[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 329-331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31519]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2024-0153; FXES 11130200000-245-FF02ENEH00]
Application for an Enhancement of Survival Permit; Eagle Creek
Multi-Species Conservation Benefit Agreement; Greenlee and Graham
Counties, Arizona
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received an
application from Freeport Minerals, a subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan
Inc., for a 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement of survival permit supported by the
proposed Eagle Creek Multi-Species Conservation Benefit Agreement (CBA)
in Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona. With this notice, we announce
the availability for public comment of the permit application, the
proposed CBA, and the draft environmental assessment (EA). We invite
comments from the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local
governments.
DATES: We must receive your written comments on or before February 3,
2025.
ADDRESSES: Obtaining Documents: The documents this notice announces, as
well as any comments and materials that we receive, will be available
for public inspection online in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0153 at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Submitting Comments: If you wish to submit comments on any of the
documents, you may do so in writing by one of the following methods:
Online: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0153.
U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing; Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R2-ES-2024-0153; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: PRB/3W; 5275
Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona, Ecological Services
Office; telephone 602-834-7203. Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may
dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), make available for public comment an application we received
from Freeport Minerals Corporation (applicant) for an enhancement of
survival permit (permit) under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) supported by the CBA in
Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona, and the associated draft EA. If
[[Page 330]]
approved, the requested 50-year permit would authorize incidental take
of the spikedace (Meda fulgida), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), and
Gila chub (Gila intermedia), which are federally listed as endangered
under the ESA, and the narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis
rufipunctatus), which is federally listed as threatened under the ESA
(hereafter collectively referred to as the Covered Species).
The incidental take would be of the Covered Species within the Plan
Area of the CBA that results from ongoing and future activities on the
applicant's enrolled property, as fully described in the draft CBA,
during the permit term, take associated with conservation and
management activities integral to meeting the CBA net conservation
benefit standard, as well as take resulting from a return to baseline
condition. As described in the CBA, baseline condition has been
quantified for each species based on habitat miles or acreage.
During the life of the permit, the applicant's ongoing and future
activities include improvement, replacement, repair, construction,
operation, and maintenance of their facilities and related
infrastructure on lands adjacent to Eagle Creek. The CBA would provide
a net conservation benefit for the Covered Species through construction
of a nonnative fish barrier that will protect 8.4 miles (13.5
kilometers) and approximately 682 acres (276 hectares) of Eagle Creek
and immediately surrounding habitat from nonnative species invasion.
This mileage and acreage are currently unprotected, and the CBA will
increase the suitability of this area for management and recovery of
the Covered Species by preventing invasion by detrimental non-native
aquatic species. Applicant also proposes an exotic species removal
study and native fish monitoring in the CBA that will also provide a
net conservation benefit for the Covered Species.
The Service is the lead for the proposed CBA approval and permit
issuance. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is a cooperating
partner and will design, partially fund, construct, and carry out
necessary operations and maintenance on the proposed fish barrier.
Reclamation is the lead agency for development of the EA under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The
EA analyzes both Reclamation and the Service's proposed actions. The
Service is a cooperating agency for the NEPA analysis.
Background
Section 9 of the ESA and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 17 prohibit the ``take'' of fish or wildlife species listed as
endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the ESA as to ``harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect
listed animal species, or to attempt to engage in such conduct'' (16
U.S.C. 1538(19)). However, under section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue
permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. ``Incidental
take'' is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations
governing such take of endangered and threatened species are found at
50 CFR parts 17.21-22 and 17.31-32, respectively.
Proposed Action
The proposed action involves the issuance of a 10(a)(1)(A) permit
to the applicant to authorize incidental take of the Covered Species
resulting from implementation of the proposed CBA and the applicant's
ongoing and future activities on their lands along Eagle Creek in
Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona, including take resulting from
barrier construction as well as ongoing management activities within
the Covered Area but downstream of the proposed fish barrier, as
described below.
Both spikedace and loach minnow were listed as threatened in 1986,
with their listing status changing to endangered in 2012 (February 23,
2012; 77 FR 10810). Historically, spikedace was found in most rivers
and streams in the Gila River Basin upstream of Phoenix, Arizona;
however, much of its historic habitat has been destroyed as a result of
habitat modification and by the introduction and spread of nonnative
predatory and competitive species. Spikedace now remain in
approximately 10 percent or less of the species' historical range.
Loach minnow were once common throughout much of the Gila River Basin;
however, much of its historic habitat has been destroyed through
habitat modification and the introduction and spread of nonnative
species. Loach minnow now remain in approximately 15 to 20 percent of
the species' historical range.
Gila chub was listed as endangered in 2005 (November 2, 2005; 70 FR
66664). Historically, Gila chub were found throughout the Gila River
basin in southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and northeastern
Sonora, Mexico. Gila chub have been reduced in numbers and distribution
through the majority of the historical range. Primary threats to Gila
chub include predation and competition with nonnative species and
habitat alteration.
Recently, there has been a taxonomic revision of the fish that have
historically been classified as Gila chub; based on analyses of genetic
and morphological data, the Gila chub is no longer recognized as a
distinct taxonomic entity, but rather is actually within the roundtail
chub (Gila robusta) species (April 7, 2017; 82 FR 16981). However, at
this time, the Gila chub remains listed under the ESA.
The narrow-headed gartersnake was listed as threatened in 2014
(July 8, 2024; 79 FR 38678). Historically, narrow-headed gartersnakes
occupied perennial drainages across the Mogollon Rim, from northern and
eastern Arizona into southwestern New Mexico. The species remains in
relatively dense populations only in the Tularosa River and Middle Fork
of the Gila River in New Mexico, and in Oak Creek and West Fork Oak
Creek in Arizona. Narrow-headed gartersnakes are believed to persist in
other locations; however, information on other populations is less
certain due to a lack of adequate survey effort and data. The most
significant threat to narrow-headed gartersnake is nonnative species.
The proposed CBA is part of a management plan developed by the
applicant in response to the Service's proposed critical habitat
designation for spikedace and loach minnow in 2011, which included
portions of Eagle Creek and the San Francisco River in Arizona (the
designation has since been finalized). The applicant requested that
their private lands along Eagle Creek and the San Francisco River in
Arizona be excluded from the critical habitat designation because of
the conservation commitments in their proposed management plan. Within
the management plan, the applicant committed to native fish monitoring,
a nonnative species removal study, and investigation and construction
of a fish barrier on Eagle Creek, as well as completion of a safe
harbor agreement (now called a conservation benefit agreement, or CBA).
The Service accepted the management plan in lieu of designation of
the applicant's lands on Eagle Creek and the San Francisco River.
Subsequently, costs of barrier construction exceeded those included in
the management plan. To allow for project completion, Reclamation
entered into a cooperative relationship with the applicant and the
Service to evaluate the financial and technical feasibility of fish
barrier construction. Under this partnership,
[[Page 331]]
Reclamation became the project lead for the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the barrier.
The proposed CBA was developed in coordination with the Service.
The purpose of the proposed CBA is to implement population restoration
activities for spikedace, loach minnow, Gila chub, and narrow-headed
gartersnake through construction of a nonnative fish barrier at Eagle
Creek. The upper reach of Eagle Creek is a high-value stream for native
fish species because of its lack of nonnative species and its favorable
hydrological conditions, including water quality and quantity. However,
several nonnative species known to be detrimental to native fish
communities occur in downstream reaches of Eagle Creek and the Gila
River, including smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris),
yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis),
and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus).
Under the CBA, a nonnative fish barrier would be constructed on
lands belonging to the applicant to protect upper Eagle Creek against
possible future incursions of nonnative aquatic species and allow for
augmentation of existing populations. This area is currently not
protected against nonnative species invasion. In addition, the
applicant would implement conservation measures, including native
species monitoring and a nonnative species removal study. Barrier
construction will increase the suitability of Eagle Creek for species
management and augmentation efforts, which are important to the
species' survival and recovery. Invasion of occupied habitats by
nonnative species is identified as a primary threat for all four of the
covered species. Construction of the barrier and implementation of the
proposed conservation and management measures are expected to provide a
net conservation benefit to the Covered Species.
Given the current status of the Covered Species in Eagle Creek and
below the fish barrier site, we anticipate incidental take is unlikely
to occur. However, if the Covered Species are present, they could be
incidentally taken during fish barrier construction and as a
consequence of the Permittee's management actions and land and water
use activities within the Covered Area. However, the Permittee has
agreed to leaving the barrier in place, even should the CBA be
discontinued, resulting in continued protection of the area most likely
to be occupied by the Covered Species, which will provide long-term
protection for the Covered species. The likelihood of incidental take
may increase if populations of the Covered Species increase above the
fish barrier or if Covered Species are reintroduced and re-establish
above the fish barrier in Eagle Creek or in tributaries such as East
Eagle Creek. If this reintroduction or re-establishment were to occur,
this would create the possibility that individuals of the Covered
Species may move or be washed downstream into areas within the Covered
Area where the Permittee's facilities and other infrastructure exist.
In that event, individuals of the Covered Species could become
entrained in the Permittee's water diversion and pumping facilities,
resulting in deaths or injuries. We anticipate this type of incidental
take, should it occur, will involve small number of individuals, and
that the larger number of individuals occupying those portions of Eagle
Creek above the barrier will result in a net conservation benefit for
the species.
Alternatives
We are considering one alternative to the proposed action as part
of this process, the No Action Alternative. Under No Action
Alternative, the Service would not issue the permit, the CBA would not
be implemented, and the applicant would continue the existing operation
and maintenance activities on their properties. The applicant would
continue to implement conservation actions within the management plan.
Next Steps
We will evaluate the permit application, CBA, draft EA, and
comments we receive to determine whether the CBA application meets the
requirements of the ESA, NEPA, and implementing regulations. If we
determine that all requirements are met, we will approve the CBA and
issue the permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to the applicant,
in accordance with the terms of the CBA and specific terms and
conditions of the authorizing permit. We will not make our final
decision until after the 30-day comment period ends and we have fully
considered all comments received during the public comment period.
Public Availability of Comments
All comments we receive become part of the public record associated
with this action. If you submit a comment at https://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal
identifying information, will be posted on the website. If you submit a
comment that includes personal identifying information, such as your
address, phone number, or email address, you should be aware that your
entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be
made publicly available at any time. 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. Moreover,
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their
entirety.
Authority
We provide this notice under the authority of section 10(c) of the
ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts
1500 through 1508 and 43 CFR part 46).
Amy Lueders,
Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-31519 Filed 1-2-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P