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