FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT for the CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG Prepared by Mangi Environmental Group For the Department of Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG March 2012 Lead Agency: Department of the Interior—United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cooperating Agencies: Arizona Game and Fish Department 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 designating critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis), listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. The need for the Proposed Action is to comply with the ESA and with a May 6, 2009 order from the Arizona District Court to designate critical habitat if the Secretary determined such a designation was prudent. The physical and biological features of critical habitat in stream and riverine lotic (actively moving water) systems are contained within the riverine and riparian ecosystems formed by the wetted channel and adjacent floodplains within 328 lateral ft (100 lateral m) on either side of bankfull stage. The use of bankfull stage and 328 ft (100 m) on either side recognizes the naturally dynamic nature of riverine systems, recognizes that floodplains are an integral part of the stream ecosystem, and contains the features essential to the conservation of the species. In ponds proposed as critical habitat, most of which are impoundments for watering cattle or other livestock, proposed critical habitat extends for 20 ft (6.1 m) beyond the high water line or to the boundary of the riparian and upland vegetation edge, whichever is greatest. The frogs are commonly found foraging and basking within 20 ft (6.1 m) of the shoreline of tanks. In addition, critical habitat extends upstream from ponds from the extent of the boundary for 328 ft (100 m) from the high water line. 2 Three alternatives were considered: the No Action Alternative, under which no critical habitat would be designated; Alternative A, Proposed Designation without exclusions; and Alternative B, Proposed Designation with exclusions. Alternative A consists of 43 units as critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. All 43 units in Alternative A are within the species’ geographical range, including areas occupied at the time of listing and areas not known to be occupied at the time of listing but identified as essential for the conservation of the species. The proposed critical habitat locations are distributed between six different watershed drainage areas within Arizona and New Mexico. All proposed critical habitat units contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life-history function. In addition, all but two proposed critical habitat units, units 13 and 17, are currently occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs. Units 13 and 17 were occupied at the time of listing and currently contain sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the conservation of the species. These units are needed as future sites for frog colonization or reestablishment and could be restored (e.g., control of nonnative predators) to allow Chiricahua leopard frog persistence with a reasonable level of effort. The proposed critical habitat designation includes lands under Federal (59%), state (4%), and private (37%) land ownership. Much of the Federal land is managed by the USDA Forest Service, in 5 National Forests: Apache Sitgreaves, Coconino, Coronado, Gila, and Tonto. Alternative B includes the areas included in Alternative A, minus 1,647 ac (667 ha) of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat would be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule. The areas that would be wholly or partially excluded are based on considerations outlined in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and described below for each unit. The exclusions are associated with the following conservation programs: Arizona Game and Fish Department Safe Harbor Agreement; Malpai Borderlands Group Safe Harbor Agreement; Malpai Borderlands Group Habitat Conservation Plan; and established conservation easements. The environmental issues identified by federal agencies and the public during the initial public comment period and during resource analysis were those raised by the types of actions taken by land management agencies in the region: fire management, water resource management, aquatic habitat restoration, recreation, livestock grazing, other land management and use. The designation of critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog would not have direct impacts on the environment; designation is not expected to impose land use restrictions or prohibit land use activities. However, the designation of critical habitat would (1) increase the number of additional section 7 consultations for proposed projects within designated critical habitat, (2) increase the number of re-initiated section 7 consultations for ongoing projects within designated critical habitat, (3) maintain Chiricahua leopard frog primary constitutent elements, (4) increase the likelihood of greater expenditures of time and federal funds of government agencies to develop measures to prevent both adverse effects to the species and adverse modification to critical habitat, and (5) indirectly increase the likelihood of greater expenditure of non-federal funds by project proponents to complete section 7 consultations and to develop reasonable and prudent alternatives (as a result of adverse modifications) that maintain critical habitat. Such an increase might occur if there was a federal nexus only to unoccupied units, or from the addition of adverse modification analysis to jeopardy consultations in occupied units. 3 Contents ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. 8 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................... 11 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Purpose and Need of the Action ..................................................................................... 11 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 12 1.4 Background .................................................................................................................... 12 1.4.1 Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................ 12 1.4.1.1 Provisions of the ESA ......................................................................................... 12 1.4.1.2 Section 4(b)(2) Exclusion Process ...................................................................... 13 1.4.1.3 Section 7 Consultation Process ........................................................................... 13 1.4.2 Chiricahua Leopard Frog ........................................................................................ 16 1.4.2.1 Physical and Biological Features for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog ................... 17 1.4.2.2 Primary Constituent Elements for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog ........................ 17 1.5 Permits Required for Implementation ............................................................................ 18 1.6 Related Laws, Authorizations, and Plans ....................................................................... 18 1.7 Issues and Concerns from Public Comments ................................................................. 19 1.8 Topics Analyzed in Detail in this Environmental Assessment ...................................... 20 1.8.1 Mandatory Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ........................................... 20 1.9 Decision to be Made ....................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .............. 24 2.1 Development of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 24 2.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 24 2.3 Alternative A—Critical Habitat Designation with no exclusions .................................. 25 2.4 Alternative B—Critical Habitat Designation with Exclusion Areas .............................. 28 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis ..................................... 29 2.5.1 Development of Conservation Agreements ........................................................ 29 2.5.2 Land Acquisition or Conservation Easements .................................................... 30 4 2.6 Comparison of Potential Impacts of Chiricahua Leopard Frog Proposed Critical Habitat Designation ..............................................................................................................................