Attachment_8_PCD-2015_ _Final_EA_10'30'13.pdf

Pasture Canyon Dam Modifications

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Hopi Indian Reservation - Arizona Solicitation No.

ATTACHMENT 8

Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA)

ATTACHMENT 8 – Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA)

Attachment 8 - 1

Pasture Canyon Dam Modifications

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Hopi Indian Reservation - Arizona Solicitation No.

ATTACHMENT 8 – Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA)

Attachment 8 - 2

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior Hopi Tribe Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Indian Affairs Kykotsmovi, Arizona Technical Service Center Western Regional Office Denver, Colorado Phoenix, Arizona September 2013

Pasture Canyon Dam Rehabilitation Safety of Dams Action

Final Environmental Assessment Tuba City, Arizona

Mission Statements

The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America's natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future.

The mission of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Safety of Dams Program is to protect, to the extent practicable, people who reside in or who otherwise occupy the flood plain downstream from Bureau of Indian Affairs dams from the risks posed by the dams.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior Hopi Tribe Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Indian Affairs Kykotsmovi, Arizona Technical Service Center Western Regional Office Denver, Colorado Phoenix, Arizona September 2013

Pasture Canyon Dam Rehabilitation Safety of Dams Action

Final Environmental Assessment (BIA TR4302.P5.5) Tuba City, Arizona

Prepared by

Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center

In cooperation with

Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Regional Office and

Hopi Tribe Kykotsmovi, Arizona

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Dam Safety Action iii

Contents Page

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction and Background

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

1.4 Project Location

2.0 Alternatives

2.1 No Action Alternative

2.2 Proposed Alternative

3.0 Affected Environment

3.1 Living Resources

3.1.1 Biological Communities and Ecosystems

3.1.2 Fish

3.1.3 Wildlife

3.1.4 Vegetation

3.2 Land Resources

3.2.1 Topography

3.2.2 Soils

3.2.3 Geologic Setting, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology

3.3 Water Resources

3.3.1 Surface Water

3.3.2 Groundwater

3.4 Air Quality

3.5 Cultural Resource

3.6 Environmental Justice and Socioeconomic Conditions

3.6.1 Employment and Income

3.6.2 Demographic Trends

3.6.3 Lifestyle and Cultural Values

3.7 Resource Use Patterns

3.7.1 Agriculture

3.7.2 Recreation

3.7.3 Transportation

3.8 Climate Change

3.9 Indian Trust Assets

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.1 Living Resources

4.1.1 Biological Communities and Ecosystems

4.2 Land Resources - Topography, Soils, Geology, Minerals, and

Paleontology

4.3 Water Resources

4.3.1 Surface Water

4.3.2 Groundwater

4.4 Air Quality

iv

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.6 Environmental Justice and Socioeconomic Conditions

4.7 Resource Use Patterns

4.7.1 Agriculture

4.7.2 Recreation

4.7.3 Transportation

4.8 Climate Change

4.9 Indian Trust Assets

4.10 Summary of Effects

4.11 Cumulative Impacts

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5.1 Public Law 103-302 Indian Dams Safety Act of 1994

5.2 Endangered Species Act

5.2.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

5.2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

5.2.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as Amended ...39

5.2.3 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended in

5.2.4 Utility Lines

5.2.5 Clean Air Act

5.2.6 Community Meetings and Comments

5.2.7 Hopi Borrow Material Permit

5.2.8 Clean Water Act of 1972 – Section 401

5.2.9 Clean Water Act – Section 402

5.2.10 Clean Water Act of 1972 – Section 404

5.2.11 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

5.2.12 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

(NAGPRA)

5.2.12 EO 11988 (Floodplain Management)

6.0 Mitigation Measures

6.1 Biological

6.2 Dust/Emissions

6.3 Cultural Resources

6.5 Utilities

6.5 Borrow Material Permit

6.6 Hazardous Materials

6.7 Clean Water Act

7.0 Distribution List

8.0 References Cited

v

Appendices Appendix A Project Plan Drawings

Appendix B Public Law 103 – 302, Indian Dam Safety Act of 1994

Appendix C Letter of Concurrence from State Historic Preservation Office and

BIA Memo of SHPO Consultation

Appendix D Letter from BIA To Navajo Nation Department of Water

Resources dated January 23, 2012

Appendix E Notice of Public Scoping Meeting

Tables Table 1. – PASS Evaluation Options Considered and the Failure Modes

Addressed

Table 2. – Federal Status of Listed Species and Species of Concern in Coconino County, Arizona

Table 3. – Air Quality Index (AQI) Values Pollution Summary

Table 4. – Summary of Effects

Figures Figure 1. – Vicinity Map showing Project Area—Pasture Canyon Dam and

Borrow site. USGS 7.5’ QUAD, Tuba City, Arizona

Figure 2. – Pasture Canyon Dam

Figure 3. – Borrow pit project area

Figure 4. – Sandstone formations near the project area

Figure 5. – Corn fields in Moenkopi

Figure 6. – Great blue heron and American coot using Pasture Canyon Reservoir

Figure 7. – Recreational fishing on Pasture Canyon Reservoir vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations ac acre

AQI Air Quality Index

AZ Arizona

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

CAA Clean Air Act

CDP Census-designated place

CDR Comprehensive Dam Review

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CPT Cone penetration test cy Cubic yard

DOI Department of the Interior

DVA Deficiency Verification Analysis

EA Environmental Assessment

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPO Environmental Protection Office (Hopi)

FER Field Exploration Request

GHG greenhouse gases

HEPO Hopi Environmental Protection Office

ITA Indian Trust Assets

LCR Little Colorado River

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NTUA Navajo Tribal Utilities Authority

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark

PAR Population-At-Risk

PL Public Law vii

PMF Probable Maximum Flood

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SEED Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams

SOD Safety of Dams

SPEC Contract Specifications

VE Value Engineering

WA Washington

U.S. United States

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geologic Survey

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction and Background

At the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (lead agency), Reclamation, in conjunction with the Hopi Tribe developed the project designs to address the dam safety risks and this Environmental Assessment per the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in accord with the BIA NEPA Guidebook 59IAM3- H. Federal funding provided by BIA requires NEPA compliance.

This project is a Dam Safety Action for Pasture Canyon Dam on the Hopi Reservation in Coconino County, Arizona, approximately one mile east of Tuba City, Arizona (Figures 1 through 3 and Appendix A). Pasture Canyon Dam is an earthen dam on a spring fed tributary. The spring originates approximately 3 miles north of the dam. The dam was constructed between 1920 and 1930 and was most recently modified in 1975 when a vertical rock masonry wall about 4 feet high was built on the upstream face of the dam, and the dam crest was apparently raised to 4,890 feet elevation. Above the wall the upstream face slopes downward at an estimated 4:1 horizontal to vertical ratio (H:V). Below the rock wall, the reservoir bottom slopes downward to a depth of approximately 11 feet at full pool elevation. The crest is approximately 682 feet long and about 20 feet wide. The spring-fed tributary is not sufficient to supply the seasonal irrigation demand; hence the need for the reservoir storage during the winter.

In accordance with the Indian Dams Safety Act of 1994 (PL 103-302), the project is needed to address the Safety of Dams structural deficiencies and safety concerns (Appendix A) as identified in the Pasture Canyon Dam Comprehensive Dam Review (CDR) (Bureau of Reclamation 2009). The work would be confined to the project areas (Figures 1 and 2) and be limited to correcting the dam safety deficiencies identified in the next section.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

Per authority under Indian Dam Safety Act of 1994 (Appendix B), corrective action is needed to reduce the probability of dam failure and associated risk to the public. This action is also needed to preserve the irrigation value for which the reservoir was originally constructed. Potential failure modes identified in the Bureau of Reclamation’s 2011 Issue Evaluation Risk Analysis include internal erosion of embankment material along the outlet works, internal erosion into the outlet works conduit, internal erosion through foundation soils, reverse piping (downstream to upstream) of material through the embankment, and headcutting erosion of the spillway during operation. If the dam were to fail, the population at risk includes people camping downstream of the site, highway crossings, one residence and people working in the fields of the Upper and Lower Moenkopi villages. Significant economic and cultural losses would also occur. The estimated life loss from a dam breach ranges from 1 to 6, placing the risk classification at SIGNIFICANT (Appendix B).

Pasture Canyon Dam is assigned a POOR1 overall dam safety classification because a potential SOD problem is clearly recognized for normal loading conditions. Concerns exist about potential internal erosion failure of the dam under normal operating conditions either along the outlet works conduit or through the embankment. Additionally, concerns exist about potential erosional failure of the emergency spillway during a significant flood event that could lead to potentially uncontrolled reservoir releases.

1.4 Project Location

The project area lies at elevation 4,880 feet in Great Basin desertscrub habitat (Brown, D.E. 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 315 pp). The project location is at Pasture Canyon Dam and a borrow site. Pasture Canyon Dam is located approximately one mile northeast of Tuba City, AZ in Coconino County on the Hopi Indian Reservation about 1 mile north of State Route 160.

The proposed borrow site is located approximately two miles south of the dam on a low mesa about ½ mile east of Moenkopi Village, just north of State Route 264.

Both the dam site and the borrow site are on Hopi Indian Reservation lands.

Pasture Canyon Dam Area of potential effect: Approximately 7.3 acres USGS Quad. (7.5’): Tuba City, Arizona 1969 Zone 12 UTMs (NAD27): Centerpoint: e 554990 n 3987409

Borrow Pit Area of potential effect: Approximately 8.4 acres USGS Quad. (7.5’): Moenkopi, Arizona 1969 Zone 12 UTMs (NAD27): Centerpoint: e 555366 n 3988164

The Pasture Canyon Dam is a low earthen dam situated in north-south trending Pasture Canyon wash. The wash is a relatively narrow riparian strip bordered by low sandstone cliffs to the east and a more sloping terrain to the west with small sandstone bedrock outcrops. The dam location itself is bordered by sandstone on both sides. Perennial springs feed the reservoir, supplementing the occasional precipitation runoff.

1 Public Law 103-302 definitions of POOR: a potential dam safety deficiency is clearly recognized for normal loading conditions. Immediate actions to resolve the deficiency recommended;

reservoir restrictions may be necessary until resolution of the problem.

Figure 1. – Vicinity Map showing Project Area—Pasture Canyon Dam and Borrow site.

USGS 7.5’ QUAD, Tuba City, Arizona.

Figure 2. – Pasture Canyon Dam.

Figure 3. – Borrow pit project area.

Because of its proximity to Tuba City, the fact that it is a body of water in an otherwise desert region, and the long occupation in the area, Pasture Canyon has been the focus of agriculture, ranching, and recreation activities with their concomitant impacts. The area contains numerous dirt roads, exotic and invasive vegetation, and scattered trash from illegal dumping and littering. A graded dirt road provides access to Pasture Canyon Dam from State Route 160.

The Borrow Pit location is situated on a low mesa overlooking the Moenkopi Wash to the south. The mesa is capped by a decomposing conglomerate sandstone that is the focus of the borrow activities. There is a relatively large in-use borrow pit located immediately to the east of planned location and small areas within the currently proposed location have been used for borrow materials in the past.

There are several two-track dirt roads through the proposed location and some trash dumping has occurred on and over the sides of the mesa. The mesa top and borrow location are accessed by a graded dirt road from State Route 264.

2.0 Alternatives

A Project Alternatives Solution Study (PASS) was conducted in June 2011 to determine the most appropriate and highest value solution for the project. Soil sampling at the project site, including borrow area, was done on August 30, 2012.

The options considered are listed in Table 1 PASS Evaluation Options below.

The PASS evaluation provided a comprehensive method to identify an option or combination of options that would meet the SOD program objective in a cost effective manner and minimize, to the extent feasibly possible, adverse impacts to the surrounding natural and human environment. The identification of a preferred design approach to provide a safe water storage facility was based on the professional judgment of the designers and applying design concepts meant to achieve program acceptable factors of risk established by program guidance criteria for various failure modes associated with a subject water storage facility.

Based on the PASS evaluation of options, BIA directed Reclamation to pursue PASS Evaluation Alternatives 1, 2A, and C1 (to replace the outlet works, add filtering to the downstream face plus a toe drain, and a full replacement of the spillway as described in Section 2.2 below). The other options were eliminated from further consideration by the BIA. PASS Alternatives 1and 2A were combined to make the Preferred Alternative.

2.1 No Action Alternative

The no action alternative would be to leave the dam in its current condition. No construction or other rehabilitation would take place. The condition of the dam would continue to deteriorate, creating a greater risk to the nearby human population as well as the increased risk for land and property damage, not to mention the potential impacts to local agriculture. The no action alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project.

Table 1. – PASS Evaluation Options Considered and the Failure Modes Addressed.

Failure Modes: A1=Internal erosion along the outlet works conduit. A2=Internal erosion through the foundation. A3=Internal erosion through the embankment. A4=Internal erosion into the outlet works conduit. C1=Headward erosion in the spillway channel.

Alternatives Failure Mode Addressed

Relative Cost*

Comments

1. Remove and Replace Outlet Works

A1, A4 $$$ Preferred by BIA, may temporarily impact water supply

2A. Downstream Face Filter and Toe Drain

A1, A2, A3 $$$$ No anticipated impacts to water supply

2B. Downstream Face Filter and Foundation Blanket

A1, A2, A3 $$$$ Traditional construction techniques.

Water storage not expected to be affected. More conservative than Alt 2a.

3. Remove and Replace Dam

A1, A2, A3, A4, C1

$$$$$ Most expensive option, long construction time, affected water storage.

4. Spillway Cutoff Wall C1 $ Simple construction, with short duration. Does not protect spillway floor from erosion.

5. Gabion Baskets with Cutoff Wall

C1 $$ Simple construction. Provides some protection of the spillway floor from erosion.

6. Increase Diameter of New Outlet Works

A1, A4, C1 $$$ Reduces frequency of spillway operation. Risk Analysis required to determine if failure mode C1 is reduced to an acceptable level.

7. Slurry Trench Cutoff through Embankment

A1, A2, A3, A4 $$$$ Requires specialty contractor. May have environmental impacts. Makes new outlet works design and construction problematic.

2.2 Proposed Alternative

The proposed action is the renovation of the Pasture Canyon Dam. Along with the below project description, please refer to the drawings in Appendix A. The PASS was completed in June 2011. The objective of the PASS is to consider and select an approach that meets the purpose (rehabilitation) in a technically feasible and efficient manner to be cost effective. The PASS matrix (Table 1) demonstrates that several option approaches were considered before selecting the preferred alternative. As a result of the PASS, the decision was made to excavate a portion of the existing dam embankment to remove the plugged existing outlet works and replace it with a new outlet works structure.

The new outlet works structure will consist of the following: 1) reinforced concrete intake structure with a vertically mounted slide gate and trashracks,

2) reinforced concrete control house located on the crest of the dam which houses the hydraulic control equipment to operate the slide gate at the intake structure,

3) double high-density polyethylene (HDPE) outlet works pipe system consisting of a 26-inch-diameter HDPE carrier pipe inside of a 30-inch-diameter HDPE containment pipe, which is inside a cast-in-place, reinforced, concrete, horseshoe shaped conduit, 4) reinforced concrete irrigation turnout structure containing 16-inch butterfly valves to direct flow into the irrigation turnout pipe, 5) impact-type stilling basin structure to dissipate the energy of the outlet works discharges before releasing to an existing irrigation pipe system downstream

A single slide gate at the intake structure will regulate the flow and is controlled by the gate control structure located on the crest of the dam.

Improvements to the existing spillway and downstream side of the embankment will also be completed. Modifications to the spillway include a concrete sill, 20-feet in the direction of flow by 60-feet wide at the invert of the spillway, acting as a broad crested weir at elevation 4,885 feet. Additional riprap would be provided upstream and downstream of the concrete structure to help prevent erosion and undercutting. The embankment modification consists of a downstream filter blanket that ties into toe drains. The toe drains will collect seepage and release it through weir structures.

Project construction is estimated to begin at the end of the irrigation season, likely in August as the reservoir is drawn down. An estimated 6 to 10 months or possibly more is anticipated to complete construction of the proposed project.

Water will be controlled so as not to enter the excavation for the outlet works, or toe drain and filter trenches. This water will be discharged downstream until the dam is capable of storing inflows.

3.0 Affected Environment

Below are descriptions for the affected environment of the proposed project area.

While each of the following categories are considered, not all will be impacted:

land resources, water resources, air, living resources, cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions, resource use patterns, and other values such as Indian trust assets, environmental justice, and climate change.

3.1 Living Resources

3.1.1 Biological Communities and Ecosystems

The project area lies elevation 4,880 feet in Great Basin desertscrub Habitat (Brown, D.E. 1994). The dominant plants in the surrounding uplands in the region consist of shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) and four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) joined by subdominant species than include greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and Torrey joint-fur (Ephydra torreyana). Desert scrub is evident on a slight rise formed by exposed Navajo sandstone and deposits of sandy-silty soil along the west side of pasture Canyon reservoir. A 65 foot high cliff adjoins the reservoir on the East side and forms the western boundary of a mesa. While sand dunes are present in the region around Tuba City, Arizona, no sand dunes are located in or near the vicinity of the project area.

The wash just south of the dam contains several hiking/jogging trails, and in April 2012, it was densely vegetated with camelthorn (Alhagi pseudoalhagi) and dotted with Russian thistle (Salsola kali), scattered snakewood (Calubrina spp.), and some narrow stands of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii). A recent project to remove the camelthorn by burning, was unsuccessful and it grows densely next to the wash below the dam.

While several T&E species may occur in Coconino County (Table 2), none are expected to be present in the proposed project area due to the lack of suitable habitat, edaphic conditions, and/or because the project area is outside the current range for these species. After coordinating with the Hopi Department of Natural Resources Director, Clayton Honyumptewa, Office of Range Management Director, Priscilla Pavatea, Wildlife and Ecosystem Management Program Director, Darren Talayumptewa, and USFWS Biologist/Tribal Liaison, John Nystedt, it was determined that there are no federally listed threatened or endangered species in or near the project area and the nearest known federally listed species is about 15 miles away. Ms. Pavatea (2012) stated that peebles cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus) was found approximately 15 to 20 miles away in the canyon and Mr. Honyumptewa (2012) stated that the nearest Navajo sedge (Carex specuicola) was about 20 miles away. There is insufficient riparian habitat for WIFL to inhabit, no sand dunes for Welsh’s milkweed, and no seeps or hanging gardens for Navajo sedge in or near the project area. See Section 4.1 for more information on ESA listed species and potential habitat in or near the project area.

Table 2 below is a compilation of the threatened and endangered (T&E) species of Coconino County, as well as candidate species and those species which are part of a conservation agreement which can be found at http://www.fws.gov/ southwest/es/arizona/Threatened.htm#CountyList.

Table 2. – Federal Status of Listed Species and Species of Concern in Coconino County, Arizona.

Common Name Scientific Name Status*

Apache trout Onchorhynchus apache T

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E

Brady pincushion cactus Pediocactus bradyi E

California condor Gymnogyps californianus E

Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis T

Humpback chub Gila cypha E

Kanab ambersnail Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis E

Little Colorado spinedace Lepidomeda vittata T

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida T

Navajo sedge Carex specuicola T

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus E

San Francisco Peaks groundsel Packera franciscana T

Sentry milk vetch Astragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylax E

Siler pincushion cactus Pediocactus sileri T

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E

Welsh’s milkweed Asclepias welshii T

Fickeisen pincushion cactus Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae C

Northern Mexican gartersnake Thamnophis eques megalops C

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C

Roundtail chub Gila robusta C

Arizona bugbane Cimicifuga arizonica CA

Paradine (Kaibab) plains cactus Pediocactus paradinei CA

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (http://arizonaes.fws.gov) April 25, 2012 *E=Endangered; T=Threatened; C=Candidate; CA=Conservation Agreement Source: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Threatened.htm#CountyList accessed December 14, 2012

3.1.2 Fish

The USFWS conducted a survey of fish species in the Pasture Canyon Reservoir in 2006 (USFWS 2007). Out of 179 specimens collected they found the following warm-water fish species composition present: largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (71.5%), goldfish (Carassius auratus) (18.4%), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) (9.5%), and the koi form of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) (0.5%).

All of these species are non-native introduced species that prey on native fishes or their larvae. The USFWS (2007) determined that overcrowding and limited forage base has resulted in a stunted population of largemouth bass, although they are in somewhat good condition. See Section 4.1.2 for more information on fisheries.

3.1.3 Wildlife

Waterfowl, such as the American coot (Fulica americana) and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) were observed on the reservoir during a site visit in August 2010. In April 2012, another site visit was conducted and a species of sandpiper, likely lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), a great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and several American coots (Fulica americana) were observed in the reservoir, while cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) were observed in the cliffs on the east side of the reservoir. During an August 2006 wildlife survey conducted by the Hopi Tribe near the project borrow site, other wildlife species observed include the horned lark (Eremophila alperstris), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), prairie lizard (Scelopornis undulates), and antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus luecurus).

The birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). See Sections 4.1.3 and 6.0 for information on how the project will comply with the MBTA. Other fauna of the Hopi country and immediately surrounding region include pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), cougar (Puma concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), badger (Taxidea taxus), cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.) and jack rabbit (Lepus spp.), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), common raven (Corvis corax), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and various hawks, shore birds, song birds, and waterfowl. Occasionally magpies (Pica pica) and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) are sighted (Talayumptewa 2013). Historically, bighorn sheep, California condor, black bear, beaver, and gray wolf were also found in the region.

The California condor has been reintroduced at the Vermillion Cliffs over 100 miles away. No verified sightings of this species have been documented near the project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated this reintroduced population a nonessential experimental population in and around the Vermillion Cliffs and Grand Canyon National Park in northern Arizona [50 CFR 17.84(j)].

The project site is within the nonessential experimental population area. For the purposes of Section 7 consultation under the Act, condors that occur within the experimental population area are treated as if they are a proposed species (except on National Park System or National Refuge System lands). Condors are capable of traveling long distances in a short period of time (e.g., 200 miles/day) and have the potential to occasionally be in the general project area. Like many scavengers, condors are curious and may be attracted to human activity such as construction and may become habituated to humans and equipment, which present risks to condors. Sections 4.1.3 and 6.0 provide instructions from the USFWS on how to handle a situation if a condor is sighted in or near the project area during construction activities.

Although the Pasture Canyon Wash and Moenkopi Wash support some riparian habitat, the nearest designated critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (WIFL) is over 100 miles away. See Section 4.1.3 for more information on the presence of this species in this region.

Mr. Talayumptewa (2012) said that the Hopi regard bald eagles, golden eagles, and red tailed hawks as culturally significant. See Section 4.1 for information on how sightings of these culturally significant species during project construction are to be handled.

3.1.4 Vegetation

The dominant plants in the surrounding area consist of shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) and four-wing saltbush (A triplex canescens), joined by sub-dominant species that include greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and Torrey joint-fur (Ephydra torreyana). Desert scrub habitat is evident on a slight rise formed by exposed Navajo sandstone and deposits of sandy-silty soil along the west side of Pasture Canyon Reservoir. A 65-foot-high cliff adjoins the reservoir on the east side and forms the western boundary of a mesa. The embankment crest, downstream toe, and spillway of Pasture Canyon Dam are vegetated with Russian thistle (Salsola kali), camelthorn (Alhagi pseudoalhagi), and scattered snakewood. Narrow strands of mature Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and Freemont cottonwood (Populusfremontii) grow along the toe drain ditch just south of the dam and continue downstream outside project area along Pasture Canyon Wash.

The invasive camelthorn is especially dense just south of the dam between the narrow riparian strip and the entrance road from the Highway. The upper part of this camelthorn patch will be scraped and used as staging and/or stockpile areas.

See Sections 3.7.2 and 4.1 for more information on impacts from camelthorn.

3.2 Land Resources

3.2.1 Topography

The Pasture Canyon Dam is a low earthen dam situated in north-south trending Pasture Canyon wash. The southern base of the wash is a relatively narrow riparian zone bordered by low sandstone cliffs to the east of the project area’s dam site and a more sloping terrain west of the project area’s dam site with small sandstone bedrock outcrops (see figure 4). The dam location itself is bordered by sandstone on both sides. Perennial springs feed the reservoir, supplemented by the occasional precipitation runoff.

The project area’s Borrow Site location is situated on a low mesa overlooking the Moenkopi Wash to the south. The mesa is capped by a decomposing conglomerate sandstone that is the focus of the borrow activities. There is a relatively large in-use gravel pit located immediately to the east of planned location and small areas within the currently proposed location have been used for borrow materials in the past. There are several two-track dirt roads through the proposed location and some trash dumping has occurred on and over the sides of the mesa. The mesa top and borrow location are accessed by a graded dirt road from State Route 264.

Figure 4. – Sandstone formations near the project area.

3.2.2 Soils

Soils at the Pasture Canyon Dam proposed project area consist primarily of Ives- Bebeevar family- Oxyaquic Torripsamments and Tube-Tyende family-Fajada family complex. Soils at the proposed borrow pit consist primarily of Shoegame family and Tube-Tyende family-Fajada family complex (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2011). They are typical of desert soil types.

Soil sampling at the project site, including borrow area was done on August 30, 2012. The borrow site is an existing borrow area. It is estimated that approximately 5,000 cubic yards (cy) of material will be excavated for use at the dam, in an approximately 8.1 acre existing gravel quarry.

3.2.3 Geologic Setting, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology

Bedrock exposed at the dam site includes the Kayenta Formation in the right abutment, valley floor, and the lower left abutment, and the Navajo Sandstone Formation in the middle and upper left abutment. The contact between the Kayenta and overlying Navajo Sandstone formations is gradational and cannot be located with precision. In some areas, the transition between the two units ranges over a vertical stratigraphic interval of 50 feet. At the dam site, the Kayenta Formation consists of interbedded, fine-grained sandstone and variegated sandy shale with some siltstone and at least one cherty limestone. The bedrock is moderately to well indurated, thickly (1 to 3 feet) bedded and very widely to extremely widely (3 to greater than 10 feet) jointed. Discontinuities in the left abutment strike upstream/downstream and dip towards the dam/reservoir approximately 80°. The discontinuities are clean and tight. A 1.5 foot thick cherty limestone bed caps the outcrop on the right side of the spillway channel. This limestone apparently was the source for riprap in the spillway channel and to construct a masonry wall on the upstream slope of the dam.

The Navajo Sandstone forms the nearly vertical cliff extending from downstream of the left abutment northward into the reservoir area. It is composed of rounded to subrounded, fine to medium quartz sand, suggesting an eolian environment of deposition. The unit is cross bedded with sets of cross-strata ranging from 1 to greater than 10 feet in thickness. Bedding within the cross sets is very thin to laminated (less than two inches). Joint spacing is very wide or normally greater than 10 feet. Primary discontinuities in the left abutment strike upstream/ downstream, dip 80° to 90° towards the dam/reservoir, and are clean and tight.

A secondary set of discontinuities strikes across canyon, parallel with the dam axis, and dips upstream towards the reservoir 80° to 90°. In general, the Navajo Sandstone is weakly to moderately cemented with calcium carbonate, massive, and more erosion resistant than the underlying Kayenta.

Bedrock in the area is mantled by windblown sand and alluvium on the floor of Pasture Canyon. The windblown sand consists of sand dune deposits of loose, well sorted, fine to medium grained quartz sand occurring as irregular deposits in wind-sheltered areas. Sand dunes are present on the upland surfaces adjacent to Pasture Canyon and at the base of fore and lee slopes within the canyon. An active sand dune at the upstream limit of the reservoir is encroaching across Pasture Canyon Stream and farmland. No sand dunes are located in the project area or near vicinity. According to the team’s principal geologist, there is no potential for sand dunes to move into the project area in the foreseeable future.

Federal legislation provides for protection, preservation, and collection of scientific, prehistorical, historical, and archeological data, including relics and specimens, which might otherwise be lost due to alteration of terrain as a result of any Federal construction project. There are no known fossil records in the project area, including the borrow location.

3.3 Water Resources

Water resources in the proposed project area include both surface water and groundwater sources. These two sources are described below.

3.3.1 Surface Water

Surface water within the project area includes Pasture Canyon Reservoir. The reservoir is primarily fed by perennial springs to the north, the headwater being approximately 3 miles upstream. The area is very rural with no large industry in or near the area. Water quality is generally good and is seasonal in nature. The Hopi Water Resources Program last sampled the water on April 5, 2012 and obtained the following results (Puhuyesva 2013):

Sample date: 04/05/12 Nitrate as N <0.30 mg/L Nitrate + Nitrite as N <0.20 mg/L Nitrite as N <0.10 mg/L Orthophosphate as P <0.05

Water from Pasture Canyon Reservoir supports irrigation for agriculture in the local area below Pasture Canyon Dam and into Moenkopi Village.

There is a provision in the court document of the 1934 Navajo Hopi Land Settlement (U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona1992) which grants Navajo families who use the reservoir a license and easement to water their livestock. The Hopi Tribe had the option to pipe water out of the reservoir onto Navajo land, which was done, however due to problems with sand dune formation in the area, those pipelines currently are basically inoperable. They are outside the scope of this project and are not addressed further. There are no wetlands within the project area, per Corps of Engineers’ Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008).

3.3.2 Groundwater

Rainfall seeps through the sand dunes, then hits the bedrock or other impermeable layers and flows south to Pasture Canyon Reservoir or other nearby springs (Bureau of Reclamation 2009b). The reservoir is primarily fed by perennial springs from the north, the headwaters are approximately 3 miles upstream of the reservoir. There are 3 groundwater wells associated with the Public Water System supply in the region. They range in depths from 135 feet to 250 feet below ground surface. The wells are located close together about a mile southwest of Pasture Canyon Dam just south of State Highway 160, about ¼ mile west of the Canyon.

Also there are many monitoring wells located south of Pasture Canyon that are part of an investigative effort in relation to the Tuba City Open Dump site (Superfund Project) with BIA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Tribe (Puhuyesva 2013). See also Section 4.3.2.

3.4 Air Quality

Summary of the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. (1970): the Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive Federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

The project area is in a very rural setting and air quality is generally good. Of the parameters used in the Air Quality Index (AQI) for 2011 (Table 3), ozone rated Good 265 days, Moderate 48 days, and Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 2 days.

SO2 rated Good 248 days and Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 5 days. PM10 rated Good 309 days and Moderate 1 day. All other parameters (CO, NO2 and PM2.5) rated Good every day they were observed.

Table 3. – Air Quality Index (AQI) Values Pollution Summary.

Pollutant Stat. Lat & Long Obser. 0-50 51-

101-

151-

201-

301-

Ozone 36.0717, -112.153 337 265 48 2 0 0 0

CO 33.6371, -112.342 212 212 0 0 0 0 0

NO2 36.8071, -108.695 233 233 0 0 0 0 0

SO2 36.8071, -108.695 248 214 2 5 0 0 0

PM10 36.125, -111.235 310 309 1 0 0 0 0

PM2.5 35.2061, -111.653 61 61 0 0 0 0 0

Source: http://www.homefacts.com/airquality/Arizona/Coconino-County/Tuba-City.html

Mr. Alfonso Mahkewa of the Hopi Environmental Protection Office was consulted and he concurred with the above assessment (Mahkewa 2013). See also Sections 4.4, 5.0, and 6.0 for more information.

3.5 Cultural Resource

Archaeologist, Michael Yeatts of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office surveyed the project area, including the borrow location for cultural resources (Yeatts 2012). Yeatts found there are no known National Register eligible historic or cultural resources identified at this time for the project area. The dam, including the rock wall along the upstream face of the dam that was constructed in the 1970s, is not architecturally significant. Yeatts (2012) recommended that the project be allowed to proceed as planned, but that as much of the current structure of the dam, including the masonry wall lining the upstream side of the dam be preserved within the constraints of the project design. (see Section 4.5 and 5.0 for more information).

Other prior cultural surveys were conducted in the area: a non-native vegetation removal project (Hopi Tribe 2011); an emergency rockfall inventory (2010); and a proposed pipeline project (Hopi Tribe 1994) (see Chapter 8.0 References Cited for complete citation).

3.6 Environmental Justice and Socioeconomic Conditions

Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” was issued in 1994. This

EO and its accompanying memorandum have the primary purpose of ensuring that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The Hopi and Navajo are the majority population in the project area, no other populations will be disproportionately affected.

3.6.1 Employment and Income

Mr. Clifford Qotsaquahu (2013) of the Hopi Office of Community and Economic Development, provided the following data from the latest Hopi Comprehensive Economic Development survey (Hopi 2010):

Hopi Median income: $30,200.00 Hopi Poverty levels: 40% of population with children between ages 6-17 highest Hopi Individuals living in poverty: 35% of population are classified as

“severely poor” while 17% of Hopi families live in “near poverty” Hopi Households living in poverty: 42% The current unemployment rate: 49%

According to the Census Bureau’s data from 2007 – 2011, the percentage of Native Americans 25 years or older with at least a bachelor’s degree is 17.7% in Tuba City and 26.4% for the State. The Native American population of Tuba City is 92%, where it is 4.6% for the state (U.S. Census Bureau 2013).

As part of this project to rehabilitate Pasture Canyon Dam, the contractor must comply with the Hopi Tribal Employment Rights Office (TERO) requirements, which gives Hopi preference in employment for the project.

3.6.2 Demographic Trends

Qotsaquahu (2013) also sent the following information on demographic data for the Hopi population overall. It is from the 2010 Comprehensive Economic Development Survey with updated Tribal Enrollment numbers of February 2013.

Total Hopi population: 13,766 individuals On Reservation: 6, 093 individuals Off Reservation: 7,673 individuals.

Per the 2010 census, the percentage of white people in Tuba City is 4.4% compared to 73% in Arizona.

Census 2010 Race Data

Census 2010 race data for Moenkopi CDP include the racial breakdown percentages of 97.3% Indian, 0.0% black, 0.0% Asian and 1.3% Hispanic.

3.6.3 Lifestyle and Cultural Values

Most Hopi emergence and migration stories cite the Grand Canyon as the place of their emergence into this world, the Sipapuni, in the Little Colorado Gorge. After emergence, the Hopi encountered Massau’u, the earth guardian, who gave them blue corn and taught them to revere the earth. The Hopi then journeyed throughout the Southwest, but most clans eventually settled on the Hopi Mesas (Ferguson 1997).

By the time the Spanish arrived in the sixteenth century, most Hopi settlement could be found on Black Mesa, and some remained on Antelope Mesa. The Hopi were primarily agriculturalists, cultivating corn, beans, and squash on the lands surrounding their mesa. Spanish missionaries established churches at several pueblo communities, including the Hopi pueblo of Awatovi (Brew 1979;

Clemmer 1995:29). Although the missionaries were initially successful at Awatovi, the Hopi resisted conversion and Spanish influence participated in the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 (Clemmer 1995:30; Rushforth and Upham 1992:104). The Hopi remained relatively isolated after the revolt and the Spanish never reestablished themselves with the Hopi.

The United States took control of the Southwest following the Mexican War.

After 1850, with the influx of new settlers, the Hopi struggled—especially from smallpox epidemics which greatly reduced their population (Dockstader 1979).

Navajo raids and droughts also impacted Hopi life (Clemmer 1995:36). In the 1870s, new missionaries from the Moravian, Mormon, and Baptist churches established churches in or near Hopi towns (Bailey 1948:349; Clemmer 1995;

Dockstader 1979). Then, the Hopi Reservation was established in 1882 on

2.45 million acres. The U.S. government increased its presence on the Reservation with schools and BIA offices. Factionalism between those opposed to the outside influence and those in favor of it eventually led to a split in the tribe in 1910 (Clemmer 1995:110; Dockstader 1979; Rushforth and Upham 1992:127–

129; Titiev 1944:110). During the beginning of the twentieth century, more changes led to the decline in population at some towns, and the establishment of new towns and Navajo encroachment on Hopi land was leading to tensions between the Hopi and Navajo. In the 1930s, the Hopi Reservation was effectively limited to 750,000 acres surrounding their villages when grazing districts were created out of the Hopi and Navajo Reservations (Clemmer 1979, 1995:167).

Settlements in the case have increased the current Hopi Reservation to 1.5 million acres; however, the dispute over land and resources rights between the Hopi and Navajo is still underway today.

Contemporary Hopi society retains many of their ancestral traditions, particularly religious beliefs and ceremonies. A tribal constitution was adopted in 1936, and under its authority, tribal government was formed. Some villages have adopted forms of government to replace the former religious oligarchies.

Three forms of local government coexist on the Reservation: traditional religious societies, democracy under the Hopi Constitution, and corporations formed by Tribal ordinance.

Traditional Hopi government is based on the divine plan of life laid out by the Maasau, the guardian of the fourth world of the Hopi, which places all religious and secular authority in village elders.

The Upper and Lower villages of Moenkopi, Kykotsmovi, Hotevilla, and Bacavi embrace democratic forms of government authorized by the Constitution, and have village governors and boards of directors. Upper Moenkopi is the only village with a written constitution.

According to P.T. Reilly (date unknown) Moenkopi, because of its water supply, was a farming outpost of Oraibi (approximately 40 miles to the east and attributed to being the oldest continuously inhabited town in the United States). One of the Moenkopi Pueblos dates back to approximately 400 – 800 A.D. The Hopi are said to have foot-traveled the 40 miles between Oraibi and Moenkopi each day to tend their crops (Reilly date unknown). Even today, the high schools have a strong cross country team that has won state championships numerous times.

Although, historically, the Hopi grew corn, beans, squash, onions, melons, and peppers, corn is now the predominant crop. It is used primarily for ceremonies and personal consumption and is not sold commercially (Honani 2012). Various reports state that the Pasture Canyon Dam was built between 1920 and 1930 to store water for irrigation.

3.7 Resource Use Patterns

3.7.1 Agriculture

Pasture Canyon Reservoir supplies water to local fields in the area (Figure 5). It serves as the primary water source for Upper and Lower Moencopi Villages’ agricultural activities. Once BIA funding is secured, construction is expected to begin at the end of the given year’s growing season, most likely in August. It is projected that construction will take between 6 to 10 months, but due to unforeseen weather or site conditions, etc., it may take longer. The BIA wants to be sure funding is secured in the hope of avoiding a shutdown before the project is completed. See Section 4.7.1 for more information on how agricultural activities may be affected by the proposed project.

Figure 5. – Corn fields in Moenkopi.

3.7.2 Recreation

Pasture Canyon Reservoir and the park area just downstream is used for recreation activities such as boating, wading, fishing, hiking/running, and gatherings. Because the reservoir attracts birds—especially migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, another recreational use for the reservoir is bird watching (Figure 6).

Small, non-motorized boats can be put on the reservoir and people sometimes fish from the boat or the banks. The Hopi Wildlife and Ecosystem Management Program would like to stock fish in the reservoir for increased fishing opportunities. However, the USFWS cannot approve this currently due to

Figure 6. – Great blue heron and American coot using Pasture Canyon Reservoir.

the risk from invasive fish (koi) to federally listed threatened or endangered species downstream in the Lower Colorado River (LCR) (Figure 7).

Although the area south of the dam was used as a recreational base for camping and social gatherings, most of it is now inundated by camelthorn and Russian Olives, which makes much of it now inaccessible and limits its use. There are some trails by the reservoir frequently used by runners, including the high schools’ cross country teams. The cliffs to the east of the reservoir were

Figure 7. – Recreational fishing on Pasture Canyon Reservoir.

frequently climbed before a climbing aid was removed, so rock climbing in the project area has declined. The reservoir attracts migrating birds and is a nice place for bird-watching—especially with the large cliffs as a backdrop. See figure 6.

Also refer to Section 4.7.2 Recreation and 5.0 Consultation and Coordination for additional information.

3.7.3 Transportation

The project area lies east of Highway 89 near the confluence of Highways 160 and 264. The dam is located north of Highway 160 while the borrow area is just south of Highway 160 (Figures 2, 3, 4, and Appendix A). There are various unnamed dirt roads leading to both sites. It is not yet known from where the construction contractor or workers would come, so it is difficult to say which roads would be used. However, it is anticipated that the most direct routes leading from Highway 160 would be used most heavily. See Sections 4.7.3 and

5.0 for more information. No new roads will be constructed and only existing roadways will be used.

3.8 Climate Change

Climate change refers to any notable change in measures of climate (temperature, precipitation or wind) that lasts for an extended period (decades or longer).

Climate change may be affected by a number of factors including natural cycles;

natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in the sun’s intensity or Earth’s orbit, changes in ocean circulation); and human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition or land surface (e.g., burning fossil fuels, deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report, increased atmospheric levels of CO2 are correlated with rising temperatures and concentrations of CO2 have increased by 31 percent above pre-industrial levels since 1750.