the alternatives on aquatic and riparian habitat. To a large extent, the potential effects on aquatic-

1 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 5/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

dependent species are dependent on the response of these organisms to changes in water quality and quantity and in soil erosion, so the specialist reports on hydrology and soils are referenced.

The concept that the reduction of forest fuel loads through thinning and fuels treatments can reduce the size and severity of wildfires is well established (Finney et al. 2005) and is the basis for the proposed action and the smoke reduction alternative. Wildfire, however, has been a continual component of forest ecosystems and chiefly becomes undesirable in the context of forest product utilization and the protection of human life and property. At least on a landscape scale, the effect of wildfire on vegetation and geomorphic processes has been a driver of the development of ecosystems to which native flora and fauna are well adapted, including biota associated with streams, wetlands, and other water bodies (Luce and Rieman 2010). Riparian and wetland areas compose a small minority of the PNF and the BVMP area, however, and habitat quality has often been adversely modified in these areas (PNF 2009) to the extent that additional anthropogenic influences may be disproportionately degrading. Further, the efficacy and effects of riparian fuels treatments are not fully understood (Beche et al. 2005, Arkle and Pilliod 2010, Stone et al. 2010), and would likely vary substantially based on site conditions, upland fire behavior, etc. So as to minimize the potential short-term harm to riparian biota while allowing some level of fuels treatment, riparian buffer areas that allow some treatment activities have been included in the proposed action and are listed in the description for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Affected Environment Existing Condition

Habitat Abundance and Conditions Aquatic and riparian-dependent vertebrates (and many invertebrates) generally persist only where surface water is present for at least a few months of the year, but the project area is relatively arid and suitable habitat for such species is correspondingly rare. Details on the hydrology of the project area are provided in the specialist report by Hermandorfer (2012), but the subject is partially discussed below.

The project area consists of portions of five sub-basins (Table 1), all of which (except for the minor acreage of the Santa Maria sub-basin) is considered part of the larger Gila River basin. The mainstem of the Gila River flows well south of the project area and west across Arizona (having originated in New Mexico) and is relevant to this report because the distribution of native species (especially fish) is heavily influenced by stream channel corridors. Precipitation in the project area consists mainly of snow and summer monsoon rains, so streamflows are typically highest in the winter and some years with a smaller peak in mid-summer (Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) 2009).

Based on the records from a U.S. Geological Survey stream volume recording gage on Granite Creek at Prescott (off the PNF, but with most of its catchment in the BVMP area), peak flows in project area streams usually occur in January, February, or March, but annual peak flows appear to have historically occurred in nearly every month of the year over the 17 year period of record for the gage. On January 21, 2010, the mean flow at the gage was about 1,340 cubic feet per second (cfs), with a peak volume within that day of nearly 6,000 cfs. Conversely, flows at the gage were zero much of the summer of 2010. The gage data demonstrates the extremely flashy nature of the streams in the project area and the existence of stream channels of substantial size that that are intermittent or ephemeral.

2 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 6/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Table 1. 5th and 6th HUC watersheds within the Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project Area

Project Area th 5th HUC Project % of 5 5th HUC Number & Name Acres in 5th Total Acres HUC HUC (1507010202) Big Bug – Agua Fria River 207,451 16,305 7.9 (1507010203) Black Canyon Creek 156,206 215 0.1 (1506020201) Granite Creek - Upper Verde 229,828 18,034 7.8 River (1503020301) Kirkland Creek 259,363 2,215 0.9 (1507010301) Upper Hassayampa River 194,019 16,912 8.2 (1506020107) Williamson Valley Wash 205,366 1,962 1.0 Project Area 6th HUC Total Project % of 6th 6th HUC Name Acres in 6th Acres HUC HUC (150701020408) Big Bug Creek 38,342 417 1.1 (150701030112) Buzzard Roost Wash – 17,457 53 0.3 Upper Hassayampa River (150701020208) Chaparral Gulch – Agua Fria 37,931 406 1.1 River (150701030105) Crooks Canyon 11,983 50 0.4 (150701030102) Groom Creek – Upper 22,943 16,924 73.8 Hassayampa River (150602020108) Lower Granite Creek 39,903 437 1.1 (150302030110) Lower Skull Valley Wash 38,001 161 0.4 (150701020206) Lynx Creek 26,694 15,481 58.0 (150701030112) Milk Creek 25,430 2 < 1 (150602010710) Mint Wash 39,136 1,962 5.0 (150602020107) Upper Granite Creek – 28,686 11,579 40.4 Watson Lake (150302030108) Upper Skull Valley 22,144 2,054 9.3 Wash (150701020306) Upper Turkey Creek 16,408 215 1.3 (150602020107) Willow Creek – Willow 15,920 5,902 37.1 Creek Reservoir

The only stream reach within the project area considered by the ADWR to be perennial (ADWR 2009) is about 5 miles of the upper Hassayampa River, with the remainder of lotic (flowing water) habitat being intermittent or ephemeral channels (see Figures 1-4). Mint Wash for a short distance below Granite Basin Lake is likely nearly perennial (see Figure 4).

Although intermittent streams have surface water primarily during periods of relatively high precipitation or snowmelt, they can also include isolated pools or reaches which persist through dry periods because of groundwater influence. Even channels identified as ephemeral (i.e., flowing only in direct response to precipitation or snowmelt) often support some types of permanent or persistent stream and riparian biota because of groundwater influence. It also common for animals which require constant or near constant access to surface water to temporarily exist in or near intermittent and ephemeral channels (Stefferud and Stefferud 2007, Levick 2008, Mazzacano and Black 2009). Some forms of aquatic invertebrates can also exist

3 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 7/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

year-round in hyporheic (i.e., subterranean) flow of all types of streams (del Rosario and Resh 2000), while others depend on dormant stages, persistent and mobile aerial adults, and rapid development (Gray 1981) to utilize ephemeral and intermittent channels.

Regarding lentic (still water) aquatic and riparian habitat, no natural lakes exist within the project area, but several impoundments of intermittent streams exist and usually hold some amount of water year-round (Figure 1). Approximately two dozen impoundments, ponds, and stock tanks are on or partially on public land managed by the PNF within the project area, the largest being Lynx Lake (at 50 acres) and Granite Basin Lake (at 7 acres). About one-quarter of the shoreline of the 22-acre Upper Goldwater Lake is on PNF-managed public land. The largest/most perennial of the impoundments support populations of introduced fish and amphibians. The intermittent nature of the streams entering and spilling from these impoundments means that individuals of these species are not likely to establish populations outside of the impoundments. There are also about 2 dozen stock tanks (i.e., artificial ponds, Figure 1) in the project area on intermittent or ephemeral drainages which may hold water for only a portion of the year, but which may provide habitat for some of the more mobile animals discussed in this report. The ADWR (2009) does not recognize the existence of any substantial springs in the project area, but some small ones likely exist and the PNF’s ArcGIS National Wetlands Inventory layer identifies multiple acres of lentic and multiple miles of lotic features that support some level of riparian or aquatic vegetation.

The relative paucity of perennial waterbodies in the project area considerably restricts or precludes the presence or abundance of vertebrate aquatic or riparian-dependent species and hence the potential for effects of the proposed project to individuals and populations of the special-status species analyzed in this report. All of the stream channels in the project area are tributary to perennial streams, however, so that project-generated effects on water quality could potentially be transmitted well downstream of the project to special-status species habitat. Project effects on water quality and quantity can be transmitted downstream for an indefinite distance but factors such as the existence of dams and contributory streamflow would attenuate or dilute project influence of sediment transport, water temperature, etc.

Several streams originating on or flowing a short distance below the project boundary are listed as 303(d) water quality impaired (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2009) and so would have a potential adverse effect on aquatic or riparian organisms. The upper Hassayampa River (from its headwaters to Copper Creek) and the upper Hassayampa River tributary of Cash Mine Creek (and an unnamed tributary of Cash Mine Creek) are all listed as impaired for cadmium, copper, and zinc (and the upper Hassayampa also for pH), and all have Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) developed (ADEQ 2002). The source of this impairment, however, is drainage from abandoned mines on private land, as opposed to the result of vegetation management activities. Several natural and man-made upstream passage barriers also appear to exist on the perennial stream reach of the Hassayampa River (Kenney 2010). A portion of Turkey Creek (Agua Fria subbasin) downstream from the project is impaired with cadmium and lead, but these contaminants apparently also originate downstream of the project area. Granite Creek is listed as impaired for low dissolved oxygen to its headwaters (ADEQ 2009), but the sampling sites that support this determination are in the City of Prescott or downstream and likely do not reflect conditions on the PNF.

4 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 8/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project Surface Water Features on Bradshaw Vegetation Project

- Bradshaw Project boundary - ... Subbasin boundaries - Strearn drainage channels ADWR intermiltent streams - ADWR perennial streams * Stock tanks and similar <0.5 acres = Impoundments and similar >5 acru t.···· .·I Public land managed by PNF c::::J P~vate land within PNF boundaries

. Figure 1. Water and watershed features of the Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

5 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 9/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

Figure 2. “Perennial” Upper Hassayampa River near Groom Creek Figure 3. “Intermittent” Mint Wash a few hundred feet below Granite confluence, April 2010 Basin Dam, April 2010

Figure 4. “Ephemeral” Aspen Creek near Forest Boundary; April 2010

6 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 10/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Figure 5. Canyon tree frog (Hyla arenicolor) near upper Hassayampa Figure 6. Blackfly (Simuliidae) larvae on boulder in unnamed tributary River (considered perennial), April 2010 (considered ephemeral) of the Hassayampa River; April 2010

Figure 7. Caddis (Trichoptera) larval case from the upper Hassayampa River (considered perennial), April 2010 7 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 11/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

Ground-disturbing activities have the potential to increase fine sediment transmission (and resulting turbidity) to streams, and the Verde River below Perkinsville (approximately 60 miles downstream from the project boundary on Granite Creek) was considered impaired (ADEQ 2011) by peak flow turbidity and has a TMDL for this pollutant (Bowman 2001). The upper section of the Verde River is listed as “attaining all uses,” (ADEQ 2009) however, so it does not appear that the project area is currently contributing excessive fine sediment to the perennial portion of the Verde River system (i.e., where most or all of the species of special concern in the subbasin discussed in this report are potentially present).

Species Special Status, Characteristics, and Presence in the Project Area Table 2 provides a list of the names of the BVMP-relevant special status species, their Federal status, and a determination of the effect of both of the proposed action alternatives on individuals of that species. (The No Action alternative would have no effect on all special status species because of the speculative nature of any particular outcome.) Following the table are text discussions of characteristics of these species, including potential for presence in the project area. The likely effects of the BVMP action alternatives are discussed only for the species likely or possibly present in the BVMP area in the Environmental Consequence portion of this document. Reasoning for the omission of other special status species from the alternative analysis is addressed in the text following the table. The text accounts of the species not subject to the alternative analysis are grouped into two categories related to potential presence in receiving waters of the proposed BVMP area.

Species Potentially Present in the Project Area Lowland leopard frog. This species is listed as Forest Service Region 3 (R3) Sensitive and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The lowland leopard frog is an aquatic obligate originally found from central and southern Arizona, southwest New Mexico, and northern Mexico, and likely in small portions of southwestern Arizona and southeastern California along the Colorado River and in the Coachella Valley (Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 2006b). In Arizona they are no longer present along the Colorado River and are much less abundant than originally in the southeast portion of the state (AGFD 2006b). The AGFD Heritage Data Management System (AGFD 2011) shows records of the species in many locations in Yavapai County which (as might be expected from the specific epithet) is the heart of the historic and current range of the species, and lowland leopard frogs are found in and near perennial and intermittent streams; springs, cienegas, and other wetlands; and in stock tanks and other manmade impoundments and excavations up to an elevation of nearly 6,000 feet (Sredl 1997).

Within the BVMP area, lowland leopard frogs were documented in the Hassayampa River at elevations ranging 5,680 to 5,760 feet in PNF surveys in September 1997 (PNF 1997). About 3 miles of the Hassayampa River is considered by the PNF to be occupied habitat for the species, while about 1 mile of Mint Wash is considered by the PNF as potential habitat (PNF GIS database). Sredl (2011, pers. comm.) documented several dozen herpetological surveys at sites on the PNF since 1990 and lowland leopard frogs were documented at 3 sites on the Bradshaw Ranger District, the nearest to the BVMP area being at Bain Springs, about 12 miles south of the project, in 1995. Two sites were sampled within the BVMP area (on Groom Creek in 1993 and on the Hassayampa River in 1995), but no lowland leopard frogs were detected in these surveys (Sredl 2011, pers. comm.).

8 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 12/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Table 2 Special status species discussed in this report, with Federal status and effects of action alternatives.

Species Scientific Name Status* Determination** Included in Alternative Analysis Lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis S MIIH*** Bufo microscaphus Arizona toad microscaphus S MIIH*** Gila longfin dace Agosia chrysogaster S MIIH*** Desert sucker Catostomus clarkii S MIIH*** Aquatic No Effect to Forestwide Various MIS Macroinvertebrates Trends*** Excluded From Alternative Analysis Because of Lack of Proximity to Project Area Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius E No Effect Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus E, CH No Effect Loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis E, CH No Effect Spikedace Meda fulgida E, CH No Effect Gila chub Gila intermedia E, CH No Effect Roundtail chub Gila robusta C, S No Impact Sonora sucker Catostomus insignis S No Impact Narrow-headed Thamnophis rufipunctatus S No Impact gartersnake Northern Mexican Thamnophis eques megalops C, S No Impact gartersnake Gila trout Oncorhynchus gilae gilae T No Effect Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus E No Effect Headwater chub Gila nigra C No Effect Poeciliposis occidentalis Gila topminnow E No Effect occidentalis Cyprinodon macularius Desert pupfish E No Effect macularius Page springsnail Pyrgulopsis morrisoni C No Effect Verde Rim springsnail Pyrgulopsis glandulosa S No Impact Brown springsnail Pyrgulopsis sola S No Impact Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis T, CH (P) No Effect Sonoran desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii C No Effect

*Special status: E= ESA Endangered, T= ESA Threatened, C= ESA Candidate, CH=ESA Critical Habitat Designation, CH(P) = Critical Habitat Proposed, S=Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive, MIS=PNF Management Indicator Species ** Effects Determination for Action Alternatives: MIIH= May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or species. *** See Alternative Effects Discussion in Environmental Consequences section

Lowland leopard frogs require surface water features to live and breed, although adults can survive periods without live water by hiding in damp mud, substrate cracks, or burrows; adults have also been observed to migrate cross-country (presumably during wet periods) to access suitable habitat (Sredl 2005). Adults spawn in spring through fall, depositing eggs near the water surface typically in association with boulders, roots, or other underwater structure. Tadpoles metamorphose from 3 to 9 months after hatching. Adults use wetted and riparian habitat especially that associated with vegetation, debris, undercut banks, and relatively deep water that provides shelter from predation and access to prey organisms. Adult lowland leopard frogs live up to 3 years and typically subsist on macroinvertebrates, but also consume frogs and other small vertebrates (Sredl 2005).

9 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 13/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

Lowland leopard frogs were formerly more abundant across their range, with local extirpations and declines in population abundance apparently associated mostly with habitat degradation (primarily in the forms of water diversions and livestock grazing) and predation/competition with non-native fish, frogs, and crayfish. Increased erosion and stream sedimentation has also affected lowland leopard frog habitat by reducing pool depth (and therefore pool quality) and invertebrate prey habitat in some streams (ADFG 2006b). On and adjacent to the project area, potential adverse effects to lowland leopard frogs include water quality degradation in the Hassayampa River from acidic mine drainage and heavy metal pollution (ADEQ 2009), and sedimentation of the Hassayampa River caused by erosion from roads, residential development, dispersed recreation, vegetation manipulation, and wildfire.

Neither the 1997 PNF Hassayampa River herpetological surveys (PNF 1997) nor the Sredl (2011)-documented Hassayampa and Groom Creek surveys revealed the presence of non-native aquatic species, but a bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) was sighted in a brief inspection tour of Mint Wash below Granite Basin Lake in April 2010 (Kenney 2010). In a cursory survey of about 2 miles of the perennial reach of the upper Hassayampa River in the project area in April 2010 (Kenney 2010) no aquatic vertebrates or crayfish other than presumably native canyon tree frogs (Hyla arenicolor, Figure 5) were detected. Sredl et al. (1997) documented lowland leopard frog use of stockponds and it is possible that individuals of the species may exist in stockponds and other impoundments substantial distances from suitable lotic habitat (Jones, pers. comm. 2011).

Although the species has been documented as being extirpated from formerly occupied habitat in portions of Arizona (Sredl 1997), lowland leopard frogs are likely to still be present in the project area, in particular in and along the Hassayampa River.

Arizona toad. This species is listed as Forest Service R3 Sensitive and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The Arizona toad was and is fairly widespread in and near perennial streams between about sea level and 8,000 feet in elevation from southern Nevada and southern Utah southward through Arizona and into the Mexican highlands; in Arizona, in and near perennial streams in canyons and on floodplains of the central highlands, including (based on the AGFD Heritage Data Management System (AGFD2011)) several sites in Yavapai County (AGFD 2002). Adult individuals of the species have also been observed foraging in ponderosa pine and other upland forest habitat types (above ~6,500 in elevation) during periods of summer precipitation (Schwaner and Sullivan 2005). In addition to habitat degradation in the form of human development in stream channels and riparian areas, the chief threat to Arizona toads appears to be competition and hybridization with Woodhouse toads (Bufo woodhousii) (AGFD 2002).

Individuals of the species have been documented in close proximity (within about 4 miles, in Granite Creek downstream of the City of Prescott) of the project area in the upper Verde, Agua Fria, Hassayampa, and Santa Maria subbasins (Sullivan 1993). No Arizona toad specimens have been recorded as having been collected in the BVMP area but the riparian zone of the Hassayampa River and possibly other sites within the project area appear to be potential habitat for the species (Sullivan 2011, pers. comm.). The Sredl (2011)-documented mid-1990’s Hassayampa and Groom Creek surveys (within the BVMP area) each revealed the presence of toad tadpoles (not identified to species, although Arizona toads are the only native example of the genus) and the 2010 PNF riparian herptofauna survey (Emmons et al. 2011), also documented Arizona toad tadpoles and a metamorph in a Hassayampa River pool about 10 miles downstream of the project boundary. Permanent pools in the Hassayampa River canyon were surveyed by the PNF as part of a lowland leopard frog inventory in June and September of 1997 (PNF 1997), but

10 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 14/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Arizona toads were not detected. The species has also been identified in Turkey Creek, just outside of the project area (AGFD 1996).

Based on recent presence in proximity to the project area and apparently suitable habitat, Arizona toads are likely to be present in the project area.

Gila longfin dace. This species is listed as Forest Service R3 Sensitive and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Gila longfin dace were originally found in small and medium-sized streams in portions of the Gila and Bill Williams drainages in Arizona and in two drainages in Mexico and are still relatively common in their native habitat, but are considered to be on a declining trend (AGFD 2006a). The AGFD Heritage Data Management System (AGFD 2011) shows records of the species in the upper Verde and Agua Fria systems in Yavapai County which are respectively on Chino Valley and Verde Ranger Districts of the PNF downstream from the project area. The closest record to the BVMP area, however, is from 1980 on the Hassayampa River about 7 miles downstream from the project boundary, or as close as about 5-8 miles downstream in 1997 (Robinson 2011, pers. comm.). Confirming the presence of the species relatively close to the project boundary is the sampling of approximately 100 longfin dace in the Hassayampa River about 10 miles downstream of the project area in July 2010 (Emmons et al. 2011). All of the preceding 3 records are from the Bradshaw R.D. of the PNF. The Desert Fishes Team (2004) documented the recent and historic presence of Gila longfin dace in the Hassayampa River, Granite Creek, and Mint Wash (portions of which are within the BVMP area) but did not provide specific locations. Granite Creek and Mint Wash are shown as “intermittent” within the Forest Boundary by the ADWR (2009), and each extends for a number of miles below the Forest boundary, so it is most likely that the records are from outside of the BVMP area.

Gila longfin dace are adapted to relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their persistence are irrigation and other practices that affect water quantity and quality as well as predation and competition from non-native species (AGFD 2006a). Aside from the Hassayampa River records, the documentation of the species is well downstream of the project area (and downstream of substantial reservoirs on Granite Creek in the upper Verde (see Colorado pikeminnow), and on Lynx Creek in the upper Agua Fria) where potential effects of the project to longfin dace should be extremely attenuated. However, the recent record 10 miles downstream of the project on the Hassayampa River are buttressed by the earlier presence of longfin dace further upstream.

Although no record exists of Gila longfin dace within the project area, the lack of any fish sampling records within the project area (Robinson 2011, pers.comm.), disallows a conclusion as to presence/absence. Apropos of observed Gila longfin dace movements through intermittent reaches in Dry Run (partially on the Verde R.D. of the PNF): “(t)he ability of the native longfin dace to make long colonizing runs up and downstream into intermittent and ephemeral reaches when flow is available, is well known, although not particularly well documented” (Stefferud and Stefferud 2007). Because of documented presence in proximity to the BVMP area and because of document migratory abilities, the species should be considered to potentially occur in the project reaches of the Hassayampa River and its larger tributaries, and possibly in Granite Creek or Mint Wash.

Desert sucker. This species is listed as Forest Service R3 Sensitive and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The historic range of desert suckers includes much of the lower Colorado River basin including portions of the Gila and Bill Williams drainages in Arizona, where it is still relatively common in its native habitat, but has been adversely impacted by water development (AGFD 2002b). Desert suckers are adapted to relatively warm water, and the

11 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 15/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

primary threats to their persistence are irrigation and other practices that affect water quantity and quality as well as predation and competition from non-native species (AGFD 2002b).

The AGFD Heritage Data Management System (AGFD 2011) shows records of the species in the upper Verde, Agua Fria, and Hassayampa River systems in Yavapai County and on the Chino Valley and Verde Ranger Districts of the PNF, but downstream from the project area. The closest record from is from 1980 (Robinson 2011, pers.comm.) when the presence of desert sucker was recorded in the Hassayampa River about 10 miles downstream from the project boundary, but still on the Bradshaw R.D. of the PNF.

Aside from the Hassayampa River, documentation of the species is well downstream of the project area (and downstream of substantial reservoirs on Granite Creek in the upper Verde (see Colorado pikeminnow), and on Lynx Creek in the upper Agua Fria) where potential effects of the project to desert suckers should be extremely attenuated. However, the record on the Hassayampa River, although less than recent, is buttressed by the 2010 presence of longfin dace further upstream as the two species often occur together (Robinson 2011, pers.comm.).

Although no record exists of desert sucker within the project area, the lack of any fish sampling records within the project area (Robinson 2011, pers.comm.), disallows a conclusion as to presence/absence. Given the relatively recent record of this species on the Bradshaw R.D., the species should be considered to potentially occur in the project reach of the Hassayampa River.

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. In the context of a PNF MIS species, this term refers to insects, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, and other invertebrate taxa that are native to PNF water bodies. As noted above, some of these organisms do not require perennial surface water to survive as some taxa are adapted to hyporheic (i.e., subterranean or groundwater) areas and some individuals of taxa may move freely between hyporheic areas and surface water. Other taxa may quickly colonize surface water in intermittent or ephemeral streams, wetlands, ponds, or pools either by flying adult stages or downstream movement from perennial areas and some taxa have desiccation-resistant lifestages.

In April 2010, the author of this report (Kenney 2010) noted several taxa of aquatic macroinvertebrates in BVMP area streams. I observed in the (perennial) Hassayampa River, blackfly (Simuliidae) larvae, stonefly (Plecoptera) nymphs and an adult, adult water striders (Gerridae), and larval caddisflies (Trichoptera, Figure 7). In putatively intermittent streams I observed blackfly larvae (in Groom, Wolf, and Lynx creeks), stonefly nymphs (Groom and Wolf creeks), adult water striders (Wolf, Groom, and Mint Wash creeks), caddisfly larvae (Groom Creek), adult amphipods and aquatic isopods (Crustacea, Groom Creek), midge (Chironomidae) larvae (Mint Wash Creek) and aquatic snails (Mint Wash Creek). In putatively ephemeral streams I observed blackfly larvae (Miller Creek and an unnamed tributary of the Hassayampa River, Figure 6), stonefly nymphs (Butte and Aspen creeks), caddisfly larvae (Butte and Aspen creeks), midges (Aspen Creek), and a mayfly nymph (Ephemeroptera; unnamed tributary of the Hassayampa River). As the streams mentioned in this paragraph are nearly the entirety of the streams (briefly) examined by the author, it seems very likely that aquatic macroinvertebrates are present in most named streams in the BVMP area, as well as some of the unnamed streams.

The status of macroinvertebrates communities (usually as a measure of long-term water quality) is often assessed using various indices which integrate the types, number, and abundance of the various taxa observed in stream sampling. The PNF MIS monitoring method specified in the 1987 Forest Plan is the Biotic Condition Index (Winget and Mangum 1979), but more recent documentation of macroinvertebrate population trends on the Forest use sampling and the Index

12 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 16/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

of Biotic Integrity from the ADEQ (PNF 2010). The most recent Forest Level Analysis of MIS for the PNF (2010) states that the current aquatic macroinvertebrate population trend for the Forest is “stable.” This summarization includes ADEQ data from the Hassayampa River and upper Turkey Creek in the BVMP area (the only streams within the BVMP area analyzed) where the IBIs were classified as “fair” and the streams “impaired” (the Hassayampa River, due to heavy metal contamination and low pH), or “attaining” (Turkey Creek).

Species Potentially Present Downstream from Project Area Colorado pikeminnow. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Colorado pikeminnow were originally widespread in the Colorado River basin, but were extirpated from Arizona by 1969. “Experimental nonessential” populations of the species have been introduced into the mainstem Verde River and some substantial tributaries in Yavapai County, Arizona (AGFD 2002a). Individuals of the species are adapted to turbid, relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are dam and diversion-related habitat alterations, predation and competition from non-native species, and non- sediment pollutants (USFWS 2002).

Because the nearest individuals of the species are at least 30 stream miles downstream (through Granite Creek) of the project area (on the Verde River near Sullivan Lake) and downstream of a substantial reservoir (Watson Lake) which should trap most fine mobilized sediments, any potential effects of the project to Colorado pikeminnow should be extremely attenuated. Further, the effects on the water quality of Verde River tributary streams even within the project area should be minor, and individuals of the species are not particularly sensitive to likely on-project effects (increased sediment and water temperature).

Because any potential effects of the proposed project that could reach individuals of the species should be immeasurable or benign, the proposed action should have no effect on individuals of the species or on its habitat.

Razorback sucker. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Razorback sucker were originally widespread in the Colorado River basin, but currently present naturally in Arizona only in the Mohave, Mead, and the mainstem Colorado River below Davis Dam. A substantial re-establishment program has been implemented in other large, low-gradient streams in Arizona in the last three decades, including the Verde River, but little or no evidence of natural reproduction has been detected as a result of the stocking (USFWS 2002a). Critical habitat has been designated on the Verde River from about Perkinsville downstream to Horseshoe Reservoir (AGFD 2002f). Individuals of the species are adapted to turbid, relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are dam and diversion-related habitat alterations, predation and competition from non-native species, and non-sediment pollutants (USFWS 2002a).

Because the nearest individuals of the species are at least 30 stream miles downstream of the project area and downstream of a substantial reservoir (see Colorado pikeminnow) and critical habitat is another 30 miles downstream, any potential effects of the project to razorback sucker should be extremely attenuated. Further, the effects on the water quality of Verde River tributary streams even within the project area should be minor, and individuals of the species are not particularly sensitive to likely on-project effects (increased sediment and water temperature).

13 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 17/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

Roundtail chub. The lower Colorado River Distinct Population Segment of roundtail chub is listed as a Candidate species under the ESA, as Forest Service R3 Sensitive, and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. This species was originally widespread in the Colorado River basin and is currently still present naturally in Arizona in several river systems, including the Verde River and some of its tributaries on the PNF (AGFD 2002g). Individuals of the species are adapted to turbid, relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are dam and diversion-related habitat alterations, predation and competition from non-native species, and non- sediment pollutants (74 FR 32352).

Because the nearest individuals of the species are at least 30 stream miles downstream of the project area and downstream of a substantial reservoir (see Colorado pikeminnow) any potential effects of the project to roundtail chub should be extremely attenuated. Further, the effects on the water quality of Verde River tributary streams even within the project area should be minor, and individuals of the species are not particularly sensitive to likely on-project effects (increased sediment and water temperature).

Because any potential effects of the proposed project that could reach individuals of the species should be immeasurable and benign, the proposed action should have no effect on individuals of the species or on its habitat.

Gila chub. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Gila chub were originally fairly widespread in headwater streams in the Gila River basin of New Mexico and Arizona and in one or two drainages in Mexico, but exist now in the United States in a few drainages in Arizona, including a few tributaries of the Agua Fria River (PNF and BLM) and Verde Rivers (Coconino N.F.) east of the project but in Yavapai County (AGFD 2002c). A population existed at least until 1993 on private land in Williamson Valley Wash, a tributary of the upper Verde River in Yavapai County and downstream from the proposed project; a 4.4-mile reach of the stream is designated critical habitat (70 FR 66664). Individuals of the species are adapted to relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are irrigation and direct stream channel alterations, predation and competition from non- native species, sedimentation, and other pollutants (70 FR 66664).

Because the populations of Gila chub on the PNF are approximately 25 air miles distant from and not downstream of surface water flow from the project area, the proposed action would have no effect on these individuals. Individuals in Williamson Valley Wash, although not on the PNF, are approximately 20 miles downstream of the project via Mint Wash. The proposed project has some potential to transmit sediment to the Mint Wash channel, but almost all of the project area in the Mint Wash drainage is above Granite Basin Lake (i.e., reservoir) or in a relatively steep canyon. As a result, nearly all biologically significant sediment associated with the project would be trapped in the reservoir, the canyon section of Mint Wash below the dam would receive little or no project treatment, and the amount of sediment from the project should be a very minor portion of the total sediment load in the critical habitat reach of Williamson Valley Wash.

Because any potential effects of the proposed project that could reach individuals of the species should be immeasurable, the proposed action should have no effect on individuals of the species or on its critical habitat.

14 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 18/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Spikedace. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Spikedace were originally common in streams in the upper Gila River basin of New Mexico and Arizona, but persisted in Arizona only in about 35 miles of the Verde River in Yavapai County, and in two other streams (AGFD 2002i) prior to recent reintroductions. The Verde River population of spikedace has critical habitat designated from the confluence of Fossil Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam and including reaches of several tributaries including a 2-mile section of Granite Creek (75 FR 66482). Substantial portions of this critical habitat are on the Chino Valley and Verde Ranger Districts of the PNF, while the headwaters of Granite Creek are on the Bradshaw Ranger District of the PNF within the BVMP area. Individuals of the species are adapted to relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are irrigation and direct stream channel alterations, predation and competition from non- native species, sedimentation, and other pollutants.

Because the nearest individuals of the species are at least 30 stream miles downstream of the project area and downstream of a substantial reservoir (see Colorado pikeminnow) any potential effects of the project to spikedace should be extremely attenuated. Further, the effects on the water quality of Verde River tributary streams even within the project area should be minor, and individuals of the species are not particularly sensitive to likely on-project effects (increased sediment and water temperature).

Loach minnow. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Loach minnows were originally common in streams in the upper Gila River basin of New Mexico and Arizona, but are not recorded to have persisted on or near the PNF in Arizona (AGFD 2002e) prior to a recent reintroduction into Fossil Creek (a Verde River tributary on the Coconino N.F.). Although there are no recent collections of loach minnow from the Verde River, based on historical record and the relatively incomplete sampling history of the area, the USFWS has designated critical habitat for loach minnow from the confluence of Wet Beaver Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam and including reaches of several tributaries including a 2-mile section of Granite Creek (75 FR 66482). Substantial portions of loach minnow critical habitat are on the Chino Valley and Verde Ranger Districts of the PNF, while the headwaters of Granite Creek are on the Bradshaw Ranger District of the PNF within the BVMP area. Individuals of the species are adapted to relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are irrigation and direct stream channel alterations, predation and competition from non- native species, sedimentation, and other pollutants.

Because the nearest individuals of the species are at least 30 stream miles downstream of the project area and downstream of a substantial reservoir (see Colorado pikeminnow) any potential effects of the project to loach minnow should be extremely attenuated. Further, the effects on the water quality of Verde River tributary streams even within the project area should be minor.

Sonora sucker. This species is listed as Forest Service R3 Sensitive and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The historic range of desert suckers includes portions of the Gila and Bill Williams drainages Arizona and New Mexico and in Mexico; the distribution of the

15 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 19/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

species is fairly intact and it is still relatively common in its native habitat, but has been adversely impacted by water development (AGFD 2002h). Mohave suckers are likely adapted to relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their persistence are irrigation and other practices that affect water quantity and quality as well as predation and competition from non-native species (AGFD 2002h). The AGFD Heritage Data Management System (AGFD 2011) shows records of the species in the upper Verde River systems in Yavapai County and on the Chino Valley and Verde Ranger Districts of the PNF.

Because the nearest individuals of the species are at least 30 miles downstream of the project area and downstream of a substantial reservoir on Granite Creek in the upper Verde (see Colorado pikeminnow) any potential effects of the project to desert suckers should be extremely attenuated. Further, the effects on the water quality of Verde, Agua Fria, and Hassayampa River tributary streams even within the project area should be minor.

Narrow-headed gartersnake. This species is listed as Forest Service R3 Sensitive and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The narrow-headed gartersnake was originally fairly widespread in and near perennial streams between about 2,300 and 8,000 feet in elevation in east-central Arizona east to west-central New Mexico and in portions of Mexico. Individuals of the species now exist in Arizona in a few drainages of the Verde, Salt, and Gila River watersheds, with the strongest population along Oak Creek south of Sedona (Holycross et al. 2006). Narrow-headed gartersnakes are semi- to nearly fully aquatic and require streams with intact riparian areas and substantial native fish populations. The introduction of predators, especially bull frogs, crayfish, and large non-native fish, as well as instream and riparian habitat modification (AGFD 2009) have apparently caused a recent steep decline in distribution and abundance in Arizona and New Mexico (Holycross et al. 2006).

Narrow-headed gartersnakes are or were present in the Verde River within the PNF (AGFD Heritage Data Management System, AGFD 2011), but not in any of few miles of perennial stream in the project area.

Because the populations of narrow-headed gartersnake in Yavapai County are 30 or more air miles downstream of the project area and the project should have no or negligible effects on native fish populations, the proposed action would have no effect on these individuals or their habitat.

Northern Mexican gartersnake. This species is listed as a Candidate species under the ESA, as Forest Service R3 Sensitive, and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in 2008 (73 FR 71788) that the species warranted listing as Threatened or Endangered but was not listed because of lack of funding. The Northern Mexican gartersnake is a riparian obligate and was originally fairly widespread in and near wetlands and perennial stream channels between about sea level and 8,500 feet in elevation in Arizona, southwest New Mexico, substantial portions of Mexico, and possibly in small areas of Nevada and California along the Colorado River (73 FR 71788).

Recent surveys (Holycross et al. 2006) revealed that the species has apparently been recently extirpated from nearly all historic sites in Gila River tributaries in Arizona and New Mexico, most likely primarily because of predation and competition from non-native fish, bullfrogs, or crayfish

16 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 20/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

(although habitat alteration and loss has also had detrimental effects on population size and persistence). Populations apparently still exist in Yavapai County along the Verde River (between Fossil Creek and Clarksdale, i.e., partially on the Verde R.D. of the PNF) and near Page Springs along Oak Creek (73 FR 71788), but have otherwise apparently been extirpated from the Verde and Agua Fria River systems.

Because the extant populations of Northern Mexican gartersnakes in relative proximity to the project area are 20 or more air miles distant/downstream and because the project should have no or negligible effects on native fish populations, the proposed action would have no effect on these individuals or their habitat.

Other Species of Interest Gila trout. This species is listed as threatened under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Gila trout were originally found in portions of New Mexico and Arizona (including in the Verde and Agua Fria drainages), but was extirpated from Arizona from territorial times until 1974, when introduced to Gap Creek, a tributary of the upper Verde River on the PNF in Yavapai County (AGFD 2002d). The Gap Creek population persisted into the early 1990’s, but is now considered to be extirpated (USFWS 2003). Gila trout (~150 individuals) were introduced to a short perennial reach of Grapevine Creek, a Big Bug Creek tributary on the Bradshaw R.D. of the PNF in the Agua Fria subbasin, and only about 2 miles from the project area in late 2009 (AGFD 2009a). Although the only existing population of Gila trout on the PNF is a short distance from the project area, and exists in a drainage that partially heads in the project area, the stream reach that the fish inhabit is not downstream of surface water flow from the project area, and so the proposed alternatives would have no effect on individuals of the species.

Woundfin. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Woundfin were originally found in portions of the lower Colorado but are currently restricted to only the Virgin River of Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. Unsuccessful reintroductions of the species were made in Sycamore Creek, a tributary of the upper Verde River on the PNF in Yavapai County, and in the Hassayampa River near Wickenburg (AGFD 2000). Because the only extant or recent population of woundfin in Arizona is approximately 175 air miles distant from and not downstream of surface water flow from the project area, the proposed action would have no effect on individuals of the species.

Headwater chub. This species is listed as a Candidate species under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Headwater chub were originally fairly widespread in the middle and headwater reaches of medium-sized streams in the Gila River basin of New Mexico and Arizona. They now exist in Arizona in a few drainages east of the proposed project site, including the East Verde River, and two Yavapai County streams, Fossil Creek and Deadman Creek (AGFD 2003a). Individuals of the species are adapted to relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are irrigation and direct stream channel alterations, predation and competition from non-native species, stream sedimentation other pollutants (70 FR 66664).

Because the populations of headwater chub in Yavapai County are 35 or more air miles distant from and not downstream of surface water flow from the project area, the proposed action would have no effect on these individuals or their habitat.

Gila topminnow. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Gila topminnow were originally widespread in springs and

17 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 21/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

cienegas, and in the vegetated margins of streams at relatively low elevations (generally below 5,000 feet msl) in the Gila River basin of Arizona, New Mexico, and in one or two drainages in Mexico, including in Yavapai County (Weedman and Young 1997). The species is now greatly reduced in abundance, but has been reintroduced (or introduced) widely to suitable habitat, with varying success. Individuals of the species are adapted to relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are irrigation and direct habitat alterations and predation and competition from non-native species (USFWS 1998).

Based on Weedman and Young (1997), USFWS (1998), AGFD (2001b), and more recent Biological Opinions of the USFWS, there are or recently were Gila topminnow populations on the Prescott N.F. (e.g., Johnson Wash Spring on the Verde Ranger District) and in drainages that partially head within the BVM project area, but no populations exist within the BVMP area or which could be directly affected by streamflow originating within the project area.

Because the populations of Gila topminnows in Yavapai County are 17 or more air miles distant from and not downstream of surface water flow from the project area, the proposed action would have no effect on these individuals or their habitat.

Desert pupfish. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Desert pupfish were originally fairly widespread in springs and cienegas, and in the vegetated margins of streams at relatively low elevations (generally below 5,000 feet msl) in several river basins in Arizona, California, and Mexico, including the lower Gila River basin of Arizona including in Yavapai County (Weedman and Young 1997). The species is now greatly reduced in abundance, but has been reintroduced (or introduced) to a few locations with suitable habitat, including AD Wash in southern Yavapai County and a pond in the Hassayampa River Preserve, just south of Yavapai County near Wickenburg. Individuals of the species are adapted to relatively warm water, and the primary threats to their recovery are irrigation and direct habitat alterations and predation and competition from non-native species (AGFD 2001).

The desert pupfish populations noted above near the Prescott N.F. are in drainages that partially head within the BVMP area, but no populations exist within the project area or which could be directly affected by streamflow originating within the project area. Because the nearest populations of desert pupfish to the project area are 30 or more air miles distant from and not downstream of surface water flow from the project area, the proposed action would have no effect on these individuals or their habitat.

Page springsnail. This species is listed as a Candidate species under the ESA, as Forest Service R3 Sensitive, and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is endemic to and found only in Page Spring and several nearby springs in Yavapai County (AGFD 2004) on State and privately-owned land. Because the springs are approximately 25 air miles distant from and not downstream of surface water flow from the project area, the proposed action would have no effect on Page springsnails.

Verde Rim springsnail. This species is listed as Forest Service R3 Sensitive and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is endemic to and found only in the Nelson Place spring complex in Yavapai County (AGFD 2003b) on public land managed by the PNF. Because the springs are approximately 30 air miles distant from and not hydrologically connected to the project area, the proposed action would have no effect on Verde Rim springsnails

18 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 22/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Brown springsnail. This species is listed as Forest Service R3 Sensitive and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is endemic to and found only in Brown Spring in Yavapai County (AGFD 2003) on public land managed by the PNF. Because the springs are approximately 20 air miles distant from and not hydrologically connected to the project area, the proposed action would not impact Brown springsnails or their habitat.

Chiricahua leopard frog. This species is listed as Threatened under the ESA and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need (AGFD 2006). Chiricahua leopard frogs exist in Yavapai County and an area of critical habitat has recently been proposed in the extreme eastern portion of the County (76 FR 14126), but this species apparently is not present west of the Verde River (AGFD Heritage Data Management System, AGFD 2011) and as such does not exist on the PNF. Because the species locality in Yavapai County is approximately 40 air miles distant from and not hydrologically connected to the project area, the proposed action would have no effect on Chiricahua leopard frogs or their habitat.

Sonoran desert tortoise. This species is listed as a Candidate species under the ESA, as Forest Service R3 Sensitive, and as an Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The Sonoran population of the desert tortoise is distributed from central and southwestern Arizona into Mexico and is distinguished (in distribution) from the Mohave population as existing south and east of the Colorado River (75 FR 78094, 2010a). The species was originally widespread in desert habitat up to about 5,300 feet in elevation, and are or were present in south and southeast Yavapai County on or near the Bradshaw or Chino Valley Ranger Districts of the PNF (AGFD Heritage Data Heritage Management System), but are declining for a number of reasons. Because the populations of Sonoran desert tortoise in Yavapai County are 20 or more air miles from the project area, are not riparian obligates, and inhabit desert (as opposed to the forested or chaparral ecosystems at issue, AGFD 2001a), the proposed action would have no effect on these individuals or their habitat. Desired Condition The 1987 Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) guides land management activities toward the Desired Conditions on the Forest, including the planning and implementation of the Bradshaw Vegetation Project. The Goals, Standards, and Guidelines of the Forest Plan most relevant to this report (i.e., stream and riparian wildlife, vegetation, and soil and water integrity) follow:

Goals

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Manage for a diverse, well distributed pattern of habitats for wildlife populations and fish species in cooperation with states and other agencies. Maintain and/or improve habitat for threatened or endangered species and work toward the eventual recovery and delisting of species through recovery plan implementation. Integrate wildlife habitat management activities into all resource practices through intensive coordination.

Soil and Water Provide for long-term quality waterflow needs through improved management technology.

19 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 23/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

Avoid adverse impacts to the public, Government facilities and all uses in flood plains and wetlands.

Riparian Give riparian-dependent resources preference over other resources Improve all riparian areas and maintain in satisfactory condition.

Standards and Guidelines

Wildlife All water developments will consider small game and nongame needs and escape devices Whenever conflicts between wildlife species exist, when designing structural and nonstructural improvements, give priority to threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, emphasis species and comprehensive plan goals, in that order.

Riparian Areas Management projects within riparian areas will be in accordance with legal requirements regarding flood plains, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, cultural and other resources and will be in accordance with standards and guidelines identified in the Southwestern Regional Guide. Projects impacting riparian areas will be designed to protect the productivity and diversity of riparian-dependent resources. Emphasize protection of soil, water, vegetation, wildlife and fish resources. Riparian-dependent resources will have preference over other resources. Other resource uses and activities may occur to the extent that they support the objective of riparian enhancement. No discretionary vegetation manipulation will occur within 200 feet of identified riparian capability area boundaries except where the objective is to enhance downstream productivity. Riparian projects will be developed on a site-specific basis and in accordance with the Southwestern Regional Guidelines and Riparian Handbook. Meet the following riparian standards in the Southwestern Regional Guide for 80 percent of riparian areas by the year 2030: Maintain at least 80 percent of the potential overstory crown closure of obligate riparian species Manage resources to create or maintain at least three age classes of woody riparian species with at least 10 percent of the woody plant cover in sprouts, seedlings and saplings where site potential exists. Maintain at least 80 percent of the potential stream shading along perennial cold-water streams. Maintain adequate emergent vegetation to ensure compliance with the goals of the strategic plan. Maintain 80 percent of spawning gravel surface free of occlusive inorganic sediment. Maintain at least 80 percent of streambank linear distance in stable condition. Retain snags in riparian areas that are not a safety hazard.

20 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 24/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Soil, Water, and Air Minimize impacts to soil and water resources in all ground-disturbing activities. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, provide stabilization and revegetation as part of the project. Select treatment methods for plant control or revegetation projects according to the following criteria: 1. Mechanical methods may be used…when they will not adversely affect stream channels. Use these practices for activities affecting the forest and grassland resource, including the following: 2. Designation of stream courses within timber sales to protect watershed values. This protection will include controls on skidding within riparian areas and along or across designated stream courses.

Environmental Consequences Methodology The focus of this report is aquatic animals. Those which are dependent upon essentially continuous surface water immersion (such as fish, larval amphibians, and some macroinvertebrates) are necessarily affected by changes in water quality and quantity. In turn, the water in streams and other waterbodies is affected by conditions in both riparian and upland areas. Adult frogs and toads do not require continuous immersion in surface water, but in an arid environment like the BVMP area, desiccation is a nearly constant threat. As a result, the conditions of all three environments (water, riparian, and upland) are critical to survival of all of the special status species addressed in this report.

The three environments of the project area are subject to change through natural and anthropogenic factors, some of which can be manipulated by the PNF and some which cannot. The primary factors potentially affecting the three environments which PNF has some control over are the type, age, and condition of vegetation in the project area; the location, number, and condition of roads and trails; and the timing and procedures used in the manipulation of vegetation and transportation routes. The PNF obviously cannot control weather or climate, and has only partial control of Forest visitor activities.

The intent of the BVMP is to manipulate vegetation such that uncontrolled wildfire (and its concomitant effects on soil, hydrology, organisms, etc.) is substantially less likely to occur. The proposed activities in the BVMP would also have effects on soil, hydrology, organisms, etc. which would potentially be similar to that of wildfire, but which would be more predictable in timing, location, and magnitude. While the effects of wildfire would potentially be much more severe than that of the action alternatives under the BVMP, they would also be less certain to occur. Further, the timing, duration, and intensity of natural events such as precipitation, wind, and air temperature may overwhelm most or all Forest efforts to modify the project area’s susceptibility to wildfire. Also, while the location of the potential proposed activities described under the action alternatives is known, other details such as treatment and unit timing and have not yet been determined. Finally, even if one of the action alternatives is implemented, the fuel reduction activities would take place over a decade, so some areas would remain as vulnerable to wildfire as under the “No Action” alternative for several years.

21 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 25/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

Taken together with the paucity of information regarding the presence and distribution of special status aquatic and riparian species in the BVMP area, the result is an analysis that is necessarily general and is based largely on the typical characteristics of the project area and of proposed treatments. A description of the potential effects of BVMP alternatives on aquatic and riparian animals follows. It should be noted that the descriptions below are only of possible outcomes of activities based on likely scenarios, available information, and professional judgment. Site conditions, project design features, best management practices, and mitigation measures can and would reduce the likely effects of all of these activities to minimal levels or non-existence.

General and Potential Effects of Fuels Management on Stream and Riparian Animal Species and their Habitat

Wildfire and Prescribed Fire Gresswell (1999) reviewed published studies of the short- and long-term effects on fire and aquatic ecosystems while Pilliod et al. (2003) similarly reviewed the topic for amphibians. Russell et al. (1999) provided a review of prescribed fire effects on reptiles and amphibians. The following is largely extracted from these sources.

Direct injury or mortality of aquatic or riparian animals can be caused by fire: riparian animals can be directly burned by fire, but vertebrates and many invertebrates are mobile enough to avoid this fate in many circumstances by either outdistancing the flames or finding shelter in cool/wet refugia. Byproducts of burning vegetation entering water bodies have the potential to be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms, but generally are not except in some extreme (i.e., stand-replacement) burns where combustion products enter streams in a high-concentration slug. Fuel from drip torches and other ignition devices and fire retardant also carries some risk of toxicity if it enters water. Although rare, high intensity riparian burns can increase water temperature to lethal levels under certain circumstances.

Ash from burned vegetation could be transported into stream channels in substantial quantities during overland water flow associated with heavy rain or snowmelt, and this ash could smother aquatic or riparian animals, especially relatively immobile eggs, fry, or larvae. It is also possible that high intensity riparian or upland burns can destabilize soil (through death of vegetation, consumption of surface litter and duff, and induced hydrophobicity) enough that high-intensity rainfall or snowmelt events could trigger debris flows or landslides. Such mass soil movement could reach riparian areas and stream channels and smother individual organisms. Whether from mass soil movement or other sediment sources, very high levels of suspended sediment or turbidity may directly kill aquatic organisms, especially those with gills. Finally, efforts to suppress wildfires and contain prescribed fires can including pumping from water bodies which can kill aquatic organisms by impingement on hose screens, entrainment through pumps, contaminant and retardant spills, and in extreme circumstances, dewatering of habitat.

Unless of very high intensity and close proximity, though, wild or prescribed fire does not typically directly affect individuals of aquatic or riparian species; the most likely effects of fire are indirect through sedimentation or hydrology. Indirect effects include sediment transmission to stream channels, changes in hydrologic processes, changes in large woody debris recruitment, changes in water temperature, and changes in channel morphology.

As noted above, fire can consume or kill vegetation, burn duff and other vegetative debris, or cause surface soil hydrophobicity. These conditions allow soil particles to be more vulnerable to displacement and movement, especially during heavy precipitation or runoff events. The

22 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 26/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

transmission of fine sediment to stream channels through rilling, dry ravel, mass soil movement, etc. has the potential to decrease spawning and early rearing habitat quality for fish and amphibians, to reduce macroinvertebrate production (i.e., food for fish and amphibians), to fill in pools and increase cobble embeddedness (reducing or eliminating shelter from predators), to modify hydrologic processes, and have other adverse effects on aquatic and riparian habitat.

Mass movements of soil (landslides, debris flows, etc.) could develop on the slopes that are part of the timbered or chaparral burn units and would be more likely to reach the stream channels, if they occurred, than surface sediment because mass movements exhibit a much greater amount of kinetic energy. The death of trees or shrubs in the burn units could increase the risk of mass soil movements because live roots tend to increase soil cohesion.

Vegetation mortality through burning can also affect the amount and timing of precipitation runoff and groundwater infiltration principally because tree and shrub canopies affect the rate of precipitation interception and snowmelt and because live vegetation uses water in the soil in the transpiration process. The effect of tree and shrub canopies on runoff is typically most significant in rain-on-snow events, when denser canopies tend to shield snow from rapid melting; tree canopies can also intercept rainfall and reduce or slow overland flow. In the proposed action, tree and chaparral stands would be burned and some overstory trees and shrubs killed, which would decrease the canopy density and make rapid snowmelt more likely. Rapid snowmelt or unintercepted rainfall could lead to an atypical runoff event, which would tend to increase peak flows over the baseline condition in the project area streams.

Base flows can also be affected by rapid melting of snow (which results in less infiltration to groundwater) and by reduction of tree and chaparral transpiration (which results in a greater contribution to groundwater).

The intent of the project is to thin overly-dense timber and chaparral stands, thereby increasing growth rates of the remaining vegetation or otherwise moving closer to desired vegetation conditions. The death of vegetation used by riparian animals for cover and foraging could affect growth and survival. Also, at least theoretically, fire in riparian areas could affect the abundance, distribution, and size of large woody debris (LWD) adjacent to project area streams, either by killing large riparian trees that would increase near-term LWD recruitment or by killing enough small riparian trees to reduce long-term LWD recruitment. The proposed action could also affect delivery of upland LWD to riparian areas by increasing the likelihood of increased mass soil movement that could carry LWD downhill.

Similarly, burning within riparian areas may reduce streamside vegetative shade, which may increase stream water temperature and riparian air temperature and reduce riparian humidity.

Finally, and relevant to the proposed project, low and moderate-severity prescribed fire and wildfire tend to reduce the potential for high-intensity wildfire. Generally, increased fire severity is associated with greater short-term adverse effects to aquatic and riparian animals (McCormick et al. 2010), but catastrophic wildfire can also be an initiating event that leads to long-term improvement in watershed productivity (Luce and Rieman 2010).

Commercial Thinning and Mechanized Vegetation Treatments Tree stand thinning can be performed with the intention of fuels reduction, attainment of desired stand characteristics such a dominant species or successional stage, growth enhancement of remaining trees for future harvest, merchantable timber output, or a combination of two or more of these purposes. The goal of the BVMP is fuel reduction/forest health, but some of the thinning

23 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 27/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

proposed would be of merchantable timber which would be yarded and hauled from the PNF and so would cause some degree of soil and non-target vegetation disturbance. Mechanized vegetation treatments would not involve marketable timber, but would also cause some degree of soil and non-target vegetation disturbance.

Because the effects of the proposed commercial thinning and mechanized vegetation treatments on soil and vegetation would be different from purely commercial timber harvest primarily in degree rather than in kind, the scientific literature regarding effects on aquatic and riparian organisms and habitat from all forms of mechanized woody vegetation manipulation were consulted in this analysis. In particular, Chamberlin et al. (1991) provide a summary of effects of timber manipulation on stream ecosystems, while Russell et al. (2004) give a herpetological perspective; the following discussion was developed from these sources.

Direct effects to aquatic and riparian animals associated with commercial thinning and mechanized vegetation treatments (including some fuel break construction) can most likely be caused by introduction of contaminants (hydrocarbon fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, etc.) into and near streams. Operation of vehicles and heavy equipment and tree felling into or through waterbodies and riparian areas can also crush organisms. Soil destabilization as described above for fire can also lead to mass soil movement events that can smother animals.

Because these activities remove trees and other vegetation, they can have some of the same potential indirect effects of wildfire or prescribed fire (described above). Specifically, potential effects of mechanical removal of vegetation include sediment transmission to stream channels, changes in hydrologic processes, increase in water and air temperature, desiccation of riparian areas, and changes in channel morphology.

As noted above, the transmission of fine sediment to stream channels has the potential to decrease spawning and early rearing habitat quality, to reduce macroinvertebrate production, to fill in pools and embed cobble, to modify hydrologic processes, and have other adverse effects aquatic and riparian habitat.

These activities also have the potential to impact soil resources by displacing and decreasing vegetative ground cover, potentially causing compaction (especially on skid trails and near log landings), and removing overstory vegetation cover thus exposing more soil to rain impact. As a result, soil function can be negatively impacted by disrupting the soil’s nutrient cycling capability and increasing runoff and erosion rates. Soil compaction decreases total pore space in the soil, decreases water infiltration rates, and gas exchange, all of which are important for healthy functioning soil. Severely compacted soils do not allow appropriate water infiltration, leading to overland flow and associated erosion, sediment delivery, spring flooding, and low summer flows. The hydrologic effects of decreased canopy cover and reduced transpiration are similar to those caused by fire.

Thinning of overly-dense ponderosa pine and other conifer stands increases growth rates of the remaining trees. Depending on its intensity and extent, this thinning could affect the abundance, distribution, and size of LWD within the riparian areas of project area streams.

Thinning operations, possibly to a greater extent than fire, remove biomass and site organic matter and thus affect nutrient cycling. Generally, nutrient losses are proportional to the volume of biomass removed from a site. Nutrients are lost during harvesting by removing the stored nutrients in trees, and additional nutrients are lost if the litter layer and woody debris are removed.

24 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 28/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

As with fire, thinning and other vegetation reduction/removal can reduce the potential for wildfire. As noted above, lack of catastrophic wildfire can have both positive and negative influences on long-term ecosystem health.

Non-Mechanized Fuel Treatments Non-mechanized fuel treatments (hand thinning and goat browsing) have a relatively small potential for direct adverse effects to aquatic and riparian animals, likely confined to chemical contamination of water bodies and treading on individual animals. Indirect effects primarily include those most associated with vegetation removal, such as decreased evapotranspiration and loss of cover, foraging habitat, shade, and LWD recruitment.

Thinning and Fuel Treatments Combined with Prescribed Fire Many of the proposed mechanical or hand fuel treatment areas under the BVMP (including tree thinning and fuel breaks) would also be treated with prescribed broadcast or pile burning. There should be no additional potential avenues of direct effect to aquatic and riparian animals when the physical removal of vegetation is combined with use of prescribed fire, but additive effects may exist. For example, slash piles associated with vegetation treatments may provide some of the best cover remaining after treatment for riparian animals, but the subsequent burning of the piles may then cause direct mortality to frogs or toads sheltering within. Additive indirect effects are also conceivable, as in the example of LWD, where timber harvest may reduce short-term recruitment and subsequent broadcast burning could reduce the potential for long-term recruitment. Additive effects on sediment transmission to streams are also conceivable if broadcast or pile burning following mechanical treatment further decreases soil cover or causes hydrophobicity.

Landing Construction and Road Work Furniss et al. (1991) review the effects of road construction, maintenance, and use on aquatic systems, while Andrews et al. (2008) discuss the topic regarding amphibians and reptiles, and the discussion below draws from these sources. Although log landings are not literally roads, they are constructed similarly and have many of the same effects. Log landing and temporary road construction, reconstruction/heavy maintenance of existing roads, and the use and normal maintenance of these features have the potential for direct adverse effects to aquatic riparian animals. These effects would be primarily associated with chemical contamination of water bodies (particularly with fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluid) and with crushing or smothering caused by travel and excavation by heavy equipment and vehicles.

Indirect effects associated with landings and roads include familiar modifications of soil and hydrologic conditions such as soil disturbance and compaction, sediment transmission to streams, and runoff diversion. The construction would also denude land of vegetation (temporarily or essentially permanently) that serves as cover, shade, foraging habitat, and potential LWD. Permanent roads also have the potential to impede or restrict animal movement, with consequences for predator avoidance, foraging, breeding success, and genetic diversity.

Many of the direct and indirect effects of engineered transportation systems on aquatic and riparian animals would continue indefinitely with permanent roads, but may also persist with putatively temporary roads and landings, as these features are often utilized by Forest visitors for motorized transportation, forest product gathering, and recreation. Skid trails and other non- engineered access routes (as well as heavy mechanical thinning and fuel breaks) also can provide motorized access to Forest areas previously too thick or rough for wheeled entry. While Forest

25 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 29/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

managers may attempt to restrict motorized access to these cleared areas, enforcement resources and political will are often lacking and impacts associated with this access (further vegetation and other forest product removal; soil destabilization, erosion, and compaction; toxic contamination; wildfire ignition sources; animal poaching and harassment; etc.) are potential but speculative outcomes.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information As noted in Affected Environment Section, distribution and survey information on special status aquatic and riparian species in and near the BVMP area is sparse. The PNF maintains an ArcGIS layer of animal observations, but this database does not include any sightings of the species discussed in this report. The PNF has field data sheets (PNF 1997) which describe surveys for amphibians and reptiles in about a 1 mile reach of the perennial portion of the Hassayampa River and a survey report on livestock allotments in 2010 (Emmons et al. 2011) includes a site on the Hassayampa River about 10 miles downstream from the project boundary. The Arizona Game and Fish Department maintains a Heritage Data Management System (AGFD 2011) which includes a map of verified locations of most of the special status species discussed in this report, but these maps do not display sites where the species were surveyed for but not found. Inquiries directed to knowledgeable individuals of the distribution of fish, lowland leopard frogs, and Arizona toads turned up useful survey information, but no verified site locations of special status species within the project area. The author of this report performed cursory surveys along a 2- mile reach of the perennial section of the Hassayampa River, as well as shorter reaches of several intermittent streams in the project area, but did not observe any special status species.

Further, the 10-year duration of the proposed project action alternatives requires that site-specific planning of activities be the developed over time and in response to environmental and logistical circumstances. As a result, the exact timing, areal extent, and sequence of the proposed activities are yet to be determined and so effects on aquatic and riparian animals and their habitat are generally analyzed without site-specific detail.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Although direct effects to special status species would be largely confined to the riparian zones of project streams and other waterbodies within the project area, indirect effects (such as sediment transmission and changes in water runoff are being analyzed for the BVMP area (in the soils and hydrology specialist reports) at the 6th field watershed (i.e., subwatershed) scale. Therefore, the project analysis area includes the subwatersheds at least partly within the BVMP area (see Table 1 and Figure 1); cumulative effects are also analyzed at the 6th HUC scale because transmission of effects downstream of 6th HUC boundaries, while possible, would be speculative and immeasurable. Short-term effects are considered those that occur within 5 years of the activity, while long-term effects occur more than 5 years after the activity takes place.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The current conditions in the BVMP area were shaped by natural processes and past human activities and will continue to be shaped by these processes and activities. These activities include wildfire, wildfire suppression, timber harvest, vegetation treatments and prescribed burns, livestock grazing, trail and road construction, mining, recreation, and residential development of inholdings (these are listed in Table 3). The effects of these activities on the distribution of special status aquatic and riparian species (where known and geographically relevant) are

26 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 30/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

described in the individual species accounts in the Affected Environment section, while the general effects of many of these activities are described in the Methodology section.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative represents the existing and projected future condition against which the other alternatives are compared. There would be no certain direct effects to Gila longfin dace, desert sucker, lowland leopard frog, Arizona toad, and aquatic macroinvertebrates in the BVMP as a result of this alternative. The risk of high-intensity wildfire would generally tend to increase with this alternative as surface and ladder fuels continue to develop and dead fuels continue to accumulate.

On the other hand, the potential for low to moderate-intensity wildfire also exists and the effects of such events would not be dissimilar to some aspects of the action alternatives. This alternative does not rule out future fuels projects in the BVMP area. Further, it is reasonable to assume that fire suppression activities will continue and these activities should reduce the likelihood of extensive wildfire in the project area. As a result, the concept that implementation of the “No Action” alternative would lead to extensive wildfire inside or outside of the BVMP area is speculative and so effects on the special status aquatic and riparian species for this alternative will not be predicted in this report.

In the event of site-specific wildfire in the BVMP area under this alternative, however, and as described in detail in the Methodology Section, there may be substantial direct effects on Gila longfin dace, desert sucker, lowland leopard frogs, Arizona toads, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Riparian zones are typically moister than upland areas, but are certainly vulnerable to wildfire in some circumstances. In the event of an intense riparian wildfire, it would be possible that individuals of some or all of the subject taxa could be killed or injured. It is also possible that direct effects could be transmitted either downstream or downslope to individuals of all of these taxa existing outside of the BVMP project area. The distance that direct effects could potentially be transmitted would likely only be a few miles at most.

Similarly, indirect effects from site-specific BVMP-area riparian and upland wildfire are also possible. Chief among potential indirect effects (and as described in greater detail in the Methodology Section) are effects on soil and hydrology. The soils and hydrology specialist reports (Burgoyne 2012 and Hermandorfer 2012, respectively) should be consulted for detailed analyses, but some relevant information is summarized below.

As noted in the Methodology section, transmission of sediment to riparian areas and stream channels via soil erosion can reduce the quantity and quality of habitat for aquatic and riparian animals. According to the soil report (Burgoyne 2012), the chances for high-severity fire effects on soils can be much higher in untreated areas with excessively heavy fuel loads compared to those that have successfully completed treatments. If a wildfire occurs, the BVMP soil specialist predicts that tolerable erosion levels on all of the soils of the project would increase from below to near/above tolerable erosion levels and sediment production levels would increase from low to high on all the soils as well (Burgoyne 2012). According to Burgoyne (2012), the exceedance of tolerable erosion levels and high sediment production would be on all slope classes associated with chaparral and ponderosa pine ecotypes. These accelerated soil loss levels would most likely result in the loss of soil productivity, degradation of soil conditions, and negatively impact water resources in the long-term (i.e. >10 years) (Burgoyne 2012).

27 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 31/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

As also noted in the Methodology section, in addition to potential fire-caused soil infiltration and cohesion effects, vegetation removal by wildfire can increase runoff water volume and alter runoff timing because of reduced canopy interception and transpiration which in turn could potentially increase flood peaks enough to cause substantial changes in stream channel morphology, with attendant effects on stream and riparian habitat. According to the hydrology report (Hermandorfer 2012), projected increases in runoff after wildfire would range from 3 to 7 times that of current conditions.

The No Action alternative would not affect existing roads and trails in the project area and so the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) recommendations for the Travel Analysis Process for the BVMP area are not relevant.

Cumulative Effects Effects on aquatic and riparian animals would continue from existing or continuing wildfire suppression, timber harvest, vegetation treatments and prescribed burns, livestock grazing, trail and road construction and maintenance, mining, recreation, and residential development of inholdings. Not treating the BVMP area could result in unknown effects on aquatic, riparian, and upland productivity in the future in the event of a wildfire. However, due to a lack of direct and indirect effects as a result of this alternative, no cumulative effects are anticipated at this time. By meeting wildlife, soil, water, and riparian standards, it is expected that desired conditions pertaining to special status aquatic and riparian wildlife would be achieved.

Summary of Effects Given that the potential for wildfire under the “No Action” alternative is speculative in terms of location, timing, and intensity and that the presence and distribution of Gila longfin dace, desert sucker, lowland leopard frog, and Arizona toad in the BVMP area is unknown, this alternative would not impact individuals of these species or their habitat. Aquatic macroinvertebrates likely exist in all perennial and intermittent stream reaches in the BVMP area, so the speculative nature of conditions under the No Action Alternative leads to the conclusion that their population viability at the Forest or larger scale would not be affected.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Proposed Action and Smoke Reduction The activities associated with the proposed BVMP are summarized in the Introduction to this document and discussed in greater detail in the EA and in the Hydrology Specialist report. Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action while Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of smoke associated with implementation of the project (relative to Alternative 2) through physical removal of an unstated amount of the treatment biomass from the project area (instead of burning in place), although the total broadcast burn acreage would remain the same. There would also be modest increases in commercial thinning and mechanized fuel reduction acreage with substantial decrease in non-mechanized fuel reduction acreage (to approximately 23% of the acreage of the Proposed Action).

Activities associated with the action alternatives would require the use, maintenance, or reconstruction of existing roads in the project area. Both action alternatives would include implementation of the Interdisciplinary Team’s (IDT) recommendations in the Travel Analysis Process (TAP, PNF 2011a) for disposition of the existing travel routes that would be used in the implementation of the BVMP. The TAP IDT analyzed the benefits, problems, and risks associated with the existence and use of a total of 209 miles of PNF roads in the project area and determined that 37.6 miles of these roads (17.9%) had a greater risk than benefit. The IDT

28 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 32/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

recommended that these roads be decommissioned, closed, converted to a trail, or otherwise mitigated to reduce resource risk.

In addition to project activities on roads associated with the TAP, implementation of Alternative 2 would include construction of up to about 16 miles temporary roads (which would be decommissioned and revegetated after fuels treatments). Because more biomass would hauled in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, the amount of temporary road in the former alternative would be increased to up to 29 miles, with an additional 2.3 miles of permanent road. Some of the proposed new temporary and permanent road associated with the two action alternatives would cross or be in proximity to ephemeral stream channels, while intermittent or perennial streams would be only slightly affected by the road construction that would occur.

While the planning and implementation differences between the two action alternatives may be substantial at specific sites, the activities that would vary between these alternatives would occur either on upland sites remote from perennial/intermittent streams and their riparian areas or would be activities which should have minimal impacts on aquatic or riparian animals. Because there should be minimal differences in impact between the Proposed Action and the Smoke Reduction Alternative on the subject species and habitats (especially with proposed project design features/mitigation measures/best management practices), the analysis below applies to both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3

Design Features and Mitigation Measures

Hydrology and Watershed Resources 1. No more than 15 percent of the Groom Creek 6th-code watershed would be burned in a 3-year period over the 10-year project implementation cycle. Similarly, no more than 20 percent of the Lynx Creek 6th-code watershed would be burned in a 3-year period over the 10-year project implementation cycle and no more than 10 percent of the Upper Granite Creek and Willow Creek 6th-code watersheds would be burned in a 3-year period over the 10-year project implementation cycle. 2. Biomass removal treatments would not occur on more than 30 percent of the Upper Granite Creek, Willow Creek, and Groom Creek 6th-code watersheds within a 3-year period over the 10-year project implementation cycle. 3. A streamside management zone buffer area shall be recognized for perennial and intermittent stream channels, based on the Arizona Department of Water Resources (2009) delineation of these features. These stream channels are shown in Figure 1. 4. Ephemeral stream channels (i.e., all other stream channels shown on 7½ minute USGS quads) shall not have a recognized stream management zone. However, fuelbreaks, prescribed burn firelines, pile burns, floatable slash or debris, landings, staging areas, skid trails, mechanized equipment crossings, and temporary roads would be constructed outside of ephemeral drainages. If a crossing is deemed necessary, then it would be created perpendicular to the ephemeral channel. In addition, mechanical equipment would not be driven directly up ephemeral channels. 5. The stream management zone shall be 100-foot slope distance from the outer edge of the stream channels or floodplain for perennial streams and 50-foot slope distance for intermittent streams.

29 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 33/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

6. Reservoirs, stock ponds, and other lentic waterbodies or wetlands shall be identified and have buffer areas of appropriate width and protection type/level as determined by a Forest hydrologist or aquatic specialist. 7. Mechanical thinning and mechanized fuel treatments would be allowed within the outer portions of some stream management zones, if slopes are less than 20 percent, but riparian woody vegetation (willow, cottonwood, alder, sycamore, etc.) would not be targeted for cutting or removal. Within the stream management zone of the perennial reach of the Hassayampa River, mechanized fuel treatment would be allowed in the outer 50 feet of the stream management zone. Mechanical thinning and mechanized fuel treatment would be allowed within the outer 25 feet of intermittent stream management zones, EXCEPT the lower mile of the intermittent tributaries of the Hassayampa River (Indian Creek, Groom Creek, Wolf Creek) and the segment of Mint Wash downstream of Granite Basin Lake, where mechanized fuel treatment would be excluded from the full 50-foot buffer. 8. Nonmechanized fuel reduction treatment of chaparral, pinyon, juniper, oak, pine-oak, pine, and mixed-conifer sites could be implemented within the full width of stream management zones, but riparian woody vegetation (willow, cottonwood, alder, sycamore, etc.) or any tree or shrub providing streambank stability would not be targeted for cutting or removal. 9. Desired residual tree densities in mechanical and nonmechanical fuel treatment areas within pine-oak, pine, and mixed-conifers sites stream management zones would average 80 or more square feet of basal area per acre. Slash resulting from thinning activities may be scattered and left on site, burned (subject to next measure below), or removed as a biomass product. 10. For prescribed fire in any vegetation type, broadcast burns would not be ignited within the stream management zones, but low severity fire would be allowed to back into the stream management zones without suppression. Firelines for prescribed burn control would not be constructed within stream management zones. Pile burns could be performed within stream management zones or lentic buffers but not within 25 feet of the outer edge of the stream channel, lentic waterbody, or floodplain. 11. No log landings, staging areas, skid trails, or temporary roads would be constructed or developed within stream management zones. However, necessary crossings of stream channels by temporary roads or mechanized equipment could be constructed or developed if crossings are perpendicular to the channel. Armoring of stream crossings and other steps to reduce fine sediment input from soil disturbance during use should be considered. 12. Construction and other activities affecting all permanent or seasonally wet areas would be limited to those periods when such activities would have the least detrimental effect on the aquatic environment, unless emergency conditions deem otherwise. Equipment operations should be avoided on sites where soils are wet and unacceptable levels of compaction could occur. This can vary by soil type so additional coordination should occur with the Forest soils personnel to determine on-site or soil-type limits. In general, equipment operations should be limited to reasonably dry or frozen soil moisture conditions. 13. No storage of fuels, toxicants, or equipment would be allowed within stream management zones, lentic buffers, and ephemeral stream channels unless deemed necessary by a line officer, and then containment measures would be implemented. 14. Landings, skid trails, burn pile sites, closed temporary roads, and other disturbed sites would be ripped or scarified, mulched, and seeded with native perennial or other approved species where and when appropriate and feasible.

30 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 34/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

15. Mechanical equipment operators would be instructed to limit the turning of machinery in stream management zones.

Direct and Indirect Effects Prescribed fire, commercial thinning, mechanical and hand vegetation treatments, fuel breaks, combinations of all of the former, and the construction, maintenance, and use of the transportation and vegetation handling systems inherent in the proposed activities all have the potential for both direct and indirect effects on Gila longfin dace, desert sucker, lowland leopard frog, and Arizona toad, and aquatic invertebrates. These potential effects are described in detail in the Methodology section, but are summarized below. The resource protection measures listed above, as well as Soils and Hydrology resource protection measures (Burgoyne 2012, Hermandorfer 2012) and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) would, if implemented as planned, reduce or eliminate potential effects on individuals and habitat of the subject species through exclusion of activities from likely habitat, mitigation or minimization of activity impacts, or lack of substantial effects of the activities as planned.

Prescribed Fire Prescribed burns are proposed under both action alternatives for planning units that include reaches of all perennial and intermittent streams in the BVMP area.

Fire or fire management activities can directly kill fish, frogs, toads, and invertebrates if the fire or components of the management activities come in close proximity to individual animals, transmit toxic substances, or initiate mass soil movement. Also as discussed above, prescribed fire could increase fine sediment input to streams, modify hydrologic regimes, alter stream geomorphology, and change riparian vegetation in ways that can indirectly affect the ability of fish, frogs, toads, and invertebrates to survive and reproduce. Some aspects of prescribed fire or its management could also directly or indirectly affect individual animals on private inholdings and for at least a short distance downslope or downstream of the project boundary.

Prescribed fire proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be implemented under conditions that would minimize the potential for high-intensity burning and for escape beyond the planned burn area. Several of the Resource protection measures listed in this report and in the Soils report (Burgoyne 2012) are intended to reduce the incidence or intensity of fire in riparian areas or to reduce or eliminate the impact of prescribed fire management activities on stream channels and riparian areas. Further, the subject aquatic and riparian species evolved under a fire regime presumably similar to what prescription broadcast burns are intended to achieve, although high- intensity catastrophic fire was also a part of the historic regime.

The intent of the design of any prescribed burn under the two action alternatives is a relatively low-intensity fire that would avoid the most deleterious impacts to soil, hydrology, duff, etc. that are likely to occur under high intensity burns. Because broadcast burns would not be ignited in the Stream Management Zones (SMZs) of intermittent and perennial streams, broadcast treatment within riparian areas would be restricted to “backing fire” which should be of even lower intensity than that planned for upland areas. This is because of the common “creeping” (e.g., minimal or absent crown fire) nature of backing fires, as well as the generally higher moisture content of fuels within riparian areas. Pile burns in SMZs would be relatively small, buffered from the stream channels, and monitored to prevent escape, and fire lines would not be placed in SMZs.

31 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 35/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

With incidental broadcast burning in SMZs (and in proximity to ephemeral channels) it is possible that a slight reduction in current and future woody debris could occur, but this should not produce meaningful in-stream effects because it is unclear whether such burns would increase or decrease wood recruitment and because little sizable woody debris would likely be transported in small ephemeral channels to year-round fish and amphibian habitat. Similarly, the loss of a few mature trees in SMZs could reduce shade slightly, but it is unlikely that this would result in any detectable temperature increase, nor would shade loss in the mostly dry ephemeral channels. In the event of a post-treatment intense precipitation event, it is possible that fine sediment sourced from portions of burned SMZs could be mobilized and reach stream channels, but substantial vegetation within the SMZ buffers should minimize this at most sites.

Potential increased sediment input from prescribed fire area outside of SMZs should be substantially reduced through interception by the SMZ buffers, and most upland sediment is expected to be retained on hillslope surfaces. Burgoyne (2012) predicts that, although the actual degree of accelerated soil loss impacts is variable and dependent on the differing soil characteristics and ecotypes, about 99% of the acreage proposed for prescription burning in the BVMP area would remain in its current erosion susceptibility class for both action alternatives. Burgoyne (2012) also determined that negative impacts to the soil resources would be short lived (i.e. 2-7 years) because prescriptions would occur during favorable burn periods (e.g. favorable weather conditions and planned burn blocks resulting in favorable fire behavior) and Best Management Practices would be implemented. Positive impacts to the soil resources would be variable but extend to 3-10 years.

Fire effects on upland vegetation and soil have the potential to increase water runoff volume and change runoff timing because of reduced canopy interception and transpiration, which in turn could potentially increase flood peaks enough to cause substantial changes in stream channel morphology with attendant effects on stream and riparian habitat. Hermandorfer (2012) developed prescription fire treatment restrictions by 6th HUCs based on the subwatershed conditions, limiting treatments to 10, 15, or 20% of the subwatershed with substantial acreage within the project area within a 3-year period. Based on these restrictions, Hermandorfer (2012), projected increases in runoff after prescription burning under Alternatives 2 and 3 would range from 1.4 to 2.6 times that of current conditions, and determined that, with the implementation of appropriate Resource protection measures and BMPs, “minimal” impacts to water resources should accrue.

Commercial Thinning, Mechanized Fuel Treatments, and Fuelbreaks These treatments are considered together because they each involve cutting and removal of vegetation without fire but with the use of heavy machinery. Commercial thinning and mechanized fuel treatments are proposed under both action alternatives for planning units that include reaches of all perennial and intermittent streams in the BVMP area except for Little Copper Creek. Fuel breaks are not proposed in proximity to any perennial or intermittent streams. Follow-up treatments for slash created in each of these activities or maintenance of site conditions would include prescribed burning (either broadcast or pile) or physical removal.

Vegetation removal treatments and follow-up activities can directly kill fish, frogs, toads, and invertebrates if the felling, yarding, brush cutting, mulching, hauling, or burning activities contact individual animals, transmit toxic substances, or initiate mass soil movement. Also as discussed above, these activities could increase fine sediment input to streams, modify hydrologic regimes, alter stream geomorphology, and change riparian vegetation in ways that can indirectly affect the ability of fish, frogs, toads, and invertebrates to survive and reproduce. Some aspects of the

32 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 36/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

subject vegetation treatments could also directly or indirectly affect individual animals on private inholdings and for at least a short distance downslope or downstream of the project boundary.

Commercial thinning, mechanized fuel treatments, and fuel breaks proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be implemented under conditions that would minimize the potential to affect aquatic and riparian animals. In particular, the resource protection measures listed are intended to eliminate or reduce the impact of these activities on stream channels and riparian areas. Specifically, fuels treatments involving the use of heavy machinery would be limited within the SMZ buffers and would not occur at all within the inner potions of the SMZs (although follow-up pile burning could be implemented in portions of the buffers).

Commercial thinning or mechanized fuel treatments within or in proximity to intermittent and perennial SMZs would likely reduce large woody debris recruitment to some extent in stream riparian areas because, unlike broadcast burns, trees would be removed instead of potentially killed in place via broadcast burning. The loss of riparian woody debris would occur at the outer, drier edges of the SMZs, however, so habitat frequently used by frogs and toads would likely not be greatly altered. Regarding instream large woody debris, the likelihood of any particular tree falling or blowing into a stream channel decreases substantially with increased rooted distance from the channel. Because the no cut-buffer for commercial thinning and mechanized fuel treatments in SMZs would be at least 25 feet and because a substantial amount of basal area would remain even where treatments would occur, removal of some trees should have a minimal effect on instream large woody debris. Further, typical riparian woody species such as cottonwood, sycamore, and willow would not be cut or removed regardless of distance from the stream channels. As a result, effects on large woody debris recruitment to intermittent and riparian stream channels should be minimal. Because of woody vegetation retention in SMZs, stream shading and water temperature should not be affected by commercial thinning or mechanical fuels treatments.

With commercial thinning and mechanical fuels treatments in proximity to ephemeral channels it is possible that a slight reduction in current and future woody debris could occur, but this should not produce meaningful in-stream effects because little sizable woody debris would likely be transported in such small channels to year-round fish and amphibian habitat. The loss of mature trees along ephemeral channels could reduce shade slightly along those channels, but with little or no surface water flow, this shade reduction should result in no detectable temperature increase in surface water downstream. Fuel breaks would be placed entirely or nearly so on ridgetops and so should not direct affect any type of stream channel.

Potential increased sediment input from areas that would be commercially thinned, mechanically treated, or made into fuel breaks should be substantially reduced through interception by the SMZ buffers, and most sediment is expected to be retained on hillslope surfaces. Although lacking SMZs, ephemeral channels would not include fuel breaks, prescribed burn fire lines, pile burns, floatable slash or debris, landings, staging areas, skid trails, mechanized equipment crossings, and temporary roads and yarding. In addition, mechanized activities in proximity to ephemeral channels would occur during conditions that should minimize soil disturbance and sediment transmission. Burgoyne (2012) predicts that none of the soil units are expected to change in erosion condition type or to exceed tolerable soil loss levels with either BVMP action alternatives for these activities, although some soils (~13%) in commercial thinning units associated with moderately steep gradients would experience soil loss that would approach tolerable levels. Burgoyne (2012) also determined that potential soil damage would be largely mitigated through the implementation of BMPs (primarily the use of litter and woody debris and retention of

33 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 37/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

vegetative ground cover) and that any potential soil damage affiliated with timber harvesting activities would largely be mitigated or recover within 4-10 years by implementing BMPs. In the long term (7-10 years), mechanical treatments would benefit soil and watershed resources by thinning dense woody cover and providing additional vegetative ground cover for soil resources while fuel break soil disturbance would be localized and short-term (i.e. 2-7 years). Satisfactory soil conditions would remain similar to existing satisfactory conditions and sediment production levels would remain low for all of these treatments (Burgoyne 2012).

Commercial thinning, mechanized fuel treatment, and fuel break effects on upland vegetation and soil have the potential to increase water runoff volume and change runoff timing which in turn could potentially increase flood peaks enough to cause substantial changes in stream channel morphology, with attendant effects on stream and riparian habitat. Hermandorfer (2012) developed biomass removal restrictions by 6th HUCs based on the subwatershed conditions, limiting treatments to 30% of subwatersheds with substantial acreage within the project area within a 3 year period. Based on these restrictions, Hermandorfer (2012), projected increases in runoff after commercial thinning under Alternatives 2 and 3 would range from 1.1 to 1.7 times that of current conditions, and determined that with the implementation of appropriate resource protection measures and BMPs, “minimal” impacts to water resources should accrue at the 6th HUC scale.

Commercial Thinning and Mechanized Fuel Treatments plus Prescribed Fire Commercial thinning and mechanized fuel treatments followed by prescription fire are proposed under both action alternatives for planning units that include reaches of all perennial and intermittent streams in the BVMP area except for Little Copper Creek. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, most of the units that would be commercially thinned or mechanically treated to reduce fuels would also receive prescribed fire treatments. Slash from the thinning would be either burned or physically removed soon after cutting and yarding to reduce fuel loads, broadcast. Under Alternative 2 mechanically treated fuels would also be burned (or physically removed) both soon after the mechanical treatment to reduce fuel loads and periodically afterward to maintain the treatment conditions. Alternative 3 would reduce burning impacts on the mechanical units because of the physical removal of most of the fuels. Fuel breaks would be “after-treated” with fire similarly to that described for mechanical treatments in Alternative 2.

As with prescribed fire alone, burning can directly kill fish, frogs, toads, and invertebrates if the fire or components of the management activities come in close proximity to individual animals, transmit toxic substances, or initiate mass soil movement. Broadcast burns would not be ignited in SMZs and piles would not be burned within 25 feet of intermittent or perennial stream channels, so hydrophilic organisms should be minimally affected and streambank stability should not be altered. The addition of prescribed fire to areas subjected to timber harvesting or mechanized fuel treatments (including fuel breaks) would cause an additional loss of vegetative ground cover and the exposure of heat may influence soil structure and soil hydrologic dynamics. This would result in an additional increase of soil loss and hydrologic changes from post harvesting conditions, but would be necessary because retaining slash associated with thinning and mechanical treatments has the potential to create hazardous fuel conditions. Maintenance burning of the mechanical and fuelbreak units would likely occur after soil/hydrologic recovery from the initial treatments.

Burgoyne (2012) states that approximately 13,209 acres (83%) of the ponderosa pine soils predominantly associated with moderately steep gradients would experience an increase of erosion from below to above tolerable soil loss levels. This would most likely result in the short

34 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 38/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

term degradation of soil and water resources (i.e. 2-7 years) in thinning units. Once the soils have recovered they are expected to remain in satisfactory soil condition. The increase in soil loss levels for units with mechanized treatments combined with prescribed fire would be “minimal” (Burgoyne 2012), especially with the implementation of appropriate Resource protection measures and BMPs. According to the hydrology report (Hermandorfer 2012) projected increases in runoff after biomass removal for Alternatives 2 and 3 would be “minimal” at the 5th HUC scale, in part because of implementation of appropriate resource protection measures and BMPs.

Nonmechanized Treatments With and Without Prescribed Fire These treatments would be implemented on steep slopes in both chaparral and conifer areas and would be either hand thinning with a chainsaw or browsing by goats, followed by pile or broadcast burning of slash. Non-mechanized units for Alternative 2 include portions of land through which short sections of Little Copper and Groom Creeks and the Hassayampa River flow, while Alternative 3 would affect only a short reach of upper Groom Creek.

Chainsaw and goat treatments could conceivably cause direct mortality to frogs and toads if individuals are crushed by falling timber, tread upon, or subject to a fuel spill. Hand thinning could occur in close proximity to perennial and intermittent channels, and may have a small, short term effect on riparian and instream large woody debris recruitment and stream shading, but should not affect soil or streambank stability or riparian species diversity.

The addition of prescribed fire to areas subjected to non-mechanized treatments would cause an additional loss of vegetative ground cover and the exposure of heat may influence soil structure and soil hydrologic dynamics. This would result in an increase in soil loss and hydrologic changes from post harvesting conditions, but would be necessary because retaining slash associated with non-mechanized treatments has the potential to create hazardous fuel conditions. Maintenance burning of the non-mechanized units would likely occur after soil/hydrologic recovery from the initial treatments.

Burgoyne (2012) states that the increase in soil loss levels for units with non-mechanized treatments alone or combined with prescribed fire would be “minimal” (Burgoyne 2012). According to the hydrology report (Hermandorfer 2012) there would be no projected increases in runoff after non-mechanical treatments for Alternatives 2 or 3, in part because of implementation of BMPs and resource protection measures.

Landing Construction and Road Work Log landing and associated skid trails would be associated with commercial thinning units in both action alternatives and some would occur in relative proximity to all three types of stream channels. Some reconstructed roads or those that would require heavy maintenance for Alternatives 2 and 3 would similarly exist near stream channels. Although construction of temporary road across or near ephemeral stream channels would frequently occur in either action alternative, temporary roads would not be constructed in proximity to intermittent or perennial stream channels with either action alternative except at one site on Granite Creek near the project boundary. None of the permanent roads proposed under Alternative 3 would cross ephemeral streams or enter SMZs.

Both direct and indirect effects to aquatic and riparian animals could result from engineered or directed routes or clearings associated with the action alternatives. Direct effects from these sources would primarily be in the form of crushing, burying, or toxic contamination, while

35 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 39/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

indirect effects include familiar modifications of soil and hydrologic conditions such as soil disturbance and compaction, sediment transmission to streams, and runoff diversion. Direct effects to fish, frogs, toads, and aquatic macroinvertebrates should be eliminated or minimized through implementation of resource protection measures, especially elimination of log landings and skid trails in SMZ and in ephemeral stream channels, while both resource protection measures and soil BMPs should minimize indirect effects. Burgoyne (2012) and Hermandorfer (2012) do not model the effects of the transportation and yarding disturbances, but note the existence of relevant BMPs and resource protection measures which should minimize effects on soils and hydrology. The adoption of the IDT recommendations for the TAP conducted in association with BVMP would, in the long term, reduce road open road density. A detailed analysis of the effects of implementation of the IDT recommendations on special status aquatic species cannot be performed because of the lack of site specific species information and because the type and timing of specific activities depend on logistical constraints and as-yet-undetermined site-specific implementation details. On the whole, however, reduction in open road density would have neutral or positive long-term indirect effects on hydrology while the proposed route closures and decommissionings in riparian areas should reduce direct injury and mortality to special status species. Temporary increases in soil disturbance and movement would be expected with many IDT-recommended mitigative actions, but long-term transmittal of fine sediment to streams should be reduced by the post-project actions recommended by the IDT.

Species-specific Effects Summaries Gila longfin dace and desert sucker: Individuals of these species are probably only present within the BVMP area in the Hassayampa River and possibly in the lower reaches of larger Hassayampa tributaries (most likely Indian, Groom, and Wolf creeks) and in Mint Wash. The most likely direct effects of action alternative management activities on individuals of these species include crushing or water contamination by project vehicles or equipment at or near stream crossings. Likely indirect effects of action alternative management activities include reduction in stream habitat quantity or quality through fine sediment transmission, water contamination, or increased water production from treated upland areas or ephemeral stream channels. Implementation of the riparian and soils resource protection measures, especially those associated with perennial and intermittent SMZs, as well as the general design of activities should substantially reduce or eliminate the potential for adverse project effects to individual Gila longfin dace or desert suckers or their habitat.

Lowland leopard frog and Arizona toad: Individuals of these species are most likely present within the BVMP area in the Hassayampa River, in the lower reaches of larger Hassayampa tributaries, and in Mint Wash. Individuals could also be present in other intermittent streams and perennial or seasonal lentic waterbodies, including stockponds. Especially during wet periods, adult individuals of these species could also be in present in ephemeral stream channels, stream riparian areas, or even in upland areas in relatively close proximity to streams and other waterbodies. The most likely direct effects of action alternative management activities on individuals of these species include riparian prescribed burns and crushing or water contamination by project vehicles or equipment at or near stream crossings. Likely indirect effects of action alternative management activities include reduction in stream habitat quantity or quality through fine sediment transmission, water contamination, or increased water production from treated upland areas or ephemeral stream channels and reduction in riparian habitat quality by hand fuel treatments. Implementation of the riparian and soils resource protection measures, especially those associated with perennial and intermittent SMZs, as well as the general design of

36 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 40/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

activities should substantially reduce the potential for or magnitude of adverse project effects to individual lowland leopard frogs, Arizona toads, or their habitat.

MIS ANALYSIS

Forest level habitat and population trends for management indicator species (MIS) were discussed in “Forest Level Analysis of Management Indicator Species for the Prescott National Forest” (PNF 2010) and excerpted for the following MIS analyzed in the project area. MIS species for the Forest and their status can be found in the project record. The aquatic MIS known to occur within the project area are macroinvertebrates.

Management Indicator Species, Trends (2010 MIS report) Species Habitat Trends Population Trends Riparian, late seral – Increasing Aquatic macroinvertebrates Stable Aquatic - Stable

There are about 79 miles of perennial or perennial-interrupted streams on the Prescott NF. The Verde River is the main perennial1 stream with about 52 miles occurring on the Forest. There are about 38 miles of river within the Granite Creek and Grindstone Wash watersheds that form the upper Verde River. The Cherry Creek and upper segment of the Fossil Creek watersheds flow through the Verde Valley. This major reach of perennial stream (about 40-miles) is mainly in private ownership and is highly altered from water diversions and development. There is only about 5-miles of PNF lands in this section of the river. The lower segment of the Fossil Creek watershed is within the Verde Wild & Scenic River with about 15.5-miles on the forest. The other 27 miles of permanently-flowing streams within the PNF are perennial interrupted2 and occur mainly in the Ash/Sycamore Creek and upper Hassayampa River watersheds. The BVMP has 5 miles of those 79 miles in the project area which constitutes 6% of total Forest stream miles.

Individuals of these aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa are probably present in the Hassayampa River, all intermittent streams, and many ephemeral streams within the BVMP area (at least on a seasonal basis for the latter two stream types). The most likely direct effects of action alternative management activities on individuals of these taxa include crushing or water contamination by project vehicles or equipment at or near stream crossings. Likely indirect effects of action alternative management activities include reduction in stream habitat quantity or quality through fine sediment transmission or water contamination from treated upland areas or ephemeral stream channels. Implementation of the riparian and soils resource protection measures as well as the general design of activities should substantially reduce the potential for or magnitude of adverse project effects to individual aquatic macroinvertebrates and their habitat.

Cumulative Effects General. Cumulative effects analysis includes a discussion of the combined, incremental effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within and around the analysis area. Table 3 lists the ongoing and foreseeable future activities in the project area (Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment for this project is a more detailed list of cumulative effects activities). Essentially all of the types of activities occurring in the project area also occur on

1 Perennial – a stream that flows continuously. 2 Perennial interrupted – a stream with alternating segments of perennial flow and dry stretches.

37 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 41/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

both private and public land surrounding the project area, with the addition of concentrated residential, commercial, and industrial development.

Table 3. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the BVMP area.

Activities Considered within the Project area

Activity Time Period

Prescott Basin (HFRA) Ongoing/Foreseeable future Boundary (HFRA) Ongoing/Foreseeable future Kendal RX burn (Prescott Basin) Ongoing/Foreseeable future Spruce hand thin (Boundary) Ongoing/Foreseeable future West Walker Timber Sale (TS) Foreseeable future Payoff TS Foreseeable future Fluhart TS Foreseeable future Highland TS Foreseeable future Vegetation treatments Foreseeable future Wildlife/Aquatic Habitat Improvement Projects Foreseeable future Livestock grazing Ongoing Recreational Activities/Fuelwood cutting Ongoing Roads, Utility ROWs, Land Development and Exchanges Ongoing/Foreseeable future Mining Ongoing

For activities to be considered cumulative, their effects need to overlap in both time and space with those of the proposed actions. For aquatic and riparian wildlife, the area for consideration is the 6th field HUC (i.e., subwatershed) because of the potential for genetic interaction and migration between populations can extend well beyond the project boundary and because hydrologic and water quality impacts can flow downstream from the project area. The proposed project can be dismissed as a generator of cumulative effects in most of the 6th HUCs in the cumulative effects area because of the small areal component of project activities in these subwatersheds (see further discussion below).

In the minority of subwatersheds in the cumulative effects area where the proposed project would be implemented in a substantial portion of the HUC 6, most or all activities with potential cumulative effects of the BVMP to aquatic organisms and habitat would be based on impacts to hydrology and soils because most of the cumulative effects activities would either occur entirely or primarily in uplands and so effects to fish, amphibians, and aquatic insects would require the transmission of upland soil and hydrologic conditions to intermittent and perennial streams. The detailed discussion of the types of cumulative effect-relevant occurring within the subwatersheds in Hermandorfer (2012, for hydrology) and Burgoyne (2012, for soils), therefore should be consulted for most aquatics-relevant cumulative effects.

Further, all current and future activities proposed by the Prescott National Forest in the cumulative effects analysis area (in particular timber sales, fuels and vegetation treatments) would include project design, mitigation measures, and BMPs which would minimize or eliminate adverse effects to the subject species. Timber sales and fuels/vegetation projects on State, BLM, and private land within the cumulative effects area should also include protective measures that would minimize effects to aquatic and riparian species. Those activities within streams and

38 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 42/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

riparian areas that could cause cumulative effects include wildlife and aquatic habitat improvement projects, livestock grazing, motorized recreational activities, mining, and residential/commercial development. On Forest-managed land, all of these activities would be managed through rules and permits that would minimize adverse effects to the subject species.

Analysis Area Discussion. The uncertainty regarding presence and distribution of the four subject sensitive species in the BVMP area is in large part carried over to presence and distribution in the full 6th HUCs associated with the project area. Table 1 shows that only 4 of the 14 subwatersheds represented in the project area have more than 10% of the area within the project. Nine of 10 of the 6th HUCs with minor BVMP representation (the exception being Mint Wash) do not include any intermittent or perennial streams. Mint Wash includes intermittent channels draining into and from Granite Basin Lake, but the project is only 5% of the subwatershed area. Because of the small treatment area proposed for these ten subwatersheds and the proposed design features and BMPs, overall watershed processes and water quality would be protected, while riparian, wetland and floodplain function would remain intact into the future. These ten subwatersheds will not be further considered in the cumulative effects analysis because the BVMP’s impacts on the sensitive aquatic and riparian animals of these HUCs should be negligible.

Regarding the four project area subwatersheds with more substantial proportions of area potential affected by project activities, the first--the Willow Creek-Willow Creek Reservoir subwatershed-- does not include any intermittent or perennial streams (ADWR 2009, although it does include the eponymous reservoir) and most of its area (including Forest inholdings) is highly altered with urban and residential development. Secondly, the Upper Granite Creek-Watson Lake 6th HUC does include the intermittent eponymous stream, but is also highly altered by development on private land (including substantial Forest inholdings) and has three substantial reservoirs (Upper and Lower Goldwater, and Watson Lake). Thirdly, the Lynx Creek subwatershed’s eponymous stream is considered intermittent, and also has Lynx Lake. The private portion of the 6th HUC is heavily developed, and there is substantial residential development on private inholdings within the PNF.

The fourth subwatershed with substantial project activities is proposed is Groom-Creek-Upper Hassayampa River. The public land portion of the subwatershed is about three-quarters within the BVMP boundary, is the least developed of the 6th HUCs within the project boundary, and has relatively minor private inholding acreage. The upper Hassayampa River has several miles of flow considered to be perennial and has four intermittent tributaries (ADWR 2009). The Hassayampa River in this subwatershed or the next downstream (Buzzard Roost Wash-Upper Hassayampa) has relatively recently demonstrated the presence of the four sensitive species (each within the Hassayampa River channel).

Conclusions. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Table 3 have affected or can affect organisms dependent upon well-functioning water bodies and riparian areas in numerous ways. Many of the cumulative effects mechanisms are identical to those described in General and Potential Effects of Fuels Management earlier in this document, but are summarized below. Fish, amphibians, and aquatic insects require water of sufficient quantity and quality to survive and reproduce. All of the activities in Table 2 can affect the quantity and quantity and have contributed to any reduced abundance or diversity in the subject species. For example, mine development has impaired the quality of water in the Hassayampa River, while residential and commercial development has reduced water quantity. The other components of fish, amphibian, and aquatic insect habitat—primarily substrate size and quantity, riparian vegetation type and abundance—are obvious affected by all activities in proximity to water

39 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 43/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

bodies and to processes which transmit upland activity effects to drainage bottoms. Besides fuel and vegetation treatments and roads, well described above, grazing, motorized recreation, and commercial development modify or destroy riparian vegetation and disturb soil so that it is available for downhill transmission.

The four subwatersheds substantially contributing to the cumulative effects area have treatments proposed in relatively large proportions of their drainages (>15%). Further, three of these watersheds (Groom Creek –Upper Hassayampa River, Upper Granite Creek –Watson Lake, and Willow Creek –Willow Creek Reservoir) are listed as impaired by the State of Arizona for heavy metal in the case of Groom Creek – Upper Hassayampa River and dissolved oxygen and nutrients for Upper Granite Creek – Watson Lake and Willow Creek – Willow Creek Reservoir. Due to this baseline information, any planned projects located in these drainages must be carefully planned and implemented to ensure that further degradation would not occur. Each of these watersheds have proposed treatment restrictions for biomass and prescribed fire treatments (Hermandorfer 2012). These restrictions, along with planned BMPs and design features and streamside management zones for perennial, intermittent and ephemeral stream channels must be implemented or further degradation is likely under either Alternatives 2 and 3.

Most effects of the BVMP would be to the suitability of potential habitat for the species based on riparian vegetation, soils, and hydrologic impacts. Hermandorfer (2012) provides a detailed assessment of cumulative effects associated with the BVMP on hydrology related conditions and resources, and Burgoyne (2012) has a similar summary related to soils. These analyses conclude that little or no cumulative impacts would accrue to soils or hydrologic resources with the implementation of either action alternative (even within the four most-affected subwatersheds) and so habitat suitability for aquatic and riparian species should also not be affected. Riparian vegetation along intermittent and perennial stream channels should be largely undisturbed through implementation of resource protection measures and BMPs.

In addition, Alternatives 2 and 3 have been specifically designed to improve upland watershed conditions by improving resilience to disturbance and while simultaneously reducing hazardous fuels. These upland watershed condition improvements are expected to reduce stream sedimentation and improve water quality conditions over time. The project is expected to reduce the risk of large scale wildfires on the landscape.

As discussed above, the BVMP has some potential to affect the presence and persistence of sensitive aquatic and riparian animals in the four key subwatersheds discussed in the previous paragraphs. The species accounts in the Affected Environment section describe known distribution in the project area, and note the confirmed recent presence of only one species, Arizona toad, in three of the subwatersheds (and that record was well downstream of the project area). The recent presence of lowland leopard frogs, Arizona toads, Gila longfin dace, and desert suckers, however, has been confirmed in the Groom Creek-Upper Hassayampa subwatershed. Because historical surveys have been sparse and scattered it is not known with certainty whether and to what extent the abundance, distribution, or diversity of the subject organisms has changed because of past activities in the cumulative effects area. It is reasonable to assume, however, that because many human activities are disproportionately performed in proximity to water and valley bottoms that aquatic and riparian organisms have been more-heavily impacted than many of those organisms that are not aquatic/riparian dependent.

Given the likely presence of the subject species in some of the cumulative assessment subwatersheds, effects to individuals of these species and riparian vegetation from present, proposed, and foreseeable Forest activities are possible, but the resource protection measures and

40 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 44/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

BMPs to be implemented should minimize this potential and so little or no direct cumulative impact should accrue. Based on these records and the conclusions of Hermandorfer (2012) and Burgoyne (2012) the soils and hydrologic cumulative impacts of the project should be minimal to non-existent, which should translate into negligible effects to suitable habitat for the subject species. Other Forest cumulative effects activities should have similarly minimal impacts. Non- Forest activities are likely to be somewhat less regulated and well-planned than Forest activities, but these would be concentrated toward the lower ends of the subject subwatersheds, where the presence of the subject species is either less likely (because of residential or commercial development) or more likely (because of greater water volume/permanence). In either situation, the proposed activities would have little effect on species persistence in these portions of the cumulative effects area.

MIS aquatic macroinvertebrates appear to be widespread and relatively abundant in BVMP streams and their distribution undoubtedly extends to off-project streams in the 14 subwatersheds at issue. Project in-water activities (particularly the construction and use of stream fords) would likely cause mortality to individual animals, but these impact areas would be spatially and temporally scattered and rare and so population-scale cumulative impacts would be immeasurable. The analyses of Hermandorfer (2012) and Burgoyne (2012) support the conclusion that there would be minimal cumulative impacts on the suitable habitat of MIS macroinvertebrates. Given the apparent relative ubiquity of aquatic macroinvertebrates wherever even ephemeral water exists, it seems unlikely that any likely combination of past, present, and foreseeable activities on lands managed by Federal or State agencies or by private individuals would greatly affect the viability of this MIS.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Assuming full implementation of resource protection measures and BMPs, the BVMP would comply with the PNF LRMP standards for riparian areas and associated fish and wildlife. The proposed silvicultural and fuel treatments in each alternative are not expected to have substantial effects on the size or viability of aquatic and riparian biota because of the design criteria, resource protection measures, and BMPs that will be implemented as part of each management alternative. The design criteria, resource protection measures, and BMPs will help to ensure that resource safeguards will be in place that would minimize adverse effects on the subject resources.

Summary of Effects Sensitive Species. Under the No Action alternative (Alternative 1), the specific activities proposed in the action alternatives would not occur, which would not address the Purpose and Need of the proposed project. To the extent that the proposed activities would benefit individual Gila longfin dace, desert sucker, lowland leopard frog, and Arizona toads or their occupied or unoccupied habitat through fuels reduction or motorized route modification, the No Action alternative would have no effect on these species or their habitat.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, similar fuel reduction and motorized route reduction activities would occur in the BVMP area and would likely directly or indirectly affect individual Gila longfin dace, desert sucker, lowland leopard frog, and Arizona toads or their occupied or unoccupied habitat. Project level effects when added to cumulative effects may impact individuals of Arizona toad, lowland leopard frog, desert sucker, and longfin dace, but not to the extent that the activities would cause these sensitive species to trend toward Federal ESA listing or their populations to be reduced in viability.

41 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 45/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

MIS. Under the No Action alternative (Alternative 1), the specific activities proposed in the action alternatives would not occur, which would not address the Purpose and Need of the proposed project. To the extent that the proposed activities would benefit individual aquatic macroinvertebrates in the project area or their occupied or unoccupied habitat through fuels reduction or motorized route modification, the No Action alternative would have no effect on these individuals or their habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not change habitat quantity for aquatic macroinvertebrates on the Forest or in the project area (79 miles of perennial or perennial interrupted streams on the Forest and 5 miles—the Hassayampa River and a small portion of Mint Wash--in the project area, and an unrecorded length of intermittent and ephemeral streams on both the Forest and project area). Habitat quality may have short-term impacts from runoff and sedimentation in stream systems in the project area due to fuel reduction activities. These potential short term impacts are likely to be mitigated by incorporation of the project design features (identified in Appendix A of the BVM Environmental Assessment) during project implementation. In the long term the activities would maintain or improve watershed conditions and consequently water quality. There would be no effect from the project to Forest-wide trends for aquatic macroinvertebrates

Monitoring Recommendations Establish photo points designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of SMZs and other project design and BMP features in protecting riparian vegetation; record images before and after project activities. Conduct population surveys for all sensitive species within the BVMP area prior to and at intervals following project activities. Conduct compliance surveys to determine the effectiveness of efforts to close temporary roads, skid trails, etc. to motorized access.

42 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 46/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

References (Literature Cited) Andrews, K. M., J. W. Gibbons, and D. M. Jochimsen. 2008. Ecological Effects of Roads on Amphibians and Reptiles: A Literature Review. In: J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew (Eds.). Urban Herpetology. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Conservation Number 3: 121-143.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2002. TMDLs For Cadmium, Copper, and Zinc in the Hassayampa River HUC# 15070103-007. October 2, 2002. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2009. 2006/2008 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona - Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. November 2009. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2011. 2010 Status of Water Quality, Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. December 2011. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2000. Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2001. Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius macularius).Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2001a. Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 11 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2001b. Gila topminnow (Poeciliposis occidentalis occidentalis). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002. Arizona toad (Bufo microscaphus microscaphus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002a. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 9 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002b. Desert sucker (Catostomus clarkii). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002c. Gila chub (Gila intermedia). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 9 pp.

43 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 47/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002d. Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae gilae). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 10 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002e. Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002f. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002g. Roundtail chub (Gila robusta). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002h. Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2002i. Spikedace (Meda fulgida). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2003. Brown springsnail (Pyrgulopsis sola). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2003a. Headwater chub (Gila nigra). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2003b. Verde Rim springsnail (Pyrgulopsis glandulosa). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2004. Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis morrisoni). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2006. Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.10

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2006a. Gila longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.6 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2006b. Lowland leopard frog (Rana yavapaiensis). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 10 pp.

44 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 48/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2009. Narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2009a. Rare Gila trout get a helicopter flight to a new home. November 6, 2009 press release. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2011. Undated Species Distribution Maps in AGFD Heritage Data Heritage Management System, as accessed on Internet. Phoenix, Arizona.

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). 2009. Arizona Water Atlas, Volume 5, Central Highlands Planning Area, Sections 4.2, 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, and 8.3. Phoenix, AZ.

Arkle, R.S. and D.A. Pilliod. 2010. Prescribed fires as ecological surrogates for wildfires: A stream and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 259, 893-903.

Beche, L.A., Stephens, S.L., Resh, V.H., 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management 218, 37–59.

Bowman, S.N. 2001.Verde River TMDL for Turbidity. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. February 2001.

Burgoyne, T. 2012. Soils specialist’s report, Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project. Unpublished report available in project file.

Chamberlin, T. W., R. D. Harr and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and watershed processes. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205

del Rosario, R.B. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Invertebrates in intermittent and perennial streams: Is the hyporheic zone a refuge from drying? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 2000), pp. 680-696.

Desert Fishes Team. 2004. Status of unlisted native fishes of the Gila River Basin, with recommendations for management. Report Number 2. August 31, 2004.

Emmons, I., E. Nowak, and M. Liszewski. 2011. Prescott National Forest Riparian Herptofauna Surveys 2010. Final Report to the Prescott National Forest, March 31, 2011.

Federal Register (FR). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Gila Chub as Endangered With Critical Habitat. Federal Register 70:211 (2 November 2005) p. 66664-66721.

Federal Register (FR). 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Mexican Gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat. Federal Register 73:228 (25 November 2008) p. 71788-71826.

Federal Register (FR). 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta)

45 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 49/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Federal Register 74:128 (7 July 2009) p. 32352- 32387.

Federal Register (FR). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow. Federal Register 75:208 (28 October 2005) p. 66482-66552.

Federal Register (FR). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register 75:239 (14 December 2010) p. 78094-78146.

Federal Register (FR). 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog. Federal Register 76:50 (15 March 2011) p. 14126-14207.

Finney, M.A., C.W. McHugh, and I.C. Grenfell. 2005. Stand- and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:1714-1722 (2005).

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205

Gray, L.J. 1981. Species composition and life histories of aquatic insects in a lowland Sonoran desert stream. American Midland Naturalist, 106(2): 229-242.

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128(2): 193-221.

Hermandorfer, C. 2012. Hydrology specialist’s report, Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project. Unpublished report available in project file.

Holycross, A.T., W.P. Burger, E.J. Nigro, and T.C. Brennan. 2006. Surveys for Thanophis eques and Thanophis rufipunctatus in the Gila River Watershed of Arizona and New Mexico. Report submitted to Arizona Fish and Game Department.

Jones, T. 2011. Personal communication of Tom Jones, Arizona Department of Fish and Game, Phoenix, with Dan Kenney, Fisheries Biologist, USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit. May 3, 2011.

Kenney, D. 2010. Unpublished notes from visual surveys of some Bradshaw Vegetation Project Area streams and reservoirs. April 26-29, 2010.

Levick, L., J. Fonseca, D. Goodrich, M. Hernandez, D. Semmens, J. Stromberg, R. Leidy, M. Scianni, D. P. Guertin, M. Tluczek, and W. Kepner. 2008. The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi- arid American Southwest. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA/ARS Southwest Watershed Research Center, EPA/600/R-08/134, ARS/233046, 116 pp.

Luce, C. H., Rieman, B.E. 2010. Landscape scale effects of fuel management or fire on water resources: The future of cumulative effects analysis? In: Elliot, W.J..; Miller, I.S; Audin, L., eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States.

46 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 50/52 0075 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 206-233.

Mazzacano, C. and S.H. Black. 2009. Using aquatic macroinvertebrates as indicators of stream flow duration. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 33 p.

McCormick, F.H.; Rieman, B.E., and Kershner, J.L. 2010. Biological responses to stressors in aquatic ecosystems in western North America: Cumulative watershed effects of fuel treatments, wildfire, and post-fire remediation. In: Elliot, W.J..; Miller, I.S; Audin, L., eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 206-233.

Pilliod, D.S., Bury, R.B., Hyde, E.J., Pearl, C.A., Corn, P.S., 2003, Fire and amphibians in North America: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 178, no. 1-2, p. 163-181.

Prescott National Forest (PNF). 1987. Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 2004 Republish. Prescott, Arizona. 158 pp. Available at Bradshaw Ranger District Office, Prescott, Arizona.

Prescott National Forest (PNF). 1997. Unpublished Lowland Leopard Frog Habitat Inventory Field Forms. S. Swope, June 27 and September (no date) 1997. Available at Prescott Ranger District Office, Prescott, Arizona.

Prescott National Forest (PNF). 2009. Prescott National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report. April 2009.

Prescott National Forest (PNF). 2010. Forest Level Analysis of Management Indicator Species for the Prescott National Forest, Version 2.0. 2009 Report. October 15, 2010

Prescott National Forest (PNF). 2011. ArcMap lowland_leopard_frog_habitat layer.

Prescott National Forest (PNF). 2011a. Travel Analysis Process for the Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project. May 2011.

Robinson, T. 2011. Personal communication of Tony Robinson, Arizona Department of Fish and Game, Phoenix, with Dan Kenney, Fisheries Biologist, USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit. May 5, 2011.

Russell, K. R., D. H. Van Lear, and D. C. J. Guynn. 1999. Prescribed fire effects on herpetofauna: review and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27:374–384.

Russell, K. R., T. B. Wigley, W. M. Baughman, H. G. Hanlin, and W. M. Ford. 2004. Responses of southeastern amphibians and reptiles to forest management: a review. Pp. 319-334 in Rauscher, H. M., and K. Johnsen (editors), Southern Forest Science: Past, Present, and Future. GTR SRS-75. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Schwaner, T.D. and B.K. Sullivan. 2005. Bufo microscaphus in Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species, edited by Lannoo, M.J. 2005. University of California Press, Berkeley.

47 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 51/52 0075 Aquatic Resources Report

Sredl, M.J., editor. 1997. Ranid frog conservation and management. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 121. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Sredl, M.J. (2005). Rana yavapaiensis Platz and Frost, 1984, Lowland leopard frog. In Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species: 596–599. Lannoo, M.J. (Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sredl, M. 2011. Personal communication of Michael Sredl, Arizona Department of Fish and Game, Phoenix, with Dan Kenney, Fisheries Biologist, USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit. May 19, 2011.

Stefferud, S.E. and J.A. Stefferud. 2007. Fish movement through intermittent stream channels: A case history study. In cooperation with Paul C. Marsh Native Fish Lab, Arizona State University. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, Arizona, August 13, 2007.

Stone, K.R., D.S. Pilliod, K.A. Dwire, C.C. Rhoades, S.P. Wollrab, and M.K. Young. 2010. Fuel Reduction Management Practices in Riparian Areas of the Western USA. Environmental Management (2010) 46:91–100.

Sullivan, B.K. 1993. Distribution of the southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus) in Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 53(4), pp. 402-406.

Sullivan, B.K. 2011. Personal communication of Brian K. Sullivan, Arizona State University, Phoenix, with Dan Kenney, Fisheries Biologist, USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit. May 3, 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Gila Topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, Revised Recovery Plan. U.S. DOI FWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-iv, 60pp., appendices A-E.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002a. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Gila trout recovery plan (third revision). Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-vii + 78 pp.

Weedman, D.A. and K.L. Young. 1997. Status of the Gila topminnow and desert pupfish in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 118. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Winget, R.N. and Mangum, F.A., 1979, Biotic condition index--Integrated biological, physical, and chemical stream parameters for management: Ogden Utah, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 50 p.

48 Bradshaw Vegetation Management Project 52/52