FR 2024-31519

The recent notice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces a proposal involving an application by Freeport Minerals, a subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Inc., for a permit that aims to enhance the survival of certain species in Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona. This permit is part of the Eagle Creek Multi-Species Conservation Benefit Agreement, which includes the creation of a fish barrier to protect valuable habitats from invasive species. The public has been invited to provide comments on this proposal by February 3, 2025, which highlights the openness to community participation in environmental decision-making processes.

Summary of the Proposal

The primary aim of the proposal is to support the survival of endangered species such as the spikedace, loach minnow, Gila chub, and the threatened narrow-headed gartersnake. These species are at risk largely due to habitat destruction and competition with non-native species, factors that have significantly reduced their historic ranges. The proposal plans the construction of a non-native fish barrier on Eagle Creek as a measure to safeguard the habitat of these species. This barrier would prevent the incursion of harmful non-native aquatic species, thus providing a protected area for the native species to thrive.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document presents several points of concern. One key issue is the absence of specific cost estimates or financial details for the construction and maintenance of the fish barrier. This lack of transparency can lead to worries about potential inefficient spending or misuse of funds. Furthermore, the document doesn't clearly state the criteria for defining 'net conservation benefit,' which could lead to ambiguity in assessing the efficacy of the proposed actions.

Another concern is the involvement of Freeport Minerals as a primary applicant in this process. There is no mention of a competitive process for selecting participating organizations, which might lead to perceptions of favoritism or lack of transparency.

The proposal also lacks clear details about the consequences of the "No Action Alternative." Without this information, it is challenging to thoroughly assess the environmental risks and benefits of proceeding or not proceeding with the proposal.

Potential Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly, this proposal could have significant impacts on both environmental conservation efforts and local communities. For conservationists and environmental stakeholders, if successful, the project could represent a positive step toward preserving critical habitats and species diversity. The collaboration with the Bureau of Reclamation demonstrates a partnership approach, which might lend more resources and expertise to accomplishing project goals.

On the other hand, for local stakeholders and general public observers, concerns about financial transparency and project accountability could overshadow the potential environmental benefits. Moreover, residents of the involved counties might have interests in how such developments affect land use, water availability, and local ecosystems.

In conclusion, while the proposal carries noble intentions of preserving biodiversity and preventing species extinction, the government and involved parties ought to address the highlighted issues. Greater transparency in terms of costs, clear criteria for net conservation benefits, and more information about the alternatives are critical. This would ensure that stakeholder engagement is meaningful and that the public's trust in such environmental initiatives is maintained.