Final Environmental Assessment for the Designation of Critical Habitat
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3 for the 4 DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT 5 for the 6 JAGUAR 7 8 9 10 11 12 Prepared by Mangi Environmental Group 13 For the 14 Department of the Interior 15 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL 2 HABITAT FOR THE JAGUAR 3 January 2014 4 Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI)—United States Fish & Wildlife Service 5 (USFWS or Service) 6 Contact Person: 7 Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 9 Arizona Ecological Services Office 10 2321 West Royal Palm Rd., Suite 103 11 Phoenix, AZ 85021 12 Telephone 602-242-0210; facsimile 602-242-2513 13 14 SUMMARY 15 The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to identify and disclose the environmental 16 consequences resulting from the Proposed Action of designating critical habitat for the jaguar 17 (Panthera onca), originally proposed on August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214-50242) under the 18 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, and revised in 2013. 19 The jaguar was listed as endangered in 1972 in accordance with the Endangered Species 20 Conservation Act of 1969 (37 FR 6476). A final rule clarifying that endangered status for the 21 species extended into the United States was published in 1997 (62 FR 39147). The 1997 22 clarifying rule included a determination that designation of critical habitat for the jaguar was not 23 prudent because of the possibility of “take” if jaguar locations were known was the most 24 significant threat to the jaguar (62 FR 39147). Since that time, the issue of whether critical 25 habitat should be designated for the jaguar in the United States has been the subject of ongoing 26 litigation and subsequent findings (for a full history of previous Federal action, see the August 27 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50215)). 28 Most recently, on March 30, 2009 the United States District Court for the District of Arizona 29 issued an opinion in Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, CV 07-372- TUC JMR 30 (Lead) and Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall, CV08-335 TUC JMR (Consolidated) (D. Ariz., Mar. 31 30, 2009), that set aside the Service’s previous prudency determination and required a new 32 determination as to “whether to designate critical habitat,” i.e., whether such designation is 33 prudent, by January 8, 2010. On January 13, 2010, the Service published a notice of 34 determination that reevaluated the previous “not prudent” finding regarding critical habitat 35 designation for the jaguar and provided the information supporting the previous findings (75 FR 36 1741). As a result, the Service determined that the designation of critical habitat for the jaguar 37 would be beneficial. On October 18, 2010, the Service sent a letter to the Center for Biological 38 Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife updating them on its process of developing a recovery plan 39 and critical habitat for the jaguar. Additionally, the Service stated that, based on the unusual i 1 situation where the best information on habitat in the United States essential to the conservation 2 of the jaguar was being gathered through the recovery planning effort, it would postpone 3 publishing a proposed critical habitat rule until spring 2012. 4 Three alternatives were considered: Alternative A – All Designated Areas, No Exclusions; 5 Alternative B – Exclusion of the Tohono O’odham Nation’s (TON) tribal lands; and the No 6 Action Alternative. 7 Alternative A would designate approximately 347,277 hectares (ha) (858,137 acres) (ac) for 8 designation as critical habitat for the jaguar in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, 9 and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 10 Alternative B is similar to Alternative A, but it excludes tribal lands of the Tohono O’odham 11 Nation and exempts Fort Huachuca lands. Under Alternative B, approximately 309,263 ha 12 (764,207 ac) in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New 13 Mexico would be designated as critical habitat. Benefits of excluding these tribal lands from 14 designated critical habitat include the advancement of our Federal Indian Trust obligations, our 15 deference to tribes to develop and implement tribal conservation and natural resource 16 management plans for their lands and resources, which includes the jaguar, and the preservation 17 of our cooperative partnership with the Tohono O’odham Nation. 18 19 The U.S. Army’s Ft. Huachuca installation’s integrated natural resources management plan 20 (INRMP) is being considered for exemption from designation, per the National Defense 21 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136), which amended the Sikes Act (16 22 U.S.C. 670a) to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 23 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: “The Secretary shall not 24 designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the 25 Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural 26 resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act, if the 27 Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical 28 habitat is proposed for designation.” Fort Huachuca has a completed INRMP that includes 29 benefits for jaguars and their habitat, as well as protects the PCEs of critical habitat. t. 30 The Service is proposing to designate six critical habitat units for the jaguar in Arizona and New 31 Mexico as follows: 32 • Unit 1, Baboquivari Unit, approximately 57,142ha ( 141,200 ac) in the Baboquivari 33 Mountains, Arizona. 34 • Unit 2, Atascosa Unit, approximately 58,625 ha (144,864 ac) in the Tumacacori, 35 Atascosa, and Pajarito Mountains, Arizona. 36 • Unit 3, Patagonia Unit, approximately 148,364 ha (366,615 ac) in the Santa Rita, 37 Patagonia, and Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, Arizona. 38 • Unit 4, Whetstone Unit, approximately 38,453 ha (95,020 ac) in the Whetstone 39 Mountains, including connections to the Santa Rita and Huachuca Mountains, Arizona. 40 • Unit 5, Peloncillo Unit, approximately 41,571 ha (102,723 ac) in the Peloncillo 41 Mountains, Arizona and New Mexico. 42 • Unit 6, San Luis Unit, approximately 3,122 ha (7,714 ac) in the San Luis Mountains, ii 1 New Mexico. 2 3 The environmental issues identified by Federal agencies and the public during the initial public 4 comment period and during resource analysis were those raised by the types of actions taken by 5 public and private land managers in the region, including the impacts of critical habitat 6 designation on border enforcement activities, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, wildland fire 7 management, livestock grazing, land management and use, recreation, development, minerals 8 and mining extraction, and hunting. 9 The role that jaguar habitat in the United States serves is to provide areas to support some 10 transient individual jaguars during dispersal movements by providing patches of habitat (perhaps 11 in some cases with a few resident jaguars), and as areas for cyclic expansion and contraction of 12 the nearest core area and breeding population in the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit. 13 With respect to the impacts of designation on consultations and project modifications, the 14 following scenarios could occur: 15 (1) Previously completed section 7 consultations for which project effects are ongoing or still 16 occurring will need to reevaluate their impacts to the primary constituent elements 17 (PCEs), and, in some cases, reinitiate consultation if impacts to jaguar critical habitat 18 were not sufficiently addressed; 19 (2) Consultations for new actions that may affect the jaguar will need to include 20 consideration of effects to critical habitat and individual PCEs occurring in remote, 21 rugged areas, in particular those that potentially could result in severing connectivity 22 within a critical habitat unit or subunit; and 23 (3) Potentially, Federal agencies with responsibilities in critical habitat units considered 24 unoccupied at the time of listing will now consider consultation on jaguar critical habitat, 25 whereas they may not have considered consulting on jaguars in the past based on 26 occupancy status. However, such incremental consultations are considered unlikely in 27 actuality based on the current practice of Federal land managers, which subjects all areas 28 proposed here as critical habitat to analysis of the impacts of their actions on jaguars. 29 iii 1 Table of Contents 2 Summary ....................................................................................................................i 3 Acronyms & Abbreviations ................................................................................... viii 4 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION .................................. 1 5 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 6 1.2 Purpose and Need of the Action ....................................................................................... 1 7 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 8 1.4 Background ...................................................................................................................... 2 9 1.4.1 Critical Habitat .........................................................................................................