Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for Spikedace, Loach Minnow, and Gila Chub; Eagle Creek and Lower San Francisco River in Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona, 14287-14289 [2018-06713]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14287-14289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06713]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R2-ES-2017-N179; FXES11130200000-189-FF02ENEH00]


Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment for 
a Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for Spikedace, Loach Minnow, and Gila 
Chub; Eagle Creek and Lower San Francisco River in Greenlee and Graham 
Counties, Arizona

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, advise the public that 
we intend to prepare a draft environmental assessment (EA), pursuant to 
the National Environmental Policy Act, to evaluate the impacts of, and 
alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an enhancement of survival 
permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to 
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., Freeport-McMoRan Morenci, Inc., and the Morenci 
Water and Electric Company (FMMI/MWE) (collectively referred to as the 
applicant) for conservation of federally-listed fish species. The 
applicant proposes to draft a safe harbor agreement. Via this notice, 
we also open a public scoping period.

DATES: Written suggestions or comments on alternatives and issues to be 
addressed in the Service's draft environmental analysis must be 
received by close of business on or before May 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To request further information or submit written comments, 
use one of the following methods, and note that your information 
request or comment is in reference to the FMMI/MWE NEPA scoping:
     Email: [email protected];
     U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services 
Office, 9828 N 31st Avenue, Suite C3, Phoenix, Arizona 85051;
     Fax: 602-242-2513; or
     Phone: 602-242-0210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service), advise the public that we intend to prepare a draft EA, 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.; NEPA), to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the 
proposed issuance of an enhancement of survival permit (EOS Permit) 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.; ESA), to Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., Freeport-McMoRan Morenci, Inc., 
and the Morenci Water and Electric Company (FMMI/MWE) (collectively 
referred to as the applicant) for conservation of three federally-
listed species: The endangered spikedace (Meda fulgida), endangered 
loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), and endangered Gila chub (Gila 
intermedia) (collectively referred to as covered species). In support 
of the EOS Permit, the applicant proposes to draft a safe harbor 
agreement (SHA) for land and water uses at Eagle Creek and the lower 
San Francisco River, as well as for long-term management and monitoring 
activities, including construction of a nonnative fish barrier; an 
exotic species study; annual surveys for covered species and other fish 
species; and the continued implementation of the Spikedace and Loach 
Minnow Management Plan (October 2011) at Eagle Creek and the lower San 
Francisco River in Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona.

Background

    Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit 
``take'' of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA. The ESA defines ``take'' as ``to harass, 
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect 
listed animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct'' (16 
U.S.C. 1533). The term ``harm'' is defined in the regulations as 
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death 
or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 
17.3). However, we may, under specified circumstances, issue permits 
that allow the take of federally listed species, provided that the take 
is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity. 
EOS Permits issued to applicants in association with approved SHAs 
authorize incidental take of the covered species from implementation of 
the conservation activities and ongoing covered activities above the 
baseline condition. Baseline condition for a species could be described 
as the existing number of individuals, acres of habitat, or length of 
occupied stream present in the permit area prior to implementation of 
the SHA.
    Application requirements and issuance criteria for EOS permits for 
SHAs are found in the Code of Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 
17.22(c)(2)(ii) and 17.32(c)(2)(ii), respectively. See also the joint 
policy on SHAs, which the Service and the Department of Commerce's 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 
Fisheries Service published in the Federal Register on June 17, 1999 
(64 FR 32717).
    The purpose of issuing the proposed EOS Permit is to authorize take 
associated with the applicant's proposed activities while conserving 
covered species and their habitats. We expect that the applicant will 
request EOS Permit coverage for a period of 50 years.

The Applicant's Proposed Project

    The proposed activities would include ongoing land and water 
management activities associated with water-related improvements, 
including a diversion dam and appurtenant pumping facilities and 
pipelines, groundwater pumping stations and water transmission 
pipelines, access roads, power lines, and related infrastructure. 
During the term of the SHA, the permittee anticipates improving, 
replacing, repairing, reconstructing, and maintaining these facilities 
and related infrastructure on land adjacent to Eagle Creek and the 
lower San Francisco River. We have worked with the applicant to design 
conservation activities expected to have a net conservation benefit to 
the spikedace, loach minnow, and Gila

[[Page 14288]]

chub within the area to be covered under this proposed SHA. These 
conservation activities would include the following:
    (1) Allocation of $4,000,000 over the next 10 years to complete the 
design and construction of a fish barrier on Eagle Creek to protect and 
enhance aquatic habitat for the covered species. Design of the barrier 
is almost complete, and the location for the barrier has been selected 
by the applicant. The fish barrier would prevent nonnative aquatic 
species from moving upstream into the upper portion of the creek, 
protecting the covered species and their habitat. Loach minnow and Gila 
chub are primarily found above the proposed barrier location, and the 
best remaining habitat for the three species is also above the proposed 
barrier location.
    (2) Development and implementation of a 3-year monitoring program 
to detect the presence of other types of nonnative invasive species 
(e.g., bullfrogs and crayfish) within the upper reach of Eagle Creek, 
and investigation of the practicability and cost of actions to suppress 
the populations of these species in the upper segment of Eagle Creek, 
above the fish barrier.
    (3) Annual monitoring along Eagle Creek and the lower reach of the 
San Francisco River to gather data for use in informing future 
conservation and management activities and assisting in the recovery of 
the Covered Species.
    These conservation activities are expected to:
    (1) Protect existing upper Eagle Creek populations of spikedace, 
loach minnow, and Gila chub, as well as other native fish species, 
against future upstream incursion of nonnative aquatic organisms from 
the Gila River and lower Eagle Creek. Spikedace, loach minnow, and Gila 
chub all occur in approximately 10 to 15 percent of their historical 
ranges, having been extirpated from other areas due to habitat 
alteration, competition with or predation by nonnative species, and 
other factors. The Gila River and lower Eagle Creek are currently 
occupied by a variety of nonnative fish species known to be detrimental 
to native fishes, including flathead catfish, channel catfish, 
smallmouth bass, red shiner, and green sunfish.
    (2) Provide data that can be used to inform future management 
actions to remove nonnative species (e.g., crayfish and bullfrogs) 
within Eagle Creek.
    (3) Provide a cooperative approach that allows for continuation of 
mining operations and native fish conservation.
    Ongoing land and water management activities, as well as 
conservation activities under the SHA, would occur along portions of 
Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River in Graham and Greenlee 
Counties, Arizona, on lands currently owned by the applicant.

Potentially Affected Species

    The applicant may apply for an EOS Permit to cover the spikedace, 
loach minnow, and Gila chub. The permit area may include an additional 
three species federally listed as threatened: The western distinct 
population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), 
Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis), and narrow-headed 
gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus). The ultimate list of species 
covered by the proposed EOS Permit and associated SHA may change based 
on the outcome of more detailed reviews of the best available science, 
changes to the list of protected species, or further assessments of the 
likelihood of take from the proposed activities.

Possible Alternatives in the Environmental Assessment

    The proposed action presented in the draft EA would be compared to 
the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative represents the 
estimated future conditions without the proposed Federal action.

No-Action Alternative

    In the No-Action Alternative, the applicant would not request, and 
we would not issue, an EOS Permit for the ongoing use and management of 
land and water along Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River. 
Therefore, ongoing use and management of land and water on the 
applicant's property, should incidental take occur, would require the 
applicant to seek coverage for incidental take in some other manner. 
Additionally, the non-native fish barrier would not be built, and 
monitoring would not occur.

Proposed Alternative

    The proposed action would be the issuance of an EOS Permit for the 
covered species for the conservation and covered activities within the 
plan area, when and if the applicant determines to move forward with an 
SHA and development of a nonnative fish barrier. The draft SHA, which 
must be consistent with the final SHA policy (64 FR 32717), would be 
developed in coordination with the Service and implemented by the 
applicant.
    The proposed alternative would need to provide a net conservation 
benefit for the listed species covered by the SHA, and would need to 
provide long-term protection of native fish habitat in portions of 
upper Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River. Actions covered 
under the requested EOS Permit may include possible take of the species 
associated with proposed land and water management activities above the 
baseline condition for the species, as well as construction of the 
nonnative fish barrier.

Other Alternatives

    Possible alternatives include mechanical or chemical stream 
renovation with barrier construction, or alternative sites for barrier 
construction. We are requesting information regarding other reasonable 
alternatives during this scoping period.

National Historic Preservation Act

    We will use and coordinate the NEPA process to fulfill our 
obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act [(Pub. L. 89-
665, as amended by Pub. L. 96-515, and as provided in 36 CFR 
800.2(d)(3) and 800.8c)]. A cultural resource inventory has already 
been completed for the project; we will address the findings of that 
report and continue coordinating with tribes and the State Historic 
Preservation Office during project development.

Environmental Review

    The Service will draft an EA to analyze the proposed action, as 
well as other alternatives, and the associated impacts of each 
alternative on the human environment and each species covered for the 
range of alternatives to be addressed. The draft EA is expected to 
provide biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats, 
as well as the effects of the alternatives on other resources, such as 
vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology, and soils, air quality, water 
resources, water quality, cultural resources, land use, recreation, 
water use, local economy, and environmental justice, as appropriate for 
the proposed action.

Public Availability of Comments

    Written comments received will become part of the public record 
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone 
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in 
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including 
your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available. 
While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.

[[Page 14289]]

Authority

    We publish this notice in compliance with NEPA and its implementing 
regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6, and 1508.22), and section 10(c) of 
the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)).

Amy Lueders,
Regional Director, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2018-06713 Filed 4-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P