Formal ConsultationFormal Consultationbetweenbetween

Fort HuachucaFort Huachucaand theand the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceService

June 2007June 2007

Basis for ConsultationBasis for Consultation• Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the take of listed species. Take is

defined as [to] “..harass, harm, pursue, hunt shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm includes significant habitat modification where it actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering.

• The ESA allows for incidental take, i.e. take associated with otherwise lawful activities. Incidental take is authorized either through a Biological Opinion (section 7) or, for private entities, an Incidental Take Permit (associated with an HCP; section 10).

• FWS cannot authorize incidental take of plants (English common law concept)

• Section 7 of the ESA directs Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries on actions that may affect threatened and endangered species (TES), their habitats (both nominal and “critical”).

Biological AssessmentBiological Assessment

• The action agency (i.e. Fort Huachuca) authors a biological assessment that describes the proposed action and its effects to TES.

• The action agency can find that the proposed action will have one of three basic levels of effect to TES.

Effect DeterminationsEffect Determinations

• The proposed action can be found to have “no effect” on TES or habitat– Narrow definition, requires no FWS involvement

• The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect TES or habitat– Action’s effects are wholly beneficial; discountable (unlikely to occur); or

insignificant (unlikely to reach scale where take would occur).– Results in informal consultation; NLAA determination requires FWS’s

written concurrence

• The proposed action will adversely affect TES or habitat– Triggers formal consultation and culminates in a biological opinion

Biological Opinion-BackgroundBiological Opinion-Background

• Consultation History• Description of the Proposed Action: reiterates proposed

action from BA, including any measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the effects.

• Status of the Species: Conservation state of TES throughout their range, including critical habitat.

• Environmental Baseline: Conservation status of TES within the Action Area, including critical habitat– Action Area includes all areas to be affected directly and

indirectly by the proposed action.

Biological Opinion-Effects Biological Opinion-Effects AnalysisAnalysis

• Direct Effects: First order, proximate, and immediate effects of the proposed action

• Indirect effects: Caused by proposed action but spatially or temporally separate– Interdependent actions: Actions lacking

independent utility from the proposed action– Interrelated actions: Actions that are part of the

larger action and are otherwise unjustified

• Cumulative Effects: Effects of non-Federal and Tribal activities within the action area.– Section 321 prevents FWS from considering this.

Biological ConclusionsBiological Conclusions

• Conclusion is based on analyses of the proposed action’s direct, indirect, and cumulative effects relative to the species’ status, baseline, and recovery needs.

• Proposed action is also evaluated for its potential to adversely modify or destroy critical habitat.

• Ultimate conclusion is jeopardy (jeopardize continued existence) or non-jeopardy.

• Cumulative effects were analyzed, but not considered for Fort Huachuca

Incidental Take StatementIncidental Take Statement

• Grants immunity from section 9 prohibition of take (if take is anticipated)

• Quantifies take in individuals or some other unit such as hectares, river miles, productivity, population sites, etc.

• Evaluates the effect of the taking on the species at the local and rangewide scale.

• Reasonable and Prudent Measures are actions required to reduce the effect of the take

• Terms and Conditions implement the RPMs• Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives are required if the

action has been found to jeopardize a species.• Conservation Recommendations are voluntary actions

recommended to improve a species status and baseline.

Reporting Requirements and Reporting Requirements and Disposition of SpecimensDisposition of Specimens

• Reporting requirements may be prescribed so that compliance with Biological Opinion may be tracked– Often minimal if proposed action includes

monitoring

• Disposition requirements state where deceased individuals of TES may be legally deposited (LE or Universities)

Reinitiation CriteriaReinitiation Criteria

• Formal consultation must be reinitiated when:– The amount or extent of authorized incidental take is

exceeded;– New information reveals that the action may

adversely affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion;

– The agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to a listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion; or

– A new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

Fort Huachuca ConsultationFort Huachuca Consultation

• Biological Assessment• No effect: Cochise pincushion cactus, Lemmon fleabane,

northern aplomado falcon, Ocelot, Chiricahua leopard frog, New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, California brown pelican, Gila chub, beautiful shiner, and the Yaqui catfish, chub, and topminnow - no further consultation.

• Not likely to adversely affect: Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses, bald eagle, jaguar, spikedace, Gila topminnow and desert pupfish – concurrence requested.

• Adversely affect: Huachuca water umbel, southwestern willow flycatcher, lesser long-nosed bat, Mexican spotted owl, and Sonora tiger salamander – formal consultation.

Fort Huachuca Proposed ActionFort Huachuca Proposed Action

• Includes all operations on base, at Libby Army Airfield, and remote sites

• Land management, fire management, and recreational activities in Huachuca Mountains

• Portion of local population

• Water use and mitigation

• 10-year term of operations

Fort Huachuca’s EffectsFort Huachuca’s Effects

• “Inside the fence” effects– Aquatic and upland species in grasslands and mountains (HWU

in canyons, MSO, LLNB in caves and foraging areas, STS in ponds and stock tanks)

– Respond to traditional land management activities (travel/access, RX and wildfire, habitat protection)

• San Pedro River/SPRNCA and Babocomari River– Effects to HWU and WIFL (riparian or wetland obligate species)

on river– Effects are indirect (pumping on Fort) or the result of interrelated

actions (water use of human population that wouldn’t reside in subwatershed “but for” Fort Huachuca).

Hydrology Drives the Biological Hydrology Drives the Biological AnalysesAnalyses

• Potential impacts of concern for HWU and WIFL– Reductions in baseflow– Increased intermittency– Changes in condition class– Disruption of riparian successional processes– Altered flood flows

Key Differences in 2002 and 2006 Key Differences in 2002 and 2006 Biological AssessmentsBiological Assessments

• 2002 BA - Deficit-based mitigation responsibility– Fort accounts for 54% of SVS population (34,993 out of 64,655

people) and therefore, 54% of estimated 5,144 af/year (afa) deficit

• works out to 2,778 afa though we committed to 3,077 afa of mitigation

– Goal was to “zero out” the Fort’s impacts on the GW deficit through:

• Conservation easements – 1,600 afa• Enhanced storm water recharge – 1,040 afa• Conservation projects – 437 afa

• Conclusion is easy – Fort zeros out contribution to GW deficit, Fort doesn’t jeopardize the water umbel

Key Differences ContinuedKey Differences Continued

• 2007 BA – Demand-based mitigation responsibility– Fort calculates GW demand attributable to it,

estimates impacts to river, then seeks to minimize that impact

– Demand determined from per capita water use data or estimates

• Incorporated area water use = 160 GPCD (commercial, municipal, recreational, residential)

• Unincorporated area water use = 118 GPCD (residential only)

• Considers amount of recharge attributable to Fort (on and off-post) and conservation easements acquired to date (1,073 afa)

2006 BA – Impact Assessment2006 BA – Impact Assessment

• Net GW demand attributable to Fort = 3,530 af in 2005• Pumped GW comes from two sources:

– 55% from aquifer storage, or 1,942 af in 2005– 45% from capture of natural discharge, or 1,588 af in 2005

• Natural discharge sources include ET and GW discharge to San Pedro River– Natural discharge partitioned to 64% ET and 36% GW discharge

• Estimated impact to San Pedro River– 0.3 CFS from 2005 baseline net demand– 0.04 CFS from 2016 projected net demand

• 2016 Net demand reduced through additional mitigation: – 246 afa of increased effluent recharge – 641 afa of enhanced storm water recharge– 116 afa of water conservation projects

Hydrologic Effects to SpeciesHydrologic Effects to Species

• The anticipated, eventual effects to the river are: – Small in magnitude– Within range of natural variation and instrument error– Unlikely to change condition class– Unlikely to change floodflow hydrology

• HWU not jeopardized, critical habitat not adversely modified, take not authorized (plant)

• WIFL not jeopardized, critical habitat not in SVS, recovery not impeded, incidental take not anticipated

Implementation and ComplianceImplementation and Compliance

• Fort Huachuca will continue to meet with FWS annually to:– Assess status of TES in action area (monitoring reports)– Report on water usage and conservation projects– Report on current population of Fort Huachuca– Evaluate relevance of new information (including, but not limited

to MODFLOW, DSS, EIFS vs. CER population estimates, etc.)

• Reinitiation of formal consultation – Fort Huachuca evaluates biological ramifications of changed circumstances and informs FWS if necessary.

Relationship to Section 321Relationship to Section 321

Two aspects: changes to ESA regulations and empowerment of USPP to address cumulative effects

• Cumulative effects were disclosed in BO and were analyzed, but did not factor in conclusion

• USPP-funded studies were crucial (SPRNCA water needs)

• Gains made by USPP projects in community benefit Fort Huachuca because off-post population’s water use is minimized by them.

• 2011-deficit-reduction date still applies to USPP membership

Cumulative Effects are Cumulative Effects are AppreciableAppreciable

• Fort Huachuca’s storage/capture methodology was applied to the remainder of the SVS human population and their hydrologic impacts.

• Assumption: most water use is non-Federal– Other Federal agencies (DHS, FS, BLM,

USPS, etc.) are small fraction of SVS population

Magnitude of Cumulative EffectsMagnitude of Cumulative Effects

• Based on implementation of projects as of a 2005 baseline, the cumulative reduction in the baseflow of the San Pedro River is anticipated to eventually have reached 0.71 CFS

• Based on anticipated population growth (2% per annum, 20% total), the cumulative baseflow change is anticipated to increase to 0.85 CFS

• Again, floodflow hydrology is not considered.

Relevance of Cumulative EffectsRelevance of Cumulative Effects

• Increase in total water use is the key issue; population growth will increasingly affect flow in the river

• May be considered in ESA consultation with other Federal agencies

• Increased justification for USPP and increasing importance moving forward

• Fort Huachuca and FWS will continue to be engaged in USPP

Challenges AheadChallenges Ahead

• Both Fort and local community need to continue to work towards eliminating the water deficit (via minimization of per-capita and total water pumpage). A lack of progress could result in:

• Adverse effects to the Huachuca water umbel and its designated critical habitat

• Changes in condition class that impede recovery of southwestern willow flycatcher

• Impairment of Fort Huachuca’s ability to accomplish its mission

• Reduced baseline of comparison (jeopardy threshold) for other Federal, non-Fort consultations

Questions for TechQuestions for Tech

• What are threshold impacts to baseflow that cause changes to condition class?

• How does capture vary with time at regional pumping centers?

• Have appreciable effects of capture not yet reached the river?

• Can Fort’s biological monitoring results from BA/BO be adapted to serve as measures of ecological sustainability?

• Can we expect any MODFLOW or DSS scenarios to alter Fort Huachuca’s baseflow impact analysis? If so, to what degree?

Questions from Tech and Questions from Tech and Public?Public?

Additional InformationAdditional Information

A PDF copy of the biological opinion is available in the document library on the

FWS web site at:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/

Click “Section 7 Biological Opinions” link