In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 2-21-90-F-119a April 17, 2001 Memorandum To: Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, Arizona From: Field Supervisor Subject: Revised Biological Opinion on Transportation and Delivery of Central Arizona Project Water to the Gila River Basin (Hassayampa, Agua Fria, Salt, Verde, San Pedro, Middle and Upper Gila Rivers and Associated Tributaries) in Arizona and New Mexico and its Potential to Introduce and Spread Nonnative Aquatic Species This revised biological opinion is in response to a January 3, 2001 request by the Bureau of Reclamation for reinitiation of formal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), on transportation and delivery of water through the Central Arizona Project (CAP) in the Gila River basin and its potential to introduce and spread nonnative aquatic species. The Santa Cruz River subbasin of the Gila basin is the subject of a separate consultation and is not addressed here. This biological opinion supercedes the April 15 (transmitted April 20), 1994 biological opinion on the same subject. Reinitiated consultation began on January 3, 2001, the date Reclamation’s request was received by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Reinitiation has been requested as a result of a court order that found the amendments to the 1994 biological opinion to be arbitrary and capricious (see consultation history section). This finding was based primarily upon the delays in implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative, particularly barrier construction. The court concluded that take in excess of that anticipated by the 1994 opinion, had occurred to spikedace and loach minnow. This revised opinion considers the effects of all implementation delays and of such take, along with all relevant new or additional information that has become available since 1994. This opinion addresses the possible effects of the action on the endangered Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, desert pupfish, and Colorado squawfish, and the threatened spikedace, loach minnow, and bald eagle. These species were all addressed in the 1994 opinion. In addition, due to new information, the endangered Gila trout, and threatened Apache trout are also species of concern in this opinion. The Chiricahua leopard frog, a proposed threatened species, was considered in your biological assessment, but will not be addressed in this biological opinion. •CAP - Gila Basin Nonnatives Issues - Biological Opinion - Reinitiation - April 17, 2001– 2 Due to the need to consider information in addition to that covered in this opinion and to litigation-related time constraints, the Chiricahua leopard frog addressed separately by Reclamation. Scientific names for these and other species referred to by common names in this document are found in Appendix 1. This biological opinion is based on the 1994 biological opinion, which is incorporated here by reference (USFWS 1994); information used in the preparation of the 1994 biological opinion; the January 3, 2001 biological assessment (USBR 2001); the March 16 and March 30, 2001 Reclamation memoranda amending the biological assessment; April 6-13, 2001 comments on the draft biological opinion from Reclamation, Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), and the Center for Biological Diversity; telephone conversations; meetings; data in our files; and other sources of information. References cited in this biological opinion are not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern, the effects of the proposed action, or on other subjects considered in this opinion. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in this office. TABLE OF CONTENTS CONSULTATION HISTORY....................................................4 PAST CONSULTATIONS ON CAP ........................................4 APPLICANTS..........................................................4 APRIL 15, 1994 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ....................................5 Informal Consultation for the 1994 Biological Opinion .......................5 Formal Consultation for the 1994 Biological Opinion ........................5 2001 REINITIATED CONSULTATION .....................................6 Informal Consultation .................................................6 Formal Consultation...................................................6 BIOLOGICAL OPINION .......................................................7 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.............................7 Non-Indian Agricultural Use............................................9 Municipal and Industrial Use ...........................................10 Recharge Use.......................................................10 Indian Use .........................................................11 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions and Indirect Effects ..................11 Conservation Measures ...............................................13 II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES (Range-wide)................................19 Spikedace..........................................................19 Loach minnow ......................................................19 Gila topminnow .....................................................20 •CAP - Gila Basin Nonnatives Issues - Biological Opinion - Reinitiation - April 17, 2001– 3 Razorback sucker....................................................20 Desert pupfish ......................................................21 Colorado squawfish..................................................21 Gila trout ..........................................................22 Apache trout........................................................22 Bald eagle..........................................................23 III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ...................................23 Action Area ........................................................24 General Environmental Baseline .......................................24 Status of the Species (within the Action Area) .............................26 Section 7 Consultation Environmental Baseline............................29 IV. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION..........................................30 VI. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS............................................35 V. CONCLUSION .....................................................37 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT.............................................37 AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ........................................38 Spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, desert pupfish, Colorado squawfish, Gila trout, and Apache trout........................38 Bald eagle..........................................................39 EFFECT OF THE TAKE ................................................40 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES ..............................41 Spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, desert pupfish, Colorado squawfish, Gila trout, and Apache trout........................41 Bald eagle..........................................................41 TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ......................42 Spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, desert pupfish, Colorado squawfish, Gila trout, and Apache trout........................42 Bald eagle..........................................................44 DISPOSITION OF DEAD OR INJURED LISTED ANIMALS...................45 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................45 REINITIATION NOTICE......................................................47 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................49 FIGURE 1. Route of Central Arizona Project ......................................63 FIGURE 2. Diagram of Pima Lateral Feeder Canal Turnout and Adjacent Area ............64 •CAP - Gila Basin Nonnatives Issues - Biological Opinion - Reinitiation - April 17, 2001– 4 FIGURE 3. Introduction methods of nonnative fishes in the United States ................65 TABLE 1. Responsible Parties for Actions Related to CAP ...........................66 TABLE 2. Central Arizona Project 1999 Water Deliveries by Turnout ..................68 TABLE 3. Types of Actions and their Effects Considered under Section 7 Consultation .....72 TABLE 4. Transfer of aquatic species via interbasin water transfers: Selected cases........73 TABLE 5. Species collected in Central Arizona Project (CAP) Aqueduct, Salt River Project (SRP) Canals, and the Florence-Casa Grande (F-CG) Canal. .................78 APPENDIX 1. Scientific Names of Species in Text .................................81 CONSULTATION HISTORY More detailed information on the topics discussed in this section, including dates of meetings, letters, and memoranda, can be found in the administrative record and is summarized in a document attached to this biological opinion entitled Background Information on the Central Arizona Project and Nonnative Aquatic Species in the Gila River Basin (from hereon referred to as the background document)(USFWS 2001a). PAST CONSULTATIONS ON CAP Since 1983, there have been numerous consultations on various aspects of CAP. Of those consultations, five addressed nonnative species issues, including the 1994 biological opinion for this consultation and an ongoing formal consultation on the issue of introduction and spread of nonnative aquatic species, via CAP, in the Santa Cruz River subbasin. A draft biological opinion for the latter was issued on June 11, 1999 finding jeopardy to Gila topminnow. APPLICANTS