Table 3.1 Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant and Wildlife Species... 7 Table 5.1. List of Contributors and Reviewers... 10

Transcription

1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION PROPOSED ACTION PURPOSE AND NEED CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION SPECIES EVALUATION IN THIS BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT EFFECTS ANALYSIS CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS LITERATURE CITED LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant and Wildlife Species... 7 Table 5.1. List of Contributors and Reviewers LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 SUFCO Mine Special Use Permit Expansion Project Location... 1 Figure 1-2 Existing Features at SUFCO Mine... 3 Figure 1-3 Foreseeable Actions at SUFCO Mine... 4 Tetra Tech May 2014 i

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION Canyon Fuel Company, LLC (Canyon Fuel Company) requested the approval of a boundary expansion to add 19.2 acres to their existing special use permit area located adjacent to their SUFCO Coal Mine. The project area is located adjacent to SUFCO s current mine facilities and National Forest Road 006 along Quitchupah Creek in the S1/2 of Section 12, Township 22 South, Range 4 East in Sevier County, Utah (Figure I-1). The US Forest Service (Richfield Ranger District, Fishlake National Forest) manages the surface estate of the project area. This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared to document analysis of the potential direct and indirect effects of SUFCO Mine s expansion project on the Federally-listed threatened, endangered or candidate plant and animal species which may occur or have suitable habitat within the project area. This BA was prepared in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction and meets legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and implementing regulations [19 U.S.C (c, 50 CFR (f) and (c)]. Figure 1-1 SUFCO Mine Special Use Permit Expansion Project Location Tetra Tech May

4 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action is for the Fishlake National Forest to approve the expansion of an existing Special Use Permit (SUP) area by 19.2 acres. If approved, it would establish right-of entry for a future mine permitting action to be taken by the Utah DOGM. If approved by DOGM, the lands would be added to SUFCO s existing State-approved mine permit, and would include authorization to construct coal load out facilities, coal storage areas and support infrastructure. Figures 1-2 and 1-3 provide an overview of existing features at SUFCO Mine and show the foreseeable development of the coal segregation facilities. Foreseeable activities that DOGM would review are considered in this environmental analysis as a connected action. Foreseeable activities include the construction of coal load out facilities including crushers, conveyor systems, coal bins, truck scales and an office; coal storage pile facilities in the form of linear stackers, reclaim feeders and conveyor systems. These additional storage piles may increase temporary storage capacity to 100,000 tons that would allow for coal segregation and blending for achievement of optimum coal quality for customer needs. Other foreseeable activities include construction of sediment ponds. Road upgrades would be completed to facilitate all weather coal loading and transport. Upgrades would include paving the truck turnaround road (13,612 square feet outside the Quitchupah Road right-of-way) and surfacing the interior of the truck turnaround with gravel, roto-mill, or other suitable material. Additionally, a lane would be added to turn into the truck turnaround and to exit the turnaround onto Quitchupah Creek Road. Construction and drainage control would be designed consistent with DOGM requirements. All foreseeable activities would be subject to approval by DOGM and other permitting actions required by Federal, State, and county agencies. See Figure 1-3 for an overview of the proposed additional 19.2 acres of special use permit area and an overview of the foreseeable activities. 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The need for the action is for the Forest Service to respond to an application to amend an existing SUP that would establish a right-of-entry onto NFS lands for the purpose of permitting, and if approved, constructing ancillary facilities incident to a coal mine. The purposes include furthering the direction in the Forest Plan to (1) encourage mineral exploration, development and extraction consistent with management of surface resources, (2) manage land uses to insure permit compliance and resource protection and (3) act on special use applications according to the following priorities: land and land use activities contributing to increased economic activity associated with National Forest resources, e.g., oil and gas, and energy minerals (USFS 1986, Pages IV-5 and IV-38) and to fulfill the Forest Service s obligation under the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining minerals and mineral reclamation industries, {and} the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources. In addition, the Forest Service Minerals and Geology Manual states the following objectives: 1. Encourage and facilitate the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources within the NFS in order to maintain a viable, healthy minerals industry and to promote self-sufficiency in those mineral and energy resources necessary for economic growth and national defense; 2. Ensure that exploration, development, and production of mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sound manner and that these Tetra Tech May

5 activities are considered fully in the planning and management of other NFS resources; and 3. Ensure that lands disturbed by mineral and energy activities are reclaimed for other productive uses. Tetra Tech May

6 Figure 1-2 Existing Features at SUFCO Mine Tetra Tech May

7 Figure 1-3 Foreseeable Actions at SUFCO Mine Tetra Tech May

8 2.0 CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Current policy as stated in the Forest Service Manual 2670 (USDA Forest Service 1995) includes the following direction: 1. Place top priority on conservation and recovery of endangered, threatened, and proposed species and their habitats through relevant National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, and Research activities and programs. 2. Establish through the Forest planning process objectives for habitat management and/or recovery of populations, in cooperation with States, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other Federal agencies. 3. Through the biological assessment process, review actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service to determine their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing. 4. Avoid all adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitats except when it is possible to compensate adverse effects totally through alternatives identified in a biological opinion rendered by the FWS, when an exemption has been granted under the act, or when the FWS biological opinion recognizes an incidental taking. Avoid adverse impacts on species proposed for listing during the conference period and while their Federal status is being determined. 5. Initiate consultation or conference with the FWS or NMFS when Forest Service determines that the proposed activities may have an adverse effect on threatened, endangered species; is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species; or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical or proposed critical habitat. 6. Identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat or other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened, and proposed species. Protect individual organisms or populations from harm or harassment as appropriate. The Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), which was approved in June 1986, established guidance for all natural resource management activities in relation to proposal analysis by prospective Forest users (USFS 1986). The Forest Plan established Forest Direction and Management Area Direction. Forest Direction established goals, objectives and management requirements that were applicable to the entire Forest while Management Area Direction consisted of management requirements specific to individual areas within the Forest. The Forest Plan was prepared in accordance with the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the regulations in 36 CFR 219, and the National Environmental Policy Act of A goal documented in the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1986) is to "identify and improve habitat for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for both plants and animals". In addition the Plan states, "Current habitat of threatened and endangered species will be maintained. No adverse effects from management activities will be allowed." General Direction in this Plan states, "Maintain habitat for viable populations of existing vertebrate species. Habitat for each species on the Forest will be maintained by protecting at least 40 percent of the ecosystems for Tetra Tech May

9 existing species. Proper juxtaposition of ecosystems must be considered. Manage and provide habitat for recovery of endangered and threatened species. Do not allow activities that would negatively impact endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant or animal species. Follow direction in recovery plans." The proposed project area is found within Management Area 6B-Livestock Grazing. A description follows below. 6B - Livestock Grazing Intensive grazing management systems are favored over extensive systems. Conflicts between livestock and wildlife are resolved in favor of livestock. (see Forest Plan IV-109 thru IV-113) The proposed permit expansion project in Management Area 6B is compatible with the direction found in the Forest Plan. Tetra Tech May

10 3.0 SPECIES EVALUATION IN THIS BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT A pre-field analysis of the project area indicated six threatened, endangered, and/or candidate plant and wildlife species have the potential to occur on the Fishlake National Forest (Table 3.1). P.D. Collins (2013) conducted further plant species research and determined no candidate species are known in Sevier County as of 2013 according to the US Department of Agriculture s Natural Resources Conservation Service. A review of the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) central database for threatened or endangered (TE) plants also indicated no TE species have been identified within two miles of the project area (Collins, 2013). Additionally, Collins (2013) conducted a field investigation and reported the absence of any TE species in the project area. For wildlife consideration, one threatened, one endangered, and two candidate species were identified in the pre-field analysis as having habitat or potential habitat in the project area. Subsequent habitat research of these species indicated no threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife species occur in the project area. Research results are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant and Wildlife Species Species Common/Scientific Name Plants Last chance townsendia Townsendia aprica San Rafael cactus (Perdiocactus despainii) Wildlife Utah prairie dog Cynomys parvidens California Condor Gymnogyps californianus Status Threatened Suitability of Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species Suitable No Unsuitable Based on the following Potential habitat exist; however, project area surveys occurred and no individuals were found (Tait, 2013). Determination No Effect Endangered No No habitat. No Effect. Threatened Endangered No No Basic habitat requirements include deep, welldrained soils for burrow excavation, low vegetation that can be seen through or over, and suitable forage (includes cicadas and alfalfa) [Rodriguez 2006]. There is no potential habitat for Utah prairie dog within the project area (Rodriguez 2006). California condor is not included on the Intermountain Regional Forester s list of TES (USFS, 2013) and review of a more refined area through IPaC also resulted in the absence of the California Condor on the TES list (USFWS, 2014). However, the Fishlake National Forest is on the flight path between populations in southern Utah and sightings in the northern part of the state. However, no sightings have been recorded in the Forest and No Effect No Effect Tetra Tech May

11 Table 3.1 Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant and Wildlife Species Species Common/Scientific Name Status Suitability of Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species Suitable Unsuitable Based on the following Determination nesting habitat does not occur in the project area. Greater sagegrouse Centrocercus urophasianus Candidate No Sage-grouse are dependent on large expanses of sagebrush (Dahlgren et al., n.d.); however, this type of habitat does not occur in the analysis area. No Effect Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate No Obligate riparian nesters only breed in large patches ( acres) of streamside forests dominated by willow and cottonwood (Rodriquez 2006). Potential habitat identified by the Fishlake National Forest does not occur within the analysis area (Rodriguez 2006). No Effect Tetra Tech May

12 4.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS Expansion of the special use permit boundary and associated mining disturbance will cause no direct or indirect effects on plant species listed as threatened or endangered or considered a candidate species because none of these plants occur in the project area. Additionally, no cumulative effects are anticipated on threatened, endangered, or candidate plant species as no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed Action. No direct or indirect effects are anticipated for wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered, or considered a candidate species, as they do not inhabit the project area. The cumulative effects of mining and infrastructure development have slightly altered the nesting habitat and foraging ability in the project area. However, disturbance is considered minor and sufficient habitat for nesting and foraging activities is available nearby. Tetra Tech May

13 5.0 CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS This BA was prepared by the consultants listed in Table 5.1. This table also presents US Forest Service personnel, along with their area of expertise or job title, who reviewed this document. Table 5.1. List of Contributors and Reviewers Name Title/Firm Responsible for the Following Section(s) of this Document Thad Jones Ecologist, Tetra Tech, Inc. TES Plants Matt Cambier Biologist, Tetra Tech, Inc. TES Wildlife Sean Kelly US Forest Service Wildlife Biologist Dave Tait US Forest Service Botanist Jason Kling US Forest Service Richfield District Ranger Tetra Tech May

14 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Collins, P. D. (2013). Segregation Facility: Impacts to the Plant Communities at the SUFCO Mine, Sevier County, Utah. Mt. Nebo Scientific, Inc. Springville, UT. Dahlgren, D. K., Chi, R., & Messmer, T. A. (n.d.). Greater Sage-grouse Response to Sagebrush Management in Utah. Utah State University Cooperative Extension., (p. 2006). Rodriguez, R. (2006). Life History and Analysis of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species of the Fishlake National Forest. Version 4.1. Tait, D. (2013, July 2). Fishlake National Forest Botanist. (T. T. Lynn Peterson, Interviewer) USFS. (1986). Land and Resource Management Plan for the Fishlake National Forest. Richfield, UT. USFS. (2013). Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species, February 2013 Update, Known/Suspected Distribution by Forest. US Dept. of Agriculture, US Forest Service. Ogden, UT. Available online at: USFWS. (2014). Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). Version 1.4. Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online at : Tetra Tech May

15