DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for DESIGNATION
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT for Neosho mucket and Rabbitsfoot Mussels photo credit: Edwin Miller photo credit: Karen Little Prepared by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NEOSHO MUCKET AND RABBITSFOOT MUSSELS April 2013 Lead Agency: Department of the Interior—United States Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) Contact Person: Jim Boggs, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office 110 S. Amity Road, Suite 300 Conway, AR 72032 501-513-4470 501-513-4480 (fax) Summary The purpose of this draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is to identify and disclose the environmental consequences resulting from the proposed action of designating critical habitat for the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) and rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) mussels proposed for listing as endangered and threatened, respectively, on October 16, 2012 (76 FR 46218), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. The need for the proposed action is to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Neosho mucket was identified as a candidate for protection in the May 22, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 21664) and was assigned a status Category 2 designation until 1996 (61 FR 7596) when that designation was discontinued and only species for which the Service had sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule were regarded as candidate species. The Neosho mucket was added to the candidate list in the October 30, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 54808) with a listing priority number (LPN) of 5. In 2010, its listing priority number was changed from 5 to 2, reflecting a species with threats that are both imminent and high in magnitude. The rabbitsfoot was first identified as a candidate for protection in the November 15, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 58982) and was assigned a status Category 2 designation until 1996 (61 FR 7596) when that designation was discontinued due to reasons described above for Neosho mucket. The rabbitsfoot was added to the candidate list in the November 9, 2009, Federal Register (74 FR 57804) with a LPN of 9. A LPN of 9 indicates threats are of a moderate magnitude but imminent overall. In our Notice of Review dated November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), it was again identified as a candidate species with an LPN of 9. 2 The ESA requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The ESA states (16 U.S.C. 1533 §(b)(1)(A)), “the Secretary shall make determinations required by subsection (a)(1) of this section [species listing status] solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available…” However, a court opinion of the Tenth Circuit ruled that “the Secretary must comply with NEPA when designating critical habitat under ESA (Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 75 F. 3d 1429, 10th Circuit, 1996). Portions of the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot mussels ranges include States within the Tenth Circuit (Oklahoma and Kansas). Therefore, this EA analyzes the impacts of the proposed designation of critical habitat, which is contained in the proposal for listing the Neosho mucket as an endangered species and rabbitsfoot as a threatened species (77 FR 63440), but does not analyze impacts of the listing action. The Neosho mucket is a medium size freshwater mussel, reaching 9.5 centimeters (cm) (4 inches (in)) in length. The Neosho mucket is associated with streams having shallow riffles and runs comprised of gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents. Neosho mucket historically occurred in at least 16 streams within the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins covering four states (Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri). It is endemic to the Arkansas River system. Of the 9 extant streams, there is only one viable population. Rabbitsfoot is a medium to large freshwater mussel, elongate and rectangular, reaching 12 cm (6 in) in length. It is primarily an inhabitant of small to medium sized streams and some larger rivers. Rabbitsfoot historically occurred in 140 streams within the lower Great Lakes Subbasin and Mississippi River Basin. The historical range included Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. In the 51 extant streams, populations are highly fragmented and restricted to short reaches. Although little is known of the specific habitat requirements for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot mussels, it can be determined that they require flowing water, geomorphically stable river channels and banks with suitable substrate, adequate food, the presence and abundance of fish hosts, adequate water and sediment quality, and few or no competitive or predaceous invasive (nonnative) species The habitats of freshwater mussels are vulnerable to water quality degradation and habitat modification from a number of activities associated with modern civilization. The decline of the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot is primarily the result of habitat loss and degradation. Chief among the causes of decline in distribution and abundance of the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot, and in no particular order of ranking, are impoundment, channelization, sedimentation, chemical contaminants, mining, and oil and natural gas development. Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot are both found within medium to large river drainages exposed to a variety of landscape uses. Two alternatives were considered in this EA: the No Action Alternative, under which no critical habitat would be designated and the Proposed Action Alternative, under which eight units occupied by Neosho mucket are proposed for designation and 35 units occupied by rabbitsfoot are proposed for designation. 3 We are proposing to designate approximately 779 river kilometers (rkm) (484 river miles (rmi)) as critical habitat for the Neosho mucket in: • Benton and Washington counties, Arkansas; • Allen, Chase, Cherokee, Coffey, Elk, Greenwood, Labette, Montgomery, Neosho, Wilson, and Woodson counties, Kansas; • Jasper, Lawrence, McDonald, and Newton counties, Missouri; and • Adair, Cherokee, and Delaware counties, Oklahoma. We also are proposing to designate approximately 2,664 rkm (1,655 rmi) as critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot in: • Colbert, Jackson, Madison, and Marshall counties, Alabama; • Arkansas, Ashley, Bradley, Clark, Cleburne, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Fulton, Grant, Hot Spring, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence, Little River, Marion, Monroe, Montgomery, Newton, Ouachita, Randolph, Saline, Sevier, Sharp, Van Buren, White, and Woodruff counties, Arkansas; • Massac, Pulaski, and vermilion counties, Illinois; • Carroll, Pulaski, Tippecanoe, and White counties, Indiana; • Allen and Cherokee counties, Kansas; • Ballard, Edmonson, Green, Hart, Livingston, Logan, Marshall, and McCracken counties, Kentucky; • Hinds, Sunflower, Toshimingo, and Warren counties, Mississippi; • Jasper, Madison, and Wayne counties, Missouri; • Coshocton, Madison, Union, and Williams counties, Ohio; • McCurtain and Rogers counties, Oklahoma; • Crawford, Erie, Mercer, and Venango counties, Pennsylvania; and • Hardin, Hickman, Humphreys, Marshall, Maury, Montgomery, Perry, and Robertson counties, Tennessee. Areas proposed as critical habitat for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot include only stream channels within the ordinary high water line, and we made every effort to avoid including any developed areas, structures, or areas inundated by lakes and reservoirs because such structures usually lack physical or biological features for these species. The ordinary high water line defines the stream channel and is the point on the stream bank where water is continuous and leaves some evidence, such as erosion or aquatic vegetation. Any such areas inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat. The environmental issues identified by the Service during resource analysis include: conservation of the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot, water resource management, energy development and production, socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice. The 4 proposed critical habitat designation occurs only in navigable waters in which the river bottom is generally owned by the State. However, the adjacent upland properties are owned by private, Federal, or State entities and in Oklahoma some are under Tribal jurisdiction. The designation of critical habitat in areas with extant populations of Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot may impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, may have minor incremental impacts on State and local governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the physical or biological features