Ch3/Analysis Assumptions/P4/L25
|
NEPA code of federal regulations
BLM Manual Section 6840 |
“…”for many species surveys were not conducted”…. This cost of obtaining this data is not likely to meet the definition of “exorbitant” as defined in 40 CFR Sec 1502.22. All BLM sensitive species could be surveyed using reasonable level of effort and thoroughness. Conservation of these species is a requirement of BLM Manual Section 6840 Special Status Species Management.
6840.2 states, “it is in the interest of the BLM to undertake conservation actions for such species before listing is warranted. It is also in the interest of the public for the BLM to undertake conservation actions that improve the status of such species so that their Bureau sensitive recognition is no longer warranted.” |
|
|
Ch3/Table 3.1/P5/L8
|
|
Gila longfin dace should be “longfin dace”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Table 3.1/page 5-8
|
|
The Bureau of Land Management sensitive species are listed in Table 3.1, but the information is incomplete as the date of the list is not included (2005, draft 2008, and/or 2010). It appears that the 2005 list may have been used. For example, giant spotted whiptail and Santa Rita Mts. chlorochroan bug from Table 3.1 is listed only in the 2005 BLM sensitive species list.
|
|
|
BLM 6840.01 All Federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following delisting will be conserved as Bureau sensitive species. |
Sonoran desert tortoise is listed as a BLM sensitive species from the 2008 draft list, and was listed as a federal candidate species during 2010. It is listed both as a BLM sensitive species and a federal candidate species on Table 3.1. Using the same argument, Northern Mexican garter snake was listed as a federal candidate species during 2008 and yellow-billed cuckoo was listed during 2001 and, therefore, perhaps should be listed as a BLM sensitive species (although not on any BLM list) per BLM 6840.01 which includes “All Federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following delisting will be conserved as Bureau sensitive species.”
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Table 3.1/page 5-8
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Table 3.1/5-8 |
|
Pocketed free-tailed bat (BLM sensitive species list 2005) is not included as a BLM sensitive species in Table 3.1 (although it is listed under Forest Service).
|
|
Ch3/Table 3.1/P8/L3 |
|
Table 3.2 is incomplete. Please include all issues. Issue 4: impact on riparian and wetland habitat. Determine the extent of surface water for Cienega Creek, Cold Spring, lower Empire Gulch, Empire Gulch Spring and Mattie Canyon (miles) and Cieneguita Wetlands (acres). All of these streams, springs and wetlands are at risk of moderate to severe impacts of lowered GW elevations in the regional aquifer (see GW hydrology section and our comments of May 2011). How much is at risk? Issue 5B needs to reflect comments sent by BLM in May concerning GW impacts. Anticipated pit depth is several hundred feet deeper than elevation of Cienega Creek on the LCNCA. This will produce a reverse gradient and intercept regional ground water and prevent a portion of the mountain front recharge from reaching the LCNCA. Because the base flows in the creek are often less than 0.2 cfs (USGS gage #09484550; see hydrographs – attached below). Any measurable reduction in region aquifer elevation in the LCNCA is likely to degrade aquatic habitats: springs, seeps, creeks and wetlands and the vegetation they support. The hydrologic models used to make estimates are based on basin fill rather than fractured bedrock geology and are not reliable in terms of quantity estimates (see BLM comments may 2011). However, the GW data indicates that water headed south and east would be intercepted by the pit. 5B & 5E: Habitat loss or degradation will occur for all aquatic species and riparian dependant species including migratory birds. Essentially the aquatic and riparian ecosystems on the LCNCA will be at risk of collapse from GW depletion. Areas where federally listed species are being recovered would be degraded or lost. Designated CH for Gila chub and would be severely degraded or lost as would critical habitat proposed for the Chiricahua leopard frog. The Huachuca water umbel has increased from 1 known population in 1990 to over 100 populations (plant patches) inventoried during June in surveys on Cienega Creek within the LCNCA. These gains would be lost and the status of the species on the LCNCA would decline. Population expansion (recovery) and viability would be drastically altered for Huachuca water umbel, giant sedge, Giant spotted whiptail lizard, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, longfin dace, Sonora mud turtle ( Kinosternon sonoriense ), Mexican garter snake, Southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo, grey hawk ( Buteo nitidus ) and a host of other neotropical migratory birds.
|
|
Ch3/Federal Laws/P9/L6
|
Federal legislation Related to Wildlife |
Endangered species act – include section 7(a)1. Both the BLM and FS are responsible for assisting the U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service (USFWS) with actions that support the recovery (conservation) of threatened and endangered species (not just avoiding and mitigating adverse impacts (section 7(a)2. Add - The Neotropical Migratory Bird Act Add- Act establishing the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (H.R 2491). Although the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine is not on Bureau lands, it is located in close proximity to those lands and is likely to have profound impacts upon them. We suggest the following legislation be included in the EIS. LCNCA Legislation - Public Law 106-538 (December 6, 2000): (excerpt) In order to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the unique and nationally important aquatic, wildlife, vegetative, archaeological, paleontological, scientific, cave, cultural, historical, recreational, educational, scenic, rangeland, and riparian resources and values of the public lands described in subsection (b) while allowing livestock grazing and recreation to continue in appropriate areas, there is hereby established the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in the State of Arizona. The Secretary shall manage the Conservation Area in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances its resources and values , including the resources and values specified in section above, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and other applicable law, including this Act. The Secretary shall allow only such uses of the Conservation Area as the Secretary finds will further the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established. Wording that may be useful for showing FLIPMA relevance to wildlife management - FLPMA establishes BLM's multiple-use mandate to serve present and future generations. Title I, Section 19 102(8) of FLPMA states that it is the policy of the United States that public lands be managed in a manner that will project the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. Section 102.10–12, states, “It is the policy of the United States that . . . public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals . . . including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 . . . as it pertains to the public lands.” Section 103(c) provides for a combination of balanced and diverse resources uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources including but not limited to recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output. |
|
Linkage 92 did not receive detailed analysis, yet contains BLM sensitive species (giant spotted whiptail and cave myotis). BLM shall manage to minimize or eliminate threats by evaluating the significance of actions undertaken by BLM in conserving those species, therefore, the analysis is inadequate. |
|
Biological Resources/Animal Movement Corridors/19/ 9-11 |
BLM 6840.C Implementation. On BLM- administered lands, the BLM shall manage Bureau sensitive species and their habitats to minimize or eliminate threats affecting the status of the species or to improve the condition of the species habitat, by: 1. Determining, to the extent practicable, the distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluating the significance of BLM-administered lands and actions undertaken by the BLM in conserving those species.
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Gila topminnow/28/40-42. |
BLM6840.04E6 6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species. |
The analysis area should be expanded to include Cienega Creek, based on statements in the DEIS such as “a reduction in flow from 1 to 3 percent would occur along Cienega Creek…”, “0.16 mile of lost stream length..”, less than 5 feet drawdown in Cienega Creek, and “disturbed or lost riparian areas…” Yet the analysis in the DEIS of Gila topminnow habitat only includes Davidson Canyon. What effect would a less than 5' drawdown have on riparian vegetation, and how would this potentially affect Gila topminnow? What effect would a reduction in flow or loss in perennial stream length have on topminnow at Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek? What effects to water quality (e.g. through concentration) may be expected, and how would this affect topminnow? Therefore, the analysis of effects to Gila topminnow in Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek is incomplete. |
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Western yellow-billed cuckoo/33/20-25 |
BLM6840.04E6 6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species. |
The analysis area should be expanded to include Cienega Creek, based on statements in the DEIS such as “a reduction in flow from 1 to 3 percent would occur along Cienega Creek…”, ”0.16 mile of lost stream length..”, and “would not be significant (greater than 5 feet drawdown) …along Cienega Creek…” Also, in Environmental Consequences/Direct and Indirect Effects of Each Alternative/363-5, it states that “riparian areas along Cienega Creek” could be potentially disturbed or lost. What effect would a less than 5' drawdown have on riparian vegetation (such as cottonwood and willows) that are utilized by cuckoos? What effect would a reduction in flow or loss in perennial stream length have on yellow-billed cuckoo at Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek? What effects to water quality (e.g. through concentration) may be expected, and how would this affect yellow-billed cuckoo? Yellow-billed cuckoo were documented in Cienega Creek on 18 June 2010, with at least seven individuals along the reach between Rd. 901A and the Gardner Canyon confluence (M. Radke, pers. obs.). In addition, at least three individuals were documented at Empire Gulch during 2010, with one individual observed as recently as 06 June 2011 (M. Radke, pers. obs.). Therefore, the analysis of effects to yellow-billed cuckoo in Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek is incomplete.
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Southwestern willow flycatcher/32/45-46 and 33/1-2 |
BLM6840.04E6 6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species. |
The analysis area should be expanded to include Cienega Creek, based on statements in the DEIS such as “a reduction in flow from 1 to 3 percent would occur along Cienega Creek…”, ”0.16 mile of lost stream length..”, and “would not be significant (greater than 5 feet drawdown) …along Cienega Creek…” Also, in Environmental Consequences/Direct and Indirect Effects of Each Alternative/363-5, it states that “riparian areas along Cienega Creek” could be potentially disturbed or lost. What effect would a less than 5' drawdown have on riparian vegetation (such as willows) that are utilized by willow flycatchers? What effect would a reduction in flow or loss in perennial stream length have on willow flycatcher at Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek? What effects to water quality (e.g. through concentration) may be expected, and how would this affect willow flycatchers? Willow flycatcher has been documented in three locations along Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch during May and June 2011 (M. Radke, pers. obs.). In addition, a willow flycatcher was caught in a mist net and banded at Empire Gulch on 17 June 2011 (M. Radke, pers. obs.). Therefore, the analysis of effects to willow flycatcher in Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek is incomplete.
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species, Huachuca water umbel/24/32-33 |
BLM6840.04E6 6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species. |
Again, the analysis area should be expanded to include Cienega Creek, based on statements in the DEIS such as “a reduction in flow from 1 to 3 percent would occur along Cienega Creek…”, “…resulting in 0.16 mile of lost perennial stream length”, “would not be significant (greater than 5 feet drawdown) …along Cienega Creek…”, and “riparian areas along Cienega Creek” could be potentially disturbed or lost (see above). During the wet/dry survey along Cienega Creek on 11 June 2011, at least 61 patches of Huachuca water umbel were observed along the Mattie Canyon to the Narrows reach of Cienega Creek (M. Radke, pers. obs.). What riparian areas of Cienega Creek could be potentially disturbed or lost, and what effect would this have on Huachuca water umbel? What effect would even a less than 5' drawdown have on Huachuca water umbel? How many Huachuca water umbel plants would be lost through a loss of 0.16 mile of perennial stream length? How many Huachuca water umbel plants would be lost through a reduction in flow of 1 to 3%? What effects to water quality (e.g. through concentration) may be expected, and how would this affect Huachuca water umbel? These questions have not been adequately analyzed for Huachuca water umbel or any of the listed species in Empire Gulch or Cienega Creek, therefore, the analysis is incomplete.
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Gila chub/28/16-23 |
67 FR 51957 In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we consider those physical and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species and that may require special
management
considerations or
protection. These general categories of biological needs include, but are not limited to, the following: space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and ecological distribution of a species.
|
The analysis area should be expanded to include Cienega Creek, based on statements in the DEIS such as “a reduction in flow from 1 to 3 percent would occur along Cienega Creek…”, “0.16 mile of lost stream length..”, less than 5 feet drawdown in Cienega Creek, and “disturbed or lost riparian areas…” at Cienega Creek. What effects to Gila chub (and critical habitat) would be expected from a less than 5' drawdown, a reduction in flow from 1 to 3%, lost perennial stream length, and disturbed or lost riparian area at Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch? What effects to water quality (e.g. through concentration) may be expected, and how would this affect Gila chub and critical habitat? Therefore, the analysis of effects to Gila chub in Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek is incomplete. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Giant spotted whiptail/27/31-45. |
BLM 6840.C Implementation. On BLM- administered lands, the BLM shall manage Bureau sensitive species and their habitats to minimize or eliminate threats affecting the status of the species or to improve the condition of the species habitat, by: 1. Determining, to the extent practicable, the distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluating the significance of BLM-administered lands and actions undertaken by the BLM in conserving those species.
|
Giant spotted whiptail are listed as a BLM sensitive species (2005). However, the analysis of effects to this species is inadequate as “there is a lack of focused surveys conducted recently for this lizard in the project area in order to be able to determine in which this species occurs.” |
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Chiricahua leopard frog |
BLM6840.04E6 6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species |
The analysis area should be expanded to include Cienega Creek, based on statements in the DEIS such as “a reduction in flow from 1 to 3 percent would occur along Cienega Creek…”, “0.16 mile of lost stream length..”, less than 5 feet drawdown in Cienega Creek, and “disturbed or lost riparian areas…” at Cienega Creek. The current analysis area apparently includes Empire Gulch, but there is no discussion regarding effects to water quality and quantity and potential effects to Chiricahua leopard frog. What effects to Chiricahua leopard frog would be expected from a less than 5' drawdown, a reduction in flow from 1 to 3%, lost perennial stream length, and disturbed or lost riparian area at Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch? What effects to water quality (e.g. through concentration) may be expected, and how would this affect Chiricahua leopard frog? Therefore, the analysis of effects to Chiricahua leopard frog in Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek is incomplete. |
|
|
|
|
|
The analysis area should be expanded to include Cienega Creek, based on statements in the DEIS such as “a reduction in flow from 1 to 3 percent would occur along Cienega Creek…”, “0.16 mile of lost stream length..”, less than 5 feet drawdown in Cienega Creek, and “disturbed or lost riparian areas…” at Cienega Creek. Although Mexican garter snake has not been recently documented at Cienega Creek, the potential effects to Mexican garter snake habitat must be analyzed. What effects to Mexican garter snake habitat would be expected from a less than 5' drawdown, a reduction in flow from 1 to 3%, lost perennial stream length, and disturbed or lost riparian area at Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch? What effects to water quality (e.g. through concentration) may be expected, and how would this affect Northern Mexican garter snake? Therefore, the analysis of effects to Northern Mexican garter snake in Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek is incomplete. |
|
|
|
|
|
BLM6840.04E6 6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species. |
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Northern Mexican garter snake |
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Tumamoc globeberry |
BLM6840.04E6 6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species.
|
The analysis of effects for this species is incomplete and inadequate as there is no discussion of possible effects to Tumamoc globeberry in Cienega Creek. |
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Sonoran desert tortoise/27/28-30. |
BLM6840.04E6 6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species.
|
The analysis of effects for this species is incomplete and inadequate as “Surveys have not been conducted for desert tortoise within the analysis area for the purposes of this project.” |
|
|
|
|
HWU habitats occupied and part of planned recovery actions are at risk of moderate to severe impacts due to projected lowered GW elevations in the regional aquifer (see GW hydrology section). How much is at risk? What would the status of the species be given widespread & long-term GW reductions? Because base flows are often less than 0.2 cfs (USGS gage #09484550) any measurable reduction in regional aquifer elevations near perennial waters in the LCNCA is likely to degrade aquatic habitats: springs, seeps, creeks and wetlands and the vegetation they support including the HWU. The hydrologic models used to make estimates are based on basin fill rather than fractured bedrock geology and are not reliable in terms of quantity estimates (see BLM comments may 2011). However, the more general findings of GW depletion are likely valid (see BLM comments May 2011). The Huachuca water umbel has increased from 1 known population in 1990(?) to 96 populations discovered in June in surveys along Cienega Creek within the LCNCA. These gains would be lost and the status of the species on the LCNCA would decline with total extirpation possible. Population expansion (recovery) and viability would be drastically altered for Huachuca water umbel. With all alternatives, except the no action, opportunities for population expansion (recovery) and viability would be drastically curtailed for the HWU. Analysis boundaries need to be expanded in order to reflect the indirect impacts of GW depletion.
|
|
|
|
Ch3/HWU/P41/L27 |
Huachuca Water umbel – Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area. |
|
|
|
Other SSS/P49/L12 |
Giant Sedge – Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area. |
The giant sedge was not included in the Environmental Consequences section, but should be. This species was not detected by botanical surveys when the NCA was first designated in 2000. The population of this species is large and is estimated to extend several mile along Cienega Creek. A botanical survey for this plant is warranted at this time. Since the cost of obtaining data on this species in Cienega Creek and tributaries is not exorbitant , this would benefit the analysis of effects to this species (40 CFR section 1502.22). Impacts would be similar to those for the HWU above. With all alternatives, except the no action, opportunities for population expansion and viability would be drastically altered for the giant sedge. Loss of this population and others in the area may increase the need to federally list this species.
|
|
|
Ch3/CLF/P27/L22 |
Chir Leopard Frog - Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Impacts to CLF are similar to those for HWU above. With ground water depletion, how much habitat is at risk? What would the status of the species be given widespread & long-term GW reductions? CFL has decreased from a large population in the 1990s to few occupying Cienega Creek and Cinco ponds (Rosen and Caldwell 2004). However, there is one last large breeding population in the LCNCA and the basin is at Empire Spring. BLM is currently working with the AGFD and USFWS to recover this species in Recovery Unit 2. Reintroductions at various sites is pending NEPA finalization (Sec 7 consultation has already been completed). These gains in the status of this species would be lost should GW levels fall. Under all alternatives, except the no action, the existing population would diminish and opportunities for population expansion (recovery) and establishment on the LCNCA would be drastically reduced. Proposed CH for CLF would, likely, be severely degraded or lost.
|
|
|
Ch3/GC/P45/L19 |
Whiptail Lizard |
Impacts to GS whiptails are similar to those for other riparian species. With ground water depletion, riparian habitat would be degraded or lost entirely. This would cause a deterioration of the status of the species given widespread & long-term GW reductions in this basin. GS whiptails are currently found on the LCNCA in riparian habitats. The Las Cienegas population is currently the most representative example of occupancy this habitat by GS whiptail (Rosen and Caldwell 2004). Under all alternatives, except the no action, the existing population would diminish and opportunities for population expansion on the LCNCA would be drastically reduced.
|
|
|
Ch3/GC/P46/L1 |
Gila chub - Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Currently, the Cienega Creek population is considered by the AGFD as “stable – secure” (Weedman et. al. 1996). Current monitoring data indicates the population is still healthy and large with few threats from invasive species (Simms, BLM files). Impacts to Gila chub are similar to those for CLF and HWU above. With ground water depletion, riparian habitat would be degraded or lost entirely. This would cause a deterioration of the status of the species given widespread & long-term GW reductions in this basin. Under all alternatives, except the no action, the existing population would diminish and opportunities for population expansion (recovery) and establishment on the LCNCA would be drastically reduced for this fish. Designated CH for Gila chub would, likely, be severely degraded or lost.
|
|
|
Ch3/GT/P46/L12 |
Gila topminnow - Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Currently, the Cienega Creek population in the LCNCA is considered by the AGFD as the largest remaining natural population of Gila topminnow in Arizona Weedman 1999, Voeltz and Bettaso 2004); it is also the largest in the U.S. (Doug Duncan, USFWS). Current monitoring data indicates the population is still healthy and large with few threats from invasive species, but some reduction likely due to both reduced productivity in creek segments with heavy overstory, low baseflows from drought conditions with concomitant low dissolved oxygen levels (Simms, BLM files, Bodner, Simms, Gori 2007). Impacts to Gila topminnow are similar to those for Gila chub, CLF and HWU above. With ground water depletion, riparian habitat would be degraded or lost entirely. This would cause a deterioration of the status of the species given widespread & long-term GW reductions in this basin. Suitable habitat for this endangered fish would, likely, be severely degraded or lost. Under all alternatives, except the no action, the existing population would diminish and opportunities for population expansion (recovery) and establishment on the LCNCA would be drastically reduced.
|
|
|
Ch3/MG/P47/L26 |
Mexican garter snake - Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Northern Mexican garter snakes are a federal candidate species. The USFWS states,” on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that listing the northern Mexican garter snake as threatened or endangered throughoutits range in the United States and Mexico, based on its rangewide status, is warranted under the Act, due to the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat; predation; and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms” (USFWS 2008 FR 73(228) 71788). Currently, the Cienega Creek population in the LCNCA has gone from “commonly encountered” to “low to Moderate” to exceedingly rare (Simms BLM files, Rosen and Caldwell 2004, USFWS 2008 FR 73(228) 71791 ); Impacts to garter snake habitat similar to those for Gila chub, CLF and HWU above, except the garter snake is dependant on fish and leopard frogs. As these prey populations dwindle, this species would likely be impacted early and eventually extirpated. Under all alternatives, except the no action, opportunities for population and viability and expansion would be drastically altered. Suitable habitat for this imperiled species would, likely, be severely degraded or lost. It is reasonable to expect that the species status for listing would be upgraded from candidate to endangered since it is extremely imperiled in the U.S.
|
|
|
Ch3/SWFL/P48/L19 |
Willow Flycatcher - Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Currently, the LCNCA supports annual migration and has had nesting pairs (Simms/Radke, BLM files). Impacts to the willow flycatcher are similar to those for the SWFL, Mexican garter snake, Gila topminnow, Gila chub, CLF and HWU above, except that it would be impacted by changes in riparian vegetation structure. With ground water depletion, riparian habitat would be degraded or lost entirely. This would cause a deterioration of the status of the species given widespread & long-term GW reductions in this basin. Under all alternatives, except the no action, the existing population would diminish and opportunities for population expansion (recovery) and establishment on the LCNCA would be drastically reduced for the SWFL. |
|
|
Ch3/Cuckoo/P48/L37 |
Yellow-billed cuckoo - Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Currently, the LCNCA supports annual migration and has several nesting pairs of yellow-billed cuckoos (Simms/Radke, BLM files). Impacts to the cuckoo are similar to those for the SWFL. With ground water depletion, riparian habitat would be degraded or lost entirely. This would cause a deterioration of the status of the species given widespread & long-term GW reductions in this basin. Under all alternatives, except the no action, the population would diminish and opportunities for population expansion (recovery) and establishment on the LCNCA would be reduced for the yellow-billed cuckoo.
|
|
|
Ch3/Other SSS/p49/L12 |
Longfin dace -- Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area |
The longfin dace giant sedge was not included in the Environmental Consequences section, but should be. These species are prevalent throughout Cienega Creek and tributaries and are likely to be severely impacted by the open pit through loss of riparian and aquatic habitat function.
|
|
|
Ch3/Migratory birds/P49/L42 |
Migratory Birds - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area.
|
See discussion for SWFL and Cuckoo above. This extends to a host of annual migrants. Involves The Neotropical Migratory Bird Act & MBTA.
|
|
|
Ch3/overwintering birds/P51/L10 |
Important overwintering areas - Impacts if LCNCA included in analysis area.
|
LCNCA is an important overwintering area according to USGS research. However, it may not be designated as such officially.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P35/L24 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area |
The biophysical resources sections is not adequate to give a perspective on the natural setting and key resources and their significance. Several other resources types, especially surface water and ground water create the existing biologic setting. See below – attachment.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P35/L30-35 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area.
|
This statement connects the impacts to the LCNCA. To be consistent there needs to be a boundary change for the area of analysis as mentioned above.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P35&36/L37-on |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Include air born dust with heavy metal contaminants. The concern is that air born contaminants from tailings piles and other areas of disturbed earth. These contaminants may (likely to?) bio-accumulate in aquatic invertebrates and impact the species that ingest them. Cadmium was one of the heavy metals of most concern.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P35/L35 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
State a concise yet adequate summary of findings from GW and SW quality sections as it is critical to the analysis. Having the reader sort through other sections and reports for basic details is problematic.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P36/L8 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
State the fact that regional GW will likely be impacted to the south and Southeast. Effects likely to be much greater than 0.8 acres…may approach 100 acres or more.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P36/L15 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
GW impacts likely to flow in Davidson Canyon would logically extend to Cienega Cr to the north and Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek. This information is in the GW section and comments from BLM May 2011.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P36/L18 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area.
|
Statement is not supported by the facts found in GW section and BLM comments May 2011.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P36/L26 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area.
|
Bring in critical facts from GW section. |
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P37/L21 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Interior riparian acreage is likely to be much larger if you include GW losses from indirect impacts of the open pit.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P36/L26-33 |
biophysical features - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Impact from in air born dust not discussed. May have an impact on aquatic and terrestrial animals through bioaccumulation. LCNCA is down wind making it vulnerable to deposition.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P43/L33 |
Other Special Status Species - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
Since the cost of obtaining data on this species in Cienega Creek and tributaries is not exorbitant, this would benefit the analysis of effects to this species (40 CFR section 1502.22).
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P44/L33 |
Other Special Status Species - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
The GW drawdown is going to go into other sites beyond the analysis area into the LCNCA. Toxins in food base may occur from bioaccumulation of heavy metals from fugitive dust or ground water contamination.
|
|
|
Ch3 /biophysical features/P45/L29 |
Other Special Status Species - Impacts with LCNCA included in analysis area.
|
Toxins in food base may occur from bioaccumulation of heavy metals from fugitive dust.
|
|
|
Ch3/Cumm Effects/P60 |
Cumulative - Impacts
with LCNCA included in analysis area. |
In general, the cumulative effects section for Ch3 has not been developed. See 40 CFR 1508.7. Federally listed and other SSS in the basin are largely imperiled because of cumulative impacts (see Federal Register listing notices by the USFWS for these species, Ecological Services web site). These effects need to include the added impact of the alternatives to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions as required by NEPA. Here are some examples for the basin including the LCNCA: Sonoita is growing rapidly. Current zoning is one residence for every 4.13 acres, which would result in a population of about 8,200 when the area is fully built out. The resulting water consumption would be 8,092 acre-feet/year, well above the safe yield. In addition there is an abundance of AZ State Trust Land in the basin that can be purchased for development. The upper Cienega Creek watershed has been estimated to provide 10% (6,200 acre-feet) of the recharge to the Tucson Active Management Area (AMA). In addition, the maintenance of this undeveloped watershed in good condition protects Tucson from floods that might surpass flood control channel design in town. If the basin were fully developed, flood peaks could increase by an estimated 25-50% (Knight 1996) . The open pit mine will likely have and additive impact to the existing water exploitation in the valley with impacts to the LCNCA and its aquatic/riparian areas, but also to the AMA located downstream. See attached map of wells in the Cienega Creek HUC. The total number of wells in 1990 was 1,263 and by 2009 it had grown to 1,886. This is a 49% increase over 20 years (see attachment provided below). Given the ongoing development in the area and location near Tucson it will continue to grow (seems reasonable and very likely given the census data for the area). If another 3,000 wells (projection based on the past installation rate) during the life of the mine are added, then the regional aquifer and associated riparian/wetlands will very likely be greatly degraded and some lost. In the 1970s, the Gulf America Corporation (for a large anticipated future subdivision) and Anamax Copper (for anticipated use in future mining in the Santa Rita Mountains) installed over 50 wells on the LCNCA. Likewise, water extraction for new subdivisions in the area is extremely likely in the future. AZ water law does not limit wells for the protection of surface water even though they are intertwined. As a result, GW in AZ is treated like a common property resource much like air. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts are likely to result in the collapse of aquatic/riparian/wetland ecosystems at lower elevations of the basin (3500 to 5000ft). At higher elevations topography and federal ownership will likely limit impacts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/
|
BLM6840.04E6
6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species.
|
If the 2005 BLM sensitive species list is used for analysis, then effects to burrowing owl have not been included in the pre-DEIS or BE. |
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Lesser long-nosed bat
|
BLM6840.04E6
6. Ensuring that land use and implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status species.
|
The analysis area should be expanded to include Cienega Creek, based on statements in the DEIS such as “a reduction in flow from 1 to 3 percent would occur along Cienega Creek…”, “0.16 mile of lost stream length..”, less than 5 feet drawdown in Cienega Creek, and “disturbed or lost riparian areas…” at Cienega Creek. Lesser long-nosed bat have been documented as obtaining water from Empire Gulch (K. Simms). What effect would a loss in water quantity and change in water quality have on lesser long-nosed bat at Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Biological Resources
|
|
Because of the incomplete analysis of effects to Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch, this section is also incomplete. The analysis in this section must fully disclose all commitments of biological resources at Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek including, but not limited to, changes in water quantity and quality, effects to special status species and critical habitat, effects to riparian vegetation, potential timeframe of effects, effects to other wildlife, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biological Resources/Special Status Species/Gila longfin dace/ |
BLM 6840.C Implementation. On BLM- administered lands, the BLM shall manage Bureau sensitive species and their habitats to minimize or eliminate threats affecting the status of the species or to improve the condition of the species habitat, by: 1. Determining, to the extent practicable, the distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluating the significance of BLM-administered lands and actions undertaken by the BLM in conserving those species.
|
Gila longfin dace are listed as a BLM sensitive species (2005). However, the analysis of effects to this species is incomplete and inadequate as there is no discussion of possible effects to Gila longfin dace in Cienega Creek. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Resources, page 21 |
Public Law 106-538, An Act To establish the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in the State of Arizona. |
The Empire Ranch Headquarters historic site is a destination for many recreational users of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. In addition to the visual simulations completed for the Las Cienegas NCA entrance road kiosk viewpoint, it is appropriate to provide a visual simulation for the Empire Ranch Headquarters viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 3, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, Page 38 |
|
The section on Environmental Justice fails to address impacts to specific communities within the bounds of analysis. Impacts to the residents of the source water withdrawal area have not been disclosed in this document. The west side groundwater model (Citation needed) suggests that a drawdown in the water table, below the screened interval of existing residential wells, is possible. A census tract level evaluation of the source water area is warranted to determine if the Sahuarita Heights community qualifies as a low income community for the purposes of the Environmental Justice analysis. This comment remains unaddressed from the previous review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|