DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT for the DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT for the SPIKEDACE and LOACH MINNOW Prepared by Logan Simpson Design Inc. for the Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 May 2006 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE SPIKEDACE AND LOACH MINNOW May 2006 Lead Agency: Department of the Interior–United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cooperating Agencies: Arizona Game and Fish Department New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Contact Person: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor United States Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 602-242-2513 (fax) Summary The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to identify and disclose the environmental consequences resulting from the Proposed Action of re-designating critical habitat for the spikedace ( Meda fulgida ) and loach minnow ( Tiaroga cobitis ), each species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The need for the Proposed Action is to comply with Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA to designate critical habitat for listed species. Three alternatives were considered: Alternative A, Proposed Rule with Exclusions; Alternative B, Proposed Rule without Exclusions; and the No Action Alternative. Alternative A would designate 633 miles of selected stream segments as critical habitat within Arizona and New Mexico. Under Alternative A, approximately 30 miles of stream segments on Tribal lands identified as critical habitat will be excluded from designation. The designation includes 10 stream segments for the spikedace and 23 stream segments for the loach minnow. Critical habitat includes the riverine ecosystem formed by the wetted channel and the adjacent floodplains within 300 lateral feet on either side of bankfull stage. This 300-foot width defines the lateral extent of each area of critical habitat that contains sufficient primary constituent elements to provide for one or more of the life history functions of the spikedace and loach minnow and was set to accommodate stream meandering and high flows. Streams are not isolated but are connected with other streams to form “complexes.” Five complexes have been identified for critical habitat designation. Under Alternative B, approximately 662 miles of stream segments are proposed for critical habitat designation, including those stream segments occurring on the White Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, and Yavapai Apache Tribal lands. The No Action Alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for comparison to the other alternative analyzed in the EA. The environmental issues identified by federal agencies and the public during the initial public comment period and during resource analysis included concerns regarding the impacts of critical habitat on water resources, wildland fire management, livestock grazing, vegetation, Draft Environmental Assessment for the Designation of Critical Habitat May 2006 for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow Page i wildlife, recreation, land management and use, Tribal Trust resources, and environmental justice. The designation for critical habitat for the spikedace and loach minnow would not have any direct impacts on the environment; 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 primary constituent elements, (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. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Designation of Critical Habitat May 2006 for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.0–PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION .........................................................1 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of the Action ..................................................................................................2 1.3 Need for Action............................................................................................................2 1.4 Background .................................................................................................................2 1.4.1 Critical Habitat......................................................................................................2 1.4.2 Spikedace............................................................................................................6 1.4.3 Loach minnow......................................................................................................8 1.4.4 Current Status and Reasons for the Decline of the Spikedace and Loach Minnow .................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Permits Required for Implementation.........................................................................10 1.6 Related Laws, Authorizations, and Plans................................................................... 10 1.7 Issues and Concerns from Public Comments ............................................................11 1.7.1 Tribal Concerns..................................................................................................11 1.7.2 Need for Critical Habitat Designation.................................................................. 11 1.7.3 Structure of Critical Habitat Designation............................................................. 12 1.7.4 Socioeconomics.................................................................................................12 1.8 Topics Analyzed in Detail in this Environmental Assessment.....................................12 1.8.1 Mandatory Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis .........................................12 1.9 Decision to be Made..................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 2.0–ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE...................15 2.1 Development of Alternatives ......................................................................................15 2.1.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................................15 2.1.2 Alternative A, Proposed Rule with Exclusions ....................................................16 2.1.3 Alternative B, Proposed Rule without Exclusions ...............................................16 2.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Advanced for Further Analysis................................17 2.2.1 Development of Conservation Agreements ........................................................17 2.2.2 Land Acquisition or Conservation Easements ....................................................17 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................17 2.4 Proposed Primary Constituent Elements ................................................................... 25 2.4.1 Proposed Critical Habitat Complexes and Stream Segments.............................27 CHAPTER 3.0–AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .... 43 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................43 3.1.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................43 3.2 Water Resources.......................................................................................................45 3.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................45 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences............................................................................ 48 3.3 Wetlands and Floodplains..........................................................................................50 3.3.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................50 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences............................................................................ 51 3.4 Natural Resources - Fish, Wildlife, Plants and Biological Communities...................... 51 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Designation of Critical Habitat May 2006 for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow Page iii 3.4.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................51 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences............................................................................ 53 3.5 Land Use and Management.......................................................................................54