In Reply Refer To: R2/ES-TE CL 09-0015 November 16, 2001 Consultation No. 2-21-95-F-114R2 Mr. Ronald Pearce Director of Range Management Marine Corps Air Station P.O. Box 99100 Yuma, Arizona 85369-9100 Dear Mr. Pearce: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed and ongoing activities by the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma (MCAS-Yuma) in the Arizona portion of the Yuma Training Range Complex (YTRC) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), Yuma and Maricopa counties, and its effects on the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) and threatened Peirson’s milkvetch (Astragalus magdalenae peirsonii) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). In response to Defenders of Wildlife, et. al., v. Bruce Babbitt, et. al. (Civil Action No. 99-927 [ESH]), Judge Ellen Huvelle of the United States District Court (Court) for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on February 12, 2001. The Court found that the Service failed to address the impact of various Federal actions on the Sonoran pronghorn when added to the environmental baseline and failed to include in the environmental baseline the impacts of all Federal activities in the area that may affect, directly or indirectly, the pronghorn. The Court provided the Service 120 days to produce, in consultation with the defendants, revisions of the following biological opinions: Air Force (USAF) (August 1997), Army National Guard (ARNG) (September 1997), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (December 1997), Marine Corps (April 1996), and National Park Service (NPS) (June 1997). The Court ordered that the Service, in consultation with the Federal agencies whose biological opinions have been remanded, must reconsider those portions of the opinions that have been found to be contrary to the dictates of the ESA. This includes the scope of the action area, analysis of the environmental baseline, and analysis of the effects of incidental take in context with a revised environmental baseline. On April 12, 2001, the Court granted the Service an extension until November 16, 2001, to complete this task. Peirson’s milkvetch was listed after the 1996 biological opinion on this action was issued and was not known to occur in the action area until recently. It is included in this formal consultation. Your original request asked for our concurrence that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) and cactus ferruginous pygmy owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), Mr. Ronald Pearce 2 which was proposed for listing as an endangered species at the time, and was subsequently listed as endangered in 1997. Our response to your requests for concurrence is in Appendix 1. Your original request included conferencing on the flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii), which was proposed for threatened status at the time. The proposal to list the lizard was withdrawn in July 1997. The withdrawal was remanded to the Service in a July 31, 2001, decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 24, 2001, the District Court ordered the Service to reinstate the previously proposed listing rule within 60 calender days. Upon reinstatement, the 12-month ESA deadline for the final listing determination for the lizard shall commence. Refer to our April 1996 biological and conference opinion on MCAS-Yuma’s YTRC, which included a conference on the lizard, for information on effects of the proposed action on the lizard and recommended actions to conserve the species. If the lizard is listed, MCAS-Yuma should coordinate with the Service to determine if further consultation is necessary. This biological opinion is based on information provided during the previous consultation on this action, updated information on the proposed action provided by your agency, new information on the status of the pronghorn and milkvetch, telephone conversations, field investigations, and other sources of information as detailed in the consultation history. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Phoenix, Arizona, Ecological Services Field Office (ESO). CONSULTATION HISTORY Before consultation began on the MCAS-Yuma Arizona portion of the YTRC, the Service and MCAS-Yuma had previously consulted informally on some aspects of the proposed action, including AV-8B harrier activities (consultation number 2-21-89-I-195), and Weapons Tactics Instructor (WTI) course (consultation numbers 2-21-88-I-46, 2-21-88-I-48, and 2-21-90-I-180). In regard to AV-8B activities, the Service reviewed an environmental assessment (EA) on proposed activities and recommended that MCAS-Yuma initiate formal consultation. Informal consultation on the WTI course consisted of coordination and review of an EA addressing WTI (consultation number 2-21-87-I-126), a request for a species list by MCAS-Yuma and transmittal of that list to MCAS-Yuma by the Service (consultation number 2-21-88-I-46), a concurrence by the Service that the proposed WTI course would have no effect on the pronghorn (consultation number 2-21-88-I-48), and a request for informal consultation from MCAS-Yuma and a reply from the Service for more information on the proposed action (consultation number 2-21-90-I- 195). Informal consultation on the Arizona portion of the YTRC began on May 17, 1993, with the publication in the Federal Register of a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the use of the YTRC. A coordination meeting at which the project was described and discussed was held on May 27, 1993, in Phoenix among the Service, MCAS- Yuma, BLM, and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). Alternatives included actions to improve training procedures, develop new training facilities, and reconfigure airspace in the western portion of the BMGR, Arizona, and at the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial County, California. A second coordination meeting between the Service and MCAS- Yuma was held in Phoenix on June 24, 1993. An administrative draft EIS was distributed to the Service and other agencies and interested parties in July 1994. The Arizona ESO submitted comments to MCAS-Yuma on the administrative draft EIS in a letter dated August 5, 1994. Comments were from all concerned Service offices in Arizona, including Cabeza Prieta, Kofa, Cibola, Bill Williams, and Havasu National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). Review and comment on project features in California were coordinated by the Service's Carlsbad ESO. The MCAS- Mr. Ronald Pearce 3 Yuma responded to our comments in a letter dated September 27, 1994. In a memorandum to the Carlsbad ESO, dated October 19, 1994, the Arizona ESO volunteered to take the lead on a programmatic consultation for the YTRC, including proposed activities in both Arizona and California. In a memorandum dated November 8, 1994, the Carlsbad ESO agreed. A third coordination meeting was held among the involved Service offices in Arizona and MCAS-Yuma on November 9, 1994. The results of that meeting were summarized in a memorandum from Dames and Moore to the meeting participants, dated December 6, 1994. Other scoping and coordination meetings with the public and other agencies were held to receive comment on and discuss the proposals (MCAS-Yuma 1995). Separate draft biological assessments (BA) addressing proposals in the Arizona and California portions of the YTRC were received by this office on December 8, 1994, accompanied by a letter from MCAS-Yuma asking for our review and comment. As agreed upon, the draft BA for actions in California were forwarded to the Carlsbad ESO for their review. Service comments on the draft BA for the Arizona portion of the YTRC were sent to the Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, in a letter dated February 3, 1995. This letter included comments from the Cabeza Prieta NWR and the Arizona ESO. The final BA was received by the Service with the October 13, 1995, request for initiation of consultation and conferencing. In addition to activities described in the draft EIS, the BA included proposed installation of 17 new threat emitters on the Tactical Aircraft Combat Training System (TACTS) Range within the BMGR. Because the finalization of the two BAs (BMGR, Arizona, and the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, California) were on different timetables, separate consultations were initiated for the California and Arizona portions of the YTRC. Consultation on actions in California were initiated in mid-1995 with the Carlsbad Field Office. The two opinions addressed different species: Mojave population of the desert tortoise on the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range versus Sonoran pronghorn and flat-tailed horned lizard on the BMGR. Thus, effects of the action in regard to listed and proposed species were easily separated at the state line. This is still the case. During consultation, the Service informally requested from Bill Fisher (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division, San Diego, CA, January, 1996), and promptly received, clarifications on the proposed action. The Service met with the Sonoran Pronghorn Core Working Group on February 22, 1996, to discuss the proposed action. At that meeting, MCAS-Yuma revised proposed low-level helicopter flight routes and use of two stinger team operating areas to reduce potential adverse effects to the pronghorn. Further revisions in the helicopter corridors were made during a conference call on March 7, 1996, among the Service, AGFD, and MCAS-Yuma. One final change was made in the corridors on April 11, 1996, in response to concerns expressed by the Service about possible adverse effects to the lesser long- nosed bat. On April 17, 1996, the Service issued its biological opinion on the MCAS-Yuma Arizona portion of the YTRC.