Rock Pit Development on the Coconino and Kaihah National Forests BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Wildlife, Fish and Plant Species 1 . Background/History; Introduction Source material for road surfacing is needed across the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests (NFs) for maintaining/improving public safety on current level-3 roads (roads managed and maintained to be suitable for passenger vehicle, which are mostly surfaced with gravel or other aggregate material), for watershed protection (e.g., minimize erosion from roads to nearby streams and meadows and realigning roads to avoid sensitive habitats), increase operational efficiency, and to maintain available materials for future project-specific road needs (e.g. maintenance of hauling roads and temporary road construction to support mechanical treatments). Mineral evaluations in 1979 and 1997 identified about I 00 potential pit locations for accessing additional source material (i.e., basalt, limestone, and cinders) on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs (Smith and Green 1979, Malpais Consulting 1997). Baseline geotechnical studies, including surveys of existing and potential material pits, were completed in 2011. These studies identified appropriate materials and new locations suitable for ongoing road maintenance. A result of these studies was identifying specific rock pit locations that balanced material availabilities, hauling considerations, proximity of new and functioning pits, and access from national forest system roads. Upon completion of consultation, these rock sources would be established over the next 20 years based on funding availability, maintenance needs for existing roads, and road construction/reconfiguration needs. After ten years the Forest Service will review potential reconsultation needs in conformance with Fish and Wildlife Service guidance on biological consultation. Consultation history Federal actions that affect listed species must undergo consultation or conference with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Definitions related to consultation and conferencing are given in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultation and Conferences (USDI FWS 1998). None of the proposed activities have been consulted on under the ESA, however, some of the existing pits that are proposed for expansion in this project were included in previous consultations, including: • A "Biological Assessment and Evaluation" for a 5-acre expansion of the Cinch Hook Pit in 2002. The BA&E documents no effects to all Threatened and Endangered species or their habitat. • The USFWS concurred with a determination that the Buck Butte pit may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl (MSO; USFWS, April 19, 2005). • A "Biological Evaluation" was prepared for Buck Butte Cinder Pit Expansion Project in 2005, which increased the pit from 3 acres to 5 acres. The Buck Butte Cinder Pit Expansion resulted in a May Effect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination to the MSO and its habitat. • A "Biological Assessment and Evaluation" was prepared for the expansion of the Lockwood Pit in 2000. The BA&E documents no effects to Threatened and Endangered species or their habitats. • The Marshall Fuel Reduction and Forest Restoration Project Biological Assessment, dated September 2010, identified the use of the existing Riordan Pit as a material source for road surfacing needs during the project. All the pits in the current consultation that have had previous consultations on pit expansion were concluded as informal ("not likely to adversely affect") under the ESA. There have been several similar consultations for rock pit development outside of those included in this Biological Assessment, including: • A "Biological Assessment and Evaluation" was submitted and received concurrence for the Clint's Well Forest Restoration Project in 2012, which included the expansion of the Park Knoll Pit to up to 25 acres. • A Biological Assessment was submitted for reclamation of Kelly Pit in June 2013. This involved reclamation of the 10-acre pit site using clean fill from the Flagstaff Pulliam Airport. • The Hart Prairie Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project Biological Assessment and Evaluation, dated February 2010, identified Curly Pit as a source of cinders to be developed and used for road maintenance related to project implementation. Objectives The project objective is to make surfacing material available for road maintenance and construction of temporary roads approved through other project decisions. This project identifies development of 37 new and existing pits (Table 1). Pit development includes continued workings in existing pit footprints (n = 6), expanding footprints of existing pits (n = 20), and creation of new pits (n = 11 ). Rock material would be exposed, excavated, crushed (where necessary), piled, and prepared for transportation. This consultation includes hauling of the rock material and road surfacing using this material on the main (level 3) forest roads since the material from rock pits is most likely to be used on Forest transportation routes that receive the most use. While this rock material will likely be hauled to and used on temporary and secondary system roads as well, the impacts associated with these activities on temporary roads and level secondary roads were and will continue to be analyzed through the project-specific NEPA analysis for those projects. Also included in this consultation is the reclamation of 3 existing pits, which means this analysis includes analysis of activities at a total of 40 pits across the Coconino and Kaibab NFs (Figures 1-3). Species Addressed Information on species occurrence in the Rock Pits Project Area and suitable habitat features were collected from Forest Service biologists and engineers, GIS data (Forest Service), the Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan (AZGFD 2012), and other sources to aid in the analysis of this project. Species listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the ESA and likely to occur on the Coconino and/or Kaibab NFs were identified by accessing http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ and from input 2 from Forest Service biologists on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. Only those species known or with potential to occur or be affected by the proposed action are analyzed in this biological assessment (Table 1). Species were excluded if: 1. The species occurs in habitats that are not present; and/or 2. The Project Area is outside the range of the species. Table 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species on the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. Species Status Analysis Forest Rationate carried Forward? Birds Southwestern Willow E1, CH 1 No CNF, KNF Spec ies uses riparian thickets dominated by Flycatcher ta ma risk (Tamarix spp) or composed of mixed Empidonax trail/ii extimus riparian vegetation such as willow (Salix spp) or cottonwood (Populus deltaides) trees. Neither the species nor its Critical Habitat occurs in or near any of the proposed rock pit sites or potential haul routes. This species will not be analyzed further. Mexican spotted owl and T1, CH Yes CNF,KNF Occupies mixed conifer, ponderosa Critical Habitat pine/gambel oak (Pinus ponderosa/ Quercus Strix occidentalis Jucida gambe/i}, and steep canyon vegetation types. MSOs and their habitat, including restricted/recovery, protected, and Critical Habitats have the potential to occur near individual rock pits or along likely hau l routs .. Western yellow-billed PT1, 51 No CNF Habitat for the species includes undisturbed cuckoo riparian deciduous forests composed of willow, cottonwood, sycamore (Platanus Coccyzus americanus wrightii), (A/nus oblongifolia). occidentalis and/or alder This habitat type is not found in or near any of the proposed rock pit sites, therefore, neither the species nor its habitat occurs in or near any of the proposed rock pit sites or potential haul routes. This species will not be analyzed further. California condor E-XN 1 Yes CNF,KNF Nonessential experimental population Nests on cliffs and forages over a large variety of Gymnogyps californianus habitats, hunt ing by sight (rather than scent). There is no suitable cliff nesting habit at in or near any of the proposed rock pit sites. Condors very rarely fly south of the Grand Canyon. When they have travelled into the southern extent of the designated recovery zone they have headed back north relatively rapidly. There are few reports of condors on the Coconino National Forest or the Williams or Tusayan Ranger Districts (RDs) of the Ka ibab National Forest (Parrish, pers. comm. 2012). 3 Species Status Analysis Forest Rationale ' Carried Forward? Suitable foraging habitat could be present in or nea r Big Ridge pit on the North Kaibab where the species consistently occurs. Yuma clapper rail E No CNF Occupies marsh-like habitat around rivers, ponds, and bogs where emergent vegetation Roi/us langirastris such as cattails (Typha /atifolia), bu lrush yumanensis (Scirpus califonicus), and reed grass (Phragmites cammunis) occur. This habitat type is not found in or near any of the proposed rock pit sites. This species will not be analyzed further. Bald and Golden Eagles Not Yes CNF, KNF Neither bald nor golden eagles are included in listed the ESA consultation. However, they are Haliaetus leucocephalus and under protected under the Ba ld and Golden Eagle H. chrysaetos ESA Protection Act (Eagle Act) and the Flagstaff office of Ecological Services requests