United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

Prescott National Forest 

Forest Plan Revision EIS

Fisheries Specialist Report 

and Viability Analysis 

September 2011, updated May 2014

Submitted by: /s/ Albert Sillas

 _________________________ 

Albert Sillas 

Fisheries Biologist 

Prescott National Forest 
i

Table of Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Summary of Effects Determinations......................................................................1 

Description of Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 5

Conservation Approaches to Maintaining Species Viability ................................................... 21

Identification of Species .............................................................................................................. 22

Species Distribution and Status .................................................................................................. 25

Gila chub ........................................................................................................................................ 25

Gila topminnow .............................................................................................................................. 26

Razorback sucker ........................................................................................................................... 26

Loach minnow ................................................................................................................................ 28

Spikedace ....................................................................................................................................... 29

Gila trout ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Colorado pikeminnow .................................................................................................................... 31

Roundtail chub ............................................................................................................................... 32

Desert sucker .................................................................................................................................. 33

Sonora sucker ................................................................................................................................. 36

Northern Mexican gartersnake ..................................................................................................... 38

Narrow-headed gartersnake ............................................................................................................ 39

Lowland leopard frog ..................................................................................................................... 41

Brown springsnail .......................................................................................................................... 43

Verde Rim springsnail .................................................................................................................... 43

Aquatic Macro-invertebrates .......................................................................................................... 44

Summary of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 46

Methodology and Analysis Process ............................................................................................ 49

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 50

Species Effects Analysis .............................................................................................................. 55

Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat ............................................................. 55
ii

Candidate Species .......................................................................................................................... 60

Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................................ 60

Other species Analyzed .................................................................................................................. 61

Relationship of Short-Term Impacts and Long-Term Benefits .............................................. 62

Cumulative Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 62

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................... 64

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...................................................... 65

References .................................................................................................................................... 66

List of Tables 

Table 1. Analysis indicators for comparison of alternatives ........................................................................... 4

Table 2. Watershed extent and perennial stream miles ................................................................................... 6

Table 3. Wildfire by year and vegetation type................................................................................................ 9

Table 4. Prescribed burn treatments by year and vegetation type ................................................................ 10

Table 5. Annual groundwater withdrawals (acre-feet/year) ......................................................................... 13

Table 6. Population trends of selected communities near the Prescott NF ................................................... 14

Table 7. Non-native fish & aquatic species occurrence on the Prescott NF ................................................. 18

Table 8. Watershed and aquatic ecosystem conditions on the Prescott NF .................................................. 19

Table 9. Species considered for Viability Analysis ...................................................................................... 22

Table 10. Native fish & aquatic species occurrence on the Prescott NF ...................................................... 24

Table 11. Gila chub distribution and status on the Prescott NF .................................................................... 25

Table 12. Razorback sucker distribution and status on the Prescott NF ....................................................... 27

Table 13. Loach minnow distribution and status on the Prescott NF ........................................................... 28

Table 14. Spikedace distribution and status on the Prescott NF ................................................................... 30

Table 15. Gila trout distribution and status on the Prescott NF .................................................................... 31

Table 16. Colorado pikeminnow distribution and status on the Prescott NF ................................................ 32

Table 17. Roundtail chub distribution and status on the Prescott NF ........................................................... 33

Table 18. Desert sucker distribution and status on the Prescott NF ............................................................. 34

Table 19. Longfin dace distribution and status on the Prescott NF .............................................................. 35

Table 20. Sonora sucker distribution and status on the Prescott NF ............................................................. 36

Table 21. Speckled dace distribution and status on the Prescott NF ............................................................ 37

Table 22. Mexican gartersnake distribution and status on the Prescott NF .................................................. 39

Table 23. Narrow-headed gartersnake distribution and status on the Prescott NF ....................................... 40

Table 24. Arizona toad distribution and status on the Prescott NF ............................................................... 40

Table 25. Lowland leopard frog distribution and status on the Prescott NF ................................................. 42

Table 26. Brown springsnail distribution and status on the Prescott NF ...................................................... 43

Table 27. Verde Rim springsnail distribution and status on the Prescott NF ............................................... 43

Table 28. Maricopa tiger beetle distribution and status on the Prescott NF ................................................. 44

Table 29. Aquatic macro-invertebrates assessments for streams on the Prescott NF ................................... 45
iii

Table 30. Summary of consequences by alternative ..................................................................................... 51

Table 31. Sub-basin extent and perennial stream miles ................................................................................ 63
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 1 

Introduction 

This Specialist Report is being prepared is support of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for the Prescott National Forest Proposed Land Management Plan. It evaluates and 

discloses the potential environmental consequences to fisheries and aquatic species viability that 

may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It analyzes the existing 1987 

Prescott National Forest land management plan (USDA Forest Service 1987) and four action 

alternatives that address the need for change revision topics developed for the plan revision 

process. Both the National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest Management Act 

require that effects to species viability be disclosed. 

This report documents the effects on fish and aquatic species that are federally listed or proposed 

for listing under the Endangered Species Act as endangered and threatened and their designated 

or proposed critical habitat, federal candidate species, Forest Service sensitive species, and 

Management Indicator Species. 

Summary of Effects to Federally listed and Forest Service Sensitive species 

Gila chub Endangered May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

GC Critical Habitat Designated May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

Gila topminnow Endangered May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

Gila trout Threatened May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

Spikedace Endangered May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

SD Critical Habitat Designated May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

Loach minnow Endangered May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

LM Critical Habitat Designated May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

Razorback sucker Endangered May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

RS Critical Habitat Designated May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

Northern Mexican gartersnake Proposed 

Threatened 

May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

NMG Critical Habitat Proposed May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

Narrow-headed gartersnake Proposed 

Threatened 

May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

NHG Critical Habitat Proposed May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

Colorado pikeminnow Experimental 

non-essential 

Not Likely to Jeopardize 

Roundtail chub Candidate Not Likely to Jeopardize 

Desert sucker Sensitive May Impact 

Sonora sucker Sensitive May Impact 

Lowland leopard frog Sensitive May Impact 

Brown springsnail Sensitive May Impact 

Verde Rim springsnail Sensitive May Impact 

A Caddisfly Sensitive No Effect 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 2 

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply 

Below is a summary list of major laws, regulations, and policies that apply to Wildlife, Fish, and 

Rare Plants management within the USDA Forest Service. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970, as amended, provides regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions of the Act. NEPA requires all federal agencies to give 

appropriate consideration to environmental factors in the decision making process, to involve 

affected and interested parties in the analysis process, and to write detailed statements in an 

Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment and supporting Specialist Reports 

that clearly describe the potential impacts of the proposed actions. 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires Federal agencies to conserve threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystem on which they depend. Section 7(a)(1) outlines the 

procedures for Federal interagency cooperation designed to conserved federally listed species and 

their designated critical habitats. Section 7(a)(2) outlines the consultation process the requirement 

that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency would not likely jeopardize 

the continued existence of a listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that habitat be managed to support 

viable populations of native and desirable non-native vertebrates within the planning area (36 

CFR219.9). USDA regulation 9500-004, adopted in 1983, reinforces the NFMA viability 

regulation by requiring that habitats on national forests be managed to support viable populations 

of native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife. For planning purposes, a viable 

population shall be regarded as one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to ensure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area 

(36 CFR 219.19). Also, the 1982 planning provisions require that “Forest planning shall provide 

for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent with the over-all 

multiple-use objectives of the planning area” (36 CFR 219.26). 

Forest Service Manual 2600 provides directives regarding wildlife, fish, and rare plant 

management. 

Current Prescott National Forest Plan 

The current forest plan was approved in 1987 and has been amended seventeen times. The current 

Plan addresses uses and resources separately without recognition of interrelationships. As a result, 

management direction is lacking when guidance is needed to deal with more complex situations. 

For example, appropriate management responses following uncharacteristic fires need to consider 

the interactions between soils, vegetation structure, coarse woody debris, cultural resources, 

economics, and work capacity. In some cases, management under the current Plan is appropriate, 

but the rate of implementation is too low to alter the direction of trends currently moving away 

from desired conditions. The current plan revision process illuminated many gaps in the existing 

plan, pointing to potential needs for change in the existing forest plan: 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 3 

Goals/Desired Conditions 

 are either missing or inadequate to guide projects in many of the Forest’s PNVTs, which 

allows for projects to move forward that do not make progress towards desired conditions 

 are missing for invasive species presence or influence 

 do not integrate desired disturbance processes 

 are sometimes written as standards and/or guidelines, rather than desirable conditions to 

move toward 

Objectives 

 are focused primarily on outputs, rather than progress toward desired conditions, goals 

and objectives 

 are sometimes expressed as guidelines 

Standards and/or Guidelines 

 are often unnecessarily prescriptive about how to accomplish a project, instead of 

focusing on the project outcome 

 do not support attaining desired conditions or accomplishing objectives 

 are duplicative or conflict with direction already found in Forest Service handbooks and 

manuals, existing laws and regulations, or recovery plans and strategies for federally 

listed species 

 are based on outdated policy, science, or information 

 sometimes describe purely administrative functions, such as budgeting, rather than Plan 

components and can be confused with Plan direction 

 include out of date terminology such as wildland fire use. 

Monitoring 

 focuses on outputs, rather than on progress toward attainment of goals/desired conditions 

Plan Direction/Goals for 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. 

 Cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet or exceed management 

goals and objectives in the Arizona Cold Water Fisheries Strategic Plan. 

 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. 

 Support the goals and objectives of the Arizona Wildlife and Fisheries Comprehensive 

Plan, as approved by the Southwestern Regional Forester and Director of the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 4 

Plan Revision Need for Change 

The Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) identified five areas where there are priority 

needs for change under the existing management plan: 

 Restore vegetation arrangements, plant species, and fire to selected ecosystems, while 

using adaptive management to respond to citizen concerns related to smoke emissions. 

 Maintain/improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and 

timing of delivery. 

 Provide sustainable, diverse recreational experiences that consider population 

demographic characteristics, reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding 

and user conflicts, and minimize resource damage. 

 Provide desired habitat for native fish. 

 Enhance the scenic value of Prescott NF-provided open space by defining the value of the 

visual character within areas near or viewed by those in local communities. 

The AMS determined that native fish and other aquatic species are in decline in some watersheds 

in the analysis area. Five such watersheds historically supported native aquatic species that are no 

longer known to be present. The most pressing threat to native species continues to be impacts 

such as predation from non-native species. Removal of non-native species is under the authority 

of the State of Arizona (AZ Game and Fish Dept.); the state is responsible for managing species. 

The Forest Service manages habitat. In order to assist in responding to the decline in native fish 

species, the Prescott NF can provide habitat and watershed characteristics that will support native 

fish species. It could also partner with the State of Arizona and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in native species conservation and recovery. The evaluation of effects on aquatic species viability 

of the Forest Plan alternatives will use the following indicators in Table 1. 

Table 1. Analysis indicators for comparison of alternatives 

Species consideration between existing

condition and alternatives.   

Indicator for Alternative Comparison

How would actions listed in each alternative

affect aquatic species of viability concern?

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and

distribution

Trends in species distribution and abundance

How would actions listed in each alternative

affect Management Indicator Species?

(The Prescott NF has chosen aquatic macro‐

invertebrates as an MIS for the revised plan.)

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and

distribution

Trends in species distribution and abundance  

Desired Conditions for Fisheries and Aquatic Species 

Desired conditions are the focus of the Forest Plan and are the basis for developing objectives and 

other plan components. Two Aquatic DCs were developed for the plan revision (DEIS): 

DC – Aquatic-1 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 5 

 Streams, springs, and wetlands that have potential to support native fish and/or other 

aquatic species provide quality and quantity of aquatic habitat within the natural range of 

variability. 

 Quantity and timing of water flows are maintained in streams, groundwater dependent 

ecosystems, and wetlands to retain or enhance aquatic habitat and ecological functions. 

 Water quality is sustained at a level that retains the biological, physical, and chemical 

integrity of the aquatic systems and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and 

migration of native aquatic species. 

 Riparian vegetative communities within these aquatic habitats are intact and functioning. 

 Aquatic habitats are free of or minimally impacted by non-native plant and animal 

species. 

DC-Aquatic-2 

 Desired non-native fish species are present only where recreational fishing opportunities 

are emphasized. 

Description of Affected Environment 

Information on the historical and existing conditions of the Aquatic Ecosystem and Riparian 

Forest PNVT (Potential Natural Vegetation Types) in the planning area are taken from the 

Ecological Sustainability Report (Forest Service 2009), Water Resources Report (Jarnecke and 

others 2008), Aquatic Species Diversity Report (Sillas 2008) and other references as cited. 

Reference Conditions 

There is little data for HRV (Historical range of variation) for many hydrologic characteristics, 

such as mileage of perennial streams or number of seeps and springs, and there is not enough 

information to estimate departure from HRV. An alternative method to assess the Aquatic 

Ecosystem was developed that evaluated characteristics for their representation and redundancy 

in the 5th HUC watershed and 4th HUC sub-basin scales to indicate the relative health of each subbasin (Jarnecke and others 2008). The characteristics that were evaluated included perennial

streams, water yield, water quality, riparian/wetland features, seeps/springs/stock tanks, and

aquatic species. Historically, perennial stream extent is inferred to have been similar in location 

and length with similar to slightly more actual flow than today’s extent. See Table 8 for a 

summary of Aquatic Ecosystem conditions on the forest. 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

The Prescott NF land base falls within portions of eight HUC 4 sub-basins and twenty-two HUC 

5 watersheds (Table 2). At the 4th HUC scale, the Prescott NF has a relatively minor portion of 

watershed area, ranging from 13 to 22 percent of watershed area in five of the eight sub-basins. 

The Prescott NF occupies less than 1 percent of the total area in the Big Sandy sub-basin and less 

than 5 percent in the Burro Creek and Lower Verde sub-basins. Overall, the Prescott NF contains 

13 percent of the total extent of 4th HUC sub-basins and contributes 11% of perennial stream 

miles. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 6 

Big Sandy River, Burro Creek, and Santa Maria River all flow to the Bill Williams River Basin, 

which empties into the mainstem of the Colorado River near Parker. The Big Chino Wash, Upper 

Verde, and Lower Verde are sequential, moving down drainage and form the Verde River Basin 

which joins the Salt River near Phoenix, tributary to the Gila River. The Agua Fria and 

Hassayampa sub-basins drain to the Middle Gila River downstream from its confluence with the 

Salt River. 

The Verde River is the main perennial1

 stream with about 52 miles occurring on the Prescott NF. 

There are about 38-miles of river within the Granite Creek and Grindstone Wash watersheds that 

form the upper Verde River. This section of river is potentially eligible for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Forest Service 1981). The upper Verde River also has a 

proposal to build a fish barrier for the management of listed fish species under the Biological 

Opinion for the Central Arizona Project (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). 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 Prescott NF lands in this 

section of that provide public access to 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 (Forest 

Service 2004a). The other 27 miles of streams within the Prescott NF are perennial interrupted2

 or 

intermittent3

. These streams are mainly in the Ash/Sycamore Creek and upper Hassayampa River 

watersheds. 

Riparian Habitat 

The extent of the riparian PNVT on the forest is 12,400 acres (<1% of Prescott NF) with an 

elevational range from 2,000 to 8,000 feet (Forest Service 2009). This vegetation type occurs 

along perennial or intermittent streams and springs. The two major communities are Cottonwoodwillow and Mixed broadleaf deciduous forests. Dominant woody vegetation will vary with

elevation, substrate, stream gradient, and depth to groundwater forming a mix of riparian

forests, woodlands, and shrublands. Common species include Fremont cottonwood, various

willow such as narrowleaf, Gooding, and Bebb; Arizona sycamore, velvet and green ashes,

Arizona alder, Arizona walnut, and box elder. Herbaceous plants include several forbs, sedges, 

rushes, and grasses. Vegetation conditions show a low departure from reference conditions

(Forest Service 2009). The departure that currently exists includes the presence of tamarisk and

other invasive plants, and a disproportionate amount of mid‐development vegetation with tall

shrubs and small trees, and a lack of late‐development multi-storied forest. 

Table 2. Watershed extent and perennial stream miles 

HUC 4     

Sub‐basin

HUC 5 Watershed (WS) Area in square miles Perennial Stream

Miles

                                                            

1

 Perennial – a stream that flows continuously. 

2

 Perennial interrupted – a stream with alternating segments of perennial flow and dry stretches. 3

 Intermittent (or seasonal) – a stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water 

from springs or from surface sources such as melting snow in mountainous areas. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 7 

Name Name

WS PNF

PNF

as %

of

WS PNF

PNF

as %

of

Big Sandy Muddy Creek 187 18 9.8 0 0 NA

Burro Creek Upper Burro Creek 171 13 7.7 19.2 0 0

Boulder Creek 150 16 10.8 0 0 NA

Santa Maria

Kirkland Creek 405 74 18.3 16.4 0.89 5.4%

Sycamore Creek 237 152 64.3 2.89 0.16 5.5%

Big Chino

Lower Partridge Creek 204 1 0.4 0 0 NA

Middle Big Chino Wash 300 38 12.7 0 0 NA

Williamson Valley Wash 321 169 52.6 11.5 0.08 0.7%

Lower Big Chino 364 136 37.5 0.45 0.45 100%

Upper

Verde

Granite Creek‐Upper Verde River 359 70 19.5 13.6 4.09 30.1%

Hell Canyon 237 104 44.0 4.39 0.54 12.3%

Sycamore Creek 477 35 7.4 11.4 0.84 7.4%

Grindstone Wash‐Upper Verde

River 309 227 73.5 33.6 27.9 83.1%

Cherry Creek‐Upper Verde River 226 117 51.6 32.7 3.39 10.4%

Lower Verde Fossil Creek‐Lower Verde River 299 65 21.7 48.8 18.37 36.0%

Agua Fria

Ash Creek and Sycamore Creek 261 232 89.1 22.5 7.68 34.2%

Big Bug Creek‐Agua Fria River 324 90 27.6 7.57 0.88 11.6%

Black Canyon Creek 244 158 64.9 0.38 0.38 100%

Bishop Creek 236 26 11.0 11.66 0.4 0.03

Agua Fria River‐Lake Pleasant 372 25 6.6 1.79 0.39 21.8%

Hassayampa Upper Hassayampa River 303 192 63.3 15.1 13.35 88.3%

Middle Hassayampa River 349 3 0.8 13.0 0 0

Total 6337 1962 266.9 79.4

Source: Jarnecke and others 2008.

Historic and Current Disturbances/Management Actions impacting 

Aquatic/Riparian Ecosystems 

This section is a summary of information on the historic and current disturbances and FS 

management actions associated with the watersheds that intersect with the Prescott NF. Many of 

these disturbances constitute direct or indirect threats to the condition, distribution, quality, 

quantity, and function of water resources. Changes in the properties or function of soils and 

vegetative communities through land management activities and other natural or anthropogenic 

disturbances can result in changes in the hydrologic cycle (routing, timing, and duration of 

runoff), accelerate or amplify geomorphic processes (hillslope erosion, gullying, stream 

sedimentation, etc.) in the uplands and drainage system. These changes can lead to degradation 

in aquatic habitat quantity and quality and affect aquatic species populations. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 8 

Flooding 

Periodic flooding is a natural process and disturbance in stream drainages in the planning area 

and is influenced by geology, geomorphology (i.e. landform), and climate. Most flooding in the 

Southwest is tied to winter or monsoonal storm events. Floods can impact fish community 

structure, aquatic habitat, and riparian vegetation. Flooding usually benefits native fish 

populations by providing important spawning conditions and can increase recruitment by 

reducing populations of non-native fishes (Minckley and Meffe 1987, Stefferud and Rinne 1995, 

Rinne and Miller 2006). Flooding is necessary to structure the stream channel with pools and 

riffles and creates the conditions for regeneration and growth of riparian vegetation. Major floods 

can remove riparian vegetation, unravel streambanks, and increase sedimentation into the stream. 

The frequency and intensity of flooding is closely associated with the amount of precipitation 

received in the drainage area. Higher magnitudes of flood discharge can occur with winter 

precipitation that falls as warm rains melting snowpacks in mountainous area or when falling on 

already saturated soils. A historical flood record for the Verde River exists for the past 115 years 

(Haney and others 2008). Large flood events have occurred in 1891, 1906, 1920, 1938, 1978 (2 

floods), 1980, 1993, 1995, and 2004/2005. 

Drought 

Periodic droughts have been reported since European settlement. Severe drought in the 1890s 

resulted in large scale mortality of livestock. An extended drought occurred from about 1942-57. 

Recently the Prescott NF has experienced a number of years of drought (roughly since about 

1996) with occasional levels of seasonal moisture at or above the long-term mean. Reduced 

precipitation results in reduced upland vegetative growth, reduced surface organic matter and 

ineffective vegetative ground cover putting the soil at risk of accelerated erosion and sediment 

delivery to connected streams during storm events. As vegetation dries out, there is increased risk 

of wildfire spread and subsequent accelerated erosion and watershed degradation. Perennial 

stream riparian vegetation is very resilient to drought and has not been shown to be drastically 

altered during periods of drought. Periodic drought can favor non-native fish populations by 

providing stable spawning conditions and allowing them to expand in a stream system. This 

increase in non-native fish usually has a negative effect on native fish populations due to 

increased predation and competition (Stefferud and Rinne 1995, Rinne and Miller 2006). 

Wildfire 

Wildfire has been a common occurrence on the forest historically and to the present time. Major 

wildfires that have impacted the forest have been the Mingus Fire in 1956 (15,000 acres), Castle 

Fire in 1974, and Cave Creek Complex Fire in 2005 (17,000 acres). The majority of acres burned 

in recent times have been in the chaparral and piñon/juniper vegetation types (Table 3). Wildfire 

is common in the ponderosa pine type but has impacted less acres overall. There has also been 

some wildfire occurrence in the grasslands. All vegetation types in the planning area are showing 

a departure in fire frequency from reference levels (Forest Service 2009). 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 9 

Table 3. Wildfire by year and vegetation type 

Year Grassland Chaparral Ponderosa

Pine

Piñon/

Juniper Total by Year

1989 500    700    1,200

1990    834 80    914

1994    8,500 85 2,798 11,383

1995 626       626

1997     383    383

2000 80    80

2001 1,800    1,800

2002    87 1,263    1,350

2003    987 250    1,237

2004       160 160

2005 884 6,940 44 12,558 20,426

2006    6,584 40 243 6,867

2007    989 630    1619

2008    3,974 3,289    7,263

TOTAL 2010 28,895 8,644 15,759 55,308

Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed Fire has been a common management action across the landscape of the forest in the 

last 3 decades (Table 4). The frequency and acres treated by fire have been mainly in the 

chaparral and ponderosa pine vegetation types. Grassland burning was common beginning in the 

early 1980’s through the mid 1990s. There has been little fire use in pinyon/juniper and other 

vegetation types. Fire use is intended to result in low intensity fire in most vegetation types 

though it usually is higher in chaparral which is characteristic for this type. All prescribed fire 

activity follows Forest Plan goals and objectives, standard and guidelines, and any mitigation 

measures to minimize impacts to the natural resources. 

Timber and Fuelwood harvest 

Historically, much of the accessible timber and fuelwood areas on the forest were harvested to 

support the mining industry and growing population centers near the forest. Currently, timber 

harvest is used primarily as a tool for fuel reduction and ecosystem restoration. From 1986 to 

2002, timber sale contracts issued ranged from zero to two per year totaling 11 contracts. During 

the period from 2003 through March of 2008, 22 timber sale contracts for 39,021 hundred cubic 

feet (ccf) were sold in response to mortality caused by insect infestation. Expectations are that 

current levels will stabilize at about 3,600 ccf per year. From 2001 through the second quarter of 

2008, the Prescott NF issued 7,428 firewood permits. Each permit allows collection of a 

maximum of 8 ccf (10 cords) of dead and down wood. This use is trending upward with issuance 

of 679 permits in 2001 and 1,207 issued in 2008. All timber and fuelwood harvest activity 

follows Forest Plan goals and objectives, standard and guidelines, and any mitigation measures to 

minimize impacts to the natural resources. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 10 

Table 4. Prescribed burn treatments by year and vegetation type – 22 year period. 

Year Grassland Chaparral Ponderosa

Pine

Piñon/

Juniper Total by Year

1987 6,131 6,948     13,079

1988 5,794 11,058     16,852

1989 3,868 2,985 152    7,005

1990    1,150 270    1,420

1991 1,932 1,403     3,335

1992    4,004 1,051    5,055

1993    2,629     2,629

1994    1,914 448 3,916 6,278

1995    5,360     5,360

1996    1,589 443    2,032

1997     1,876    1,876

1998    3,083 902    3,985

1999    6,925 1,080    8,005

2000    2,147     2,147

2001 2,553 51,195 412    54,160

2002    300 210    510

2003    7,500 550    8,010

2004    6,169 5,127    11,296

2005    3,934 2,048    5,982

2006    7,170 5,765    12,935

2007    2,233 7,001    9,234

2008    10,050 2,856    12,906

TOTAL 20,278 88,551 30,191 3,916 142,936

Vegetation treatments 

Mechanical treatments are also used for fuels reduction in chaparral. Brush crushing has been 

used more recently in this vegetation type to create fire lines near wildland urban interface areas 

such as Prescott, Dewey, and Cherry. To date, a total of about 4500 acres have been completed 

with about 1300 acres remaining to complete. Noxious weed treatment of tamarisk along the 

Verde River has been completed along 18 miles of river since the signing of the Noxious Weed 

EIS for the forest (Forest Service 2004b). All vegetation treatments follow Forest Plan goals and 

objectives, standard and guidelines, and any mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the 

natural resources. 

Herbivory 

Livestock grazing has occurred throughout the Prescott NF since the late 1800’s. Both cattle and 

sheep have grazed portions of the Forest; however, sheep grazing currently makes up only a very 

small percent of permitted use. Because of the limited distribution of water and the adjacent lush 

herbaceous vegetation, cattle commonly concentrate grazing along perennial and intermittent 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 11 

streams, in riparian areas and wetlands around seeps and springs. Unmanaged herbivory has been 

observed to reduce effective vegetative ground cover and riparian vegetation and contribute to 

accelerated erosion, soil compaction and sedimentation to connected perennial waters and reduce 

or impair water quality. Currently, livestock grazing occurs on the majority of the forest within 62 

allotments. Two-thirds of the allotments have yearlong grazing with the other third being seasonal 

(typically 6-month) grazing. Management actions in 1997 restricted livestock grazing along the 

upper Verde River on the forest because of presence of federally listed fish species. The Verde 

Wild & Scenic Management Plan (Forest Service 2004a) fenced off livestock grazing from along 

the river. All livestock grazing activity follows Forest Plan goals and objectives, standard and 

guidelines, and any mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the natural resources. 

Recreation Development and Activities 

The mild climate of the Prescott NF encourages year round recreational activity. Trail and day 

use are primary types of activity including off highway vehicle riding, hiking and biking. There 

are 18 developed sites on the Prescott NF; those with highest use include Thumb Butte, Lynx 

Lake Recreation Area, and Granite Basin Recreation Area. The area surrounding the city of 

Prescott—the Prescott Basin—has the highest concentration of recreational activity on the 

Prescott NF and limits primitive camping to designated sites. Two OHV areas are designated on 

the forest at Alto Pit near Prescott and Hayfield Draw near Camp Verde. The Verde River is a 

focal point of water based recreation such as fishing, swimming, and boating. There are several 

river access points along the river with the majority being in the Verde Valley. A 40-mile stretch 

of the Verde River below Camp Verde is designated a Wild and Scenic River with about 15-miles 

occurring on the Prescott NF. Eight designated wilderness areas comprise more than 116,000 

acres entirely or partially within the Prescott NF. Demand for outdoor recreation is expected to 

grow indefinitely as long as populations are increasing. Non-consumptive wildlife and developed 

recreation will grow the most, exceeding the Forests’ ability to supply. Capacity of general forest 

areas and designated wilderness is expected to experience slower demand growth during the next 

planning cycle. All recreational development and activities follows Forest Plan goals and 

objectives, standard and guidelines, and any mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the 

natural resources. 

Roads and Trails maintenance and construction 

Roads and trails occur across the landscape on the forest. There are about 1500 miles of forest 

system roads with the majority being in the high clearance vehicle use category. There are about 

400 miles of both non-motorized and motorized forest system trails on the forest. In addition, 

there are unquantified miles of non-system roads and trails on the forest. Roads and trails have 

compacted surfaces and low infiltration rates and can generate/ concentrate large amounts of 

surface runoff. The presence of roads and trails near aquatic habitats can be a source of sediment 

and pollutants. In addition, roads and trails can impact aquatic habitats through the facilitation of 

the spread of non-native species, increases in recreational access, and the likelihood of land 

development. These impacts can result in sedimentation and reduced water quality and affect 

aquatic habitat quantity and quality. Overall, Forest roads and trails are in poor condition from 

inadequate maintenance and reconstruction. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 12 

Mining 

Mining activities began in the 1860’s and created the first European settlement within much of 

the Prescott NF. This was especially the case in the Agua Fria and Hassayampa drainages. 

Starting with placer mining in streams, many stream channels were altered with sluicing and 

hydraulic mining – using high powered streams of water to break down alluvial banks and direct 

them into various sluices and rocker boxes in order to sort out the small volume of valuable 

minerals, with gold being the first attractant. Subsequently mining with shafts, adits, and small 

mills became more common, with associated piles of waste rock and tailings. The Prescott NF 

has abundant deposits of metallic minerals; existing activity includes five mineral material 

contracts for removal of flagstone, one contract for schist removal, and one contract for removal 

of decomposed granite. One limestone operation exists with approved commercial plan of 

operations. Gold mining is limited to placer and/or lode mining. Placer operations would involve 

mining from alluvial deposits such as panning. Lode operations, also known as hard rock mining, 

consist of mining a vein bearing gold or a rock in-place valuable mineral deposit. Most placer 

mining is recreational use or small commercial operators; the Gold Basin Project has the only 

approved plan of operations. All mining activities follow Forest Plan goals and objectives, 

standard and guidelines, and any mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the natural 

resources. 

Dams and impoundments 

There are three main dams and impoundments on the forest: Lynx Lake, Granite Basin Lake, and 

Horsethief Lake. Additional lakes adjacent the forest include Watson, Willow, Goldwater (all 

owned by city of Prescott), and Hassayampa (private owned) in the Prescott area. All lakes were 

constructed for recreational use and have established sport fisheries. There are no major dams on 

the Verde River on the Prescott NF. Sullivan Dam, located before the beginning of perennial 

streamflow on the Verde River, traps the majority of the bedload sediment from the Big Chino 

and the Williamson Valley 5th HUCs and has altered the natural sediment load into the upper 

Verde River and stream channel morphology. The Pecks Lake diversion dam near the city of 

Clarkdale is a major impediment to fish migration on the Verde River. The diversion dam is 

currently breeched but still forms a partial barrier to upstream fish movement. The majority of 

other dams and impoundments on the forest are earthen stock tanks constructed to provide water 

for permitted livestock. Dams and impoundments block the normal flow of streams and capture 

some of the streamflow, usually from periods of high flow or flood periods. Dams also trap 

sediment which would otherwise move down through the channel system. Soil erosion is the 

result of natural geologic processes and its entrapment may affect the ability of downstream 

channels to replenish alluvial banks and terraces. Other sediment may be the result of human 

disturbances such as from roads or mining operations

Water Withdrawals 

Withdrawals from both surface water streams and connected groundwater aquifers may affect 

streamflow on the forest, with main concerns being to the flows of the Verde River. Groundwater 

withdrawals from Verde River sub-basin are given in Table 5. Perennial flow in the upper Verde 

River is primarily from the Big Chino Valley aquifers with groundwater discharge via springs 

supplying at least 80 percent of the upper Verde River baseflow (Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000). 

This inflow makes up the baseflow of the upper Verde River from river mile 0.2 to mile 22 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 13 

(Blasch and others 2006). The largest groundwater withdrawals in the Big Chino Sub-basin are 

for agriculture (7900 acre-feet/year).The majority of the irrigated lands exist in four general 

locations in the Big Chino Sub-basin. These are near the community of Paulden, along Big Chino 

Wash about 15-miles northwest of Paulden, along Williamson Valley Wash, and along Walnut 

Creek (Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee 2004). Although agricultural withdrawals are 

decreasing from historical highs, groundwater withdrawals for domestic use within the sub-basin 

are increasing. In the middle Verde Valley (Clarkdale to Camp Verde) diversions for irrigation 

use have been present since the 1870’s and sometimes reduce portions of the Verde River to a 

trickle during irrigation season. Increasing urban and “ranchette” development with wells is also 

impacting the streamflow. Irrigated lands in the Verde Valley sub‐basin (Verde River Valley, Oak

Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, and West Clear Creek sub‐watersheds) rely almost exclusively on

surface water for irrigation. Over 30 irrigation diversions exist in the Verde Valley that diverts an

estimated 15,000 acre‐feet of surface water annually (ADWR 2000).

Table 5. Annual groundwater withdrawals (acre-feet/year) 

Year Big Chino Sub‐basin Upper Verde Sub‐basin

1990 12,341 AF 8,827 AF

1991 12,335 AF 9,837 AF

1992 12,360 AF 9,754 AF

1993 10,396 AF 10,460 AF

1994 10,444 AF 10,937 AF

1995 10,479 AF 11,438 AF

1996 10,558 AF 12,369 AF

1997 10,597 AF 13,150 AF

1998 11,464 AF 13,181 AF

1999 11,582 AF 13,700 AF

2000 11,848 AF 14,079 AF

2001 12,043 AF 14,501 AF

2002 14,719 AF 16,086 AF

2003 14,526 AF 16,283 AF

Source: (Blasch and others 2006). 

Population Trends 

The Prescott NF is located predominately in Yavapai County. The population of Yavapai County 

grew from 68,145 in 1980 to 167,517 in 2000, an increase of 146% (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

The projected population of Yavapai County in the year 2040 is estimated to be more than 

305,000 (ADWR, Statewide Water Planning 1997 in Arizona Department of Water Resources 

2000). The forest is situated near the communities of Chino Valley, Paulden, Prescott, and 

Prescott Valley in the west half and Camp Verde, Cottonwood/Verde Villages, and Clarkdale in 

the east half. Population centers and trends in the area are shown in Table 6.Continued population 

growth in the watersheds within the planning area would result in greater area of watershed 

altered by housing developments thus affecting natural hydrology and sediment production, 

increased use of groundwater resources, and higher recreational use on the forest. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 14 

Table 6. Population trends of selected communities near the Prescott NF 

Community 1990 Census 2000 Census 2009 Estimated

Chino Valley 4,837 7,835 11,182

Paulden Not available 3,420 3,912

Prescott 26,455 33,938 42,749

Prescott Valley 8,858 23,535 38,463

Clarkdale 2,144 3,422 4,252

Cottonwood 5,918 9,179 11,362

Verde Villages 7,037 10,610 12,830

Camp Verde 6,243 9,451 10,871

Source: U.S. Census Bureau website: www.census.gov

Non-native aquatic species stocking 

Introductions of non-native fish and other aquatic species began in the state in the late 1880s. 

Programmed introductions by federal and state agencies were generally for sportfishing, bait 

(forage for sportfish), and for biological control for mosquitoes. Other introductions have been 

made unintentionally by the public into many waters in the state. Stocking within state waters on 

the forest occur at Lynx Lake, Granite Basin Lake, Mingus Lake, Horsethief Lake, and winter 

stocking of rainbow trout in the Verde River. Non-native fish populations are well distributed and 

established in watersheds on the forest (Table 7). 

Fisheries/aquatic species recovery actions and conservation 

Various management actions have been conducted by the Prescott NF for the benefit of native 

fish and other aquatic species: 

 Acquisitions of various parcels of private lands along the Verde River. 

 acquisition of in stream flow rights (by Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto NFs) for the Verde 

Wild & Scenic River from Beasley Flat (T13N, R6E, Sec. 34) to Red Creek (T9.5N, 

R6E, Sec. 34) for the protection of threatened and endangered fish values. 

 filing for in stream flow rights (by Prescott NF) for upper Verde River from NF FS 

boundary (T17N, R1W, Sec. 5) to FS boundary (T17N, R3E, Sec. 33) and other small 

streams on the forest for protection of threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish/aquatic 

species. 

 Restriction of livestock grazing from the riparian corridor of the upper Verde River 

(1997) and Verde Wild & Scenic River (2005) for the protection of threatened and 

endangered fish species. 

 Closure of several roads into the upper Verde River in 1997 to reduce or eliminate 

vehicle impacts to riparian and aquatic habitat. 

 Monitoring of fish populations and aquatic habitat in the upper Verde River in 

cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Flagstaff, Arizona. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 15 

 Herbicide treatment of tamarisk and other noxious plants along the Verde River to restore 

or improve riparian habitat to native vegetation. 

Summary of Watershed/Aquatic Ecosystem Condition 

Table 8 summarizes the watershed conditions, hydrologic features, and native aquatic species 

integrity within the HUC 4 sub-basins and HUC 5 watersheds associated with the Prescott NF. 

Key sub-basin for aquatic ecosystem diversity are the Agua Fria River, Hassayampa River, Verde 

River Upper, and Verde River Lower because of the amount of perennial stream miles on forest 

and the native aquatic species known in these streams. 

Watershed condition integrity (or wholeness) is a function of natural geomorphology (landform), 

and the soil and vegetation conditions found in the uplands. Upland conditions affect the water 

quality, quantity, and timing of delivery downstream that are important to the sustainability of 

riparian and aquatic habitats. The uplands within the Big Chino Wash, Big Sandy River, Burro 

Creek, and Upper Verde River sub-basins have reduced watershed condition integrity due to 

departed soil conditions. 

Several sub-basins (Aqua Fria River, and Upper and Lower Verde River) exhibit moderate to 

high levels of redundancy and proportional to over-represented amounts of hydrologic features 

(riparian areas, seeps/springs, and perennial streams) occurring on the Prescott NF lands within 

the sub-basins. The abundance and distribution of these hydrologic features increases the 

probability that these sub-basins will continue to function in a way that contributes to ecosystem 

resiliency and diversity over time. 

Water quantity is at risk within the Agua Fria River, Big Chino Wash, Hassayampa River, and 

Upper and Lower Verde River sub-basins due to groundwater pumping and/or surface water 

diversion for agricultural, domestic, and municipal uses. 

Water quality impairment occurs within the Aqua Fria River, Hassayampa River, and Upper and 

Lower Verde River sub-basins that currently do not meet state and national water quality 

standards. Trends in water quality are considered to be upward or improving. 

The majority of sub-basins show a possible loss of aquatic species diversity due to a departure in 

the number of native aquatic species historically present versus currently present and also due to 

invasive species now present. 

Soils found within Riparian PNVTs are highly variable but generally have a low to moderate 

biomass production potential. Current soil conditions are moderately departed due to soil loss and 

inadequate surface OM. Vegetation conditions show a low departure from reference conditions. 

The departure that currently exists includes the presence of tamarisk and other invasive plants, 

and a disproportionate amount of mid-development vegetation with tall shrubs and small trees, 

and a lack of late-development multi-storied forest. On-Prescott NF vegetation conditions are less 

departed than off-Prescott NF (25% versus 32%). 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 16 

Projected Trends for Watershed and Riparian Features 

There is limited information on projected trends for watershed features. The following 

projections are based on available literature. 

Perennial Streams 

There has been documented regression of perennial streamflow downstream from Del Rio 

Springs, in a number of tributary segments in the Upper Verde River above Sullivan Dam, and in 

the Verde Valley (Blasch and others 2006). Proposed and projected increases in groundwater 

pumping from the Big Chino aquifer have become controversial in terms of their potential impact 

on baseflows in the Verde River within the Middle Verde 4th HUC sub-basin. 

Water Yield 

Water withdrawals through surface water diversions and groundwater pumping are well beyond 

the historical range of variation. The natural disturbances of droughts and floods are within the 

historical range of variation. Because total water yield is directly related to precipitation, the 

current drought (and projections of its potential continuance for a number of years) may result in 

a continuation of the recent trend of reduced streamflow and somewhat reduced base flows. 

Predictions from global climate models suggest warmer temperatures and slightly reduced total 

precipitation, with a high incidence of both droughts and floods. Current trends of a reduced 

proportion of winter precipitation being snowfall, with earlier spring melt, are predicted to 

continue and possibly increase in effect. These factors may result in reduced groundwater 

recharge and changes in the magnitude, frequency, and duration of streamflows. 

Ground water levels have declined due to both withdrawals and recent drought conditions, 

primarily on the private lands outside the Prescott NF boundary. Potential ground water 

withdrawals from the Big Chino aquifer authorized by the Arizona Ground Water Transportation 

Act, along with potential new consumptive uses in the area, could potentially and substantially 

affect streamflows in the Verde River and headwater tributaries. The Big Chino aquifer has been 

reported as providing more than 80 percent of the flow for the Verde River headwater springs 

(Wirt and others 2005). Monitoring and mitigation to reduce effects have been promised by the 

municipalities proposing to import water from this aquifer. Distinguishing the timing and amount 

of effects between this pumping and that attributed to other new uses on the aquifer will be 

difficult. 

Water Quality 

Water quality that has been degraded by historic mining operations (Hassayampa and Aqua Fria 

watersheds) is being addressed by a number of remediation projects leading to a trend toward 

reference condition in those waters. Water quality within the Verde River is degraded by high 

turbidity and is being improved by several watershed improvement projects to trend toward 

reference condition.
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 17 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Non-native fish and other aquatic species continue to dominate the fish community in the Verde 

River and its major tributaries. Invasive species presence in other small streams on the forest is 

expected to persist where already established. 

Riparian PNVT 

There were no data to estimate trends for soil and graminoid conditions. No VDDT model 

currently exists to project over-story vegetation trends for this PNVT. Because the amount of 

riparian vegetation invaded by tamarisk and other invasive plants is not known with certainty, it is 

possible that the actual departure of Prescott NF Riparian Forests is higher, and more similar to 

estimates for riparian areas off-Prescott NF. Additional information on riparian vegetation 

occurrence and condition would clarify these estimates of risk to riparian ecosystem 

sustainability. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 18 

Table 7. Non-native fish & aquatic species occurrence on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5WatershedName

Western

mosquitofish

Fathead minnow

Red shiner

Bluegill

Green sunfish

Smallmouth bass

Largemouth bass

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

Yellow bullhead

Common carp

Rainbow trout

Muddy CreekUpper Burro Creek X X X X XBoulder Creek X X X X XKirkland Creek X XSycamore Creek X XLower Partridge CreekMiddle Big Chino WashWilliamson Valley Wash X XLower Big Chino WashGranite Creek‐Upper Verde River X X X X X X X X X Hell Canyon X XSycamore Creek (Verde River) X X X Grindstone Wash‐Upper Verde X X X X X X X X X Cherry Creek‐Upper Verde River X X X X X X X X X X X X Fossil Creek‐Lower Verde River X X X X X X X X X X X X Ash Creek and Sycamore Creek X X X X Big Bug Creek‐Agua Fria River Black Canyon Creek X X Bishop Creek X XAgua Fria River‐Lake Pleasant Upper Hassayampa River X Middle Hassayampa River X

Source: Arizona Statewide Freshwater Assessment (www.azconservation.org) 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 19 

Table 8. Watershed and aquatic ecosystem conditions on the Prescott NF 

Uplands Riparian/ Wetland Areas Springs/Seeps Perennial Streams 

Sub‐basins (HUC 4)

Watersheds (HUC 5)

WatershedConditionIntegrity1

Reduced?Soils | Veg

% SubBasin2

& aconPNF

PNF Rep.in sub‐basin3

Redundancyon PNF4

No. inPNF byWS & %

of SubBasin5

PNFRep.inSubbasin

RedundancyonPNF

Miles on

PNF byWS & %

SubBasin6

PNFRep. insub‐basin

Redundancyon PNF

Agua Fria River 18% Prop. Mod 44% Over High 16% Prop Mod Agua Fria R/L. Pleasant

Ash Ck / Sycamore Ck

Big Bug Ck/Agua Fria R.

Bishop Ck

Black Canyon Ck

No | No 46 18 0.39 

Yes | No 930 82 7.68 No | No 7 39 0.88 Yes | No 93 7 0.38 No | No 349 54 0.38 

Big Chino Wash 54% Over Low 83% Over Low 5% Under Low Lower Big Chino Wash

Lower Partridge Ck

Middle Big Chino Wash

Williamson Valley Wash

Yes | No 223 17 0.45 

Yes | No 0 0 0 Yes | Yes 0 0 0 Yes | No 295 46 0.08 

Big Sandy River 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A Muddy Ck Yes | Yes 0 0 0 Burro Creek 0% N/A Low 6% Over Low 0% None N/A Boulder Ck Yes | Yes 6 3 0 Upper Burro Ck Yes | Yes 0 0 0 Hassayampa River 11% Prop. Low 59% Over High 42% Over Low Middle Hassayampa R. No | No 0 2 0 Upper Hassayampa R. No | No 269 102 13.35 Santa Maria River 7% Under Mod 40% Over High 3% Under Mod Kirkland Ck No | No 28 25 0.89 Sycamore Ck Yes | No 245 52 0.16 Verde River Upper 22% Prop. Mod 33% Over Mod 20% Prop Mod Cherry Ck/Upper Verde Yes | No 966 60 3.39 Granite Ck/Upper Verde Yes | Yes 91 21 4.09 Grindstone Wash/UV Yes | No 685 2 27.91 Hell Canyon Yes | No 84 2 0.54 Sycamore Creek Yes | No 245 6 0.84 Verde River Lower 11% Over N/A 6% Over N/A 6% Over N/A Fossil Ck/Lower Verde No | No 1,540 25 18.37 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 20 

Source: Forest Service 2009 Table 6 footnotes: 1 A reduction in watershed condition integrity is a level of impairment to biological and/or physical characteristics or processes as summarized in 

the Water Resources Report (Jarnecke and others 2008). See also FSH 2521.05 and 2521.01 for explanations of watershed condition integrity. 

2 Data source for riparian acres, representativeness, and redundancy is Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (USGS 2004). The proportion o

acres within the sub-basin is shown on same row as the sub-basin name (shaded row). 

3 The Representativeness of Prescott NF riparian acreage was compared to the sub-basin as a whole. Calculation: Acres of riparian/wetland veg

NF in 4th HUC divided by total acres of riparian/wetland vegetation types in 4th HUC. Underrepresented = <0.8, Proportional = 0.8 to 1.2, Over

4 The Redundancy of Prescott NF riparian acreage was calculated as presence/absence within each sub-basin and the distribution across WS with

High = hydrologic feature found in each WS and relatively well distributed among them. Mod = Riparian feature found in each WS but not well Occurrences of riparian feature were not found in all WS within the sub-basin. 

5 Number of seeps and springs on Prescott NF are provided for each watershed. The proportion of Prescott NF seeps and springs within the sub-b

row. 

6 Miles of Prescott NF perennial streams are provided for each WS. The proportion of Prescott NF perennial stream miles within the sub-basin is 7 The Prescott NF proportions of average annual precipitation are taken from tables 3 and 4 (Jarnecke and others 2008). 8 Water Yield = the total net amount of water produced on the Prescott NF, including streamflow and groundwater recharge. 9 Miles of streams classified as Categories 4 or 5 by the ADEQ. Category 4 = Impaired or threatened for at least one use but a TMDL (Total Ma

analysis is not required. Category 5 = Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant and a TMDL needs to be developed Prescott NF streams assessed. 

10 Number of aquatic species that historically were present but are not currently found in watersheds on the Prescott NF and the number of non-n

found within the watershed. Example: 5/15 = 5 species are no longer found/15 non-native spp present. 0/ND=no species extirpated/No data on n
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 21 

Conservation Approaches to Maintaining Species Viability 

The primary threats to aquatic ecosystem and species sustainability on the forest include ground 

and surface water withdrawals and diversions (occurring off-Prescott NF); departed upland 

watershed conditions (soils, vegetation, and fire regime); degraded water quality including heavy 

metals contamination; and non-native species competition and predation. The projected trend for 

groundwater withdrawals is for increased use due to increasing human population growth in the 

area and has potential impacts to baseflows to the Verde River and other key streams. The 

maintenance of natural flow regimes is essential for the conservation of native aquatic 

communities. However, the active management of non-native species is also needed. A 

conservation strategy to maintain native aquatic species viability on the forest should focus on 

these two factors as well as maintaining or improving watershed, riparian, and aquatic conditions 

through our management actions. Below is a list of some conservation actions to be considered. 

 Acquire/maintain streamflow water rights for the upper Verde River, Verde Wild & 

Scenic River section, and other key streams on the forest where groundwater or water 

diversion are a concern to maintaining existing streamflows. Applications have been 

made for Sycamore, Cienega, Turkey, Walnut, and several other creeks on the forest. 

 Acquire private land parcels with water rights along the Verde River and other key 

streams on the forest. Also consider private land parcels at Brown Springs and Nelson 

Place Springs. 

 Construct a fish barrier on the upper Verde River and renovate stream section with 

piscicides to eliminate non-native fish species. Restock with native species. Projects 

would require collaboration with private, state, and other federal agencies. 

 Expand native aquatic species populations on the forest where suitable habitat exist. 

Potential habitats on the forest include, but are not limited to, Sycamore Creek, Little 

Sycamore Creek, Little Ash Creek, and Big Bug Creek. These creek sections currently 

have non-native aquatic species that are limiting native fish populations. Chemical 

treatment with piscicide and/or mechanical removal to eliminate non-native aquatic 

species would be necessary. Projects would require collaboration with private, state, and 

other federal agencies. 

 Restore riparian habitats along the Verde River and other key streams where noxious and 

invasive plant species are present in the riparian zone. 

 Restore natural fire regimes in watersheds on the forest to reduce the risk of catastrophic 

fire and resulting levels of high sedimentation to aquatic habitats. Consideration should 

be given to the amount of HUC 5 and/or HUC 6 watershed acres treated to minimize 

effect of sedimentation to species habitat. 

 Obliterate and rehabilitate unauthorized/non-system roads in the watersheds to improve 

water quality in the Verde River and other key streams on the forest. 

 Mitigate impacts from mining activities in the Hassayampa, Big Bug Creek, and Turkey 

Creek drainages. 

 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 22 

Identification of Species 

The identification of species for which there is a viability concern was completed as part of the 

Analysis of the Management Situation (Sillas 2008). That document followed national guidance 

for selecting and deciding what species would be carried forward for analysis. The nineteen 

aquatic species being analyzed in this document include twelve fish species, two amphibians, two 

reptiles, and three invertebrates that occupy or have suitable habitat on the Prescott National 

Forest (Table 9). 

Table 9. Species considered for Viability Analysis 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Critical Habitat

Gila chub Gila intermedia Endangered4 Yes

Gila topminnow Peociliopsis occidentalis Endangered No

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Yes

Loach Minnow Rhinichthys osculus Endangered Yes

Spikedace Meda fulgida Endangered Yes

Gila trout Oncorhynchus gilae Threatened5 No

Northern Mexican

gartersnake Thamnophis eques

Proposed

Threatened

Proposed

Narrow headed gartersnake Thamnophis rufipunctatus

Proposed

Threatened

Proposed

Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Experimental6

Non‐essential

No

Roundtail chub Gila robusta Candidate7 N/A

Desert sucker Catastomus clarki Sensitive8 N/A

Sonora sucker Catastomus insignis Sensitive N/A

Lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis Sensitive N/A

                                                            

4

 Listed Endangered under the ESA: Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

5

 Listed Threatened under the ESA: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

6

 Listed Experimental population, non-essential under the ESA. 

7

 Listed Candidate, Ready for Proposal for listing under the ESA. 

8

Those species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list for the Southwestern Region of the 

Forest Service. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 23 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Critical Habitat

Brown springsnail Pyrgulopsis sola Sensitive N/A

Verde Rim springsnail Pyrgulopsis glandulosa Sensitive N/A

A Caddisfly Wormaldia planae Sensitive N/A

The native fishes in the planning area are part of the Lower Colorado River Basin fauna. A total 

of 31 freshwater fish species are known for this basin (Olden and Poff 2005). Fifteen native fish 

species have been recorded to occur within the HUC 4 sub-basins, either historically or currently. 

A total of ten native fish species currently occur within the Prescott NF. The occurrence of fish 

and aquatic herpafauna species within the 5th HUC is shown in Table 10. The Verde River has 

the highest native fish species diversity in the planning area and has been identified as one of 

several stream systems having the greatest potential for native fish restoration and conservation in 

Arizona (Turner and List 2006). However, original populations of the Colorado pikeminnow, 

razorback sucker, Gila topminnow, Gila trout, and loach minnow were extirpated from the 

drainage. The Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are currently being reintroduced into 

the lower Verde River but with limited success (Hyatt 2004). Gila trout were recently introduced 

into Grapevine Creek (Big Bug Creek –Aqua Fria River HUC 5) on the forest in 2009. The Gila 

topminnow, loach minnow, and spikedace were recently introduced into Fossil Creek (Lower 

Verde River HUC 5) in restoration efforts. 

Native fish populations within the Lower Colorado River Basin have experienced declines in 

their distribution because of loss or modification of habitat and from competition and predation 

by introduced non-native fishes (Olden and Poff 2005). The majority of fish species known on the 

forest have undergone declines in distribution across the basin. In contrast, the majority of nonnative fish that have been introduced into the basin have shown substantial increases in their 

distribution over time. Most non-native fish species have well established populations on the 

forest and are considered a primary threat to native fish species on the forest. 

Aquatic reptiles and amphibians have suffered the same fate as native fish in the reduction of 

distribution and abundance throughout their range. The loss or modification of habitat from 

various actions and the introduction of non-native fishes, bullfrogs, and crayfish continue to 

impact populations. 

The aquatic invertebrates have limited distribution in the planning area. The Verde Rim 

springsnail is only known from one spring complex in the headwaters of Sycamore Creek (Ash 

Creek/Sycamore Creek watershed). The Brown springsnail is limited to Brown Springs (Fossil 

Creek – lower Verde River watershed). Both of these populations occur on private lands, though 

forest activities have some level of impacts on their habitat. The Maricopa tiger beetle has greater 

distribution across the watershed but its status is not well known. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 24 

Table 10. Native fish & aquatic species occurrence on the Prescott NF HUC 5WatershedName

Colorado

pikeminnow

Desert pupfish  

1

Desert sucker

Loach minnow  

1

Longfin dace

Gila chub

Gila topminnow  

1

Gila trout  

Headwater chub  

1

Razorback sucker

Roundtail chub

Sonora sucker

Spikedace

Speckled dace

Muddy CreekUpper Burro Creek C C C Boulder Creek C C C Kirkland Creek C C C Sycamore Creek C C C Lower Partridge CreekMiddle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash C Lower Big Chino Wash C Granite Creek‐Upper Verde River C C C C C C Hell CanyonSycamore Creek (Verde River) C C Grindstone Wash‐Upper Verde H C C H C C C C Cherry Creek‐Upper Verde River H C H C H C C H C Fossil Creek‐Lower Verde River H/I C H/I C H/I H C H/I C C H/I C Ash Creek and Sycamore Creek C C C H C Big Bug Creek‐Agua Fria River I Black Canyon Creek C C Bishop Creek C C C C C Agua Fria River‐Lake Pleasant Upper Hassayampa River C C Middle Hassayampa RiverSource: Arizona Statewide Freshwater Assessment (www.azconservation.org) Footnote 1: These species do not occur in the planning area. Legend: C = Current; H = Historical; I = Introduced. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 25 

Species Distribution and Status 

Gila chub 

Gila chub was listed as endangered with designated critical habitat in 2005 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2005). No Recovery Plan has been completed for this species. Gila chub were 

historically found throughout the Gila River basin in southern Arizona, southwestern New 

Mexico, and northeastern Sonora, Mexico. The Gila chub has been reduced in numbers and 

distribution in the majority of it historical range. Where it is still present, populations are often 

small, fragmented, and at risk from known and potential threats and from random events such as 

drought, flood events, and wildfire. The primary threats to Gila chub include predation by and 

competition with non-native organisms, including fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish; and habitat 

degradation from surface water diversions and ground water withdrawals. 

Gila chub commonly inhabit pools in smaller streams, cienegas, and artificial impoundments 

ranging in elevation from 2,000 to 5,500 feet. Gila chub are highly secretive, preferring quiet 

deeper waters, especially pools, or remaining near cover including terrestrial vegetation, boulders, 

and fallen logs. Adults are often found in deep pools and eddies below areas with swift currents. 

Young-of-the-year inhabit shallow water among plants or debris, while older juveniles use higher 

velocity stream areas. Gila chub probably mature in their second to third year. Spawning typically 

occurs from late spring into summer over beds of submerged vegetation or root wads (Weedman 

and others 1996). Gila chub feed primarily on aquatic insects and algae. 

Historical and current distribution and status of Gila chub on the Prescott NF is shown in Table 

11. The species is known to occur in Sycamore, Little Sycamore, and Indian creeks in the Agua 

Fria River drainage (Bettaso and others 1995, Weedman and others 1996, Sillas 2003, 2005, 

2006). All three streams have perennial-interrupted flow and thus provide less occupied habitat 

than available on the forest. There is limited direct impact to Gila chub and their habitat from 

management activities because of exclosures around occupied sites or rough terrain that restricts 

access to the stream. Trends in species population and habitat for each stream have declined from 

historical levels because of the introduction and spread of non-native aquatic species which are 

predatory and/or competitive with the native species and recently because of wildfire that reduced 

habitat quantity and quality from excess sedimentation filling in pool habitats. 

Table 11. Gila chub distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Sycamore Creek 7 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Sycamore

Creek

0.25 0.25 Yes Yes

Bishop Creek Indian Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 26 

Gila chub Critical Habitat 

The final designation of critical habitat includes seven river areas with a total of 160.3-miles of 

stream reaches in Arizona and New Mexico (USFWS 2005). A total of 19.5-miles of critical 

habitat occur in Sycamore Creek (11.4 miles), Little Sycamore Creek (2.9 miles), and Indian 

Creek (5.2 miles) in the Agua Fria River drainage on or adjacent to the Prescott NF. All three 

streams have perennial-interrupted flow and thus provide less available habitat than designated on 

the forest. Land ownership is primarily forestlands but there are private land inclusions along all 

stream systems. Primary constituent elements of critical habitat include perennial pool habitat, 

suitable water temperature and water quality, adequate food base, sufficient cover and a healthy 

intact riparian vegetation community, habitat devoid of non-native aquatic species or levels that 

allow for Gila chub persistence, and a natural stream flow including periodic flooding. All 

elements of critical habitat are considered to be present within these stream systems except for 

presence of non-native species that are at levels that are negatively impacting this species. 

Gila topminnow 

Historically, the Gila topminnow was abundant in the Gila River drainage and was one of the 

most common fishes of the Colorado River basin, particularly in the Santa Cruz system (USFWS 

1999). It occurs in small streams, springs, and cienegas below 4,500 foot elevation. The Gila 

topminnow is restricted to 14 natural localities in Arizona, mostly in the Santa Cruz River 

drainage. As part of recovery actions, more than 200 reintroductions have occurred at 175 wild 

locations. Only eighteen wild populations remained as of 1997. Primary threats to the species and 

their habitat include the introduction and spread of non-native predatory and competitive fishes, 

water impoundment and diversion, water pollution, groundwater pumping, stream channelization, 

and habitat modification. 

Historically, there were no documented occurrences of Gila topminnow within the forest 

(USFWS 1999). Twenty-four sites on the forest were introduced with topminnows in the early 

1980’s (USFWS 1985). All sites failed to maintain surviving populations (AGFD 2003). Reasons 

for failure included drying of sites, flooding impacts, reduction of suitable habitat due to 

vegetation overgrowth, and cold temperatures. Potential habitats on the forest need to be assessed 

for those sites that meet habitat criteria for possible reintroduction. 

Razorback sucker 

The razorback sucker is endemic to the Colorado River Basin of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New 

Mexico, Arizona, and California. Wild populations exist only in the Colorado River. Populations 

in the lower basin were extirpated. Introduction of razorback sucker have occurred within the 

Verde and Salt Rivers in Arizona. Habitats include slow areas, backwaters, and eddy of medium 

to large rivers and impoundments. Threats to the species include streamflow regulation, habitat 

modification, competition with and predation by non-native fish species, and pesticides and 

pollutants. 

Historical and current distribution and status of the Razorback sucker on the Prescott NF is shown 

in Table 12. Introductions made into main channels habitats of the Verde River since 1981 have 

had low survival and recruitment has not been documented (Hendrickson 1993, Hyatt 2004). 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 27 

Since 1994, almost all reintroductions have occurred in the Verde Wild & Scenic River below 

Camp Verde. The extent of occupied habitat on the Prescott NF is16 miles in the lower Verde 

River. Recently, Stillman Lake at the headwaters to the Verde River is scheduled for renovating 

using piscicides and mechanical removal of non-native fishes for the purpose of reintroducing 

razorback sucker into this reach of the river (USFWS 2009). However, non-native fish 

populations are well established throughout the Verde River and are a primary threat to all native 

fishes from predation and competition. No livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River 

on forestlands. Road and trail access and related recreational use of the Verde River on 

forestlands is limited to just a few river access points with the majority occurring in the Verde 

Valley. Tamarisk treatments have been completed along the upper and lower Verde River as part 

of the Noxious Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent years to improve riparian 

and aquatic conditions. Trends in species population and habitat in the Verde River have 

decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of non-native 

aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and reduced 

habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 12. Razorback sucker distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 0 Yes Extirpated

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 0 Yes Extirpated

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 0 Yes Extirpated

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 16  

(local near

stocking

sites)

Yes Introduced

Razorback sucker Critical Habitat

Designated critical habitat includes portions of the Colorado, Duchesne, Green, Gunnison, San 

Juan, White, and Yampa rivers in the Upper Colorado River Basin, and the Colorado, Gila, Salt, 

and Verde rivers in the Lower Colorado River Basin (USFWS 1994). Critical habitat is 

designated for about 122 miles of the Verde River and its 100-year floodplain from the U.S. 

Forest Service boundary (Prescott National Forest) in T.18N., R.2E., sec. 31 to Horseshoe Dam in 

T.7N., R.6E., sec. 2 (Gila and Salt River Meridian), including Horseshoe Lake to the full pool 

elevation. About 70 miles of critical habitat occurs on and adjacent to the Prescott NF from 

Perkinsville downstream to the forest boundary below Camp Verde. The uppermost 15-miles of 

river are within FS ownership. The next 40 mile reach of river in the Verde Valley is primarily 

within private ownership. The lowermost 15-miles is again in FS ownership. Primary constituent 

elements of critical habitat includes a quantity of water of sufficient quality delivered within a 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 28 

natural hydrologic regime; physical habitat for use in spawning, nursery, feeding, and rearing, or 

corridors between these areas; adequate food supply and areas with few introduced non-native 

fish species. All elements of critical habitat are considered to be present within the Verde River, 

except for presence of non-native species that are at levels that are negatively impacting this 

species. 

Loach minnow 

The loach minnow is endemic to the Gila River Basin of New Mexico, Arizona, and northern 

Mexico. They are found in small to large perennial streams and use shallow, turbulent riffles with 

primarily cobble substrate and swift currents. It is rare or absent from habitats where fine 

sediments fill these interstitial spaces. Loach minnow are now restricted to portions of the upper 

Gila River, San Francisco River, and Tularosa River in New Mexico; and Blue River, Aravaipa 

Creek, Eagle Creek, and the Black River in Arizona. The present range is 15 to 20 percent of its 

historical range, and the status of the species within occupied areas ranges from common to very 

rare. Threats to the species include habitat modification and destruction from water diversions, 

improper livestock grazing, etc. and presence of non-native fish species which are predatory 

and/or compete with the species (USFWS 2007). 

Historical and current distribution and status of the loach minnow on the Prescott NF is shown in 

Table 13. Historically, the loach minnow was collected in the Verde River above Camp Verde 

and from Beaver Creek near its confluence with the Verde River in 1938 (Minckley 1993). The 

loach minnow is extirpated from the Verde River (USFWS 2000). Non-native fish populations 

are well established throughout the Verde River and are a primary threat to all native fishes from 

predation and competition. No livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River on 

forestlands. Road and trail access and related recreational use of the Verde River on forestlands is 

limited to just a few river access points with the majority occurring in the Verde Valley. Tamarisk 

treatments have been completed along the upper and lower Verde River as part of the Noxious 

Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent years to improve riparian and aquatic 

conditions. Trends in species population and habitat in the Verde River have decreased from 

historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of non-native aquatic species 

which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and reduced habitat quantity and 

quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural practices, excess 

sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and establishment of 

noxious plant species. 

Table 13. Loach minnow distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 0 Unknown Extirpated

Grindstone Wash‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 0 Unknown Extirpated

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 0 Yes Extirpated
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 29 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 0 Yes Extirpated

Loach minnow Critical habitat 

Critical habitat for the loach minnow includes 709 miles of stream systems and adjacent 

floodplain within 300 lateral feet on either side of bankfull stage within New Mexico and Arizona 

(USFWS 2010). There are about 136 miles of designated critical habitat on the Verde River and 

its tributaries Granite Creek, Oak Creek, Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil 

Creek. A total of about 74 miles of designated critical habitat occurs on the Verde River from the 

confluence with Beaver Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam. The uppermost 43-miles of river are 

primarily within FS ownership. The next 31 miles of river in the Verde Valley is primarily within 

private ownership. Physical and biological features of loach minnow critical habitat includes 

habitat to support all life stage for the species such as perennial flow and appropriate stream 

microhabitat types; an abundant aquatic insect food base; streams with no or low levels of 

pollutants; stream courses with connective corridors between occupied and seasonally occupied 

habitat; no non-native aquatic species or levels that are sufficiently low to as to allow persistence 

of the species; and streams with a natural unregulated flow regime that allows for periodic 

flooding or where modified that allows for adequate river function. All physical and biological 

features of designated critical habitat are considered to be present within the Verde River, except 

for levels of non-native aquatic species that would allow for persistence of loach minnow. 

Spikedace 

Historically, spikedace were common and locally abundant throughout the upper Gila River basin 

of Arizona and New Mexico. Spikedace are found in moderate to large perennial streams from 

1,620 to 4,500 foot elevation, where they inhabit shallow riffles with sand, gravel, and rubble 

substrates. Recurrent flooding and a natural flow regime are very important in maintaining the 

habitat of spikedace and in helping maintain a competitive edge over invading non-native aquatic 

species. Spikedace are now restricted to portions of the upper Gila River in New Mexico; and 

Aravaipa Creek, Eagle Creek, and the Verde River in Arizona. It is estimated that the spikedace 

present range is approximately 10 percent or less of its historical range, and the status of the 

species within occupied areas ranges from common to very rare. Threats to the species include 

habitat modification and destruction from water diversions, improper livestock grazing, etc. and 

presence of non-native fish species which are predatory and/or compete with the species (USFWS 

2007). 

Historical and current distribution and status of the spikedace on the Prescott NF is shown in 

Table 14. Historically, spikedace were collected in the Verde River above Camp Verde and the 

lower ends of Beaver Creek and West Clear Creek in 1938, and in the Verde River above Camp 

Verde in 1950 (Minckley 1993). The species was first collected in the upper Verde River in the 

1970’s (Girmendonk and Young 1997). Currently, spikedace are considered rare or may be 

extirpated in the upper 32 miles of the Verde River on the forest based on extensive surveys 

(AFGD 2001a-b, 2005a-c, Bahm and Robinson 2009, Robinson and Crowder 2009, Forest 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 30 

Service 2010; USFWS 2005). It has not been collected since 1997. Spikedace populations are 

extirpated from the lower Verde River in the Verde Valley (USFWS 2007). Non-native fish 

populations are well established throughout the Verde River and are a primary threat to all native 

fishes from predation and competition. No livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River 

on forestlands. Road and trail access and related recreational use of the Verde River on 

forestlands is limited to just a few river access points with the majority occurring in the Verde 

Valley. Tamarisk treatments have been completed along the upper and lower Verde River as part 

of the Noxious Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent years to improve riparian 

and aquatic conditions. Trends in species population and habitat in the Verde River have 

decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of non-native 

aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and reduced 

habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 14. Spikedace distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 4 Yes Rare or

extirpated

Grindstone Wash‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Rare or

extirpated

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 0 Yes Extirpated

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 0 Yes Extirpated

Spikedace Critical habitat 

Designated critical habitat for the spikedace includes 175 miles of stream systems and adjacent 

floodplain within 300 lateral feet on either side of bankfull stage within New Mexico and Arizona 

(USFWS 2010). There are about 175 miles of designated critical habitat on the Verde River and 

its tributaries Granite Creek, Oak Creek, Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil 

Creek. A total of about 107 miles of designated critical habitat occurs on the Verde River from 

the confluence with Fossil Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam. The uppermost 43-miles of river are 

primarily within FS ownership. The next 40 miles of river in the Verde Valley is primarily within 

private ownership. The lowermost 24 miles are again with FS ownership. Physical and biological 

features of spikedace critical habitat includes habitat to support all life stage for the species such 

as perennial flow and appropriate stream microhabitat types; an abundant aquatic insect food 

base; streams with no or low levels of pollutants; stream courses with connective corridors 

between occupied and seasonally occupied habitat; no non-native aquatic species or levels that 

are sufficiently low to as to allow persistence of the species; and streams with a natural 

unregulated flow regime that allows for periodic flooding or where modified that allows for 

adequate river function. All physical and biological features of designated critical habitat are 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 31 

considered to be present within the Verde River, except for levels of non-native aquatic species 

that would allow for persistence of spikedace. 

Gila trout 

The Gila trout is endemic to the Gila River Basin of New Mexico and Arizona and is found in 

moderate- to high-gradient perennial mountain streams above 5,400 feet to over 9,200 feet 

elevation. Currently, there are 16 populations of Gila trout in the wild (USFWS 2003, AGFD 

2009). Primary threats to Gila trout include hybridization, competition, and/or predation by nonnative trout species, habitat degradation, and wildfire. 

Historical and current distribution and status of Gila trout on the Prescott NF is shown in Table 

15. Historically, there were no naturally occurring Gila trout populations on the forest. Gap 

Creek, a tributary to the Verde River, was introduced with trout in 1974. This population 

persisted until 1990 but was extirpated presumably due to drought (AGFD 1992). It was 

recommended not to restock this stream because of the inconsistency of stream flows (AGFD 

1992). Recently, Gila trout were introduced into Grapevine Creek in 2009 (AGFD 2009). No 

livestock grazing is authorized within occupied habitat in the Grapevine Botanical Area (Forest 

Service 1997). Recreation use is restricted to Day use only. Forest Trail #4 parallels the creek 

though has low use. There is no motorized or mountain bike use of trails within the botanical area 

Table 15. Gila trout distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

Occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Big Bug Creek Grapevine Creek 1 1 No Yes

Fossil Creek –

Lower Verde

River

Gap Creek   1.5 0 No Extirpated

Colorado pikeminnow 

The Colorado pikeminnow is endemic to the Colorado River Basin of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, 

New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Wild populations exist only in the upper basin above Glen 

Canyon Dam. Populations in the lower basin were extirpated. Introduction of pikeminnow have 

occurred within the Verde and Salt Rivers in Arizona as “experimental non-essential” under 

Section 10J of the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1985). Colorado pikeminnow is adapted to 

life in big river systems that are highly variable, with extremes in flow and turbidity. Habitat 

includes pools, deep runs, and eddies of medium to large rivers. Threats to the species include 

streamflow regulation, habitat modification, competition with and predation by non-native fish 

species, and pesticides and pollutants. 

Historical and current distribution and status of the Colorado pikeminnow on the Prescott NF is 

shown in Table 16. Introductions made into main channels habitats of the Verde River since 1985 

have had low survival and recruitment has not been documented (Hendrickson 1993, Hyatt 2004). 

Since 1994, almost all reintroductions have occurred in the Verde Wild & Scenic River below 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 32 

Camp Verde. Non-native fish populations are well established throughout the Verde River and 

are a primary threat to all native fishes from predation and competition. No livestock grazing is 

authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. Road and trail access and related recreational 

use of the Verde River on forestlands is limited to just a few river access points with the majority 

occurring in the Verde Valley. Tamarisk treatments have been completed along the upper and 

lower Verde River as part of the Noxious Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent 

years to improve riparian and aquatic conditions. Trends in species population and habitat in the 

Verde River have decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment 

of non-native aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and 

reduced habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 16. Colorado pikeminnow distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 0 Yes Extirpated

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 0 Yes Extirpated

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 16  

(local near

stocking

sites)

Yes Introduced

Roundtail chub 

Roundtail chubs are found in cool to warmwater, mid-elevation rivers and streams throughout the 

Colorado River Basin, often occupying open areas of the deepest pools and eddies on middlesized to larger streams (Voeltz 2002). Current range includes areas varying in elevation from 

approximately 1,210 to 7,220 feet although more commonly found between 2,000 - 5,000 feet. 

Habitats occupied by roundtail chubs are often associated with adjacent cover in the form of 

boulders, overhanging cluffs, undercut banks, or vegetation. Threats to the species include habitat 

modification or degradation from water diversions, groundwater pumping, dewatering, mining, 

contaminants, urban and agricultural development, and livestock grazing; and predation and 

competition by non-native aquatic species (USFWS 2009). 

Historical and current distribution and status of the roundtail chub on the Prescott NF is shown in 

Table 17. Populations are found in the Verde River mainstem throughout the forest (AGFD 2003, 

2009; Voeltz 2002). Non-native fish populations are well established throughout the Verde River 

and are a primary threat to all native fishes from predation and competition. No livestock grazing 

is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. Road and trail access and related recreational 

use of the Verde River on forestlands is limited to just a few river access points with the majority 

occurring in the Verde Valley. Tamarisk treatments have been completed along the upper and 

lower Verde River as part of the Noxious Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 33 

years to improve riparian and aquatic conditions. Trends in species population and habitat in the 

Verde River have decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment 

of non-native aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and 

reduced habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 17. Roundtail chub distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 4 Yes Yes

Grindstone Wash‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Desert sucker 

Species occur in the Bill Williams, Salt, Gila, and San Francisco River drainages in the lower 

Colorado River Basin within Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico (AGFD 2002, 

NatureServe 2008). Found in rapids and flowing pools of streams and rivers primarily over 

bottoms of gravel-rubble with sandy silt in the interstices. Elevation ranges from 480 to 8,840 

feet. Threats to the species and their habitats include introduction and spread of non-native 

aquatic species and habitat destruction from a variety of human activities 

Historical and current distribution and status of the desert sucker on the Prescott NF is shown in 

Table 18. The species occurs in numerous streams in the planning area (Bettaso and others 1995, 

Rinne 1998, AGFD 2003, 2009; Desert Fishes Team 2004). Currently, population abundance in 

the Verde River is being negatively impacted due to non-native predatory fishes (Rinne 2001, 

Bonar and others 2004). No livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. 

Road and trail access and related recreational use of the Verde River on forestlands is limited to 

just a few river access points with the majority occurring in the Verde Valley. Tamarisk 

treatments have been completed along the upper and lower Verde River as part of the Noxious 

Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent years to improve riparian and aquatic 

conditions. Species abundance in other streams across the forest is influenced by the amount of 

available habitat in these intermittent or perennial-interrupted streams and also by presence of 

non-native aquatic species. Placer mining activities are a regular occurrence in the Hassayampa, 

Big Bug Creek, and Turkey Creek drainages. Trends in population and habitat in the Verde River 

and other streams have decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and 

establishment of non-native aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the 

native species and reduced habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 34 

enrichment from agricultural practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the 

watersheds, and introduction and establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 18. Desert sucker distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 4 Yes Yes

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Sycamore Creek Sycamore Creek 1 1 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Sycamore Creek 7 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Sycamore

Creek

0.25 0.25 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Ash Creek 3 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Dry Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Bishop Creek Indian Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Big Bug Creek –

Agua Fria River

Big Bug Creek 2 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Hassayampa River 6 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Blind Indian Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Cellar Springs Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Milk Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Longfin dace 

The longfin dace occurs in the Lower Colorado River Basin (primarily Gila and Bill Williams 

river drainages) in Arizona and New Mexico and south into Mexico (AGFD 2006, NatureServe 

2008). This species is wide ranging, from intermittent hot low-desert streams to clear and cool 

brooks at higher elevations. They are rarely abundant in large streams or above 5,000 feet. 

Threats to the species and their habitats include introduction and spread of non-native aquatic 

species and habitat destruction from a variety of human activities 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 35 

Historical and current distribution and status of the longfin dace on the Prescott NF is shown in 

Table 19.The species occurs in numerous streams in the planning area (Bettaso and others 1995, 

Rinne 1998, AGFD 2003, 2009; Desert Fishes Team 2004). Currently, population abundance in 

the Verde River is being negatively impacted due to non-native predatory fishes (Rinne 2001, 

Bonar and others 2004). No livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. 

Road and trail access and related recreational use of the Verde River on forestlands is limited to 

just a few river access points with the majority occurring in the Verde Valley. Tamarisk 

treatments have been completed along the upper and lower Verde River as part of the Noxious 

Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent years to improve riparian and aquatic 

conditions. Species abundance in other streams across the forest is influenced by the amount of 

available habitat in these intermittent or perennial-interrupted streams and also by presence of 

non-native aquatic species. Placer mining activities are a regular occurrence in the Hassayampa, 

Big Bug Creek, and Turkey Creek drainages. Trends in population and habitat in the Verde River 

and other streams have decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and 

establishment of non-native aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the 

native species and reduced habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient 

enrichment from agricultural practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the 

watersheds, and introduction and establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 19. Longfin dace distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 4 Yes Yes

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Sycamore Creek Sycamore Creek 1 1 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Cienega Creek 6 1 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Sycamore Creek 10 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Sycamore

Creek

1 0.25 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Ash Creek 3 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Dry Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Bishop Creek Indian Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Big Bug Creek –

Agua Fria River

Big Bug Creek 2 Unknown Yes Yes
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 36 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Upper Hassayampa

River

Hassayampa River 6 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Blind Indian Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Cellar Springs Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Milk Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Sonora sucker 

This species occurs in the Gila and Bill Williams river basins of Arizona and New Mexico, and in 

Gila basin of northern Sonora, Mexico (NatureServe 2008; AGFD 2002). The Sonora sucker is 

found in a variety of habitats from warm water rivers to trout streams from 1,210 to 8,730 foot 

elevations. Threats to the species and their habitats include introduction and spread of non-native 

aquatic species and habitat destruction from a variety of human activities 

Historical and current distribution and status of the Sonora sucker on the Prescott NF is shown in 

Table 20. Populations are found in the Verde River mainstem throughout the forest (AGFD 2003, 

2009; Voeltz 2002). Non-native fish populations are well established throughout the Verde River 

and are a primary threat to all native fishes from predation and competition. No livestock grazing 

is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. Road and trail access and related recreational 

use of the Verde River on forestlands is limited to just a few river access points with the majority 

occurring in the Verde Valley. Tamarisk treatments have been completed along the upper and 

lower Verde River as part of the Noxious Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent 

years to improve riparian and aquatic conditions. Trends in population and habitat in the Verde 

River have decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of nonnative aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and reduced 

habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 20. Sonora sucker distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 4 Yes Yes

Grindstone Wash‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 37 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Speckled dace 

The speckled dace is native to all major western drainages from the Columbia and Colorado 

rivers south to Sonora, Mexico (AGFD 2002, NatureServe 2008). Occurs in many kinds of 

habitats: riffles, runs, and pools of cool flowing headwaters, creeks, and rivers with mostly rocky 

substrates; large and small lakes (rarely); warm, permanent and intermittent streams; and 

outflows of desert springs. A bottom dweller, found in rocky riffles, runs, and pools of 

headwaters, creeks, and small to medium rivers: rarely in lakes. Peak abundance is found from 

6562 - 9843 feet, rarely below 4921 feet. Threats to the species and their habitats include 

introduction and spread of non-native aquatic species and habitat destruction from a variety of 

human activities 

Historical and current distribution and status of the speckled dace on the Prescott NF is shown in 

Table 21. The species occurs in numerous streams in the planning area (Bettaso and others 1995, 

Rinne 1998, AGFD 2003, 2009; Desert Fishes Team 2004). Currently, population abundance in 

the Verde River is being negatively impacted due to non-native predatory fishes (Rinne 2001, 

Bonar and others 2004). No livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. 

Road and trail access and related recreational use of the Verde River on forestlands is limited to 

just a few river access points with the majority occurring in the Verde Valley. Tamarisk 

treatments have been completed along the upper and lower Verde River as part of the Noxious 

Weed Treatment Plan (Forest Service 2004) in recent years to improve riparian and aquatic 

conditions. Species abundance in other streams across the forest is influenced by the amount of 

available habitat in these intermittent or perennial-interrupted streams and also by presence of 

non-native aquatic species. Trends in population and habitat in the Verde River and other streams 

have decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of non-native 

aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and reduced 

habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 21. Speckled dace distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Lower Big

Chino Wash

Walnut Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Granite Creek‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 4 Yes Yes
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 38 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Sycamore Creek 7 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Sycamore

Creek

0.25 0.25 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Ash Creek 3 3 Yes Yes

Northern Mexican gartersnake 

The Northern Mexican gartersnake ranges from west-central Veracruz, Mexico north along the 

Sierra Madre Occidental to central Arizona and west central New Mexico at elevations ranging 

from about 200 feet up to 8500 feet (ref.). In Arizona, these snakes are most abundant in densely 

vegetated habitat surrounding cienegas, cienega-streams, and stock tanks and in or near water 

along streams in valley floors and generally open areas, but not in steep mountain canyon stream 

habitat (AGFD 2001). Most localities are between 3000 and 5000 feet elevation in aquatic 

systems of desert grassland plant communities (Rosen and Schwalbe 1988). This species preys 

primarily on frogs, tadpoles, and native fish. Threats to the species include predation by 

introduced bullfrogs and predatory fishes, urbanization and lowered water tables, and habitat 

destruction, including that due to overgrazing. Population numbers are decreasing, with 

extirpations at several localities since 1950 as habitat is changed and introduced predators invade 

habitat. 

Historical and current distribution and status of the Northern Mexican gartersnake on the Prescott 

NF is shown in Table 22. Historically, this species is known from along the Verde River and 

Little Ash Creek on the forest (Rosen and Schwalbe 1988). A few specimens have been collected 

in recent years along the Verde River on and adjacent to the Prescott NF (Holycross and others 

2006). Populations are considered to be at low densities in the Verde River. No livestock grazing 

is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. Non-native fish populations, bullfrogs, and 

crayfish are well established throughout the Verde River and are a primary threat to these reptiles 

from predation. Trends in population and habitat in the Verde River and other streams have 

decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of non-native 

aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and reduced 

habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 39 

Table 22. Northern Mexican gartersnake distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 0 Unknown Unknown

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Ash Creek 3 0 Yes Extirpated

Narrow-headed gartersnake 

The Narrow-headed gartersnake occurs from central Arizona to western New Mexico and south 

to central and western Chihuahua and northern and western Durango, Mexico (NatureServe 

2008). In Arizona, this gartersnake is known primarily from streams draining the Mogollon Rim 

and the White Mountains (AGFD 2009). Most localities are between 4000 and 6000 feet 

elevation in aquatic systems of Piñon/Juniper, Oak-pine belts, up to ponderosa pine forests 

(Rosen and Schwalbe 1988). Highly aquatic species, associated with riffle/pool complexes of 

cool, clear, rocky mountain streams. Narrow-headed are only found in areas of high native fish 

concentration and primarily consume fish. Threats to this species include loss or reduction of 

streamflow, habitat modification, grazing along streambeds and increased recreational use in 

riparian areas. Other threats consist of the introduction of predators, such as bullfrogs and 

predatory fishes, as well as habitat fragmentation. Population trends show declines in many 

populations. 

Historical and current distribution and status of the narrow-headed gartersnake on the Prescott NF 

is shown in Table 23. A few specimens have been collected in recent years along the Verde River 

on and adjacent to the Prescott NF (Holycross and others 2006, Emmons and others 2010 draft). 

No livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. Non-native fish 

populations, bullfrogs, and crayfish are well established throughout the Verde River and are a 

primary threat to these reptiles from predation. There are no known or historical occurrences 

within the Agua Fria River drainage (AGFD 2009). Trends in population and habitat in the Verde 

River have decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of nonnative aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and reduced 

habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 40 

Table 23. Narrow-headed gartersnake distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Granite Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 0 Unknown Unknown

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Arizona toad 

Species occur from southwest Utah and southeast Nevada, and along Mogollon Rim of southwest 

New Mexico and central Arizona (AGFD 2002, NatureServe 2008)). Usually found along rocky 

stream courses from desert up to conifer forest, elevations from near sea level to around 8,000 

feet. Occur primarily in rocky streams and canyons in the pine-oak belt from about 500 to 8000 

feet elevation. Threats include hybridization with woodhouse toad, water diversions and 

manipulations (e.g. dams), and heavy grazing in riparian areas. 

Historical and current distribution and status of the Arizona toad on the Prescott NF is shown in 

Table 24. This species is known to occur along the Verde River and in the Agua Fria River 

drainage (Sullivan 1993, Holycross and others 2006, Emmons and others 2010 draft). No 

livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. Trends in population and 

habitat in the Verde River and other streams have decreased from historical levels because of the 

introduction and establishment of non-native aquatic species which are predatory and/or 

competitive with the native species, hybridization with the Woodhouse toad, and reduced habitat 

quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural practices, 

excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 24. Arizona toad distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Lower Big Chino

Wash

Apache Creek

Walnut Creek

0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Williamson Valley

Wash

Various springs Unknown Unknown Yes Yes

Granite Creek‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 4 Yes Yes
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 41 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Sycamore Creek Sycamore Creek 1 1 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Cienega Creek 1 1 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Sycamore Creek 7 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Sycamore

Creek

0.25 0.25 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Ash Creek 3 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Dry Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Bishop Creek Indian Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Big Bug Creek –

Agua Fria River

Big Bug Creek 1 1 Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Hassayampa River 2 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Blind Indian Creek 6 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Cellar Springs Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Milk Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Lowland leopard frog 

The lowland leopard frog ranges from central and southeastern Arizona below the Mogollon Rim, 

southwest New Mexico (Gila River and Rio San Francisco), and probably northern Sonora and 

northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico (AGFD 2006, NatureServe 2008). It is found in small to 

medium streams, and occurs in small springs, stock ponds, and occasionally in large rivers. This 

species is generally restricted to permanent waters below elevations of 6,400 feet. The greatest 

threats to this species are habitat alteration and fragmentation, accentuated by the introduction of 

non-native predatory and competitive fishes, crayfishes, and bullfrogs. 

Historical and current distribution and status of the lowland leopard frog on the Prescott NF is 

shown in Table 25. Mining impacts to aquatic habitat and water quality have affected the species 

within the Lynx Creek-Aqua Fria River, Upper Hassayampa River, and Black Canyon Creek 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 42 

HUC5 watersheds. Trends in population and habitat in the Verde River and other streams have 

decreased from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of non-native 

aquatic species which are predatory and/or competitive with the native species and reduced 

habitat quantity and quality from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural 

practices, excess sedimentation from land development in the watersheds, and introduction and 

establishment of noxious plant species. 

Table 25. Lowland leopard frog distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Lower Big Chino

Wash

Apache Creek

Walnut Creek

0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Granite Creek‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 4 Yes Yes

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 28 Yes Yes

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 3.4 Yes Yes

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 15.5 Yes Yes

Sycamore Creek Sycamore Creek 1 1 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Cienega Creek 1 1 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Sycamore Creek 7 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Sycamore

Creek

0.25 0.25 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Little Ash Creek 3 3 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Dry Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Government Spring 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Bishop Creek Indian Creek 0.5 0.5 Yes Yes

Big Bug Creek –

Agua Fria River

Big Bug Creek 1 1 Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Hassayampa River 2 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Blind Indian Creek 6 Unknown Yes Yes

Upper Hassayampa

River

Cellar Springs Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 43 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Upper Hassayampa

River

Milk Creek 1 Unknown Yes Yes

Brown springsnail 

Historical and current distribution and status of the Brown springsnail on the Prescott NF is 

shown in Table 26. The total range of this species is Brown Spring, Yavapai County, Arizona 

(AGFD 2003). This occurrence is on private lands but with a water diversion to forestlands.

Threats include highly restricted distribution with associated potential for extinction due to 

chance events, water development and groundwater depletion. The population has not been 

monitored since 1988 so population trends are unknown (AGFD 2003). 

Table 26. Brown springsnail distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River  

Brown Spring 0 0.25 Yes Unknown

Verde Rim springsnail 

Historical and current distribution and status of the Verde Rim springsnail on the Prescott NF is 

shown in Table 27. The total range of this species is the Nelson Place Spring complex that forms 

the headwaters of Sycamore Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona (AGFD 2003). This occurrence is 

on private lands but is not fenced from livestock grazing that is permitted within the Sycamore 

Allotment. Forest Trail # 159 to Pine Mountain Wilderness passes through the spring habitat. 

Threats include highly restricted distribution with associated potential for extinction due to 

chance events, wildfire, improper livestock grazing, and recreational activities. A site visit in 

September 2010 revealed a large, healthy population at the main spring (Stevens and Ledbetter 

2011). 

Table 27. Verde Rim springsnail distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Ash Creek and

Sycamore Creek

Sycamore Creek 0 0.25 Yes Yes
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 44 

Maricopa tiger beetle 

This species is broadly distributed in riparian and moist fine sand habitats across western Utah 

and most of Arizona at elevations from about 1,100 to 6,900 feet (Stevens and Ledbetter 2011). It 

is almost wholly confined to moist sandy riparian habitats along perennial streams. Threats 

include impact of sand and gravel operations, off highway vehicle travel in riparian areas, 

trampling of burrows by livestock, invasion of stream riparian habitat by noxious and invasive 

plant species. 

Historical and current distribution and status of the Maricopa tiger beetle on the Prescott NF is 

shown in Table 28. Historically, this species was collected in Walnut Creek, Williamson Valley 

Wash, Willow Creek, Agua Fria River, and along the Verde River on and adjacent to the forest 

(McKown 1994). No livestock grazing is authorized along the Verde River on forestlands. 

Table 28. Maricopa tiger beetle distribution and status on the Prescott NF 

HUC 5

Watershed

Name

Stream

Name

Stream

Miles

On Forest

Miles of

occupied

habitat

Historical

Presence

Current

Presence

Lower Big Chino

Wash

Walnut Creek 0.5 Unknown Yes Unknown

Williamson Valley

Wash

Williamson

Valley Wash

Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown

Granite Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 4 Unknown Yes Unknown

Grindstone Wash‐

Upper Verde River

Verde River 28 Unknown Yes Unknown

Cherry Creek‐ 

Upper Verde River

Verde River 3.4 Unknown Yes Unknown

Fossil Creek‐ 

Lower Verde River

Verde River 15.5 Unknown Yes Unknown

Aquatic Macro-invertebrates 

The Prescott NF followed the process and procedures outlined for MIS (Management Indicator 

Species) selection outlined in the Region 3 Management Indicator Species Selection Process and 

Criteria (Forest Service 2010). Aquatic macro-invertebrates were chosen as an indicator of water 

quality based on their responsiveness to changes in water quality and physical features of stream 

channels essential for quality aquatic habitat. By monitoring aquatic macro-invertebrates 

populations or/and water quality parameters, the health and productivity of these systems can be 

assessed. 

Aquatic macro-invertebrates include mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, blackflies, beetles, midges, 

freshwater earthworms, snails, and many others. Each species has specific habitat needs and so 

they respond differently to changes in either the chemical, physical, or biological components of 

their habitat. These species are classified or separated according to a number of habitat 

preferences and life history traits. A main distinction between species or groups is their tolerance 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 45 

to pollution. Species are classified as Pollution Intolerant taxon or Pollution Tolerant taxon. 

Examples of water quality parameters affecting Pollution Intolerant species are excessive fine 

sediments, low dissolved oxygen, high water temperatures, and nutrient enrichment. 

Aquatic macro-invertebrates are currently a MIS for the current Forest Plan for aquatic habitat 

and late seral riparian habitat. MIS population and habitat trend data for macro-invertebrates is 

reported in the Forest Level Analysis of Management Indicator Species for the Prescott NF 

(Forest Service 2010). Bioassessments and/or water quality assessments have been completed in 

perennial streams across the forest since 1992 by ADEQ (ADEQ 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008). These 

assessments are used to evaluate the health of the aquatic community in support of the A&Ww 

(warmwater aquatic community) designated use classification. The general classification used for 

surface water quality by ADEQ is Attaining, Impaired, and Inconclusive for the designated uses. 

Impaired waters on the Forest are primarily for the Verde River. They include nearly all of the 

Verde River from the Perkinsville Bridge downstream to the boundary with the Tonto National 

Forest, in four separately listed reaches, due to turbidity. A TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) 

for turbidity has been prepared for the Verde River (ADEQ 2001) with recommendations that 

when implemented, are predicted to improve the water quality to a status of attaining. Impaired 

waters also within the forest include reaches of Turkey Creek and Hassayampa Creek. Both 

impairments are the result of historic mining operations and both have TMDL’s in progress and 

remediation measures initiated. ADEQ has recommended that the turbidity standard be replaced 

with the suspended sediment concentration (SSC) standard and this proposed standard has been 

exceeded only during runoff from major storm events. The ADEQ assessments results are 

summarized in Table 29. 

Table 29. Aquatic macro-invertebrates assessments for streams on the Prescott NF 

Stream Name

Segment

Waterbody ID and Length

Year Assessed

A&Ww Designated Use Support Rating

Verde River

Granite Creek to Hell Canyon  

AZ15060202‐052   16‐miles

2006 – 2008: Attaining. No exceedances.

Verde River

Hell Canyon to 15060202‐065  

AZ15060202‐038   6‐miles

2004 – Inconclusive; insufficient sampling events to assess.

Verde River

15060202‐065 to Railroad Draw

AZ15060202‐037   11‐miles  

2006 –2008: Impaired.  A&Ww was assessed as impaired due to

turbidity exceedances. No SSC exceedances.

Verde River

Sycamore Creek to Oak Creek  

AZ15060202‐025   25.2‐miles

2006 –2008: Impaired.  A&Ww was assessed as impaired due to

turbidity exceedances.

Verde River

Oak Creek to Beaver Creek  

AZ15060202‐015   12.2‐miles

2006 –2008: Impaired.  A&Ww was assessed as impaired due to

turbidity exceedances. No SSC exceedances.

Verde River

15060203 to West Clear Creek  

AZ15060203‐027   6.4‐miles

2006 –2008: Impaired.  A&Ww was assessed as impaired due to

turbidity exceedances. No SSC exceedances.
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 46 

Stream Name

Segment

Waterbody ID and Length

Year Assessed

A&Ww Designated Use Support Rating

Verde River

West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek

AZ15060203‐025   24‐miles  

2006 –2008: Impaired.  A&Ww was assessed as impaired due to

turbidity exceedances.

Gap Creek

Government Spr. to Verde River.

AZ15060203‐774B   5.4‐miles

2006 –2008: Attaining. No exceedances in turbidity or SSC.

Sycamore Creek

Cedar Creek to Verde River.

AZ15060202‐026   11.7‐miles

2006 –2008:  Attaining. No exceedances in turbidity or SSC.

Hassayampa River

Headwaters to Copper Creek.

AZ15070103‐007A  11‐miles

2006 –2008: Impaired. Exceedances in various standards.

Hassayampa River

Copper Creek to Blind Indian Creek.

AZ15070103‐007B  20‐miles

2006 –2008: Attaining. No exceedances.

Little Ash Creek

Headwaters to Ash Creek.

AZ15070102‐039  17.7‐miles

2006 –2008: Inconclusive. Insufficient sampling events.

Poland Creek

Headwaters to Black Canyon

AZ15070102‐037    

2006 –2008: Not assessed.

Sycamore Creek

Tank Canyon to Agua Fria River.

AZ15070102‐024   17.6‐miles

2006 –2008: Attaining. No exceedances.

Turkey Creek

Headwaters to Poland Creek.

AZ15070102‐036   9.1‐miles

2006 –2008: Attaining. No exceedances.

Identification of Species Groups 

The species carried forward for analyses in this process are assigned to the Aquatic and 

Terrestrial Vegetation Categories used for Ecosystem Diversity Analysis (FSH 1909.12, Chap 40, 

Sec. 43.12). All aquatic species and the MIS macro-invertebrates, except for the Maricopa tiger 

beetle, are assigned to the Aquatic category. The Maricopa tiger beetle is assigned to the 

Terrestrial Vegetation category. Ecosystem diversity for the Aquatic Category is addressed at the 

HUC 5 (Hydrological Unit Code) Watershed scale (see Water Resources Report). Ecosystem 

diversity for the Terrestrial Vegetation Category is addressed at the PNVT (Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type) scale (see Vegetation Diversity Report). 

Summary of Alternatives 

A total of five alternatives are described in the DEIS. A summary of each alternative is described 

below. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 47 

Alternative A – 1987 Forest Plan Direction 

Alternative A would continue management under the existing plan for the Prescott National 

Forest. The plan provides for timber production, fuelwood harvest, hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments, prescribed fire and management of unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives. 

Under Alternative A, thinning to alter or restore vegetation structure and composition occurs on 

about 550 acres per year in ponderosa pine and on 300 acres per year in piñon-juniper vegetation. 

Fire managers treat about 7,835 acres per year using prescribed fire across all vegetation types. 

Plan Direction/Goals for Wildlife and Fish Habitat are in place to 

1) Manage for a diverse, well distributed pattern of habitats for wildlife populations and fish 

species in cooperation with states and other agencies; 

2) Maintain and/or improve habitat for threatened or endangered species and work toward 

the eventual recovery and delisting of species through recovery plan implementation; and 

3) Integrate wildlife habitat management activities into all resource practices through 

intensive coordination. 

Alternative B – The Proposed Revised Plan 

Alternative B places an emphasis on restoring vegetation, structure, composition, and desired 

characteristics of fire to five ecosystems that are moderately or highly-departed from desired 

conditions. It also addresses citizen concerns related to smoke emissions and responds to the 

anticipated effects of climate change. 

Alternative B would increase the amount of thinning and prescribed fire occurring across the 

landscape. Planned ignitions would range from 10,600 to 25,300 acres per year on average. 

Thinning treatments would range from 1,750 to 6,500 acres per year on average. Additionally, 

wildland urban interface (WUI) areas would be given high priority for fuel reduction treatments, 

using mechanical methods and/or domestic animals in lieu of planned ignitions. 

Watershed Integrity Management includes several objectives (O-18 to 23) to improve watershed, 

riparian, stream crossings, and springs/seeps sites across the forest. 

Aquatic Habitat Management includes an objective (O-24) to restore native fish species in 2-3 

stream reaches across the forest. 

Eight potential wilderness areas are recommended at a total of 43,440 acres. Recommended areas 

include Apache Creek A, Apache Creek B, Bald Mountain, Black Canyon, Castle Creek 

Contiguous, Juniper Mesa, Sycamore Canyon A, and Sycamore Canyon C. All areas are already 

identified roadless areas. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 48 

Alternative C – Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Emphasis 

Alternative C includes many of the same components of Alternative B, however, it responds to 

public comments to increase emphasis on vegetation trends within both grassland and ponderosa 

pine types. This focus improves vegetation conditions within important wildlife habitats and 

places less emphasis on some vegetation communities and recreational components. In addition, 

Alternative C includes more management treatment for native fish and other aquatic species and 

pronghorn habitats; there is much less emphasis on recommendation of potential wilderness 

areas. 

Alternative C would emphasize a higher range of prescribed fire and a lower range of thinning 

activity compared to Alternatives A and B. Planned ignitions would range from 15,500 to 22,800 

acres per year on average and would be focused in grassland and ponderosa pine vegetation. 

Thinning treatments would range from 1,750 to 4,000 acres per year on average. 

Watershed Integrity Management includes several objectives (O-18 to 23) to improve watershed, 

riparian, stream crossings, and springs/seeps sites across the forest. Same as Alternative B. 

Aquatic Habitat Management includes an objective (O-24) to restore native fish species in 4-6 

stream reaches across the forest. 

Emphasis on improving vegetation and wildlife desired conditions involves more management 

activities such as prescribed fire, mechanical removal of vegetation, or stream restoration over 

more areas of the forest in order to provide for an increased rate of change toward desired 

conditions. Therefore, no wilderness areas are recommended in this alternative. 

Alternative D – Dispersed Recreation Emphasis

Alternative D includes an emphasis on providing increased dispersed recreation opportunities. 

Within recreational opportunities, there would be reduced emphasis on developed recreation, 

such as campgrounds, and increased emphasis on dispersed recreation such as adding trails, 

improving trailheads and adding designated dispersed sites. 

Alternative D would emphasize less prescribed fire than Alternatives B and C, and similar or less 

thinning activity. Planned ignitions would range from 10,600 to 18,800 acres per year on average. 

Thinning treatments would range from 1,750 to 4,000 acres per year on average (the same as 

Alternative C). 

Watershed Integrity Management includes several objectives (O-18 to 23) to improve watershed, 

riparian, stream crossings, and springs/seeps sites across the forest. Same as Alternative B. 

Aquatic Habitat Management includes an objective (O-24) to restore native fish species in 2-3 

stream reaches across the forest. Same as Alternative B. 

This alternative includes recommendation of the highest number of potential wilderness areas at 

16 areas totaling 116,262 acres. Additional areas to Alternative B include Arnold Mesa, Ash 

Creek, Cedar Bench A, Cedar Bench B, Fritsche B, Muldoon, Pine Mountain B, Pine Mountain 

C, Sycamore Canyon B, and Woodchute. All areas are already identified roadless areas. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 49 

Methodology and Analysis Process 

Plan decisions in the current forest plan and the alternatives to be evaluated include goals/desired 

conditions, objectives, standards/guidelines, suitability of uses, special areas, and monitoring. The 

management actions to be considered in this evaluation include the objectives identified to meet 

the need for change on the forest. These include the use of prescribed fire and mechanical 

treatments to restore vegetation and natural fire regimes to the ecosystem, projects to maintain or 

improve watershed integrity, projects to maintain and provide for recreational experiences, 

projects to maintain or improve aquatic and wildlife habitat, and opportunities to enhance the 

scenic value. A concurrent decision in the forest revision process included in this evaluation is the 

designation of wilderness areas. 

The evaluation of effects on species viability of the LRMP alternatives is based on the effects to 

the ecological conditions that provide for ecosystem diversity (FSH 1909.12, Chap. 40, and Sec. 

43.21). The overall assumption of ecosystem management is that managing systems within the 

range of conditions that native species have experienced over evolutionary time is likely to 

maintain populations of those species. The evaluation of effects will be assessed as a risk to 

species viability from the LRMP alternatives. Risk is comprised of two components: the 

likelihood of a negative outcome and the severity of a negative outcome. From an ecological 

standpoint, a negative outcome is defined as a departure from reference conditions. 

The following indicators were considered for each species in this analysis: 

1. How habitat quantity, quality, and distribution is affected by management actions. 

2. The trends in the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitat; 

3. The trends in distribution and abundance of the species; 

The effects from management actions to the indicators are influenced by numerous measures such 

as the extent of area affected, the severity of impacts, and the duration of impacts. The 

consequences of the impacts are then related to their effect on trends to the aquatic ecosystem and 

species populations. The ratings and their descriptions are as follows: 

Low 

Management actions would have low likelihood of changing habitat quantity or distribution in the 

planning area. Management Actions could have low to high levels of ground or vegetation 

disturbance in the watersheds. However, due but due to small area of impacts and with 

implementation of BMPs (Best Management Practices9

) there would be minimal impacts to 

habitat quality in aquatic ecosystems. Trends to aquatic ecosystem and species populations would 

be maintained or improved in the planning area. 

                                                            

9 Best Management Practices (BMPs) are a practice or combination of practices determined to

be the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution

generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals, and are

developed to comply with the Clean Water Act.
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 50 

Moderate 

Management actions would have low likelihood of changing habitat quantity or distribution in the 

planning area. Management Actions could have low to high levels of ground or vegetation 

disturbance in the watershed with larger extent of area impacted. There would be impacts to 

habitat quality from sedimentation and higher peakflows due to extent and severity of impacts 

even with implementation of BMPs. However, impacts would be of short duration and would 

maintain or improve habitat quality in the long term. Trends to aquatic ecosystem and species 

populations would be maintained or improved in the planning area. 

High 

Management actions would have moderate to high likelihood of decreasing habitat quantity or 

distribution in the planning area. Management actions would have high extent, severity, and 

duration of impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. There would be adverse impacts to aquatic habitat 

quantity, quality, and distribution even with implementation of BMPs. The decrease in habitat 

would reduce species populations in the planning area. 

In this analysis, the following assumptions have been made: 

 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework for future site-specific 

actions. 

 Land management plans do not have direct effects. They do not authorize or mandate any 

site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions). 

 Land management plans may have implications, or environmental consequences, of 

managing the forests under a programmatic framework. 

 Law, policy, and regulations will be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects and activities. 

 The plan decisions (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management 

areas, monitoring) will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects 

and activities. 

 Monitoring will occur and the land management plan will be amended, as needed. 

 Management activities that help ecosystems accommodate changes adaptively will 

improve ecosystem resiliency in the long-term. 

 The planning timeframe is 10 years; other timeframes may be analyzed to compare 

anticipated trends into the future. 

Environmental Consequences 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management 

plan does not authorize or mandate any ground-disturbing actions, there are no direct effects. 

However, there may be implications, or longer term environmental consequences, of management 

on the Prescott NF under this programmatic framework. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 51 

The summary of environmental consequences from management actions to trends of aquatic 

ecosystem diversity and species diversity by Alternatives is shown in Table 30. All Alternatives 

would contribute towards maintaining trends in aquatic ecosystem diversity with Alternative A 

having the least improvement of current conditions. Alternative B-D are all similar in their 

environmental consequences and would have greater improvement of aquatic habitat quality due 

to more emphasis in restoration of natural fire regimes and the reduction in potential for high 

severity fire in the planning area, and projects to improve watershed (vegetation and soil), 

riparian, and aquatic conditions. Alternative A would maintain current conditions of species 

diversity in the planning area that are highly departed from reference conditions due to presence 

of non-native aquatic species. Alternative B-D would improve species diversity through native 

fish restoration with Alternative C having the highest level of improvement in the planning area. 

Table 30. Summary of consequences by alternative 

Management Action/Indicator Measurements Alternatives

A B C D

Vegetation Treatments with Fire

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution M M M M

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution S S S S

Trends in species distribution and abundance S S S S

Vegetation Treatments with Mechanical

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution M M M M

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution S S S S

Trends in species distribution and abundance S S S S

Non‐native invasive plant species management

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution L L L L

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution S S S S

Trends in species distribution and abundance S S S S

Recreation Management Actions

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution L L L L

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution S S S S

Trends in species distribution and abundance S S S S

Watershed Management Actions

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution L L L L

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution I I I I

Trends in species distribution and abundance S S S S

Aquatic  Habitat Management Actions

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution L L L L

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution I I I I

Trends in species distribution and abundance I I I I

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution L/M L/M L/M L/M

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution S S S S

Trends in species distribution and abundance S S S S
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 52 

Management Action/Indicator Measurements Alternatives

A B C D

Land Acquisition Management Actions

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution L L L L

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution S S S S

Trends in species distribution and abundance S S S S

Designated Wilderness Areas

Management Effects to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution L L L L

Trends in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution S S S S

Trends in species distribution and abundance S S S S

Key to Indicator effects: 

Management Effects: L (Low); M (Moderate); and H (High) 

Trend to Habitat elements: S (Stable); I (Increase); D (Decrease) 

Trend to Species population: S (Stable); I (Increase); D (Decrease) 

Management Effects common to all Alternatives 

Management actions to treat vegetation using fire, timber harvest, and mechanical treatments 

would occur across the landscape of the forest within the 10-year planning period. Fire use is 

intended to result in low intensity and low severity fire in most vegetation types though it usually 

is higher in chaparral which is characteristic for this type. The effects of fire on aquatic 

ecosystems depend on factors such as the extent of burned area, severity of the fire, 

soils/geology/topography, development of soil repellency, and post-fire storm events and climate. 

As a general rule, the potential for negative effects to aquatic species and their habitat increases 

as the percentage of the watershed affected by management actions increases. All treatments 

would result in disturbances to the watershed with increases in runoff, erosion, sediment yields, 

and water yields that could impact aquatic habitat quality. All projects would follow Forest Plan 

management direction to minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems and would retain habitat 

quantity and distribution in the planning area. These treatments are intended to restore the natural 

fire regime, improve forest health, and reduce the potential for high severity wildfire in the 

planning area. These treatments would result in improved watershed, soil, and vegetation 

conditions in the planning area. These management actions would have long-term benefits to 

maintaining or improving aquatic habitats and maintaining species populations on the forest. 

Management actions to improve watershed integrity would occur across the landscape on the 

forest within the 10-year planning period. Watershed and riparian improvement projects would 

move soil and vegetation conditions toward satisfactory conditions. Road and motorized trail 

maintenance would repair or maintain these features to the appropriate level of maintenance and 

provide for runoff and sedimentation dispersal along the routes and reduce sedimentation to 

drainages. Closure and/or obliteration of unauthorized routes on the forest would improve 

watershed conditions as the affected areas are allowed to revegetate which would decrease runoff 

and erosion off the routes. Improvement of stream or drainage crossings would reduce impacts to 

aquatic habitats from sedimentation. Restoration of groundwater dependent ecosystem sites 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 53 

would improve conditions for aquatic species and their habitats. All projects would follow Forest 

Plan management direction to minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems. These management 

actions would have long-term benefits to maintaining or improving aquatic habitats and 

maintaining species populations on the forest. 

Management actions to operate and maintain developed recreational facilities such as 

campgrounds, day use/picnic areas, designated dispersed sites, trailheads and trails would occur 

across the forest. Current recreational facilities and future developments would tend to 

concentrate and increase human use. Recreational facilities near aquatic habitats could impact 

riparian vegetation, streambanks, and water quality. All projects would follow Forest Plan 

management direction to minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems and would retain habitat 

quantity and distribution in the planning area. 

Management actions to improve aquatic and wildlife habitat would occur across the landscape on 

the forest within the 10-year planning period. Projects would restore species habitat through 

various actions such as prescribed fire, mechanical vegetation treatments, invasive plant species 

treatments, and invasive aquatic species control. All projects would follow Forest Plan 

management direction to minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems and would retain habitat 

quantity and distribution in the planning area. Native fish restoration would have long-term 

benefits to maintaining or improving aquatic habitats and maintaining species populations on the 

forest. 

Open space and Land adjustment management actions would acquire lands with important values 

to the forest. Opportunities to acquire lands near the Verde River and other stream systems with 

high aquatic ecosystem and native species values would increase management actions to protect 

and improve these areas. This would have long term benefits to maintaining or improving aquatic 

species and their habitats in the planning area. 

Wilderness Management would occur across the landscape on the forest within the 10-year 

planning period. These areas would be managed to maintain natural processes, ecosystems, and 

native species. Forest Plan management direction would be followed to minimize impacts to 

aquatic ecosystems and would retain habitat quantity and distribution in the planning area. 

Alternative A (No action)

Under current management, vegetation treatments using fire, timber harvest, and mechanical 

treatments would occur on about 9% of the forest within the 10 year planning period. This level 

of activities would have the least improvement to watershed conditions and to the aquatic 

ecosystem. The threat of wildfire would be maintained at a higher level than the Action 

Alternatives. Overall, trends in aquatic habitat quantity, quality, and distribution would remain 

stable across the forest in relation to forest management actions. Alternative A would maintain 

current conditions and trends of species diversity in the planning area that are highly departed 

from reference conditions due to presence of non-native aquatic species. This alternative would 

have the least change in species trends on the forest mainly from the low emphasis on native fish 

restoration. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 54 

Alternative B (Proposed Revised Forest Plan) 

Under this alternative, there would be an increase over the current forest plan in fire use, 

mechanical treatments, and timber harvest. A total of 9 to 25% of various vegetation types across 

the forest would be treated within the 10-year planning period. The increase in area treated would 

improve watershed, vegetation , and soils conditions, restore fire regimes, and reduce the 

potential for wildfire at a higher rate than Alternative A. The increase in management actions for 

watershed integrity would improve watershed, vegetation, soil, riparian, and aquatic conditions at 

a higher rate than Alternative A. The addition of the eight potential wilderness areas would 

restrict active management actions such as mechanical equipment use to implement watershed, 

soil, riparian, vegetation, and native fish improvement projects in these areas. The potential 

wilderness areas that could limit management actions to improve trends to aquatic species and 

their habitat would be the Sycamore Canyon A area along the Verde River. Native fish restoration 

in 2- 3 stream reaches on the forest would increase species distribution and abundance. 

Management direction to acquire land near the Verde River and other stream systems would 

increase management actions to protect and improve these areas. Other management actions 

related to recreation and wilderness would have minimal environmental consequences to aquatic 

species or their habitats. 

Overall, forest wide trends in aquatic habitat quantity and distribution would be maintained at 

current/historical levels except with the acquisition of any lands with species and habitat in which 

case it would increase. Trends in habitat quality would improve in relation to water quality factors 

(e.g. sedimentation) under various management actions. Trends in species distribution and 

abundance would increase in the planning area. 

Alternative C (Vegetation & Wildlife Emphasis) 

Environmental consequences under this alternative would be similar to Alternative B in relation 

to management actions in the Vegetation, Watershed Integrity, Open Space plan components. The 

amount of area to be treated under the Vegetation objectives is 13 to 21% of the forest within the 

10-year plan timeframe. It would also be similar for Recreation except that no additional potential 

wilderness areas would be recommended. Management actions to improve 4-6 stream reaches for 

native fish species are the highest of all alternatives. 

Overall, forest wide trends in aquatic habitat quantity and distribution would be maintained at 

current/historical levels except with the acquisition of any lands with species and habitat in which 

case it would increase. Trends in habitat quality would improve in relation to water quality factors 

(e.g. sedimentation) under various management actions. Trends in species distribution and 

abundance would increase in the planning area that highest of all alternatives. 

Alternative D (Dispersed Recreation Alternative) 

Environmental consequences under this alternative would be similar to Alternative B in relation 

to management actions in the Vegetation, Watershed Integrity, Open Space plan components. The 

amount of area to be treated under the Vegetation objectives is 9 to 18% of the forest within the 

10-year plan timeframe. Recreation plan components for additional potential wilderness areas are 

the highest of all alternatives with 16 areas and a total of 116,260 acres. The addition of these 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 55 

potential wilderness areas would restrict active management actions such as mechanical 

equipment use to implement watershed, soil, riparian, and vegetation in these areas. The potential 

wilderness areas that would limit management actions to improve trends to aquatic species and 

their habitat would be the Muldoon and Sycamore Canyon A and B along the Verde River and 

Pine Mountain B and C near Sycamore Creek (Pine Mountain Wilderness). 

Overall, trends to aquatic habitat and species abundance/distribution would be similar to 

Alternative B. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Species Effects Analysis 

This effects analysis includes the 18 species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates that 

were of viability concern within the planning area and aquatic macro-invertebrates which were 

chosen as a Management Indicator Species for aquatic ecosystems. 

Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat 

Gila chub & designated Critical habitat 

Alternative A 

This alternative would have the least change to trends in aquatic habitat and Gila chub 

populations on the forest mainly from the low emphasis on native fish restoration. Gila chub 

populations would be maintained at current levels which are departed from historical conditions 

due to presence of invasive aquatic species. Environmental consequences from management 

actions would be low to moderate to Gila chub and their designated critical habitat in the Ash 

Creek/Sycamore Creek 5th HUC watershed on the forest. Management actions would not change 

habitat quantity and distribution. Managed fire in these watersheds would have the greatest 

potential to affect water quality in the short term from runoff and sedimentation but in the long 

term would improve water quality as watershed conditions are improved. Fire management would 

also reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire in these watersheds. All other management 

actions would maintain or improve habitat quality. This alternative would maintain species 

viability on the forest but would not increase trends in species populations. 

Alternatives B & D 

These alternatives would increase trends in aquatic habitat and Gila chub populations on the 

forest mainly from native fish restoration actions, watershed integrity projects, and possibly from 

land acquisition of inholdings along occupied and critical habitat. The alternatives would be equal 

in meeting desired conditions for Gila chub in the Ash Creek/Sycamore Creek 5th HUC 

watershed. Environmental consequences of the other management actions would be similar to 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 56 

Alternative A. These alternatives would maintain species viability on the forest and would 

increase trends in species populations. 

Alternative C 

The consequences for Alternative C are very similar to those for Alternatives B and D. However, 

Alternative C has a higher level of habitat restoration and thus would promote the greatest 

increase in Gila chub habitat and population on the forest. 

Determination of Effect for Gila chub 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to aquatic 

habitat and species populations but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or 

improving aquatic habitat and species populations on the forest. Implementation would result in a 

“May Affect, Likely to adversely affect” the Gila chub. 

Determination of Effect for Gila chub Critical Habitat 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to elements 

of critical habitat but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or improving critical 

habitat on the forest. Implementation would result in a “May Affect, Likely to adversely affect” 

critical habitat for the Gila chub. 

Gila topminnow 

Alternative A 

This alternative would have the least change to trends in aquatic habitat and Gila topminnow 

populations on the forest mainly from the low emphasis on native fish restoration. There would 

be low potential for reintroduction of Gila topminnow populations due to presence of invasive 

aquatic species in aquatic habitats. The highest potential for reintroductions are in the Ash 

Creek/Sycamore Creek and Hassayampa River 5th HUC watersheds. Environmental 

consequences of other management actions would be similar to Gila chub. Species viability 

would not be achieved on the forest without restoration of aquatic habitats that would allow for 

reintroductions of populations. 

Alternatives B & D 

These alternatives would increase trends in aquatic habitat and Gila topminnow populations on 

the forest mainly from native fish restoration actions, watershed integrity projects, and possibly 

from land acquisition of inholdings with water rights along perennial or perennial interrupted 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 57 

streams in the Upper Verde River, Hassayampa River, and Agua Fria River sub-basins. The 

alternatives would be equal in meeting desired conditions for Gila topminnow in the Ash 

Creek/Sycamore Creek and Hassayampa 5th HUC watersheds. Environmental consequences of 

the other management actions would be similar to Alternative A. These alternatives would 

maintain species viability on the forest and would increase trends in species populations. 

Alternative C 

The consequences for Alternative C are very similar to those for Alternatives B and D. However, 

Alternative C has a higher level of habitat restoration and thus would promote the greatest 

increase in Gila topminnow habitat and population on the forest. 

Determination of Effect for Gila topminnow 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to aquatic 

habitat and species populations but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or 

improving aquatic habitat and species populations on the forest. Implementation would result in a 

“May Affect, Likely to adversely affect” the Gila topminnow. 

Razorback sucker/designated Critical habitat & Colorado pikeminnow 

Alternative A 

This alternative would have the least change to trends in aquatic habitat and populations of 

razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow on the forest mainly from the low emphasis on 

native fish restoration. Populations of these species would be maintained at current levels in the 

Verde River which is departed from historical conditions due to presence of invasive aquatic 

species and existing dams on the river (off the forest). Management actions would not change 

habitat quantity and distribution. Managed fire in these watersheds would have the greatest 

potential to affect water quality in the short term from runoff and sedimentation but in the long 

term would improve water quality as watershed conditions are improved. Fire management would 

also reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire in these watersheds. All other management 

actions would maintain or improve habitat quality. Species viability would not be achieved on the 

forest without restoration of aquatic habitats that would allow for establishment of introduced 

populations. 

Alternatives B & D 

These alternatives would increase trends in aquatic habitat and populations of razorback sucker 

and Colorado pikeminnow on the forest mainly from native fish restoration actions, watershed 

integrity projects, and possibly from land acquisition of inholdings with water rights along 

occupied and critical habitat. The alternatives would be equal in meeting desired conditions for 

these species in the Verde River. Environmental consequences of the other management actions 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 58 

would be similar to Alternative A. These alternatives would maintain species viability on the 

forest and would increase trends in species populations. 

Alternative C 

The consequences for Alternative C are very similar to those for Alternatives B and D. However, 

Alternative C has a higher level of habitat restoration and thus would promote the greatest 

increase in Razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow habitat and populations on the forest. 

Determination of Effect for Razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to aquatic 

habitat and species populations but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or 

improving aquatic habitat and species populations on the forest. Implementation would result in a 

“May Affect, Not likely to adversely affect” the Razorback sucker and “Not likely to jeopardize” 

the Experimental Nonessential population of Colorado pikeminnow. 

Determination of Effect for Razorback sucker Critical Habitat 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to elements 

of critical habitat but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or improving critical 

habitat forest. Implementation would result in a “May Affect, Not likely to adversely affect” 

critical habitat for the Razorback sucker. 

Spikedace, Loach minnow & designated Critical habitat 

Alternatives A, B, C, & D 

Same environmental consequences as for razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow and critical 

habitat. 

Determination of Effect for Spikedace and Loach minnow 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to aquatic 

habitat and species populations but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or 

improving aquatic habitat and species populations on the forest. Implementation would result in a 

“May Affect, Not likely to adversely affect” the Spikedace and Loach minnow. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 59 

Determination of Effect for Spikedace and Loach minnow designated Critical Habitat 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to elements 

of critical habitat but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or improving critical 

habitat forest. Implementation would result in a “Not likely to adversely modify” designated 

critical habitat for the Spikedace and Loach minnow. 

Gila trout 

Alternative A 

This alternative would have the least change to trends in aquatic habitat and Gila trout 

populations on the forest mainly from the low emphasis on native fish restoration. Gila trout 

populations would be maintained at current levels which are above historical conditions due to 

introduction in the Big Bug Creek 5th HUC watershed. Management actions would not change 

habitat quantity and distribution. All other management actions would maintain or improve 

habitat quality. This alternative would maintain species viability on the forest but would not 

increase trends in species populations. 

Alternatives B & D 

These alternatives would increase trends in aquatic habitat and Gila trout populations on the 

forest mainly from native fish restoration actions, watershed integrity projects, and possibly from 

land acquisition of inholdings with water rights along suitable habitat. The alternatives would be 

equal in meeting desired conditions for Gila trout in the Big Bug 5th HUC watershed. 

Environmental consequences of the other management actions would be similar to Alternative A. 

These alternatives would maintain species viability on the forest and would increase trends in 

species populations. 

Alternative C 

The consequences for Alternative C are very similar to those for Alternatives B and D. However, 

Alternative C has a higher level of habitat restoration and thus would promote the greatest 

increase in Gila trout habitat and population on the forest. 

Determination of Effect for Gila trout 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to aquatic 

habitat and species populations but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or 

improving aquatic habitat and species populations on the forest. Implementation would result in a 

“May Affect, Not likely to adversely affect” the Gila trout. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 60 

Candidate Species 

Roundtail chub 

Alternatives A, B, C, & D 

Same environmental consequences as for Razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. 

Determination of Effect for Roundtail chub 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to aquatic 

habitat and species populations but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or 

improving aquatic habitat and species populations on the forest. Implementation would result in a 

“May impact individuals of Roundtail chub, but it not likely to result in a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability”. 

Northern Mexican gartersnake 

Alternatives A, B, C, & D 

Same environmental consequences as for Razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. 

Determination of Effect for Northern Mexican gartersnake 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to aquatic 

habitat and species populations but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or 

improving aquatic habitat and species populations on the forest. Implementation would result in a 

“May impact individuals of Mexican gartersnake, but it not likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of viability”. 

Sensitive Species 

Alternative A 

This alternative would have the least change to trends in aquatic habitat and populations of 

Sensitive species on the forest mainly from the low emphasis on native fish restoration. 

Populations of these species would be maintained at current levels in the Verde River and small 

streams which are departed from historical conditions due to presence of invasive aquatic species. 

Management actions would not change habitat quantity and distribution. Managed fire in these 

watersheds would have the greatest potential to affect water quality in the short term from runoff 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 61 

and sedimentation but in the long term would improve water quality as watershed conditions are 

improved. Fire management would also reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire in these 

watersheds. All other management actions would maintain or improve habitat quality. This 

alternative would maintain species viability for all Sensitive species on the forest but would not 

increase trends in species populations. 

Alternatives B & D 

These alternatives would increase trends in aquatic habitat and Sensitive species populations on 

the forest mainly from native fish restoration actions, watershed integrity projects, and possibly 

from land acquisition of inholdings with suitable or occupied habitat. The alternatives would be 

equal in meeting desired conditions for Sensitive species. Environmental consequences of the 

other management actions would be similar to Alternative A. These alternatives would maintain 

species viability on the forest and would increase trends in species populations. 

Alternative C 

The consequences for Alternative C are very similar to those for Alternatives B and D. However, 

Alternative C has a higher level of habitat restoration and thus would promote the greatest 

increase in Sensitive species habitat and populations on the forest. 

Determination of Effect for Sensitive Species 

Common to all Alternatives: The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, Wildlife/Fish/Rare Plant 

management, and Land Acquisition management may have short term indirect effects to aquatic 

habitat and species populations but would result in long term benefits to maintaining or 

improving aquatic habitat and species populations on the forest. Implementation would result in a 

“May impact individuals of Sensitive species, but it not likely to result in a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability”. 

Other species Analyzed 

Speckled dace and Maricopa tiger beetle 

Alternatives A, B, C, & D 

Same environmental consequences as for Sensitive species. 

Management Indicator Species 

Alternative A 

This alternative would have the least change to trends in MIS habitat and populations for macroinvertebrates on the forest due to having the lowest level of forestland restoration. Populations of 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 62 

these species would be maintained at current levels in the Verde River and small streams which 

are departed from historical conditions due to mining impacts and impaired watershed conditions. 

Management actions would not change habitat quantity and distribution. Managed fire in 

watersheds would have the greatest potential to affect water quality in the short term from runoff 

and sedimentation but in the long term would improve water quality as watershed conditions are 

improved. Fire management would also reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire in these 

watersheds. All other management actions would maintain or improve habitat quality. This 

alternative would maintain current forest-wide trends for macro-invertebrate habitat and 

populations. 

Alternatives B, C, D 

All these alternatives would increase trends in MIS habitat and populations for macroinvertebrates on the forest mainly due to higher levels of forestland restoration efforts. All 

alternatives would be equal in meeting desired conditions for macro-invertebrates. Environmental 

consequences of the other management actions would be similar to Alternative A. These 

alternatives would maintain or improve forest-wide trends for macro-invertebrate habitat and 

populations. 

Relationship of Short-Term Impacts and Long-Term Benefits 

A factor to be considered in this analysis is the short-term impacts to aquatic species and their 

habitats from management actions and the long-term benefit to the ecological conditions to 

support viable populations of these species in the planning area. The following applies to all 

alternatives. 

Forest management actions that have high disturbance levels to vegetation and soils such as fire 

use, timber harvest, and roads have the greatest potential to impact aquatic species and their 

habitats. In general, the larger the area impacted, the higher is the potential for negative effects. 

Under all alternatives, the use of fire to meet resource objectives and desired conditions would 

result in low intensity/severity fire and less impacts to watershed, soil, and aquatic systems. An 

exception to this is fire use in chaparral which tends to result in higher intensity burns which is 

characteristic for this vegetation type. In most cases, vegetative ground cover in all treated areas 

is expected to recover quickly (1 to 3 years) and reestablish surface runoff/water yield and 

sedimentation levels to pre-fire conditions. In the long term, treatments are expected to restore the 

historic fire regime in the vegetation types, improve watershed conditions, and reduce the 

potential for large, wildfire events. 

The other management actions such as recreational developments and activities would have less 

short-term impacts to aquatic ecosystems because of their smaller areas of impacts across the 

forest. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The cumulative consequences analysis area includes the eight HUC 4 sub-basins that encompass 

the forest planning area. The area extents of these sub-basins are given in Table 31. Because the 

Prescott NF covers only 1 – 4 % (12,000 – 19,000 acres, respectively) of the Big Sandy River and 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 63 

Burro Creek sub-basins and there are no perennial streams on the forest it is being dropped from 

further consideration to cumulative effects. 

Table 31. Sub-basin extent and perennial stream miles 

HUC 4

Sub‐basin

Name

Area in Square miles Perennial Stream Miles

Sub‐basin PNF

PNF as

% of Sub‐

basin

Sub‐basin PNF

PNF as

% of Sub‐

basin

Big Sandy River 2154 18 0.9 86 0 0%

Burro Creek 713 29 4.1 27 0 0%

Santa Maria River 1433 227 15.8 41 1 3%

Big Chino Wash 2153 344 16.0 12 1 5%

Upper Verde   2507 553 22.1 187 37 20%

Lower Verde 1965 65 3.3 297 18 6%

Agua Fria River 2785 531 19.1 57 9 16%

Hassayampa

River 1454 195 13.4 32 13 42%

Totals 15,165 1,962    739 79   

Population growth in the area surrounding the forest is expected to continue (see Table 5). 

Residential home and commercial development would continue in the watersheds on private 

lands and have various impacts to watershed integrity. Impacts would be greatest in those subbasins with higher amount of private land ownership such as Big Chino Wash and Upper Verde 

River. Demand for outdoor recreation is also expected to grow concurrently with increasing 

population with more visitor use of the forest. 

Off-forest water uses are having some effect to streamflows on the forest, especially to the Verde 

River (Table 6), and are expected to have a greater impact with increasing population and 

groundwater demands in watersheds that cover the forest. Impacts would be greatest in those subbasins with higher amount of private land ownership such as Big Chino Wash and Upper Verde 

River. Currently, the City of Prescott has a water right of 2,700 acre feet per year from Del Rio 

Springs, near the headwaters of the Verde River. In addition, the Arizona Groundwater 

Transportation Act (A.R.S. 45-555), contains an exemption for the city of Prescott allowing them 

to transfer between 8,000 and 14,000 acre-feet per year from the Big Chino aquifer. The city of 

Prescott has purchased land in the Big Chino basin and is in the planning stages of construction of 

a pipeline for water transfer to the city. The city has also purchased lands with water rights in the 

area with the intent of retiring about 3,600 acre-feet per year of water as potential mitigation for 

the water transfer. Potential impacts from groundwater withdrawals in the Big Chino aquifer 

include reduction in river flow levels in the upper Verde River. 

Other land uses such as livestock grazing, mining, and vegetation treatments is occurring across 

the watersheds on federal, state, private, and tribal lands. Management actions on federal and 

state lands follow law, policy, and other management direction to minimize impacts to aquatic 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 64 

ecosystems. Actions on private lands completed with federal or state dollars are also required to 

complete environmental assessment on impacts to species and their habitats. 

Looking forward, there is general agreement among climate modelers that by the end of the 21st 

century, the Southwest is likely to experience the following conditions from climate change 

(Forest Service, 2010): 

 Temperature increases of five to eight degrees Fahrenheit (or about 0.5°F/decade on 

average) 

 An increase in the number of hot days, with summer heat waves lasting two weeks or 

longer 

 Warmer winters and reduced snowpack, and a later monsoonal season 

 A five percent drop in precipitation in most of Arizona and New Mexico 

 An increase in extreme flood events following an overall increase in tropical storms 

The current plan does not recognize the potential impacts from climate change. Guidance for 

addressing this issue is contained in Navigating the Climate Change Performance Scorecard

(Forest Service 2011b) and would need to be integrated into the current plan. The extent of this 

effort is unknown, but would involve an amendment to the monitoring section of the plan. The 

result would be that increased effort would be needed to adapt management practices to respond 

to changes brought on by increased temperatures, longer heat waves, and reduced precipitation. 

All other alternatives would have this guidance incorporated in the revised forest plan. 

All Alternatives

Cumulative effects from all forest management actions would have similar environmental 

consequences to all alternatives. Impacts from population growth, land development, and 

increased water use on private lands would have the greatest impacts to aquatic ecosystems on the 

forest. 

Management actions in the Upper Verde, Lower Verde, Agua Fria River, and Hassayampa subbasins would have the greatest benefits to aquatic ecosystem and species populations. 

Management direction provided in all alternatives would maintain or improve aquatic ecosystems 

on the forest. Implementation of native fish restoration projects on the forest would have the 

greatest benefit to expanding populations and distribution species viability on the forest. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Before any ground-disturbing 

actions take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent environmental analysis. Therefore 

none of the alternatives cause unavoidable adverse impacts. Mechanisms are in place to monitor 

and use adaptive management principles in order to help alleviate unanticipated impacts that need 

to be addressed singularly or cumulatively. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 65 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management 

plan does not authorize or mandate any ground-disturbing actions, no alternatives cause an 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 

 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 66 

References 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2000. Status of Surface Water Quality in 

Arizona – Clean Water Act 305(b) Report 2000. Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2002. The Status of Water Quality in 

Arizona, Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Report 2002. Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2004. The Status of Water Quality in 

Arizona – 2004. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. July 2005. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ. 

ADEQ 2009. 2006/2008 STATUS OF AMBIENT SURFACE WATER QUALITY IN ARIZONA. 

Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, Phoenix, Arizona. 

ADWR 2000. Verde River Watershed Study. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2000a. Upper Verde River fish survey summary, Granite Creek 

confluence to Verde Ranch, July 2000. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Kingman, Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2000b. Upper Verde River fish survey summary, Verde Ranch 

to Bear Siding, September 2000. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Kingman, Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2001. Upper Verde River fish survey summary, Perkinsville to 

Sycamore Creek, June 2001. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Kingman, Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2002. Desert sucker, Catostomus (=Pantosteus) clarki. 

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. 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. 2003. 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. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 67 

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 2005a. Verde River Trip Report – Granite Creek to Verde 

Ranch, June 22-24, 2005. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Kingman, Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2005b. Verde River Trip Report – Verde Ranch to Perkinsville, 

July 12-14, 2005. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Kingman, 

Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2005c. Verde River Trip Report – Perkinsville to Sycamore 

Creek, August 16-18, 2005. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Kingman, Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2006. Lowland leopard frog, Rana yavapaiensis. 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. 2006. 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 2007a. Verde River Trip Report – Granite Creek to Verde 

Ranch, June 26-28, 2007. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Kingman, Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2007b. Verde River Trip Report – Verde Ranch to Perkinsville, 

July 10-12, 2007. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Kingman, 

Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2007c. Verde River Trip Report – Perkinsville to Sycamore 

Creek, August 14-16, 2007. Region III Fisheries Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Kingman, Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 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 Statewide Freshwater Assessment (www.azconservation.org) 

Bahm, J. and A. Robinson. 2008. Spikedace survey of the upper Verde River Granite Creek and 

Perkinsville areas, June 25 – July 3, 2008. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, 

Phoenix, Arizona. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 68 

Bettaso, R.H., D.B. Dorum, and K.L. Young. 1995. Native fishes of Sycamore and Ash Creek 

drainages, Prescott National Forest, Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program 

Technical Report 83. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Blasch, K.W., Hoffmann, J.P., Graser, L.F., Bryson, J.R., and Flint, A.L., 2006. Hydrogeology of the 

upper and middle Verde River watersheds, central Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005-5198, 101 p. 

Bonar, S.,Leslie, L., and C. Velez. Influence of species, size class, environment, and season on 

introduced fish predation on native fishes in the Verde River system, Arizona. Arizona 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Fisheries Research Report 01-04. 

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

Phoenix, AZ. 

Brooks, J. 1985. Factors affecting the success of Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis o. occidentalis) 

introductions on four Arizona National Forest. Arizona Game and Fish Department report 

prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Desert Fishes Team. 2004. Status of unlisted native fishes on the Gila River Basin, with 

recommendations for management. Report Number 2. 

Emmons, I., E. Nowak, and M. Liszewski. 2010. Prescott National Forest riparian herpetofauna 

surveys 2010, draft final report. Report submitted to Prescott National Forest by Colorado Plateau 

Research Station, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Girmendonk, A.L. and K.L. Young. 1997. Status review of the roundtail chub (Gila robusta) in the 

Verde River Basin. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 114. Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Haney, J.A, D.S. Turner, A.E. Springer, J.C. Stromberg, L.E. Stevens, P.A. Pearthree, and V. 

Supplee. 2008. Ecological Implications of Verde River Flows. A report by the Arizona Water 

Institue, The Nature Conservancy, and the Verde River Basin Partnership. Website: 

http://azconservation.org 

Hendrickson, D. A. 1993. Evaluation of the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and Colorado 

squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) reintroduction programs in central Arizona based on surveys of 

fish populations in the Salt and Verde rivers from 1986 to 1990. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix. 

Holycross, A.T., Burger, W.P., Nigro, E.J., and T.C. Brennan. 2006. Surveys for Thamnophis eques 

and Thamnophis rufipunctatus in the Gila River Watershed of Arizona and New Mexico. Report 

submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 69 

Hyatt, M. W. 2004. Assessment of Colorado Pikeminnow and Razorback Sucker Reintroduction 

Program in the Gila River Basin. Final Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 2, Albuquerque. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Jarnecke, J., Barnett, L. and S. Hess-Samuelson. 2008. Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the 

Prescott National Forest: An Evaluation of Water Resource Characteristics, and their 

Contribution in Ecosystem Diversity and Ecological Sustainability. 

McKown, R. R. 1994. The Status of Cicindela oregona maricopa in Arizona. Report prepared for 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. Phoenix, Arizona. 

Minckley, W. L. and G. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by flooding in stream-fish communities 

of the arid American Southwest. In Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American 

Stream fishes. 

Minckley, W.L. 1993. A Review of Fishes of the Coconino National Forest Region, Arizona. 

Department of Zoology, Arizona State University final report to Coconino National Forest, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

NatureServe website - (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/) 

Olden, J.D. & Poff, N.L. 2005. Long-term trends of native and non-native fish faunas in the 

American Southwest. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 28:1:75-89. 

Rinne, J.N. and D. Miller. 2006. Hydrology, Geomorphology and Management: Implications for 

Sustainability of Native Southwestern Fishes. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:91-110. 

Robinson, A. and C. Crowder. 2009. Spikedace survey of the upper Verde River June 2009. Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Rosen, P.C. and C.R. Schwalbe. 1988. Status of the Mexican and narrow-headed garter snakes 

(Thamnophis eques megalops and Thamnophis rufipunctatus rufipunctatus) in Arizona. Unpubl. 

Report from Arizona Game and Fish Dept. (Phoenix, Arizona) to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Sillas, A. 2003. Stream habitat inventory of Little Ash Creek, Indian Creek, Sycamore Creek, and 

Little Sycamore Creek, Verde Ranger District, Prescott National Forest. May-August 2003. 

Sillas, A.2005. Gila chub surveys in Indian, Sycamore, and Little Sycamore creeks, Verde Ranger 

District, Prescott National Forest. October 3-7, 2005. 

Sillas, A. 2006. Fish survey of Sycamore Creek for the DR T Livestock Grazing Project, Verde 

Ranger District, Prescott National Forest. September 20, 2006. 

Sillas, A. 2008a. Stream habitat inventory of Sycamore Creek for the Sycamore Livestock Grazing 

Project, Verde Ranger District, Prescott National Forest. June 19, 2008. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 70 

Sillas, A. 2008b. Aquatic Species Diversity Report for the Prescott National Forest Plan Revision. 

Prescott National Forest. 

Stefferud, J.A. and J.N. Rinne. 1995. Sustainability of Fishes in Desert River: Preliminary 

Observations on the Roles of Streamflow and Introduced Fishes. Hydrology and Water Resources 

in Arizona and the Southwest. Volume22-25:25-32. 

Stevens, L.E.. 2007. A Review of Invertebrate Species of Management Concern on Five Northern 

Arizona Forests. Prepared for: Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto 

National Forests, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region. Curator of Ecology and 

Conservation Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd. Flagstaff, AZ. 

Stevens, L.E. and J.D. Ledbetter. 2011. Rare Species of Prescott National Forest: Invertebrates. Final 

Report prepared for the Prescott National Forest by Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Sullivan, B.K. 1993. Distribution of the Southwestern Toad (Bufo microscaphus) in Arizona. Great 

Basin Naturalist, Volume 53, No. 4, pages 402-406. 

Turner, D.S. and M.D. List. 2006. Arizona native fish streams. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and 

Freshwater Ecosystems. 

U.S. Census Bureau 2000. Website http://www.census.gov/ 

USDA Forest Service. 1981. Verde River Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Environmental 

Impact Statement. Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto National Forest, Southwestern Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Prescott, Arizona. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Environmental Assessment for Grapevine Springs Botanical Area 

Designation. Prescott National Forest, Prescott, Arizona. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Verde Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management 

Plan, Final Environmental Assessment. Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests, Arizona. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Integrated Treatment of 

Noxious or Invasive Weeds. Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, 

Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Environmental Assessment, Wildland Fire Use Amendment to the 

Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. July, 2007. Prescott, Arizona. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Environmental Assessment. Fire 

and Aviation Management. October 2007. Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service 2009. Prescott National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 71 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Prescott National Forest. Forest Level Analysis of Management 

Indicator Species (MIS) for the Prescott National Forest, 2009 update. October 2010. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Unpublished dataset of seven fish monitoring sites on the upper Verde 

River, 1994 to 2010. Prescott National Forest, Prescott, Arizona. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination 

of experimental population status for certain introduced populations of Colorado squawfish and 

woundfin. Federal Register 50:30188- 30195. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

Determination of critical habitat for four Colorado River endangered fishes (razorback sucker, 

Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub); Final Rule. Federal Register 

59(54):13374-134000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Plan. 

Denver, Colorado. 81 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Gila topminnow, Peociliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, 

Revised Draft Recovery Plan. Prepared by Arizona Game and Fish Department for Region 2, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 88pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region 

(6), Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) Recovery Plan (Third 

Revision). Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Listing the 

Gila chub as Endangered with Critical Habitat; Final Rule. Federal Register 70(211):66664-

66721. November 2, 2005. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Spikedace surveys, Verde River, Yavapai County, Arizona, 

October – November 2005. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Phoenix, Arizona. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Reinitiated Biological Opinion on Transportation and 

Delivery of Central Arizona Project Water to the Gila River Basin in Arizona and New Mexico 

and its Potential to Introduce and Spread Nonindigenous Aquatic Species 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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; Proposed rule. Federal Register 73 (228): 71788-

71826. 
Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis 72 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month 

finding on a Petition to list a Distinct Population Segment of the Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) in 

the Lower Colorado River Basin; Proposed rule. Federal Register 74 (128): 32352-32387. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2009b. Environmental Assessment for Renovation of 

Stillman Lake to remove non-native fishes and repatriate native fishes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered 

Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow; Final Rule. Federal 

Register 77 (36):10810-10932. 

Voeltz, J.B. 2002. Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) status survey of the lower Colorado River basin. 

Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 186. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Voeltz, J.B. and R.H. Bettaso. 2003. 2003 Status of the Gila topminnow and Desert pupfish in 

Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 226. Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Warnecke, J., McMahon, T. and S. Mondragon. 1992. Gap Creek, Yavapai County Fish 

Investigation Progress Report, August 1992. Region 6, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Mesa, Arizona. 

Weedman, D, A.L. Girmendonk, and K.L. Young. 1996. Status review of Gila chub, Gila intermedia, 

in the United States and Mexico. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 

91. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Wirt, L. and H.W. Hjalmarson. 2000. Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River 

headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378.