The Bradshaw-Harquahala area provides valuable habitat for special status species. The diverse habitats throughout the area also support a wide variety of more common game and non-game wildlife species. The BLM’s Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180) addresses habitats that have been restored or may make significant progress towards restoration, as well as those that are actively being maintained for federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, and other special status species. The BLM Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health include provisions for ensuring that productive and diverse upland and riparian wetland plant communities of native species exist and are maintained.
No activities or projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species, or species proposed for listing, will be permitted on BLM-administered lands.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides for the protection of threatened, endangered and proposed threatened or endangered species of plants and animals.
The following requirements are prescribed in the BLM’s Manual 6840:
The BLM shall conserve T/E species and the ecosystems upon which they depend and shall use existing authority in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. Specifically the BLM shall:
Determine, to the extent practical, the occurrence and distribution of all T/E species on lands administered by BLM, and evaluate the significance of lands administered by BLM in the conservation of those species.
Identify land administered by BLM that is essential habitat and designated Critical Habitat of T/E species, and prescribe management for the conservation of these habitats in land use plans.
Develop and implement management plans that will ensure the conservation of T/E species and their habitats.
Evaluate ongoing management activities to ensure T/E species conservation objectives are being met.
Ensure that all activities affecting the populations and habitats of T/E species are designed to be consistent with recovery needs and objectives.
The BLM shall ensure that all actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM are in compliance with the ESA. To accomplish this, the BLM shall:
Screen all proposed actions to determine if T/E species or their habitat may be affected. Normally the environmental analysis process is used.
Initiate consultation with the FWS/NMFS, as appropriate, for those actions that may affect T/E species or their habitats.
Not carry out any actions that would cause any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources or reduce the future management options for the species involved until the consultation proceedings are completed and a final decision has been reached.
Ensure that no BLM action will adversely affect the likelihood of recovery of any T/E species.
The BLM shall cooperate with the FWS/NMFS in planning and providing for the recovery of T/E species. To accomplish this BLM shall: a. Participate on recovery teams and in recovery plan preparation, as well as State or regional working teams responsible for T/E species recovery. b. Review technical and agency review drafts of recovery plans for species affected by BLM management to ensure that proposed actions assigned to BLM are technically and administratively feasible and consistent with BLM’s mission and authority. c. Ensure that the decisions, terms, and conditions of Resource Management Plans, and more detailed site-specific plans, prepared for lands covered by previously approved recovery plans are consistent with meeting recovery plan objectives.
The BLM shall retain in Federal ownership all habitats essential for the survival or recovery of any T/E species, including habitat used historically by these species.
Species proposed for listing as T/E and proposed Critical Habitat shall be managed with the same level of protection provided for T/E species except that formal consultations are not required. The BLM shall confer with the FWS/NMFS on any action that will adversely affect a proposed species or proposed critical habitat.
Candidate species will be managed so as not to contribute to the need for them to become listed as threatened or endangered.
The State of Arizona establishes regulations and enforcement concerning fish and wildlife on all lands administered by the BLM. Nothing will be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or associated responsibilities of the USFWS . Hunting and trapping are allowable activities on these lands.
This BLM is responsible for managing wildlife habitat, while AGFD , through the authority of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, has public trust responsibility to manage fish and wildlife. The BLM has a Master Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the AGFD which establishes protocols that direct the cooperative working relationship between the agencies. The MOU provides context to better enable both agencies to work in partnership and to make decisions in a consistent manner across the state. The guidelines established in the MOU apply to implementation of this RMP .
Any permit system or restriction of use or access would include coordination with other state and federal entities that issue use permits on federal lands to assure that authorized permittees have fair and reasonable access to their permitted activity. For example, should a permit system be implemented, the BLM will coordinate with AGFD to enable coordination of access for hunters with valid hunting licenses and permits for the affected hunting unit. Coordination with AGFD during development of habitat management plans and enhancement of wildlife habitat, species diversity, riparian health, and other activities to achieve the optimum health of wildlife species and populations will continue. Administrative access will be allowed for AGFD staff for law enforcement, natural resource management, and other purposes.
The BLM will conserve, enhance, and restore wildlife habitats, including conservation of natural springs, wetlands, and streams through cooperative partnerships with the AGFD , Tonto National Forest, Prescott National Forest, Yavapai County, and other governmental and private entities.
The BLM will coordinate and cooperate with federal and state agencies, along with partners, to assess the need to maintain, improve, and/or adjust the density or distribution of wildlife waters throughout the planning area to maintain the presence of water for wildlife populations across their range.
The development of springs and seeps, or other projects affecting water and associated resources, will be designed to protect ecological functions and processes and to continue to provide habitat at the source for endemic invertebrates that may be present.
Water developments for purposes other than wildlife will include design features that will ensure safe and continued access to water by wildlife.
On BLM-managed lands, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service—Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) and the AGFD manage animal damage control, predator management, control of exotic wildlife species, and feral, non-permitted livestock on BLM-managed lands. A 1995 MOU recognizes the legal authority of APHIS-WS to conduct wildlife damage management on BLM-managed lands. The BLM acknowledges that authority and will continue close coordination with APHIS-WS and AGFD , as well as the State Land Department, State Brand Inspector, and other affected agencies on animal damage control efforts within the AFNM.
Impacts to vegetation from construction, recreation, and other activities will be avoided or mitigated. Where successful restoration is feasible, vegetative rehabilitation with suitable seed mix or root stock will follow.
The removal of cacti or other plants may be approved by the BLM if needed to maintain the safe operation of existing utility lines.
The use and perpetuation of native plant species will be emphasized. However, when restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands, non-intrusive, non-native plant species are appropriate for use where native species: (a) are not available, (b) are not economically feasible, (c) cannot achieve ecological objectives as well as non-native species, and/or (d) cannot compete with already established non-native species.
Standard operating procedures and treatment methods will be used to achieve desired future conditions for vegetation management. BLM policies and guidance for public land treatments will be followed in implementing all treatment methods. Many guidelines are provided in BLM Handbook H-1740-1, Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Procedures (1987); in BLM Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (1997); in BLM programmatic documents such as Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments, Watersheds and Wildlife Habitats on Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the Western United States, Including Alaska (1991) and Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (2007); and in other general and specific program policy, procedures, and standards pertinent to implementation of renewable resource improvements. The standard approaches to manual, chemical, mechanical, biological, and fire treatment methods are described in detail below. The specific methods applied would depend on area-specific management objectives with an assessment of environmental impacts.
Manual Vegetation Treatment
Hand-operated power tools and hand tools are used to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous and woody plants. In manual treatments workers do the following:
cut plants above ground level,
pull, grub, or dig out plant root systems to prevent later sprouting and regrowth,
scalp at ground level or remove competing plants around desired vegetation, and
place mulch around desired vegetation to limit the growth of competing vegetation.
Hand tools such as the handsaw, axe, shovel, rake, machete, grubbing hoe, mattock (combination of axe and grubbing hoe), brush hook, and hand clippers are used in manual treatments. Axes, shovels, grubbing hoes, and mattocks can dig up and cut below the surface to remove the main roots of plants such as prickly pear and mesquite that have roots that can quickly resprout in response to surface cutting or clearing. Workers also may use power tools such as chainsaws and power brush saws.
Although manual vegetation treatment is labor intensive and costly, compared to prescribed burning or herbicide application, it can be extremely species selective and can be used in areas of sensitive habitats or areas that are inaccessible to ground vehicles. Manual treatment of undesired plants would be used on sites where fire (prescribed or naturally ignited) is undesirable or where significant constraints prevent widespread use of fire as a management tool. These sites comprise a range of vegetation communities or habitat types. They include areas where there may be wildlife concerns, yet it is deemed beneficial to remove trees, shrubs, or other fuel-loading vegetation. Manual vegetation treatments cause less ground disturbance and generally remove less vegetation than prescribed fire or mechanical treatments.
Mechanical Vegetation Treatment
Mechanical vegetation treatments employ several different types of equipment to suppress, inhibit, or control herbaceous and woody vegetation. The goal of mechanical treatments is to kill or reduce the cover of undesirable vegetation and thus encourage the growth of desirable plants. BLM uses wheeled tractors, crawler-type tractors, mowers, or specially designed vehicles with attached implements for mechanical vegetation treatments. Mechanical equipment is used to reduce fuel hazards in accordance with BLM established procedures. Re-seeding after mechanical treatments is important to help ensure that desirable plants and not weedy species will become established on the site. Mechanical treatment and reseeding should occur at a time to best control the undesirable vegetation and encourage the establishing of desirable vegetation. The best mechanical method for treating undesired plants in a particular location depends on the following factors:
characteristics of the undesired species present, such as plant density stem size, woodiness, brittleness, and resprouting ability,
need for seedbed preparation, revegetation, and improved water infiltration rates,
topography and terrain,
soil characteristics such as type, depth, amount and size of rocks, erosion potential, and susceptibility to compaction,
climatic and seasonal conditions, and
potential cost of improvement as compared to expected results.
Bulldozing consists of a wheeled or crawler tractor with a heavy hydraulic controlled blade. Bulldozers push over and uproot vegetation and leave it in windrows or piles. Bulldozing is best adapted to removing scattered stands of large brush or trees. Several different kinds of blades can be used, depending of the type of vegetation and goals of the project. The disadvantage of bulldozing is that is disturbs soil and may damage non-target plants.
Disk plowing in its various forms can be used for removing shallow-rooted herbaceous and woody plants. Disk plows should only be used where all of the vegetation is intended to be killed. Several different kinds of root plows are specific for certain types of vegetation. In addition to killing vegetation, disk plowing loosens the soil surface to prepare it for seeding and to improve the rate of water infiltration. The disadvantage of disk plowing is that it may be expensive and usually kills all species. Also, plowing is usually not practicable on steep slopes (> 35-45 percent slope) or rocky soil. Plant species that sprout from roots may survive.
Vegetation is chained and cabled by dragging heavy anchor chains or steel cables hooked to tractors in a U-shape, half circle, or J-shaped manner. Effective on rocky soils and steep slopes, chaining and cabling are best used to control non-sprouting woody vegetation such as small trees and shrubs. Desirable shrubs may be damaged in the process. This control method normally does not injure herbaceous vegetation. It is cost effective because it can readily treat large areas. The chains or cables also scarify the soil surface in anticipation of seeding desirable species. The disadvantage is that weedy herbaceous vegetation can survive this treatment.
Various tractor attachments are used for mowing, beating, crushing, chopping, or shredding vegetation, depending on the nature of the plant stand and goals of the project. The advantage in using this type of equipment is that selective plants may be targeted to achieve specific goals. For example, mowing is effective in reducing plant height to a desirable condition, and mowing usually does not kill vegetation. Mowing is more effective on herbaceous than woody vegetation. On the other hand, a rolling cutter leaves herbaceous vegetation but can kill woody nonsprouting vegetation by breaking stems at ground level. Mowing, beating, crushing, chopping, or shredding usually does not disturb soil. Rocky soil and steep slopes may limit the use of this equipment.
Debris management after a mechanical treatment is critical in fuels reduction projects. Vegetation material that is left on a site will dry and may become more hazardous than before the treatment. Herbaceous material is usually not a problem because it will decompose relatively fast, depending on soil moisture, ambient humidity, and temperature. Woody vegetation should be piled and burned under acceptable fire management practices.
Biological Vegetation Treatment
Biological methods of vegetation treatment employ living organisms to selectively suppress, inhibit, or control herbaceous and woody vegetation. This method is viewed as one of the more natural processes because it requires the proper management and plant-eating organisms, and precludes the use of mechanical devices, chemical treatments, or burning.
The use of biological control agents will be conducted in accordance with procedures in BLM Manual 9014, Use of Biological Control Agents of Pests on Public Lands (BLM 1990b). Insects, pathogens, and grazing by cattle, sheep, or goats would be used as biological control methods under all Alternatives, but these methods can control only a few plant species. Insects are the main natural enemies now being used. Other natural enemies include mites, nematodes, and pathogens. This treatment method will not eradicate the target plant species but merely reduces the target plant densities to more tolerable levels. This method also reduces competition with the desired plant species for space, water, and nutrients. This treatment method will be used on larger sites where the target plant has become established and is strongly competitive. Gradually, biological methods using cattle, sheep, or goats would avoid erosion hazard areas, areas of compactable soils, riparian areas susceptible to bank damage, and steep erodible slopes.
Biological control using cattle, sheep, or goats would be applied to treatment areas for short periods. In using grazing animals as effective biological control measures, several factors will be considered:
target plant species present,
size of the infestation of target plant species,
other plant species present,
stage of growth of both target and other plant species,
palatability of all plant species present,
selectivity of all plant species present by the grazing animal being considered for use,
availability of that grazing animal within the treatment site area,
type of management program that is logical and realistic for the treatment site, and
These factors will be some of the options taken when developing the treatment for a site.
Cattle, sheep, and goats can be used to control the top growth of certain noxious weeds. The following are some advantages of using livestock, mainly sheep or goats, for noxious weed control:
They use weeds as a food source;
After a brief adjustment period, they sometimes consume as much as 50% of their daily diet of certain noxious weed species;
Average daily gains of offspring grazing certain weed-infested pastures can sometimes be significantly higher than average daily gains of offspring grazing grass pastures; and
Sheep or goats can be used in combination with herbicides.
Following are some of the disadvantages of using livestock:
They also use non-target plants as food sources;
The use of domestic animals, like sheep or goats, may require a herder or temporary fencing;
The animals may be killed by predators such as coyotes;
Heavy grazing of some weed species, such as leafy spurge, tends to loosen the stool of grazing animals;
Most weed species are less palatable than desirable vegetation, and overgrazing would result;
Livestock may accelerate movement of non-native plants by ingesting and excreting seeds; and
Livestock may transmit parasites or pathogens to resident native wildlife species.
Particular insects, pathogens, or combinations of these biological control agents may also be introduced into an area of competing or undesired vegetation to selectively feed upon or infect target plants and eventually reduce their density within that area. Only on rare occasions will one biological control agent reduce the target plant density to the desired level of control. Therefore, a complex of biological control agents is most often needed to reduce the target plant density to a desirable level. Even with a complex of biological control agents, often 15 to 20 years are needed to bring about an economic control level, especially on creeping perennials. In most circumstances, biological control agents are not performing control. They are only creating stresses on weeds, which is not the same as control
Some advantages of using natural enemies to control weeds are as follows:
They are self-perpetuating;
They can be comparatively economical once studied and established;
They can be highly selective;
They offer a high degree of environmental safety; and
They do not require fossil fuel energy.
Biological control does have the following limitations:
It is a slow process;
It does not achieve eradication but merely reduces weed densities to more tolerable levels;
It is highly selective, attacking one weed existing among a complex of other weeds;
It cannot be used against weeds that are valued in some situations because insects or pathogens do not recognize boundaries;
It cannot be used against weeds that are closely related to beneficial plants because the insects or pathogens may be unable to discriminate between related plant species; and
It cannot be used against weeds when the biological control agent requires an alternate host that may be a beneficial plant.
To develop a biological weed control program, the following steps must be taken:
Identify weed species and determine origin.
Determine if any natural enemies occur at the point of origin.
If possible, collect natural enemies.
Hold preliminary screening trials on the natural enemies of the weed in the United States.
Hold further screening trials in the United States.
Raise biological control agents before the first release.
Release biological control agents for the first time onto selected sites.
If biological control agents survive and increase in numbers, collect agents and release onto other sites of weed infestation.
Usually a complex of at least three to five different biological agents, such as insects, must be used to attack a weed infestation site. Even with a complex of biological agents, often 15 to 20 years are needed to bring about an economic control level, especially on creeping perennial plants.
Chemical Vegetation Treatment
Chemical treatment would be used to control unwanted vegetation, and in some instances would be followed by a prescribed burn. Treatments would be conducted in accordance with BLM procedures and would meet or exceed individual State label standards. The chemicals can be applied by many different methods, and the selected technique depends on several variables, including the following:
treatment objective (removal or reduction),
accessibility, topography, and size of the treatment area,
characteristics of the target species and the desired vegetation,
the location of sensitive areas in the immediate vicinity (potential environmental impacts),
expected costs and equipment limitations, and
meteorological and vegetation conditions of the treatment area at the time of treatment.
Herbicide applications are scheduled and designed to minimize potential impacts on nontarget plants and animals, while remaining consistent with the objective of the vegetation treatment program. The rates of application depend on the target species, presence and condition of nontarget vegetation, soil type, depth to the water table, presence of other water sources, and the requirements of the label.
Often the type, schedule, and rate of application of the chosen herbicide may differ from the most ideal application for maximum control of the target plant species. Application procedures may need to be adjusted to minimize damage to other plant species or to ensure minimum risk to human health and safety.
The chemicals would be applied aerially with helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft or on the ground using vehicles or manual application devices. Helicopters are more expensive to use than fixed-wing aircraft. They are more maneuverable and effective in areas with irregular terrain and in treating specific target vegetation in areas with many vegetation types. Manual applications are used only for treating small areas or areas inaccessible by vehicle. The typical and maximum application rates of each chemical would vary, depending on the program area being treated.
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning is the planned application of fire to wildland fuels in their natural or modified state, under specific conditions of fuels, weather, and other variables, to allow the fire to remain in a predetermined area and to achieve site-specific fire and resource management objectives.
Management objectives of prescribed burning include the following:
controlling of certain species,
enhancing growth, reproduction, or vigor of certain species,
managing fuel loads, and
maintaining vegetation community types that best meet multiple use management objectives.
Treatments would be implemented in accordance with BLM’s procedures in Prescribed Fire Management (BLM 2000c).
Before conducting a prescribed burn, a written plan must be prepared. The plan must:
consider existing conditions (amount of fuel, fuel moisture, temperatures, terrain, weather forecasts), and
name the people responsible for overseeing the fire.
Also, natural fire that is allowed to burn needs to be carefully monitored to ensure that it will not threaten communities, ecosystems, and other values to be protected. This monitoring may require special expertise such as fire-use management teams that support the overall fire management program. Planning and implementation for a specific prescribed fire project entails the following four phases:
Phase One: Information/assessment includes the following:
determining the area to be treated,
inventorying and assessing site-specific conditions (live and dead vegetation densities, dead and down woody fuel loadings, soil types),
analyzing historic and present fire management,
identifying resource objectives from land use plans, and
conducting NEPA analysis and compliance.
Phase Two: Prescribed fire plan development includes the following:
Phase Three: Implementation includes the following:
preparing the prescribed fire boundary to ensure that the fire remains within prescribed boundaries,
preparing the site, which may include building firelines, and improving vehicle routes and wildlife and stock trails by limbing trees and clearing debris, and
igniting the fire according to the plan’s prescribed parameters.
Phase Four: Monitoring and evaluation includes assessment and long-term monitoring of the fire treatment to ensure that the prescribed fire has met the objectives of the approved prescribed fire plan.