United States Department of the Interior .. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 9828 N. 31st Avenue Ste C3 Phoenix, AZ 85051 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 22410-2007-F-0423 September 21, 201 7 Ms. Laura Jo West, Forest Supervisor Coconino National Forest 1824 South Thompson Street Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Dear Ms. West: Thank you for your request for formal consultation and conference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544), as amended (Act). We received your letter and Biological Assessment (BA) dated February 15, 2017, on the same day. This transmits the FWS programmatic biological and conference opinion (PBO/PCO) regarding the effects of the proposed Coconino National Forest (Coconino NF) Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) located in Coconino, Gila and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. In your BA, Coconino NF determined that the proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) and its critical habitat, the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) and its critical habitat, the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trail/ii extimus) and its critical habitat, the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) and its proposed critical habitat, the Gila chub (Gila intermedia) and its critical habitat, the Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) and its critical habitat, loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) and spikedace (Medafulgida) critical habitat, the Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra), the narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) and its proposed critical habitat, and the northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques mega/ops) and its proposed critical habitat. In your letter, you requested our concurrence that the proposed action may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect the endangered California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), the Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae), the leach minnow, the spikedace, the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and its critical habitat, and the San Francisco Peaks ragwort (Packera .fi'anciscana) and its critical habitat. In addition, the Forest Service determined that the proposed action will not jeopardize the 1OG) nonessential experimental populations of the California condor, the Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus). We provide our rationales for our concurrences in Appendix A of the programmatic biological and conference opinion (PBO/PCO). ., .. Ms. Laura Jo West, Forest Supervisor You also concluded that there would be no effect to the Yuma Ridgway's rail (Rallus obsoletus yumanensis), or the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Species with "no effect" determinations do not require review from the FWS and are not addressed further. Certain project activities may also affect species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. sec. 703-712) and/or bald and golden eagles protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when authorized by the FWS. The Eagle Act prohibits anyone, without a FWS permit, from taking (including disturbing) eagles, and including their parts, nests, or eggs. If you think migratory birds and/or eagles will be affected by this project, we recommend seeking our Technical Assistance to identify available conservation measures that you may be able to incorporate into your project. For more information regarding the MBTA and Eagle Act, please visit the following websites. More information on the MBTA and available permits can be retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/birds and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mbpermits.html. For information on protections for bald eagles, please refer to the FWS's National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines {72 FR 31156) and regulatory definition of the term "disturb" (72 FR 31132) published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2007 (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/BaldEagle.htm), as well as the Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Bald Eagle in Arizona (SWBEMC.org). In keeping with our trust responsibilities to American Indian Tribes, we encourage you to continue to coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the implementation of this consultation and, by copy of this biological opinion, are notifying affected Tribes of its completion. We also encourage you to coordinate the review of this project with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. We appreciate the Forest Service's efforts to identify and minimize effects to listed species from this project. Please refer to the consultation number, 22410-2007-F-0423, in future correspondence concerning this project. Should you require further assistance or if you have any questions please contact Mary Lane (501-321-5201) and Shaula Hedwall (928-556-2118), or Brenda Smith (928-556-2157). Sincerely, ~ Steven L. Spangle ~ Field Supervisor Ms. Laura Jo West, Forest Supervisor cc (electronic): Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona (Attn: Greg Beatty, Mary Richardson, Ryan Gordon) Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Flagstaff, AZ (Attn: Shaula Hedwall, John Nystedt) Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tucson, AZ (Attn: Cat Crawford, Jeff Servoss, Susan Sferra) Stewardship Staff Officer, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ Forest Wildlife Biologist, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ Deputy Director, Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Program, Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM Chief, Habitat Branch, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ Program Manager, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Hualapai Tribe, Peach Springs, AZ Supervisor, Cultural Preservation Program, Cultural Resources Department, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, AZ Director, Apache Cultural Program, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Camp Verde, AZ Cultural Preservation Director, Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi, AZ Senior Archaeologist, Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi, AZ Director and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, NM, Culture Research Director, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Prescott, AZ Yavapai Culture Director, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Camp Verde, AZ Historic Preservation Director, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico Trust Resources and Protection Manager Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, NM Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, AZ Archaeologist, Western Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, AZ W:\SHedwall\Final Docs\2017\Covcr Letter Coe LRMP Final BO 201 709?1.doc,i; BIOLOGICAL OPINION CONFERENCE OPINION For the Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona Southwestern Region U.S.D.A. Forest Service Arizona Ecological Services, Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ii Ms. Laura Jo West, Forest Supervisor Table of Contents INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................... 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION BY PLAN SECTION .................................................. 4 ACTION AREA .......................................................................................................................... 12 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................. 14 JEOPARDY DETERMINATION .................................................................................................... 14 ADVERSE MODIFICATION DETERMINATION ........................................................................... 14 STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT .................................................... 15 GILA CHUB AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ................................................................ 15 LITTLE COLORADO SPINEDACE AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ............................... 19 LOACH MINNOW DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ............................................................... 22 SPIKEDACE DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................ 23 NARROW-HEADED GARTERSNAKE AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT .............................. 24 NORTHERN MEXICAN GARTERSNAKE AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT ......................... 26 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT .................................. 29 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT................. 34 WESTERN YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT ......................... 36 MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT .......................................... 40 ARIZONA CLIFFROSE ............................................................................................................... 44 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............................................................................................. 46 GILA CHUB AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ...............................................................