Final Environmental Assessment for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT for the SPIKEDACE AND LOACH MINNOW Prepared by Logan Simpson Design Inc. 51 West Third Street, Suite 450 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Prepared for Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Regional Ecological Services Office 500 Gold Avenue SW, Room 5108 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 February 6, 2012 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE SPIKEDACE AND LOACH MINNOW February 6, 2012 Lead Agency: Department of the Interior–United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperating Agencies: Arizona Game and Fish Department New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Contact Person: Sarah Quamme, Listing Coordinator United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Regional Ecological Services Office 500 Gold Avenue SW, Room 5108 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 505-248-6922 (fax) Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) is tiered to the December 20, 2006, Environmental Assessment for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow. The purpose of this EA, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is to identify and disclose the environmental consequences resulting from the proposal to designate critical habitat for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis); each species is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The need for the critical habitat designation is to comply with Section 4(b) (2) of the ESA to designate critical habitat for listed species. Three alternatives are considered: Alternative A, Proposed Rule with Exclusion Areas; Alternative B, Proposed Rule without Exclusion Areas; and the No Action Alternative. Under Alternative A, critical habitat segments flowing through tribal and other lands could potentially be excluded in the final rule based on economic impact, national security, or other relevant impacts. The potential exclusion areas discussed in the 2010 proposed rule include stream segments that flow through Yavapai-Apache, White Mountain Apache, and San Carlos Tribal lands and through lands owned by Freeport-McMoRan. The proposed critical habitat stream mileage was modified slightlyin a revised proposed rule due to changes in two stream segments. The total critical habitat stream mileage for Alternative B (proposal without exclusion areas) is 726 miles for spikedace, 736 miles for loach minnow, with 625 miles overlapping for both species and a total of 836 miles. The No Action Alternative is equivalent to the 2007 final rule designating critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow. Impacts of the 2007 final rule were generally described under Alternative A in the December 2006 EA mentioned above. The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA for comparison to the other alternatives analyzed in the EA. Final Environmental Assessment for Designation of Critical Habitat February 6, 2012 for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow iii The areas proposed for critical habitat are designed to provide sufficient riverine and associated floodplain area for breeding, nonbreeding, and dispersing adult spikedace and loach minnow and for the habitat needs of the juvenile and larval stages of these fishes. Generally, the physical and biological features of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow are contained within the riverine ecosystem formed by the wetted channel and the adjacent floodplains within 300 lateral feet on either side of bankfull stage, except where bounded by canyon walls. This 300-foot width defines the lateral extent of each area of critical habitat that contains sufficient physical and biological features to provide for one or more of the life-history functions of the spikedace and loach minnow. This channel width is intended to accommodate stream meandering and high flows. Streams are not isolated but are connected with other streams to form “units.” Eight units have been identified for critical habitat designation. The eight units in the proposed rule (Alternative B) include 26 stream segments for spikedace and loach minnow, 7 stream segments for spikedace only, and 12 stream segments for loach minnow only. The environmental issues identified by federal agencies and the public during the public comment period for the proposed rule and during resource analysis included concerns regarding the impacts of critical habitat on water resources, wetlands and floodplains, natural resources (fish, wildlife and plants), land use and management, wildland fire management, recreation, socioeconomics, tribal trust resources, and environmental justice. The designation for critical habitat for the spikedace and loach minnow would generally have negligible to minor impacts on the environment, and the designation is not expected to impose land use restrictions or prohibit land use activities. The exception may be those rare instances of adverse modification that could occur but that are not foreseeable. However, the action alternatives would (1) increase the number of additional Section 7 consultations for proposed projects within designated critical habitat, (2) maintain spikedace and loach minnow critical habitat physical and biological features, (3) indirectly increase the likelihood of greater expenditures of time and federal funds of government agencies to develop measures to prevent both adverse effects and adverse modification to maintain critical habitat, and (4) indirectly increase the likelihood of greater expenditure of nonfederal funds by project proponents to complete Section 7 consultations and to develop reasonable and prudent alternatives (as a result of adverse modifications) to maintain or avoid the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Final Environmental Assessment for Designation of Critical Habitat February 6, 2012 for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION............................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Rule History ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1.2 Differences Between Past and Current Proposed Rules for Critical Habitat Designations ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Purpose of the Action ........................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Need for the Action ............................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Background ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Critical Habitat ..................................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Spikedace ........................................................................................................... 9 1.4.3 Loach Minnow ................................................................................................... 12 1.5 Permits Required for Implementation ............................................................................... 16 1.6 Related Laws, Authorizations, and Plans ......................................................................... 16 1.7 Cooperating Agencies ..................................................................................................... 16 1.8 Issues and Concerns from Public Comments .................................................................. 16 1.8.1 Federal Government ......................................................................................... 17 1.8.2 State Government ............................................................................................. 17 1.8.3 Local Government and Districts ........................................................................ 17 1.8.4 Tribal Government ............................................................................................ 17 1.8.5 Private Companies, Nonprofit Organizations, and Individuals ........................... 18 1.8.6 Dianna WynnTribal Comments .......................................................................... 19 1.8.7 Need for Critical Habitat Designation Comments............................................... 19 1.8.8 Structure of Critical Habitat Designation Comments .......................................... 19 1.8.9 Threats Comments ............................................................................................ 20 1.8.10 Socioeconomics Comments .............................................................................. 21 1.8.11 Areas Requested for Exclusion by Commenters ............................................... 22 1.9 Topics Analyzed in Detail in this Environmental Assessment ........................................... 23 1.9.1 Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis .......................................................... 23 1.10 Decision to be Made ........................................................................................................ 24 Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................... 25 2.1 Development of Alternatives ...........................................................................................