United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 9828 North 31st Avenue, Suite C3 Phoenix, Arizona 85051 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE In reply refer to: AESO/SE 02EAAZ00-2019-F-0122 June 7, 2019 Memorandum To: Jayme Lopez, Field Manager, Gila District Office, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona From: Jeffrey L. Humphrey, Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Resource Management Plan, Cochise County, Arizona Thank you for your request for formal consultation and conference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request was dated February 12, 2019, and received by us on February 25, 2018. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Resource Management Plan located in Cochise County, Arizona. The proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the following endangered species: 1) Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva) and its designated critical habitat; 2) desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius); 3) Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis); 4) southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); and 5) ocelot (Leopardus pardalis); as well as the following threatened species: 1) northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops); and 2) yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). In your memorandum, you requested our concurrence that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the endangered jaguar (Panthera onca). We concur with your determination and include our rationale in Appendix A. You also determined that the action would have “no effect” on the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) and northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis), as well as critical habitat for the following species: jaguar, Chiricahua leopard frog, and southwestern willow flycatcher, as they do not occur in the project area. “No effect” determinations do not require our review and are not addressed further. Per our discussions, we jointly determined that the proposed action would not adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat for the 2 yellow-billed cuckoo or northern Mexican gartersnake. Therefore, effects to these proposed critical habitats are not addressed in this biological opinion, but will be addressed once critical habitat designations are finalized for these species. This biological opinion and conference opinion is based on information provided in the May 2019 Biological Assessment for the Proposed Resource Management Plan for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (2019 BA or BLM 2019), as well as email correspondence between our agencies and other sources of information. Literature cited in this biological and conference opinion is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern, resource management activities and their effects, or on other subjects considered in this opinion. A complete record of this consultation is on file at this office. This biological opinion does not address previous BLM actions in the action area for which consultation has already occurred, but incorporates them by reference where appropriate. A complete list of previous consultations is found in Table 2 of the 2019 BA and below. Consultation History • October 24, 2018: we received your draft Biological Assessment and request for formal consultation. • November 27-December 19, 2018: we spoke with and met with your staff numerous times to discuss and resolve issues related to the draft BA. • December 22, 2018 through January 26, 2019: Federal government lapse in funding and Federal employees furloughed. • February 25, 2019: we received your Biological Assessment and request for formal consultation. • April 10-17, 2019: we spoke with your staff numerous times to discuss and resolve additional issues related to the BA, and were informed of changes to the proposed action. • May 1, 2019: we received your Revised Biological Assessment including changes to the proposed action. • May 3-7, 2019: we spoke with your staff to discuss and resolve ongoing issues related to the revised BA. • May 9, 2019: we received a newly Revised Biological Assessment reflecting changes from the draft Resource Management Plan to the Proposed Resource Management Plan and initiated consultation. • May 10-14, 2019: we spoke with your staff to discuss and resolve ongoing issues related to the revised BA. • May 22, 2019: we received a Final Revised Biological Assessment. • May 24, 2019: we sent you the draft biological opinion. • June 3, 2019: we received your comments on the draft biological opinion. 3 BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A complete description of the proposed action is found in the May 2019 Biological Assessment for the Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and is summarized below. The RMP describes planning-level decisions and these decisions (e.g., goals and objectives, land use allocation decisions, and all special designations) become effective on approval of the record of decision. Management actions that necessitate more site-specific project planning require further environmental analysis; decisions to implement site-specific projects are subject to administrative and environmental review when such decisions are made. Implementation of all actions and decisions in the RMP is subject to available funding and staffing. The proposed action includes 1) goals, which are broad statements that describe desired outcomes that are usually not quantifiable; 2) objectives, which identify specific desired outcomes and are usually measurable and may have an established time frame for achievement; 3) allocations and allowable uses, which are decisions that describe geographic areas for specific resources or uses; and 4) management actions, which are actions anticipated to achieve desired future conditions, goals, and objectives. Below, “Management Actions and Allowable Uses” and “Land Use Allocations” from the May 2019 Biological Assessment are included, and in some cases, summarized or shortened (particularly when they are not anticipated to affect listed species and critical habitat), below. Other aspects of the proposed action (e.g., goals, objectives) can be found in the May 2019 Biological Assessment. Air Quality 1. When implementing BLM or BLM-approved activities, minimize surface disturbances to prevent the addition of large quantities of dust to the air; apply stipulations to mitigate the impacts on air quality. 2. If any or all of the SPRNCA is designated as a nonattainment area for violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), work with regulatory agencies to follow the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for reducing air pollutants in the area. Soil and Watershed Management 1. Use a broad array of management tools and structures to control sheet, rill, and gully erosion in areas indicating accelerated erosion from lack of vegetation cover and soil erosivity. 2. Seed and plant using only native seeds and plants, if needed, following fire, flood, or other disturbance. 3. Improve watershed health and prioritize treatments for recharge enhancements in ephemeral tributaries (refer to Appendices G and I of the EIS); monitor groundwater levels in monitoring wells near recharge enhancement projects, if there are no increases in groundwater levels, then implement recharge enhancement projects that are larger in scale, are closer to the river, or are a different type of recharge enhancement. 4. Enhance riverine geomorphology and bank recharge to protect base flow through low impact structural and nonstructural approaches where needed in San Pedro River 4 segments (refer to Appendices G and I of the EIS); implement small structures and monitor channel slope, sinuosity, soil moisture, groundwater levels near treatments, and vegetation cover. 5. Assess the human-made structures from historical land uses, such as agricultural dikes and berms, railroad grades, and ditches and diversions, for hydrologic function. determine their level of impairment and either dismantle or alter them, as necessary 6. Modify all routes affecting watershed health and function as necessary to restore watershed function and long-term health (see Section 3.2.3 of the EIS). Water Management 1. Review and assess water needs for resources managed on the SPRNCA and acquire and perfect new water rights as deemed necessary for management. 2. Design any pumping of groundwater for BLM-authorized actions to reduce impacts on base flows, such as putting floats in troughs and seasonally restricting groundwater pumping. 3. Do not approve land use authorizations (realty actions) involving additional groundwater pumping on the SPRNCA, subject to valid existing rights. 4. Assess existing wells on the SPRNCA for use as monitoring wells, administrative use, wildlife use (drinking and habitat), habitat restoration (for maintaining a limited number of off-channel aquatic habitats for threatened and endangered species recovery), livestock use, emergency habitat augmentation, and other potential uses. Recharge Enhancement Projects Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario The potential project size was determined based on soil types that had the highest potential for infiltration.