AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER’S AMERICAN BURYING CONSERVATION PLAN IN OKLAHOMA, , &

PREPARED FOR: American Electric Power 212 East 6th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma

PREPARED BY: Enercon Services, Inc. 1601 Northwest Expressway, Suite 1000 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118

ICF 14123 Denver West Parkway, Suite 100 Golden, Colorado 80401

PHOTO: USFWS

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER’S AMERICAN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN IN OKLAHOMA, ARKANSAS, AND TEXAS

P REPARED FOR :

American Electric Power 212 East 6th Street Tulsa, OK Contact: Kelli Boren

P R E P A R E D B Y :

Enercon Services, Inc. 1601 Northwest Expressway, Suite 1000 Oklahoma City, OK 73118

ICF 14123 Denver West Parkway, Suite 100 Golden, CO 80401

September 2018

Enercon Services, Inc., and ICF. 2018. American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas. September. Prepared for: American Electric Power.

Contents

List of Tables and Figures ...... v List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... vi

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Overview ...... 1-1 1.1.1 Applicant’s Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 1.2 Scope of the Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 1-2 1.2.1 Plan Area ...... 1-2 1.2.2 Covered Activities ...... 1-2 1.2.3 Covered Species ...... 1-3 1.2.4 Permit Duration ...... 1-6 1.3 Regulatory Setting...... 1-7 1.3.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ...... 1-7 1.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act ...... 1-9 1.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 1-9 1.3.4 Arkansas Endangered Species Act ...... 1-10 1.3.5 Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code ...... 1-10 1.3.6 Texas Threatened and Endangered Species Act ...... 1-10 1.4 Document Organization ...... 1-10 Chapter 2 Covered Activities ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Operations and Maintenance of Facilities ...... 2-2 2.2.1 Reconductoring ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Isolated Pole Replacement and Repair ...... 2-3 2.2.3 Emergency Response and Outage Repair ...... 2-3 2.2.4 Routine Maintenance and Inspections ...... 2-3 2.2.5 Vegetation Management ...... 2-4 2.3 Construction of Lines and Facilities ...... 2-4 2.3.1 Construction and Upgrading of Aboveground Electric Lines ...... 2-4 2.3.2 Road Construction and Improvement ...... 2-5 2.3.3 New Construction or Expansion of Support Facilities...... 2-5 2.4 Post-Construction Restoration Activities ...... 2-6

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 i Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Contents

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Physical Resources ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Plan Area ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Regional Geology and Topography ...... 3-2 3.2.3 Hydrology ...... 3-3 3.2.4 Climate and Climate Change ...... 3-3 3.3 Biological Resources ...... 3-3 3.3.1 Land Cover ...... 3-3 3.4 American Burying Beetle ...... 3-4 3.4.1 Status ...... 3-4 3.4.2 Species Description ...... 3-5 3.4.3 Life History ...... 3-5 3.4.4 Range ...... 3-6 3.4.5 Habitat ...... 3-8 3.4.6 Threats ...... 3-11 Chapter 4 Effects Analysis and Take Assessment ...... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.2 Impact Mechanisms ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Soil Disturbance and Movement ...... 4-1 4.2.2 Off-Road Travel by Vehicles and Heavy Equipment ...... 4-2 4.2.3 Artificial Lighting ...... 4-3 4.2.4 Human Presence and Movement ...... 4-3 4.2.5 Altered Soil Moisture ...... 4-3 4.2.6 Erosion ...... 4-4 4.2.7 Predation ...... 4-4 4.2.8 Food Availability ...... 4-4 4.2.9 Fire ...... 4-4 4.3 Estimated Incidental Take and Impact of the Taking...... 4-5 4.4 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-10 Chapter 5 Conservation Strategy ...... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.2 Definitions ...... 5-1 5.3 Biological Goals and Objectives ...... 5-2 5.4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ...... 5-2

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 ii Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Contents

5.4.1 Reduce Erosion by Implementing Stormwater Best Management Practices ...... 5-3 5.4.2 Limit Use of Motor Vehicles, Machinery, or Heavy Equipment ...... 5-3 5.4.3 Reduce Risk of Motor Vehicles Sparking ...... 5-3 5.4.4 Increase Safety during Operation, Fluid Use, and Storage ...... 5-4 5.4.5 Limit Disturbance from Mechanical Vegetation Management ...... 5-4 5.4.6 Limit Use of Artificial Lighting ...... 5-4 5.4.7 Training ...... 5-4 5.5 Mitigation Measures ...... 5-5 5.5.1 Post-construction Restoration for Temporary and Permanent Cover Change Impacts 5-5 5.5.2 Off-site Habitat Mitigation for Temporary, Permanent Cover Change, and Permanent Impacts ...... 5-6 5.6 Monitoring ...... 5-9 5.7 Adaptive Management ...... 5-9 Chapter 6 Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding ...... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...... 6-1 6.2 Implementation ...... 6-1 6.2.1 American Electric Power ...... 6-1 6.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 6-4 6.3 Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances and Assurances Requested ...... 6-4 6.3.1 Changed Circumstances Provided for in the HCP ...... 6-5 6.3.2 Unforeseen Circumstances ...... 6-7 6.3.3 No-Surprises Assurances ...... 6-7 6.4 Funding ...... 6-7 6.4.1 Costs to Implement the Plan ...... 6-7 6.5 Plan Revisions and Amendments ...... 6-10 6.5.1 Minor Modifications ...... 6-10 6.5.2 Amendments...... 6-11 6.6 Suspension/Revocation of Permit ...... 6-11 Chapter 7 Alternatives to the Taking ...... 7-1 7.1 Introduction ...... 7-1 7.2 Description of Take Alternatives ...... 7-1 7.2.1 No Take Alternative ...... 7-2 7.2.2 Extended Permit Term Alternative ...... 7-2 7.2.3 No Action Alternative ...... 7-3

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 iii Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Contents

Chapter 8 List of Preparers ...... 8-1 8.1 American Electric Power ...... 8-1 8.2 Enercon Services, Inc...... 8-1 8.3 ICF ...... 8-1 Chapter 9 References Cited ...... 9-1 9.1 References for Chapter 1, Introduction ...... 9-1 9.2 References for Chapter 3, Environmental Setting ...... 9-1 9.3 References for Chapter 4, Effects Analysis and Take Assessment ...... 9-4 9.4 References for Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy ...... 9-6 9.5 References for Chapter 6, Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding ...... 9-6 9.6 References for Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Taking ...... 9-7 9.7 References for Figures ...... 9-7

Appendix A AEP’s Procedures for Cultural Resources for the American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 iv Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Contents

Tables and Figures

Table

1-1 Status of Federally and State-listed and Candidate Species in the Plan Area ...... 1-4

2-1 Summary of Covered Activities within the Plan Area ...... 2-7

3-1 Land Cover in the Plan Area ...... 3-4

3-2 American Burying Beetle Life Stages ...... 3-6

3-3 Total Acres of ABB Habitat within the Plan Area ...... 3-9

4-1 Likelihood of Take of ABB and Take Mechanisms from Covered Activities ...... 4-2

4-2 Yearly Average and Total Estimated Ground-Disturbance Impact Area of Covered Activities ...... 4-6

4-3 Estimated Take of Occupied ABB Habitat (acres) ...... 4-8

5-1 Mitigation Ratios for ABB Habitat Impacts ...... 5-7

5-2 USFWS-approved Conservation Banks in the Plan Area for ABB ...... 5-8

6-1 Estimated Average Annual Costs to Implement the Plan ...... 6-9

Figure Follows Page

1-1 Plan Area ...... 1-2

2-1 AEP Retail Service Territory and Transmission Lines in the Plan Area ...... 2-2

3-1 Ecoregions and Hydrology ...... 3-2

3-2 ABB Range and Conservation Priority Areas ...... 3-8

3-3 Land Cover ...... 3-10

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 v Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

°C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit ABB American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) AEP American Electric Power System AMMs avoidance and minimization measures Applicant American Electric Power System ATV all-terrain vehicle CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPA Conservation Priority Area EIS environmental impact statement ESA Endangered Species Act FR Federal Register HCP habitat conservation plan km kilometer NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act plan American Electric Power Habitat Conservation Plan for American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas PSO Public Service Company of Oklahoma ROW right-of-way SWEPCO Southwestern Electric Power Company TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department USC U.S. Government Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 vi Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

American Electric Power System (AEP or Applicant)1 is one of the largest electric utilities in the country, serving more than 5 million customers in 11 states. With a service territory of more than 128 million acres, AEP operates more than 223,000 miles of distribution and 40,000 miles of transmission lines. AEP also operates more than 60 power , with a combined generating capacity of more than 26,000 megawatts. AEP’s ability to serve its customers depends on the timely installation, operation, and maintenance of its electric facilities. AEP’s electric system includes transmission lines, substations, switching stations, and a distribution network. The locations and types of new facilities depend on the service demands of its customers and input from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission–approved Regional Transmission Organizations, which manage planning and operation of the nation’s electric grid.

AEP and its operating companies, Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) and Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), maintain and operate facilities and infrastructure in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas that are within the range of the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) (ABB). AEP will expand its facilities in these areas in coming years, based on customer, regulator, and Regional Transmission Organization needs.

ABB is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S. Government Code [USC] 1531 et seq.). With this habitat conservation plan (HCP), AEP is applying for an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for ABB, pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. This HCP addresses potential take2 of ABB from AEP’s operation, maintenance, and construction activities for electrical lines and support facilities. 1.1.1 Applicant’s Purpose and Need

The purpose of American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas (henceforth referred to as HCP or plan) is to provide a mechanism for AEP to comply with ESA requirements authorizing potential incidental take of ABB resulting from operations, maintenance, and construction activities.

ABB, listed as endangered under the ESA, is found or has been reintroduced in nine states, including eastern Oklahoma, western Arkansas, and northeastern Texas (Figure 1-1). AEP has the potential to affect ABB during the course of its normal operations, maintenance, and construction

1 American Electric Power Service Corporation, or AEPSC, a subsidiary of American Electric Power Company, Inc., is the applicant as agent for the operating company subsidiaries and affiliated companies of the AEP system. 2 Take is defined under the ESA as “an action or attempt to hunt, harm, harass, pursue, shoot, wound, capture, kill, trap, or collect a species.” Harm is further defined by regulations to include “significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Harass is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly impair normal behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR Section 17.3).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

activities. In order to comply with the ESA, AEP may choose to avoid impacts on ABB or obtain an incidental take permit if impacts are unavoidable. Project-by-project permitting is inefficient and can result in significant project delays. Therefore, AEP seeks a programmatic permit authorizing incidental take from its operations, maintenance, and construction activities. In order to obtain the permit, this HCP specifies the amount of incidental take anticipated to occur over the duration of the 30-year permit term, minimization and mitigation requirements, and other measures necessary to meet permit issuance criteria described in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and applicable regulations. The permit will help AEP continue to operate efficiently and provide safe and reliable electricity to meet the energy needs of its customers while assisting in conservation of ABB and its habitat.

1.2 Scope of the Habitat Conservation Plan

This section defines key elements of the HCP: the plan area, covered activities, covered species, and permit duration. 1.2.1 Plan Area

The plan area is the area where covered activities occur (i.e., authorized incidental take) and conservation measures take place. The plan area corresponds with county boundaries. It includes counties within the known ABB range in Oklahoma and Arkansas and counties in Texas with ABB occurrence records. It also includes counties in all three states to encompass potential ABB range expansion over the permit term (Figure 1-1). In total, the plan area amounts to almost 32 million acres. Additional information about the plan area is provided in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting. 1.2.2 Covered Activities

Covered activities are those projects or ongoing activities occurring in the plan area that will be covered by take authorization under an incidental take permit. This section provides an overview of the covered activities proposed for this HCP. Detailed descriptions of covered activities are presented in Chapter 2, Covered Activities. The covered activities addressed by the plan can be divided broadly into operations and maintenance and construction of lines and facilities.

1.2.2.1 Operations and Maintenance of Existing Facilities

The following categories of operations and maintenance activities are proposed for coverage by this HCP within the plan area:

 Reconductoring. AEP replaces older conductors (wires) on existing electric lines to ensure service reliability or increase capacity and ensure system functionality.

 Pole Replacement and Repair. AEP may replace or repair older or damaged poles. AEP may also repair or replace pole equipment (i.e., cross arms, insulators, pins, transformers, wires, cables, guys, anchors, switches, fuses, paint) when it fails, becomes unsafe, outlasts its usefulness, or is otherwise identified for replacement.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-2 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Text

KANSAS

Springfield

Grant Kay n o t Craig Ottawa

g Nowata n i

Osage h MISSOURI Ar s

k a a 35 n s W a s R Garfield iv Noble er Rogers 44 Delaware Benton Carroll Mayes Boone Pawnee Fayetteville/ Springdale/ Payne Rogers Tulsa Wagoner Creek Washington Madison Logan Tulsa Cherokee Newton Adair

Oklahoma Lincoln Muskogee City Okmulgee Crawford Franklin Oklahoma Johnson Okfuskee Sequoyah 40 e i McIntosh Fort Pope Cleveland m River o n e t ia l ad Smith a n Norman o OKLAHOMA Ca w n i

a Haskell Sebastian Logan t m t e o S P Hughes Yell McClain Pittsburg Perry Latimer Le Flore Scott Pontotoc Saline Garvin

Coal Montgomery Garland Murray Polk Pushmataha ARKANSAS Johnston Atoka Hot Spring Carter Howard Pike Marshall McCurtain Clark Love Choctaw Bryan Sevier

R ed 30 R i Grayson v er Little Cooke Lamar Hempstead Fannin Red River Nevada TEXAS River 35 d x

m Delta Bowie .

5 Denton 0

8 WiseDallas/ 0 6 n i 1 McKinney l 0 Fort Worth/ Titus 2 Hunt k Miller Columbia _

Hopkins s n a Arlington Collin i e r a r r r A o n F a

l Lafayette

M Cass P _ 1 - 1 Camp g i Tarrant Dallas F \ c o

D IN Upshur Marion p IL Kaufman a American Burying Beetle Plan Area AEP HCP for American Burying Beetle

M KS \ MO KY P E

A Range in OK and AR County Boudary \ s Figure 1-1: Plan Area t c TN e j o OK Counties with Potential State Boundary r AR P \ r

e Range Expansion v n e

D MS AL \

: Counties in TX with ABB K

:

h TX t PLAN Records

a LA P t n AREA 0 20 40 e m u c o

D Sources: USFWS 2014, USFWS 2016, Knoll pers. comm. Miles

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

 Emergency Response and Outage Repair. Weather, vegetation interference, equipment failure, accidents, fire, or are typical causes of outages requiring emergency response. When outages occur, AEP inspects the line to determine the location and probable cause of the outage, then repairs and restores the circuits as quickly as possible. Covered activities associated with emergency response work typically address storm damage to distribution and transmission lines as well as substations or switching stations.

 Routine Maintenance and Inspections. AEP must repair or replace pole equipment when it fails, becomes unsafe, outlasts its usefulness, or is otherwise identified for maintenance or replacement. AEP conducts routine inspections of its transmission and distribution infrastructure to verify that equipment is functioning safely and efficiently.

 Vegetation Management. Periodic vegetation management is necessary on transmission and distribution rights-of-way (ROWs) and around other support facilities to protect the electric transmission and distribution system and minimize tree-related outages.

1.2.2.2 Construction of Lines and Facilities

The following categories of construction activities are proposed for coverage in this HCP:

 Construction and Upgrading of Aboveground Electric Lines. This activity includes construction of new lines and upgrades (also called rebuilds) of existing lines. It would typically involve clearing woody vegetation, if necessary, and limited grading along the ROW prior to installation of poles, transmission towers, and transmission and distribution lines. For construction of new lines, this activity may also include modifying vegetation within the new ROW to meet AEP’s ROW vegetation management standards.

 Road Construction and Improvement. This activity includes construction of new access roads or expansion/improvement of existing two-track roads to access ROWs for new construction or rebuilds of transmission lines.

 New Construction or Expansion of Support Facilities. Switching station and substation construction involves clearing vegetation, grading the site, spreading base material, adding topping rock, drilling foundations, and installing electrical equipment.

1.2.2.3 Plan Implementation Activities

The conservation and mitigation strategy (Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy) is designed to mitigate impacts of covered activities on ABB within the plan area and monitor impacts and mitigation in the future. However, avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation activities have the potential to result in take of ABB and, therefore, are also covered activities under this HCP. 1.2.3 Covered Species

AEP is requesting incidental take coverage of ABB for activities associated with the operation, maintenance, and construction of electric facilities in the plan area. ABB is the only species covered under this HCP; it is described further in Section 3.4, American Burying Beetle.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-3 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

1.2.3.1 Species Considered for Coverage

AEP considered coverage for other federally or state-listed species that occur or have the potential to occur in the plan area (Table 1-1). AEP believes that the likelihood of covered activities adversely affecting additional federally or state-listed species is highly project specific and better managed on an individual project basis. AEP’s aboveground electric lines typically span water bodies, thereby minimizing the likelihood of affecting non-covered, listed aquatic species. When lines must cross water bodies supporting aquatic or aquatic-dependent species, tall woody vegetation is hand cleared to the bank, and no construction or vehicle movement occurs within the water body. For any project that would dredge or place fill in waters of the U.S. that are subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, AEP would seek a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Permit actions by the Corps require consultation with USFWS to comply with Section 7 of the ESA. Should aquatic or aquatic-dependent species have the potential to be affected by future AEP activities, these impacts will be addressed through separate ESA compliance processes, such as the ESA Section 7 consultation process or a separate HCP.

Table 1-1. Status of Federally and State-listed and Candidate Species that Occur in the Plan Area

Federal State Status Species Status Arkansas Oklahoma Texas Invertebrates American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) E E Rattlesnake-master borer moth ( eryngii) C Magazine Mountain shagreen (Inflectarius magazinensis) E Crustaceans Oklahoma cave crayfish (Cambarus tartarus) E Mammals Black bear (Ursus americanus) T Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) E E E Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) E E Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) T E Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus (=plecotus) townsendii ingens) E E Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) T Birds Bachman’s sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis) T Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis) E E Least tern (Sterna antillarum) E E E Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) T T Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) T Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E E E Wood stork (Mycteria americana) T Whooping crane (Grus americana) E E

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-4 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

Federal State Status Species Status Arkansas Oklahoma Texas Reptiles American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) T E Alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) T Northern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea copei) T Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) T Arkansas fatmucket ( powellii) T E Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) E Ouachita rock pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri) E E Pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) E E Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) T E Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) E E Snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra) E Speckled pocketbook () E E Spectaclecase (mussel) (Cumberlandia monodonta) E E Winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) E E Fishes Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) T E T Black-sided darter (Percina maculata) T T Blue sucker (Cycleptus elongates) T Creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) T Leopard darter (Percina pantherina) T Long-nosed darter (Percina nasuta) E Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) T Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) T E Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) T Shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) T Yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei) E Plants Appalachian filmy fern (Trichomanes boschianum) T Arkansas meadow-rue (Thalictrum arkansanum) T Buried indian-breadroot (Pediomelum hypogaeum var. subulatum) E Dwarf bristle fern (Trichomanes petersii) T Durand’s white oak (Quercus sinuata) T Earth fruit (Geocarpon minimum) T E T False gaura (Stenosiphon linifolius) T Few-flower beaksedge (Rhynchospora rariflora) T Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) E Hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta ssp. hirsuta) E

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-5 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

Federal State Status Species Status Arkansas Oklahoma Texas Little-leaf clover (Dalea phleoides var. microphylla) T squarehead (Tetragonotheca ludoviciana) E Maple-leaf oak (Quercus acerifolia) T Milkvine (Matelea cynanchoides) E Missouri bladderpod ( filiformis) T Opaque prairie sedge (Carex opaca) E Open-ground whitlow-grass (Draba aprica) T Ovate-leaf catchfly (Silene ovata) T Palm-leaf indian-breadroot (Pediomelum digitatum) T Panicled indigo-bush (Amorpha paniculata) T Porter’s reed grass (Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata) E Prairie evening-primrose (Oenothera pilosella ssp. sessilis) T Red bay (Persea borbonia) E Sandhill twistflower (Streptanthus hyacinthoides) T Sanguine purple coneflower (Echinacea sanguinea) T Silky prairie-clover (Dalea villosa var. grisea) E Small-head pipewort (Eriocaulon koernickianum) E Spinulose wood fern (Dryopteris carthusiana) T Texas grama (Bouteloua rigidiseta) E Waterfall’s sedge (Carex latebracteata) T Western prairie-fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) T White-top sedge E Whorled dropseed (Sporobolus pyramidatus) T Whorled nut rush (Scleria verticillata) T PT = Proposed Threatened T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate Species Sources: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2015; Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 2015; Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 2015; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2015; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015.

1.2.4 Permit Duration

AEP is seeking an incidental take permit from USFWS for a term of 30 years. The permit term of 30 years was selected because it provides a reasonable planning horizon for implementing covered activities and realizing cost savings from HCP implementation compared with the cost of preparing the HCP. A 30-year time period also allows for full implementation and evaluation of the Conservation Strategy, including monitoring and adaptive management. Before the permit expires, AEP could apply to renew or amend the HCP and the associated permit to extend its term. Plan amendments are described in Chapter 6, Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-6 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

1.3 Regulatory Setting 1.3.1 Federal Endangered Species Act

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any endangered or threatened species of fish or wildlife listed under the ESA. Under the ESA, the term take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect species listed as endangered or threatened or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Under Section 10 of the ESA, USFWS may authorize, under certain terms and conditions, any taking otherwise prohibited by Section 9(a)(1)(B) if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. This Section 10 take authorization is known as an incidental take permit.

In the ESA’s regulatory definition of take, harass means an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns that include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harm in the ESA’s regulatory definition of take means an act that actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that, as a result, actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 17.3).

To receive an incidental take permit, a non-federal landowner or land manager must submit a USFWS-approved HCP. The HCP must specify the following information:3

 The impact on the covered species that will most likely result from such taking.

 The measures the applicant will undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts; the funding that will be available to implement such measures; and the procedures to be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances.

 The alternative actions the applicant considered that would not result in take and the reasons why such alternatives are not proposed to be used.

 Such other measures that USFWS may require as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the HCP.

USFWS may issue an incidental take permit if it finds that the following criteria of ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B), 50 CFR Section 17.22(b)(2), and 50 CFR Section 17.32(b)(2) are met:

 The taking will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

 The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such takings.

 The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the HCP and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances will be provided.

 The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.

 The applicant has met the measures, if any, required by the director of USFWS as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan.

 The Secretary of the Interior has received assurances, as required, that the plan will be implemented.

3 ESA Section 10(a)(2)(A), 50 CFR 17.22(b)(1), and 50 CFR 17.32(b)(1).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-7 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

1.3.1.1 Section 7

Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat critical to such species’ survival. To ensure that its actions do not result in jeopardy to listed species or adverse modification of critical habitat, each federal agency must consult with USFWS regarding federal agency actions.

Although this HCP constitutes a non-federal project and will be permitted under Section 10 of the ESA, the issuance of a permit by USFWS is considered a federal action. Therefore, prior to approval of the HCP, USFWS must undertake internal Section 7 consultation (ESA Section 7(a)(2) and 50 CFR Sections 402.10–402.16). USFWS will examine the HCP to ensure that it accurately documents the expected impacts of its federal action (i.e., issuance of a take permit) as well as the mitigation proposed to compensate for those impacts in the plan area.

1.3.1.2 Section 10

In cases where federal land, funding, or authorization is not required for an action by a non-federal entity, the take of listed species may be permitted by USFWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Service through the Section 10 process. Private landowners, corporations, state agencies, local agencies, and other non-federal entities must obtain a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit for take of federally listed fish and wildlife species “that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.” Because ESA Section 9 prohibitions for listed plants apply only on lands under federal jurisdiction, Section 10 incidental take permits are available only for take of wildlife and fish species on non-federal property.

To receive an incidental take permit, the non-federal entity is required under Section 10(a)(2)(A) to submit an HCP that identifies the following:

 Impacts that are likely to result from the proposed taking of the species for which permit coverage is requested.

 Measures that will be implemented to minimize and mitigate impacts.

 Funding that will be made available to undertake such measures.

 Alternative actions considered that would not result in take.

 Additional measures USFWS may require as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.

If USFWS finds that the HCP and related permit application meet the following statutory criteria of Section 10(a)(2)(B), USFWS shall issue the permit:

 The taking will be incidental.

 The impacts of incidental take will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

 Adequate funding for the HCP and procedures to handle unforeseen circumstances will be provided.

 The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-8 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

 The applicant met additional measures, if any, that USFWS required as being necessary or appropriate.

 USFWS has received assurances, as may be required, that the HCP will be implemented. 1.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is one of the primary laws governing the environmental protection process. It is a decision-making requirement that applies to proposals for federal actions. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations define major federal actions as those actions with “effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to federal control and responsibility,” including “projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies.” NEPA states that any federal agency undertaking a major federal action that is likely to affect the human environment must prepare an environmental assessment. If any impacts on the human environment are found to be significant and cannot be mitigated to the point of insignificance, the federal agency must then prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). Project proponents must disclose in these documents whether their proposed action will adversely affect the human or natural environment. NEPA’s requirements are primarily procedural rather than substantive in that NEPA requires disclosure of environmental effects and mitigation possibilities but includes no requirement to mitigate.

Issuance of an incidental take permit under the ESA, Section 10(a)(1)(B), is a federal action subject to NEPA compliance. Although ESA and NEPA requirements overlap considerably, the scope of NEPA goes beyond that of the ESA by considering the impacts of a federal action not only on fish and wildlife resources but also on other resources, such as water quality, air quality, and cultural resources. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure the agency has before it the best possible information to make an “intelligent, optimally beneficial decision” and ensure the public is fully apprised of any environmental risks that may be associated with the preferred action. To satisfy NEPA requirements, USFWS has released the draft EIS that accompanies this draft HCP. 1.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.), requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions proposed on properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Properties are defined as cultural resources, which include prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, and structures that are listed on or eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. An undertaking is defined as a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval; and those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency. The issuance of an incidental take permit is an undertaking subject to Section 106 of the NHPA. USFWS has determined that the area of potential effects for the HCP is that area where covered activities may result in take of species. The NHPA and the potential effects of the Conservation Strategy on resources subject to the NHPA are discussed in detail in the EIS associated with this HCP. In obtaining take authorization under this HCP, AEP must comply with Section 106 regulations of the NHPA. Refer to Appendix A, AEP’s Procedures for Cultural Resources for the American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan for more information.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-9 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

1.3.4 Arkansas Endangered Species Act

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is the state agency charged by State Constitution Amendment No. 35 with “the control, management, restoration, conservation, and regulation of birds, fish, game, and wildlife resources of the state.” Under the Arkansas Endangered Species Act, it is unlawful to import, transport, sell, purchase, hunt, harass, or possess any threatened or endangered species of wildlife or parts, including, without limitation, those species listed under the ESA, 50 CFR Section 17.11, 50 CFR Section 17.12, and Arkansas Game and Fish Code Book Addendum Chapter P1.00. ABB is listed as endangered in Arkansas. The covered activities defined in this plan are not expected to violate the Arkansas Endangered Species Act relative to ABB because of the limited restrictions of the act. Other species listed by Arkansas and found in the plan area are presented in Table 1-1. 1.3.5 Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation is the state agency responsible for managing wildlife and fish in the state of Oklahoma. Species listed by Oklahoma and found in the plan area are presented in Table 1-1. 1.3.6 Texas Threatened and Endangered Species Act

In 1973, the Texas legislature authorized the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to establish a list of endangered animals in the state. Endangered species are those species that the executive director of TPWD has named as being “threatened with statewide extinction.” Threatened species are those species that the TPWD Commission has determined are likely to become endangered in the future.

Laws and regulations pertaining to endangered or threatened species are contained in Chapters 67 and 68 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code and Sections 65.171–65.176 of Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code.

TPWD regulations prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened without the issuance of a permit. State laws and regulations prohibit commerce in threatened and endangered plants and the collection of listed species from public land without a permit issued by TPWD. ABB is not listed as threatened or endangered under Texas law. Other species listed by Texas and found in the two Texas counties in the plan area are presented in Table 1-1.

1.4 Document Organization

This HCP and supporting information are presented in the chapters and appendices listed below:

 Chapter 1, Introduction, discusses the background, purpose, and objectives of the plan; summarizes the plan framework; and reviews the regulatory setting.

 Chapter 2, Covered Activities, describes activities covered under the plan that are likely to result in some level of take of ABB over the permit term.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-10 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 1. Introduction

 Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, discusses existing conditions in the plan area, including conditions related to geology and hydrology, along with existing conditions related to ABB, including the species’ description, life history, habitat, and threats.

 Chapter 4, Effects Analysis and Take Assessment, assesses the take to result from the covered activities and the impact of the taking on ABB.

 Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy, summarizes the conservation measures and describes the specific actions to be implemented to mitigate the impacts of the covered activities and contribute to species recovery. This chapter also describes the monitoring and adaptive management program.

 Chapter 6, Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding details the administrative requirements associated with plan implementation and the roles and responsibilities of USFWS and the permittee (AEP). This chapter also reviews the costs associated with plan implementation and the funding sources proposed to pay for those costs, the regulatory protections for AEP in the event of changed circumstances or unforeseen circumstances, and the procedures for modifying or amending the plan.

 Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Taking, presents the required analysis of alternatives to take of covered species.

 Chapter 8, List of Preparers, lists the people who contributed to the plan.

 Chapter 9, References Cited, is a bibliography of printed references and personal communications cited in the text.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 1-11 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 2 Covered Activities

2.1 Introduction Covered activities are those projects or ongoing activities with the potential to result in take of ABB. These covered activities will be covered by take authorization under the plan’s incidental take permit. This chapter describes AEP’s covered activities within the plan area (Figure 1-1).

To meet the needs of customers, AEP must operate and maintain facilities; in some cases, it must construct facilities for safe and efficient electric service. The activities covered by the plan can be divided broadly into two categories: 1) operation and maintenance of existing facilities or 2) construction of new (or rebuilding of existing) lines and associated facilities. The covered activities do not include any work on facilities outside the plan area.

AEP identified operations and maintenance activities as well as construction activities that have the potential to result in take of ABB or adversely affect ABB or its habitat. Activities that alter vegetation, potentially disturb or compact soils, or otherwise result in mortality of ABB are included as covered activities and described below. A summary of the covered activities is provided in Table 2-1 at the end of this chapter.

The following description of the covered activities is based on standard AEP procedures. The procedures employed during actual activities in the present or future may vary slightly from standard procedures. However, such activities are expected to have a level of impact similar to or less than the covered activities that are presented below and further evaluated in Chapter 4, Effects Analysis and Take Assessment. The vast majority of AEP’s distribution lines are in developed areas that do not contain ABB habitat, areas where covered activities would not have the potential for take of ABB. Therefore, quantitative estimates for distribution line operations and maintenance and construction are based on AEP’s determination of the proportion of its distribution lines occurring in areas with the potential to result in take of ABB.4

Covered activities may be conducted by AEP personnel or its consultants or contractors. Covered activities include those conducted in situations in which AEP is part of a joint venture with another utility or energy company, as long as AEP has direct control5 of the party implementing the activity.

4 AEP consulted reliability managers in its PSO and SWEPCO units to estimate the potential proportion of distribution lines subject to covered activities with the potential to affect ABB. AEP utilized existing knowledge of circuit geography to estimate the number of line miles that existed in the non-urban or otherwise undeveloped areas with ABB habitat. A percentage was then calculated, based on the line miles in areas that could affect ABB compared with overall distribution line miles within the service districts within the plan area. 5 The USFWS definition of “direct control” includes parties who are employed by the permittee, including contractors, anyone under the regulatory jurisdiction of the permittee, or entities that have an interagency (or intercompany) agreement establishing the permittee’s legal control (see 50 CFR Section 13.25 and 50 CFR Section 222.305(b)).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 2-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 2. Covered Activities

2.2 Operations and Maintenance of Facilities AEP operates and maintains an electrical transmission and distribution system6 in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas (Figure 2-1). Periodic operations and maintenance activities on these existing lines and associated ROWs and facilities may occur in ABB habitat and include reconductoring, pole replacement and repair, emergency response and outage repair, routine maintenance and inspection of facilities, and vegetation management.7

The greatest potential for impact on ABB from operations and maintenance is associated with reconductoring and pole replacement (described in detail below), which may involve the use of heavy machinery and disturb soil and vegetation in ABB habitat. AEP replaces poles, conductor, and equipment when needed to repair storm damage or when this equipment exceeds its lifespan. In this HCP, these isolated operations and maintenance activities are addressed separately from new transmission lines and transmission line upgrades (see Section 2.3.1, Construction and Upgrading of Aboveground Electric Lines) where entire stretches of lines are rebuilt. 2.2.1 Reconductoring AEP replaces older conductors (wires) on existing electric lines to ensure system functionality. Work crews install replacement conductors from a boom truck; the ROW is accessed via existing roads, although, in some cases, off-road vehicle travel or the use of helicopters may be necessary to install the conductors.

Reconductoring on transmission lines is done over the entire length of the line, typically in 2- to 3- mile “pulls,” but may be done in smaller pulls on distribution lines where only sections of line need reconductoring. Several pieces of equipment are used, including tensioners (rope trucks) to feed out the new conductor and adjust tension, conductor reels to receive the existing conductor as it is removed, and reels of new conductors. Trailers pulled by semi-trucks, which also are parked on-site, typically deliver and remove the reels. On-site cranes move the conductor reels on and off the semi- trucks. Reconductoring also requires temporary work areas for construction equipment laydown and vehicle parking; these areas are approximately 15 feet wide and situated under the line. In limited instances of short duration and usually in areas where the existing line changes direction, trucks may need to temporarily park outside of the existing ROW to pull new conductors into place.

Before reconductoring, construction crews install guard structures at road crossings and other locations (where necessary) to prevent wires from contacting existing electric or communication facilities or passing vehicles. These temporary structures consist of wood poles and, occasionally, a support net stretched beneath the conductors. Once conductors are pulled into place and tensioned, they are permanently attached to existing infrastructure. This HCP assumes that AEP will reconductor an average of 26 miles of transmission line each year, for a total of 780 miles over the 30-year permit term, and 3 miles of distribution line each year, for a total of 90 miles over the 30- year permit term.

6 Distribution lines are defined as electrical lines that operate at less than 69 kilovolts. Transmission lines are designed to move electricity long distances and operate at between 69 and 765 kilovolts. 7 This HCP covers the operations and maintenance of facilities for which AEP has coverage for take authorization for construction under separate incidental take permits.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 2-2 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Text

KANSAS

Springfield

Grant Kay n o t Craig Ottawa g Nowata n i

Osage h MISSOURI Ar s

k a a 35 n s W a s R Garfield iv Noble er Rogers 44 Delaware Benton Carroll Mayes Boone Pawnee Fayetteville/ Springdale/ Payne Tulsa Rogers Wagoner Creek Washington Madison Logan Tulsa Cherokee Newton Adair

Oklahoma Lincoln Muskogee City Okmulgee Crawford Franklin Oklahoma Johnson Okfuskee Sequoyah 40 e i McIntosh Fort Pope Cleveland m River o n e t ia l ad Smith a Norman o OKLAHOMA Can n w i Logan a Haskell Sebastian t m t e o S P Hughes McClain Yell Pittsburg Perry Latimer Le Flore Scott Saline Garvin Pontotoc

Coal Montgomery Garland Murray Polk Pushmataha ARKANSAS Johnston Atoka Hot Carter Howard Spring Pike Marshall McCurtain Clark Love Choctaw Bryan Sevier

R ed 30 R i d v Little x Grayson Lamar er Hempstead m Cooke . Red Nevada 0 Fannin River 2

9 River

0 TEXAS 6 1

0 35 2 _ s e

n Delta Bowie i L Denton _ d Wise

n Dallas/ a n _ McKinney i l e Fort Worth/

c Titus

Hunt k i Miller Columbia v

Hopkins s n r

Arlington i e Collin r a S r r _ o F P Lafayette E

M Cass A _ 1 -

2 Camp g i Tarrant Dallas F \ c o 1 D Upshur Marion p KaTurfamnasmn ission Lines American Electric Power Service

a IN 2 AEP HCP for American Burying Beetle M \ IL Territory P 69 kV E KS MO

A KY \

s Figure 2-1: AEP Retail Service

t Public Service Company of c 115 kV e j Territory and Transmission Lines o Oklahoma r TN P \ r OK 138 kV in the Plan Area e AR v Southwestern Electric n e 161 kV D Power Company \ : K

MS AL : h

t 345 kV a

P TX Plan Area t PLAN LA n 1 0 20 40 e Only AEP transmission lines in the plan area are displayed. m AREA 2 u Retail service territory contains distribution lines, which are not displayed c o

D on the map for reasons of scale. Miles

American Electric Power Chapter 2. Covered Activities

2.2.2 Isolated Pole Replacement and Repair In addition to the lines themselves, certain worn or damaged poles may need replacement. AEP must repair or replace pole equipment (i.e., cross arms, insulators, pins, transformers, wires, cables, guys, anchors, switches, fuses, paint) when it fails, becomes unsafe, outlasts its usefulness, or is otherwise identified for replacement. Replacement and repair of pole equipment typically are performed with the pole in place, using a line truck.

When replacement of a power pole is warranted, the new pole is framed (i.e., cross arms, pins, insulators, grounds, bonding, markers, and equipment are assembled) on the ground adjacent to the existing pole prior to setting the new pole into the ground. To replace a pole, the line is typically de- energized, then a line truck augers a new hole, a new pole is moved into the new hole, conductors are moved from the old pole to the new pole, the old pole is removed, and the old hole is backfilled with the augured soil. Existing wood poles may be replaced with new wood poles or, more typically, steel poles with concrete footings. The temporary disturbance area associated with this activity is approximately 1,000 square feet per pole. Approximately 105 transmission poles and 283 distribution poles would be repaired or replaced each year. 2.2.3 Emergency Response and Outage Repair When outages occur, AEP inspects the line to determine the location and probable cause of the outage. Typical causes of outages include weather, vegetation interference, equipment failure, accidents, fire, and animals.

Covered activities associated with emergency response work typically address storm damage to transmission and distribution lines as well as substations or switching stations. When an outage is reported, AEP patrols the line until personnel determine the cause of the outage. Access is primarily from existing roads, although some overland access with work trucks or all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) is expected. Depending on the cause of the outage, repair may entail anything from reclosing a switch to replacing a transformer or pole. Crews repair and restore circuits as quickly as possible. Occasionally, some ground disturbance, such as soil excavation, soil stockpiling, and the use of construction equipment, may occur. AEP conservatively estimates that each outage repair or emergency response results in approximately 1,000 square feet of ground disturbance and that an average of about 53 transmission and 311 distribution emergency responses and outage repairs occur per year in areas with the potential to affect ABB habitat. 2.2.4 Routine Maintenance and Inspections AEP must repair or replace pole equipment (i.e., cross arms, insulators, pins, transformers, wires, cables, guys, anchors, switches, fuses, paint) when it fails, becomes unsafe, outlasts its usefulness, or is otherwise identified for replacement. To determine where repairs and replacements may occur, AEP conducts routine inspections of its transmission and distribution infrastructure several times a year to verify that equipment is functioning safely and efficiently. AEP also inspects transmission and distribution substations to verify equipment operation and conduct safety inspections. Substations are accessed from existing roads in vehicles. AEP also routinely inspects footings and poles to verify stability, structural integrity, and equipment condition (e.g., fuses, breakers, relays, cutouts, switches, transformers, paint). Footings and poles are typically accessed from existing roads but may require off-road travel, either in vehicles or on foot. When outages occur because of weather, accidents, equipment failure, or other reasons, AEP inspects lines to

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 2-3 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 2. Covered Activities

determine the location and probable cause of the outage. Transmission and distribution line facilities are typically accessed from the ROW or existing roads but may require off-road travel, either in vehicles or on foot. 2.2.5 Vegetation Management Vegetation interference with electric lines is one of the most common causes of electric outages throughout the United States. Electric outages may occur when trees or tree limbs grow, fall, or in some other way make contact with transmission and/or distribution lines. Outages may also occur when transmission and/or distribution lines sag or sway into vegetation below or adjacent to the lines because of increased load or ambient air conditions (i.e., high air temperature or wind). Vegetation that comes into contact with electric lines can also start fires. Periodic vegetation management is necessary on transmission and distribution ROWs and in the vicinity of support facilities, such as substations, to protect the electric transmission and distribution system and minimize outages. Vegetation removal generally occurs periodically throughout the year or when the ROW has become overgrown and operational requirements dictate that access to and through the ROW be maintained for annual patrols and inspections. Routine vegetation management includes periodic patrols of vegetation growing near overhead distribution and transmission facilities. Routine vegetation management includes mowing, pruning, and tree removal to ensure adequate clearance between vegetation and infrastructure. It also includes pruning or removal of trees that may pose a hazard to electric facilities.

AEP conducts vegetation management to comply with reliability and outage obligations under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requirements. Vegetation management activities are conducted in the ROW using light and heavy trucks and equipment, mowers, and mechanical tree trimmers. Depending on vegetation conditions, AEP conducts vegetation management in ROWs approximately every 1 to 5 years. AEP’s focus in vegetation management is to remove woody stemmed vegetation. Frequent mowing of herbaceous vegetation is not necessary. Mowing is conducted so that soil disturbance is minimal or non-existent. Mowing typically reduces vegetation to approximately 6 inches in height. Mowing occurs no more than once a year and often in 3-, 4-, or 5-year cycles, allowing vegetation to grow between management cycles. AEP often mulches after mowing (when landowners agree) and leaves all mulch on the site to help stabilize the soil.

2.3 Construction of Lines and Facilities Construction of lines and facilities includes constructing new aboveground electric lines, upgrading aboveground electric lines, and constructing new or expanding existing support facilities. 2.3.1 Construction and Upgrading of Aboveground Electric Lines AEP will construct both electric transmission and distribution lines over the course of the permit term, including new lines and upgrades (also called rebuilds) of existing lines; both activities will be covered under the permit. The majority of new transmission lines are constructed under the direction of the applicable Regional Transmission Organization under FERC. AEP estimates that it will construct an average of 60 miles of transmission lines each year, or approximately 1,800 miles of transmission lines over the permit term. AEP estimates that it will construct 3.05 miles of distribution lines per year in areas with the potential to affect ABB habitat, or 91.5 miles over the permit term.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 2-4 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 2. Covered Activities

AEP will build transmission lines using wood, steel, or concrete poles on concrete footings or directly embedded steel poles. Distribution lines will be built with either wood or steel poles. Associated activities include surveying and staking the centerline, clearing the ROW for new lines, removing existing electric line facilities for rebuilds, auguring for and pouring structure foundations, assembling and setting support structures, installing hardware on support structures, installing new conductors, and performing final cleanup.

New transmission lines would require a new cleared ROW. New ROWs would be cleared of all woody vegetation to meet AEP’s ROW-clearing standards. Transmission ROWs range in width from 50 to 200 feet, depending on the voltage capacity of the line, but are typically 100 to 150 feet wide. New distribution lines may require limited clearing, which is included in the estimate of line clearing required over the permit term. Rebuilds would occur within existing ROWs.

To install power poles, AEP uses a machine auger or similar equipment to excavate the site of the new pole and any necessary anchor holes. The width and depth of the setting hole depends on the size of the pole, soil type, span, and wind loading. Typically, minimum pole-setting depths range from 4 to 14 feet. Poles are framed (cross arms, pins, insulators, grounds, bonding, markers), and any equipment is installed. Any anchors and guys are installed before the pole is set. A vibratory caisson may be used to set poles. After the pole is set, conductors are strung (see Section 2.2.1, Reconductoring). New additions to existing transmission and distribution line facilities or tap lines from the old facilities may require installation of a shoo-fly. Shoo-fly installations involve adding temporary poles or structures around existing permanent facilities within the ROW to limit service interruptions until work crews can make permanent repairs. Shoo-flies consist of a number of poles and anchors supporting conductors to bypass facilities needing repairs or upgrades. In some cases, existing conductors can be removed from the old poles or structures and reattached to the shoo-fly structures. In most cases, this can be accomplished with one or two poles for every circuit attached to the structure being shoo-flied. For example, one double-circuit 115-kilovolt tower (six wires attached) would require a minimum installation of four poles. Shoo-fly supports are removed when the repair or construction work is complete. 2.3.2 Road Construction and Improvement Access to transmission and distribution infrastructure typically occurs within the existing ROW but may require the use of both unimproved and improved roads within and outside of the ROW. AEP anticipates that only rarely would any new road construction or improvement be needed for access. AEP estimates that it would construct new access roads or expand/improve existing two-track roads over a total of 2 miles per year, on average, to access the ROW for new construction or rebuilds of transmission lines. Access roads would typically be a 20-foot-wide gravel surface. 2.3.3 New Construction or Expansion of Support Facilities In order to address load increases to the electrical system, additional equipment may have to be installed, resulting in construction of new, or expansion of existing, substations and switching facilities. Construction may involve vegetation clearing, site grading, spreading of base material (6 inches, compacted to 4 inches), addition of 1.5 inches of topping rock, drilling of foundations, and installation of electrical equipment. The footprint for new switching stations or expansion of existing switching stations typically involves a total of up to 10 acres of disturbance, with approximately 90% consisting of permanent vegetation removal where facilities are constructed and 10% consisting of temporary vegetation removal for construction access and staging.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 2-5 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 2. Covered Activities

Substations typically are constructed close to residential, commercial, or industrial development but may be located in undeveloped areas. New substations or substation expansions vary from 5 to 40 acres in size but are typically 10 acres, with approximately 90% consisting of permanent vegetation removal within the footprint of the substation and 10% consisting of temporary vegetation removal for construction access and staging. This construction footprint may be required for additional transformers, fencing, and new distribution line outlets. The expansion area also may be used for setbacks, landscaping, and access. AEP grades, paves, or surfaces the substation sites and fences the area for safety and security reasons. AEP estimates that it will construct 810 substations and switching stations over the permit term, or an average of about 27 per year.

2.4 Post-Construction Restoration Activities The conservation and mitigation strategy (Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy) is designed to minimize and mitigate impacts of covered activities within the plan area and monitor progress toward achieving the biological goals and objectives therein. However, implementation of post-construction restoration of ABB habitat (Section 5.5.1) may result in low levels of take of ABB and, therefore, are being addressed in this HCP as covered activities.

Habitat restoration activities would generally be temporary and disruptive only in the short term; these activities could involve soil disturbance, seeding, removal of undesirable plants, and limited grading. All habitat restoration is expected to result in a net long-term benefit for ABB. However, these activities might have temporary or short-term adverse effects and might result in limited take. All restoration activities conducted within the plan area that are consistent with HCP requirements will be covered by the HCP.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 2-6 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 2. Covered Activities

Table 2-1. Summary of Covered Activities within the Plan Area

Estimated Estimated Compaction/Excavation/ Equipment Used in Frequency or Total over Activity Activity Description Disturbance Off-Road Areas Amount per Year Permit Term Operations and Maintenance of Existing Facilities Reconductoring Replacement of old May require off-road travel by Helicopter, bucket truck, boom 26 miles for 780 miles for insulators and heavy equipment, vegetation truck, digger derrick truck, transmission and transmission conductors to increase clearing, and temporary work trailers, semi-trucks, cranes, 3 miles for and 90 miles current. areas in a 15-foot area under ATV/UTV, bulldozers, pickup distribution for the line. trucks, wire cards, tensioners, distribution and mowing equipment. Isolated Pole Replacement of old An average of 1,000 square feet Bucket truck, digger derrick 105 transmission 3,150 Replacement poles and line and of temporary disturbance per truck, trailers, semi-trucks, poles and 283 transmission and Repair associated management pole. mowing equipment, distribution poles poles and and maintenance. bulldozers, cranes, pickup 8,490 trucks, line trucks, dump distribution trucks, tractors, ATVs, wire poles cards, and tensioners. Emergency Emergency repair and Will require off-road travel with Bulldozers, cranes, aerial lift 53 for 1,590 Response and restoration of circuits heavy equipment in ROW. Major trucks, wire carts, tensioners, transmission and transmission Outage Repair as quickly as possible. repairs that require pole/tower pickup trucks, and ATVs. 311 for events and replacement and/or Similar to construction distribution 9,330 reconductoring may result in activities; however, more distribution disturbance similar to that of equipment and crews will be events construction activities, assumed on-site to address emergencies to be 1,000 square feet per in order to reduce outage time. event, on average. Routine Routine annual May require off-road travel and Helicopter, ATV/UTV, pickup Conducted at least Not Maintenance inspection of minimal vegetation clearance. truck. annually quantifiable1 and Inspections transmission and throughout distribution lines and electric associated distribution infrastructure system

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 2-7 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 2. Covered Activities

Estimated Estimated Compaction/Excavation/ Equipment Used in Frequency or Total over Activity Activity Description Disturbance Off-Road Areas Amount per Year Permit Term Vegetation Routine vegetation Will require heavy equipment Pickup trucks, aerial lift trucks, Conducted Not Management management includes travel within the ROW. chainsaws, hand tools, mowing periodically quantifiable1 mowing, pruning, and equipment, bulldozers, and throughout tree removal to ensure helicopters. electric system, adequate clearance every 1 to 5 years between vegetation and infrastructure. Construction of Lines and Facilities Construction Construction of electric Vegetation clearing and/or Helicopter, bucket truck, 60 miles for 1,800 miles and Upgrading lines as an extension ground disturbance within the digger derrick truck, transmission and for of from existing lines or ROW, ranging from 50 to 200 ATV/UTV, bulldozers, pickup 3.05 miles for transmission Aboveground rebuilds. feet wide; assumed to average trucks, wire cards, tensioners, distribution and 91.5 Electric Lines 125 feet wide across the plan trailers, semi-trucks, cranes, miles for area. and mowing equipment. distribution Road Construction of new Vegetation clearing and ground Bulldozers, pickup trucks, 2 miles 60 miles Construction access roads, or disturbance within the road dump trucks, tractors, and and improvement or width, which is typically 20 feet. motor graders. Improvement expansion of existing two-track roads. New In order to address load Substation construction Bulldozers, cranes, lift trucks, 27 substations or 810 Construction or increases, additional footprints ranging from 5 to pickup trucks, dump trucks, switching stations substations or Expansion of electrical facilities may 40 acres, typically tractors, and motor graders. switching Support have to be installed, or approximately 10 acres of stations Facilities existing facilities disturbance, of which 90% is expanded, either permanent and 10% is through expanding temporary. existing or installing Switching station construction new substations or footprints typically results in up switching stations. to 10 acres of disturbance, of which 90% is permanent and 10% is temporary. 1 Routine maintenance and inspections as well as vegetation management are conducted across AEP’s entire transmission and distribution system periodically. There is the potential for take to result from these activities from off-road vehicle use, modifying soils, or crushing ABB, but the frequency with which this could occur is not measurable. Impacts related to mortality, although most likely minimal, from these activities are assumed to be accounted for in the conservative impact footprint estimates for other covered activities.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 2-8 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the environmental setting that characterizes the plan area and provides an overview of the physical and biological resources of the plan area that are relevant to ABB. It describes in further detail how the boundaries of the plan area introduced in Chapter 1, Introduction, were delineated and the baseline conditions on which the impact analyses (Chapter 4, Effects Analysis and Take Assessment) and conservation measures (Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy) are based. In this chapter, Section 3.2, Physical Resources, includes a description of the topography, surficial geology, and climate in the plan area. Section 3.3, Biological Resources, includes a description of land cover types in the plan area that support ABB and summarizes the species’ life history traits, range, habitat, and distribution in the plan area, along with threats to the species’ persistence.

3.2 Physical Resources 3.2.1 Plan Area

The plan area (Figure 1-1) corresponds with county boundaries in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas. It was developed to include the known and potential future range of ABB and the existing and future area of AEP activities over the term of the permit. The ABB range was identified in Oklahoma and Arkansas using USFWS range maps (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015; Knoll pers. comm.). In Texas, two counties have records of ABB occurrence (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014; NatureServe 2009).

The plan area encompasses 47 counties in Oklahoma, 11 counties in Arkansas, and four counties in Texas (Figure 1-1). Forty-four counties in Oklahoma intersect the known ABB range; three additional counties in Oklahoma are close to the current range boundary for the species and can be reasonably expected to contain ABB habitat if the species range continues to expand westward over the permit term. These counties were added to the plan area in anticipation of future needs for coverage. In Arkansas, the plan area encompasses 11 counties, seven of which intersect with ABB range. Of these 11 counties, four include AEP’s current service territory and existing transmission line infrastructure; the remaining seven do not but are adjacent or in proximity to these areas. AEP may extend distribution or transmission lines into these areas where ABB is known to occur or has the potential to occur in the future over the course of the permit term; therefore, these areas were added to the plan area. In Texas, four counties have been included in the plan area. Two counties have documented occurrences of ABB (Lamar and Red River). Two additional Texas counties (Bowie and Fannin) have been included in the plan area because of the potential for ABB to occur during the permit term. Although AEP’s service territory extends into Bowie County, its service territory does not extend into the other Texas counties. There is an existing transmission line in Red River County. AEP’s service territory and transmission lines may expand into these additional counties during the permit term (see Figure 1-1).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

3.2.2 Regional Geology and Topography

The plan area spans 11 different ecoregions (Figure 3-1) with various geologic and topographic characteristics. The western and southern portions of the plan area generally contain gentler topography, with plains and rolling hills, while the eastern and northern portions are more mountainous and forested.

The western extent of the plan area spans the Central Great Plains and Flint Hills ecoregions. The topography in this area is hilly and rolling, with limestone rock layers overlain with clay soils. The Flint Hill ecoregion, whose southern extent intersects the northwest of the plan area, has steeper topography and shallower, rockier soils. To the east, spanning the entire plan area from Texas north to Kansas, is the Cross Timbers ecoregion. This ecoregion serves as a transition between the forested Ozark-Ouachita ecoregions to the east and to the south and west. The Cross Timbers region comprises a hilly, rolling, forested landscape. The soils comprise alkaline to neutral sandy loams and clays underlain by shale, sandstone, and limestone (Woods et al. 2005).

The eastern portion of the plan area varies from irregular plains to the north to more mountainous topography in its central portion, with prairies to the south. The Central Irregular Plains ecoregion in northeastern Oklahoma tends to be topographically more irregular and less forested than the ecoregions to the south and east (Chapman et al. 2002). The topography ranges from flat to moderately hilly, with claypan soils. The Ozark Highlands, Boston Mountains, Arkansas Valley, and Ouachita Mountains ecoregions compose the eastern-central portion of the plan area. The Ozark Highlands formed from the flexing of the crust of the Arkoma Basin upward as the Ouachita Mountains weighted down the edge of the North American continent. As younger sedimentary layers erode, the older Paleozoic rocks (limestone and dolomite) that underlie the generally level topography of this ecoregion are exposed.

To the south of the Ozark Highlands, the Boston Mountains and Ouachita Mountains bound the Arkansas Valley, an alluvial valley that runs west to east between these ranges. The Boston Mountains ecoregion is mountainous, forested, and underlain by Pennsylvanian sandstone, shale, and siltstone (U.S. Geological Survey 2002). The Arkansas Valley is diverse and transitional, containing plains, hills, floodplains, terraces, and scattered mountains. It is largely underlain by interbedded Pennsylvanian sandstone, shale, and siltstone. The Ouachita Mountains ecoregion is a mountainous, geologically complex area between the plains to the south and the Arkansas Valley to the north. The Ouachita Mountains are made up of ridges, hills, and valleys formed by erosion. They contain thick sequences of sedimentary rocks that were deposited in a deep ocean basin, then uplifted and compressed northward (The Nature Conservancy 2003).

The southeastern portion of the plan area consists of the South Central Plains, East Central Texas Plains, and the Texas Blackland Prairies. These plains are lower in elevation, with diverse and localized geology and milder topography, including rolling plains, sandy hills, and wide, flat lowlands and alluvial terraces. The Texas Blackland Prairies, intersecting just a small southern portion of the plan area, are rolling and hilly, underlain by Upper Cretaceous marine chalks, marls, limestones, and shales that gave rise to the development of the characteristic black, heavy clay soils.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-2 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

N

e V o e s r h d

o i g

r R KANSAS i s i v

R e

r i v

e

r Springfield MISSOURI

¨¦§35 W hite Ri Oologah ver Lake ¨¦§44 Grand Lake

Fayetteville/ Springdale/ Rogers Tulsa W h i te R iv e r

D ee p F o Oklahoma r City k

¨¦§40 A rkan sas R iver Little Ri ver Fort Smith Norman iver n R Eufala Kerr ia d a Lake Reservoir n a C au River Pote M ud dy B o g g y C Ouachita Ri r ver e ver e Ri

k i h ARKANSAS ic m ia Broken K Bow Lake Lake L i t t Texoma le R r i e v v e i r

R Hugo d

e Lake R

¨¦§30

Red River

¨¦§35

Dallas/ McKinney Fort Worth/ Arlington Wright Patman Lake

IN IL East Central Texas KS MO Plan Area AEP HCP for American Burying Beetle KY Plains Ecoregions Level III TN Flint Hills Figure 3-1: Ecoregions and Hydrology OK Arkansas Valley AR Ouachita Mountains Boston Mountains Ozark Highlands MS AL Central Great Plains TX South Central Plains PLAN LA Central Irregular Plains Texas Blackland Prairies 0 25 50 AREA Cross Timbers

Document Path: K:\Denver\Projects\AEP\MapDoc\Fig3-1_EcoHydro_20160802.mxdDocument Path: Miles ¯ Source: USGS 2011

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

3.2.3 Hydrology

The plan area is drained by perennial rivers, intermittent streams, and ephemeral drainages (Figure 3-1). Many of the rivers have been dammed to create reservoirs. Major streams and rivers include the Arkansas River, Deep Fork River, Grand River, North Canadian River, Kiamichi River, Little River, South Canadian River, , and Red River as well as Clear and Muddy Boggy Creeks.

Several large lakes and reservoirs occur in the plan area, including Lake Texoma, Eufaula Lake, Kerr Reservoir, Grand Lake, Wright-Patman Lake, and Atoka Reservoir. Numerous municipal ponds and private stock ponds of varying sizes have also been constructed along creeks and in uplands within the plan area. 3.2.4 Climate and Climate Change

Climate is defined as the average weather over many years, while climate change refers to a statistically significant change in the state of the climate or its variability that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013). Recent assessments demonstrate that Earth is undergoing changes in climate beyond natural variation (National Research Council 2010; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013; Melillo et al. 2014).

A Climate Change Vulnerability Index tool (Young et al. 2010) evaluated ABB’s exposure, sensitivity, and capacity to adapt to climate change. It found this species to be highly vulnerable to changes in climatic conditions (Schneider et al. 2011). ABBs are susceptible to decreased humidity and drought conditions, which can cause dehydration and mortality (Schneider et al. 2011). Altered temperature and photoperiod have been shown to affect sexual maturity and lifespan of other Nicrophorus species (Hwang and Shiao 2010).

3.3 Biological Resources

For the purposes of providing context around the biological resources present in the plan area, a brief description of land cover types is provided below. The remainder of the chapter summarizes ABB characteristics relative to this HCP, including its status, life history traits, distribution, habitat, and threats. 3.3.1 Land Cover

Land cover types in the plan area are controlled by a variety of factors, such as geology, soils, slope, aspect, water availability, and land use. Table 3-1 lists the acreage of land cover types mapped in the plan area. Land cover information was derived from the National Land Cover Database (Homer et al. 2015).

In general, the dominant land cover types within the plan area include deciduous , herbaceous grassland, and hay fields/pastureland. Other common land cover types include evergreen , cultivated crops, and developed open space. Limited areas of barren land and emergent herbaceous wetlands are also present. Dominant vegetation in the deciduous forest vegetation type typically

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-3 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

Table 3-1. Land Cover in the Plan Area

Land Cover Acres Barren Land 79,549 Cultivated Crops 1,609,683 Deciduous Forest 8,894,059 Developed, High Intensity 79,636 Developed, Low Intensity 449,701 Developed, Medium Intensity 193,779 Developed, Open Space 1,458,483 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 75,919 Evergreen Forest 2,389,128 Hay/Pasture 6,746,659 Herbaceous 7,216,295 Mixed Forest 798,829 Open Water 868,338 Shrub/Scrub 549,144 Woody Wetlands 522,126 Total Acres 31,931,329 Source: Homer et al. 2015

includes post oak (Quercus stellata), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), black hickory (Carya texana), mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa), and eastern red cedar (). Dominant vegetation in the herbaceous grassland cover type typically includes little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), Indian woodoats (Chasmanthium latifolium), and wildrye (Elymus virginicus). Dominant vegetation in the hay/pasture land cover type typically includes Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), broomsedge, little bluestem, big bluestem, and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense).

3.4 American Burying Beetle 3.4.1 Status

ABB was federally listed as endangered in 1989 (54 Federal Register [FR] 29652) by USFWS, in accordance with the ESA. The ABB Recovery Plan was finalized in 1991, and a 5-year review was completed in 2008. The most recent review found that ABB remains endangered throughout its current range because of ongoing threats to known populations and the failure to discover or establish viable populations in the remaining recovery areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Because of its federal listing as endangered, activities that may affect ABB, whether adverse or completely beneficial, are regulated to ensure conservation and persistence of the species.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-4 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

3.4.2 Species Description

ABB is the largest carrion beetle (silphid) in , reaching 1.0 to 1.8 inches (2.5 to 4.6 centimeters) in length (Backlund and Marrone 1997). ABBs are black with orange-red markings. A diagnostic feature of ABB is the large orange-red marking on the raised portion of the pronotum (the upper surface of the first segment of the body that lies between the head and the abdomen), a feature shared with no other members of the in North America (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). ABB also has orange-red frons (the upper anterior part of the head) and a single orange-red marking on the clypeus (the lower face, just above the mandibles). Antennae are large, with notable orange club-shaped tips. 3.4.3 Life History

ABB, a nocturnal species, is active in the summer months (active season) when ambient nighttime air temperatures consistently exceed 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (15.5 degrees Celsius [°C]) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). They are most active from 2 to 4 hours after sunset (Walker and Hoback 2007). During the daytime, ABBs are believed to bury themselves in vegetation litter. Some weather conditions, including rain and strong winds, reduce ABB activity (Bedick et al. 1999).

ABBs have been reported moving (i.e., flying) distances ranging from 0.10 to 18.6 miles (0.16 to 30 kilometers [km]) in various parts of their range nightly (Bedick et al. 1999; Creighton and Schnell 1998; Jurzenski et al. 2011; Schnell et al. 1997–2006). In Oklahoma, ABBs have been recorded to move approximately 6.2 miles (10 km) in 6 nights (Creighton and Schnell 1998). In Nebraska, one ABB was reported to move, wind-aided, approximately 18.6 miles (30 km) in one night (Jurzenski et al. 2011).

Individuals typically live for one year. Adults and larvae are dependent on carrion (flesh of dead animals) for food and reproduction. ABB competes with other invertebrate species, as well as vertebrate species, for carrion. They are active in the active season, then bury themselves in the soil during the winter months (inactive season) (Table 3-2). Adult ABBs burrow into the soil during the inactive season when ambient nighttime air temperatures consistently fall below 60°F (15.5°C) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). In Oklahoma, this typically occurs for approximately 8 to 9 months, from late September until mid-May (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). The length of the active and inactive periods, however, fluctuates with temperature. Recent studies indicate that ABBs in Arkansas burrow to depths ranging from 0 to 8 inches (0 to 20 centimeters) during the inactive season (Schnell et al. 2007). Others have reported overwintering depths ranging from 0 to 27 inches (0 to 68.6 centimeters) (Hoback 2011).

ABB begins reproduction soon after emergence from the inactive season, finding and securing a mate and carcass for reproduction. Adults bury a small vertebrate carcass and lay eggs beside it. When selecting carrion for burying in larval brood chambers, birds and mammals weighing from 1.7 to 10.5 ounces (48.19 to 297.67 grams) are preferred, with an optimum weight of 3.5 to 7.0 ounces (99.22 to 198.45 grams) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Kozol (1990) found no significant difference in ABB preference for avian versus mammalian carcasses. ABB larvae use the carcass as a food source until they emerge. The entire reproductive process takes approximately 48 to 65 days (Kozol 1990). Following metamorphosis from larva to adult, tenerals (adult ABBs that are newly emerged from the pupal case) typically emerge from underground in late summer, although the timing can vary, based on latitude and weather conditions; some presence/absence surveys in Oklahoma have documented tenerals in early summer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-5 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

Table 3-2. American Burying Beetle Life Stages

Life Stage/Activity Month Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Reproduction Begins (Adult Active Period) Larvae Adults (Inactive Period) Note: ABB activity is highly dependent on weather and may vary depending on local conditions. Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, 2015

Adults locate carcasses using chemoreceptors on their antennae. ABBs are capable of finding carrion at a distance of up to 18.6 miles (30 km) (Jurzenski et al. 2011). Success in finding carrion depends upon many factors, including availability of optimal for small vertebrates, density of competing invertebrate and vertebrate scavengers, individual searching ability, reproductive condition, and temperature (Ratcliffe 1996). Once a carcass has been found, interspecific and intraspecific may occur until a dominant male and female remain (Scott and Traniello 1989). Competition between Nicrophorus species can lead to injuries; burying are commonly found with multiple appendages missing. Kozol (1990) reported that ABB typically out-competes other burying beetles as a result of its larger size.

ABB larvae receive parental care during the entire time they are feeding and growing. This is an extremely rare behavior in (a condition normally found only in the social bees, wasps, ants, and termites). Both adults regurgitate food to begging larvae. The larvae grow rapidly and are soon able to feed themselves. The adults continually tend the carcass, removing fungi and covering the carrion ball with an antibacterial secretion. Sometimes the size of the brood is too large to be successfully reared on a small carcass, and both adults will cannibalize small larvae. After about a week, the larvae have consumed all but the bones of the carcass, and the adults fly away. Adults live only one season. The young pupate in the nearby soil and emerge as adults about a month later. Beetles overwinter in the adult stage. 3.4.4 Range

The historic range of ABB comprised more than 150 counties in 35 states, including most of temperate eastern North America and the southern portions of three eastern Canadian provinces (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Documentation confirming the species’ presence is not uniform throughout this broad historical range. More records exist from the Midwest into Canada and the northeastern United States than from the southern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Its absence throughout much of its former range became apparent in the 1980s; by 1989, ABB was thought to occur only on Block Island, Rhode Island, and at one location in Oklahoma (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). The last ABB specimens along the mainland of the Atlantic seaboard were collected in the 1940s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

Currently, ABB can be found in less than 10% of its historic range, with localized, extant populations known to occur in nine states. These locations include Block Island off the coast of Rhode Island, eastern Oklahoma, western Arkansas, the Sand Hills and Loess Hills regions in Nebraska, the Chautauqua Hills region of southeastern Kansas, south-central South Dakota, and northeastern Texas.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-6 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

Additionally, a reintroduced population on Nantucket Island, off the coast of Massachusetts, is thought to be stable, and a recent reintroduction attempt in Missouri in 2012 has reported successful broods. A reintroduction effort in Ohio is ongoing, but no overwinter survival of the introduced ABBs has been documented. No viable or self-sustaining populations are known in that state (Lombardi pers. comm.).

3.4.4.1 Distribution in the Plan Area

The current range of ABB in the plan area, as defined by USFWS, is shown in Figure 3-2.

In Oklahoma, ABB range includes all areas within 18.6 miles (30 km) (maximum ABB movement recorded by Jurzenski et al. 2011) of all documented ABB occurrences. USFWS also considers portions of counties on the eastern edge of Oklahoma that are not within 18.6 miles (30 km) of a documented ABB occurrence as potential ABB range because of the potential for ABB habitat in these areas and previously documented ABB locations in adjacent states. Part or all of the following counties are currently included in ABB range in Oklahoma: Adair, Atoka, Bryan, Carter, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coal, Craig, Creek, Delaware, Garvin, Haskell, Hughes, Johnston, Kay, Latimer, Le Flore, Lincoln, Love, Marshall, Mayes, McClain, McCurtain, McIntosh, Murray, Muskogee, Nowata, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Osage, Ottawa, Pawnee, Payne, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Pushmataha, Rogers, Seminole, Sequoyah, Tulsa, Wagoner, and Washington.

ABB was rediscovered in western Arkansas in 1992 and is known to occur in portions of Crawford, Sebastian, Logan, Scott, Johnson, Yell, and Franklin Counties. One of the largest known ABB populations occurs at Fort Chaffee, which is in Sebastian and Crawford Counties. Given ongoing and anticipated future survey efforts, the beetle’s known range may also expand to Little River, Hempstead, Miller, and Clark Counties.

In Texas, this beetle is found only in two counties: Lamar and Red River, both of which are included in the plan area. There is a 2004 occurrence record from the Lennox Woods preserve, owned by The Nature Conservancy, in Red River County and documented occurences as recently as 2008 on Camp Maxey (Texas National Guard) in Lamar County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, NatureServe 2009). TPWD also recognizes Bowie and Fannin Counties as areas that contain suitable ABB habitat (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2016).

3.4.4.2 Conservation Priority Areas

USFWS has delineated Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs) for ABB in Oklahoma and Arkansas, as illustrated in Figure 3-2 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, 2017). USFWS delineates the boundaries of the CPAs, based on historic ABB occurrence data, and may adjust the boundaries periodically in response to new ABB occurrence data. Land within CPAs is prioritized for conservation of ABB, and actions affecting ABB habitat within CPAs must conserve more ABB habitat, versus actions affecting ABB habitat outside CPAs, to completely offset impacts on ABB. 8

8 The USFWS Arkansas Field Office has established Tier 1 and Tier 2 CPAs. Tier 1 CPAs require greater mitigation. Tier 2 CPAs require the same mitigation as ABB known-range or “ABB areas” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-7 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

3.4.5 Habitat

ABB is a habitat generalist. Its habitat requirements, particularly for reproduction, may not be fully understood at present. ABBs have been successfully live trapped in several vegetation types, including native grassland, grazed pasture, riparian forest, coniferous forest, and oak-hickory forest, as well as on a variety of soil types (Lomolino et al. 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Habitat requirements include soils suitable for the burial of carcasses; xeric, saturated, or loose sandy soils are not suitable (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991, 2005). Although feeding mainly on a wide variety of carrion, this species may also capture and consume live insects (Scott and Traniello 1989).

Ecosystems supporting ABB populations are diverse and include primarily forest, scrub forest, forest edge, grassland prairie, and riparian areas; mountain slopes; and maritime scrub communities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). ABB moves readily between different habitats (Creighton and Schnell 1998; Lomolino et al. 1995). However, it is believed to have more selective breeding habitat (suitable soils and vegetation layer) compared with its feeding habitat. Soil conditions must be conducive to excavation by ABBs (Lomolino and Creighton 1996). Soil moisture is also a factor because ABBs die quickly when desiccated (Bedick et al. 2006). Soils in the vicinity of captures are all well drained and include sandy loam and silt loam, with a clay component noted at most sites. Level topography and a well-formed detritus layer at the ground surface are common (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

Lomolino and Creighton (1996) found that ABB reproductive success was higher in forest versus grassland habitat because of the near absence of a leaf litter layer in grassland and the increased difficulty to bury carcasses, because grassland soils tend to be more compact than forest soils. However, of the carcasses buried, habitat characteristics did not significantly influence brood size. Furthermore, Holloway and Schnell (1997) found significant correlations between the numbers of ABBs caught in traps and the biomass of mammals and birds, irrespective of the predominant vegetation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

3.4.5.1 Habitat in the Plan Area

Because ABB is a habitat generalist, it can occur in any non-urbanized portion of the plan area. USFWS has designated specific habitat conditions that are considered unfavorable, as listed below (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014). 1. Land that is tilled on a regular basis, is planted in monoculture, and does not contain native vegetation. 2. Pasture or grassland that has been maintained through frequent mowing, grazing, or herbicide application at a height of 8 inches (20 centimeters) or less. 3. Land that has already been developed and no longer exhibits surficial topsoil, leaf litter, or vegetation. 4. Urban areas with maintained lawns, paved surfaces, or roadways. 5. Stockpiled soil without vegetation. 6. Wetlands with standing water or saturated soils (defined as sites exhibiting hydric soils and vegetation typical of saturated soils and/or wetland hydrology).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-8 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Text

KANSAS

Springfield

Grant Kay Nowata Craig Ottawa Osage MISSOURI Ark a 35 n s Washington a s R Garfield iv Noble er Rogers 44 Delaware Benton Carroll Mayes Boone Pawnee Fayetteville/ Springdale/ Payne Rogers Tulsa Wagoner Creek Washington Madison Logan Tulsa Cherokee Newton Adair

Lincoln Oklahoma Muskogee City Okmulgee Crawford Franklin Oklahoma Johnson Okfuskee Sequoyah 40 McIntosh Pope Cleveland Fort n River adia Smith Norman OKLAHOMA Can Haskell Sebastian Logan Seminole Pottawatomie Hughes Yell McClain Pittsburg Perry Latimer Le Flore Scott Pontotoc Saline Garvin

Coal Montgomery Garland Murray Polk Pushmataha ARKANSAS Johnston Atoka Hot Spring Carter Howard Pike Marshall McCurtain Clark Love Choctaw Bryan Sevier

R ed 30 R i Grayson v er Little Cooke Lamar Red Hempstead Fannin River Nevada TEXAS River 35 Delta Bowie Denton WiseDallas/ Fort Worth/ McKinney Hunt Titus Hopkins Miller Columbia Arlington Collin

Franklin Cass Lafayette Morris Tarrant Dallas Camp Upshur Marion IN KaufmanAmerican Burying Beetle AEP HCP for American Burying Beetle IL Arkansas Conservation KS MO KY Priority Area Figure 3-2: ABB Conservation Priority Areas TN Oklahoma Conservation OK AR Priority Areas

MS AL Plan Area TX PLAN LA 0 20 40 AREA Source: USFWS 2016, 2017

DocumentPath: K:\Denver\Projects\AEP\MapDoc\Fig3-2_ConservationPriority_20171219.mxd Miles

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

To determine how many acres of suitable ABB habitat within the plan area may be affected by covered activities, suitable ABB habitat and unsuitable ABB habitat were estimated using geographic information system National Land Cover Database data (Homer et al. 2015). Land cover types in the plan area are defined in Table 3-1 and shown in Figure 3-3. Areas selected as ABB habitat included the land cover types deciduous forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest, shrub/scrub, herbaceous, woody wetland, emergent wetland, and hay/pasture (Table 3-3). Although portions of the woody wetlands and emergent wetlands are most likely unsuitable for ABB, portions of those areas are very likely suitable, especially during dry periods. Therefore, the entire category was included as habitat for this analysis. Those areas unsuitable for ABB include open water; developed, open space; developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity; barren land; and cultivated crops.

Based on this assessment, an estimated 85.1% (27,192,159 acres) of the plan area is considered suitable ABB habitat. The remaining 14.9% (4,739,170 acres) of the plan area is considered unsuitable for ABB. It is likely that some additional lands within the plan area are not suitable for ABB (based on vegetation type and land management practices). However, data necessary to determine the potential suitability of the entire plan area are not available. Therefore, for the purpose of the analysis in the plan, the data in Table 3-3 will be used. This analysis is considered to be conservative because it most likely overestimates suitable ABB habitat in the plan area.

Table 3-3. Total Acres of ABB Habitat within the Plan Area

ABB Not ABB Habitat Habitat Land Cover National Land Cover Database Description (acres) (acres) Open Water Areas of open water, generally with less than 25% 0 868,338 cover of vegetation or soil. Developed, Areas with a mixture of some constructed 0 1,458,483 Open Space materials but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Developed, Low Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 0 449,701 Intensity vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20% to 49% of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Developed, Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 0 193,779 Medium vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50% Intensity to 79% of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Developed, Highly developed areas where people reside or 0 79,636 High Intensity work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses, and commercial/industrial areas. Impervious surfaces account for 80% to 100% of the total cover.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-9 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

ABB Not ABB Habitat Habitat Land Cover National Land Cover Database Description (acres) (acres) Barren Land Areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, 0 79,549 slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits, and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover. Deciduous Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 8,894,059 0 Forest 16 feet (5 meters) tall and accounting for more than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change. Evergreen Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 2,389,128 0 Forest 16 feet (5 meters) tall and accounting for more than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. Mixed Forest Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 798,829 0 16 feet (5 meters) tall and accounting for more than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species account for more than 75% of total tree cover. Shrub/Scrub Areas dominated by shrubs less than 16 feet 549,144 0 (5 meters) tall, with shrub canopy typically accounting for more than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage, or trees stunted from environmental conditions. Herbaceous Areas dominated by gramanoid or herbaceous 7,216,295 0 vegetation, generally accounting for more than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management, such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. Hay/Pasture Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume 6,746,659 0 mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for more than 20% of total vegetation. Cultivated Areas used for the production of annual crops, 0 1,609,683 Crops such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops, such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for more than 20% of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled. Woody Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation 522,126 0 Wetlands accounts for more than 20% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated or covered with water.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-10 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Document Path: K:\Denver\Projects\AEP\MapDoc\Fig3-3_LandCover_20160802.mxd Fort Worth/ Fort City Oklahoma Source:USGS 2014 Source:USGS Arlington TX Dallas/ OKLAHOMA OK KS PLAN PLAN AREA Norman §¨¦ 35 §¨¦ 35 MO LA

AR

D e

TEXAS e

A

p

r

MS L F

k

IL

i o a

t

t r

n

l

k e

s

a

TN R

IN s

i

v

AL KY R

ed Rive e

i r r R v

McKinney e r Texoma Lake Source: USGS 2011 USGS Source:

KANSAS

M

u

d

d

y

Deciduous Deciduous Forest Barren Land Intensity Developed, High Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, Low Space Developed, Open Open Water HCPPlan Area B

o

g

g

y

C r e e k C an ad ia n R i

v Tulsa

e Oologah r Lake §¨¦ 40 K iam

ic

Hugo h

Lake V

Lake Eufala

i e r

d

i

g R r

i s R v e i iv r e

r

R

e

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Herbaceous Emergent WoodyWetlands Crops Cultivated Hay/Pasture Herbaceous Shrub/Scrub Mixed Forest Evergreen Forest L

d

i

t t

l

e

R R

i

v

e

i

r v A

e

r

r

k

a

n

s

Reservoir Kerr

a

s

R

i

v

e Lake Grand Bow Lake Bow Broken r Patman Wright Lake MISSOURI AEP HCP for American Burying Beetle Burying for HCPAmerican AEP Smith Fort §¨¦ 44 Rogers Springdale/ Fayetteville/ ARKANSAS 0 Springfield Figure 3-3: Land Cover Land 3-3: Figure §¨¦ 30 Miles 25 50 ¯

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

ABB Not ABB Habitat Habitat Land Cover National Land Cover Database Description (acres) (acres) Emergent Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation 75,919 0 Herbaceous accounts for more than 80% of vegetative cover Wetlands and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated or covered with water. Total Acres 27,192,159 4,739,170 Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014; U.S. Geological Survey 2014

3.4.6 Threats

Populations of ABB have been extirpated from 90% of its original range. In the 1980s, entomologists documented the decreasing abundance of ABB across its range. East of the Appalachian Mountains, ABB declined in a generally north to south direction, and the decline was well under way, if not complete, by 1923. West of the Appalachians, the decline occurred later. In the Midwest, the decline appears to have proceeded generally from the center of the range outward, with all collections since 1960 occurring at the western and eastern peripheries of the range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

Although the cause for the decline of this species is not clearly understood, it could be a result of habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, carcass limitation (i.e., reduced availability of optimally sized carrion), pesticides, disease, light pollution, interspecific competition for carcasses, or a combination of these factors. The ABB Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) and the 5-year Species Status Review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) identify potential threats to ABB, including disease/pathogens, pesticides, direct habitat loss and alteration, interspecific competition, loss of genetic diversity in isolated populations, increase in competition for prey, increase in edge habitat, decrease in abundance of prey, agricultural and grazing practices, and . The primary cause, however, has been habitat loss and fragmentation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991).

Land use changes that fragmented native forest and grasslands and created edge habitats (such as the edge between forest and grassland or grassland and cropland), in addition to removing top-level carnivores such as grey wolf (Canis lupus) and eastern cougar (Puma concolor) during the westward expansion of settlement in North America, caused a decrease of indigenous species and an increase in meso-carnivores that thrive in areas disturbed by humans. These species include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes fulva), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis latrans), feral cats (Felis domesticus), and other opportunistic predators (Wilcove et al. 1986). A number of these species, especially raccoon and striped skunk, have undergone dramatic population increases over the last century (Garrott et al. 1993), and coyote and opossum have expanded their ranges. These generalist predators have increased in abundance where edge habitats allow increased foraging opportunities (Ray 2000). Therefore, as habitat for species in the favored weight range for ABB reproduction decreased, populations of its predators (ABB competitors) increased, potentially further limiting ABB reproductive potential.

ABBs are attracted to artificial lighting (Kozol 1990), which can lead to disruptions of the species’ normal behavior patterns. The species has been shown to respond differently to varying light sources; ultraviolet or mercury vapor lights elicit stronger responses, while sodium vapor lights are least attractive to ABBs (Anshutz et al. 2007).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-11 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

The red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) has become a formidable competitor for carrion and a potential source of mortality for burying beetles when they co-occur at a food source (Warriner 2004). Scott et al. (1987) studied Nicrophorus carolinus, a burying beetle closely related to ABB, in and concluded that the inability of this species to successfully bury carrion was due to red imported fire ant interference. Collins and Scheffrahn (2005) noted that red imported fire ants may reduce ground-nesting populations of rodents and birds. Of the states containing populations of ABB, red imported fire ants now occur in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, mainly in the Arkansas River valley and southward (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2003).

Fire may cause direct mortality of individuals during ABB’s active season (approximately May through mid-September) (Howard et al. 2012) and can affect ABB habitat during the active or inactive seasons through loss of habitat and loss of food sources.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 3-12 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 4 Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

4.1 Introduction This chapter addresses the impacts of AEP’s covered activities (Chapter 2, Covered Activities) on ABB. Impacts are quantified by estimating the number of acres of occupied habitat that will be affected by AEP’s covered activities. Habitat is used as a proxy for estimating impacts on individuals for the following reasons: (1) ABBs are small and spend a substantial portion of their lifespan underground, making it difficult to locate injured or dead individuals; (2) ABB losses may be masked by temporary fluctuations in numbers; (3) ABBs are primarily active at night; and (4) there is no reliable means to estimate ABB density within the plan area.

This chapter includes the following sections to analyze anticipated impacts on ABB and estimate the amount of take that would occur over the permit term:

 Section 4.2, Impact Mechanisms, addresses the ways in which covered activities may affect ABB.

 Section 4.3, Estimated Incidental Take and Impact of the Taking, quantifies take coverage that will be needed over the permit term by estimating the loss or degradation of occupied ABB habitat that will result from covered activities.

 Section 4.4, Cumulative Impacts, describes impacts resulting from HCP implementation viewed together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future non-federal activities in the plan area.

4.2 Impact Mechanisms Covered activities are likely to affect ABBs through a variety of mechanisms. Impact mechanisms described below were identified through a review of scientific literature, the ABB Recovery Plan and 5-Year Species Status Review, American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a), and other relevant HCPs and government publications. Table 4-1 summarizes the likelihood of each covered activity resulting in take of ABB and identifies the specific take mechanisms involved. This plan estimates the amount of take by quantifying the amount of ABB habitat affected by covered activities, as described in Section 4.3, Estimated Incidental Take and Impact of the Taking. Of the mechanisms below, soil disturbance, which would result from multiple covered activities, is the most likely mechanism to result in the majority of ABB take from direct mortality and habitat loss. 4.2.1 Soil Disturbance and Movement ABBs spend long periods of time relatively immobile and buried a few to several inches below the soil surface. As a result, physical disturbance and movement of soil by construction equipment during activities, such as clearing, grading, and excavation, may injure or crush ABBs (adults, larvae, and/or eggs during the active season and adults during the inactive season) or separate adult ABBs from their larvae or eggs. Soil disturbances that expose the brood chamber or overwintering adult ABBs may also result in mortality caused by desiccation, heat stress, or predation.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

Table 4-1. Likelihood of Take of ABB and Take Mechanisms from Covered Activities

Take Mechanism

RoadVehicles

- Covered Activity

SoilDisturbance and Movement Off ArtificialLighting PresenceHuman and Movement Soil Altered Moisture Erosion Predation* Availability*Food Fire* Operations and Maintenance of Existing Facilities Reconductoring          Pole Replacement and Repair          Emergency Response and Outage Repair          Routine Maintenance and Inspections          Vegetation Management          Construction of Lines and Facilities Aboveground Electric Lines          New Construction or Expansion of Support          Facilities  = likely impact;  = possible impact;  = unlikely impact. * = Take mechanism is a potential indirect effect of covered activity. Note: The purpose of this table is to illustrate from a biological perspective how the covered activities could affect ABB and the likelihood of that effect occurring. This table does not have any direct bearing on the amount of take estimated to result from AEP’s activities.

4.2.2 Off-Road Travel by Vehicles and Heavy Equipment Off-road travel by vehicles and heavy equipment could result in physical injury or mortality of ABBs that collide with or are crushed by moving vehicles. These impacts have a low probability of occurrence because of the dispersed nature of the activity and sheltering habits of ABB but would be most likely to occur when ABBs are active on or above the ground surface.

More research is needed to further assess the conditions under which off-road vehicle travel can result in crushing of buried ABB. Research by Willemssens (2015) found that pickup trucks, either parked or driven, can result in a significant increase in soil compaction, up to 2.58 kilograms per square centimeter when parked overnight, resulting in mortality in Nicrophorus marginatus and N. carolinus beetles. She suggests that, based on ABB’s larger size and greater burial depth than the Nicrophorus beetles tested, 3 kilograms per square centimeter is a conservative compaction level for considering risks to ABB. This level of compaction is unlikely to be created from driving pickup trucks or even parking them all day. Heavy equipment, because it generally has more tires or tracks to better distribute weight, actually results in less soil compaction. Willemssens (2015) tested a Nebraska Public Power line truck that weighed about 30,000 kilograms and had 14 tires that, when driven over soil, did not result in a significant change in compaction.

Routine maintenance and inspections and vegetation management are not expected to result in repeated off-road vehicle travel or parking for longer than a day, but reconductoring, pole

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-2 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

replacement, and new construction activities may. Adverse impacts are most likely to occur in areas where vehicles park or frequently travel (pressure is exerted for a longer period of time, resulting in greater compaction) and from vehicles with less ground contact in proportion to the overall vehicle weight (tires have less surface area to distribute vehicle weight, resulting in greater compaction) (Willemssens 2015). Unless remediated, soil compaction could render soil unsuitable for excavation and carcass burial in the long term. Additionally, ABB larvae and eggs have limited to no mobility and therefore may be unable to escape after soil compaction events. These conditions could result in ABB mortality and habitat degradation or loss.

In conclusion, the type of off-road vehicle travel and temporary parking required for AEP’s inspections, repairs, and vegetation management by pickup trucks and other heavy equipment could result in mortality of ABB, depending on soil type, burial depth, and other environmental factors. However, based on the limited amount of research that exists, mortality would be unlikely and impractical to quantify for the purposes of estimating take for this plan. Take of ABB from soil compaction due to other covered activities is accounted for in the habitat impacts estimated to measure the level of take under this plan. 4.2.3 Artificial Lighting Many groups of insects have been shown to be attracted to lights, including beetles (Longcore and Rich 2004). Although circumstantial evidence suggests that artificial lighting may adversely affect ABBs, its influence on overall population declines is thought to be minimal in comparison to other factors (Sikes and Raithel 2002). Artificial light sources occurring during the active season may attract ABBs, which could result in take through collision or crushing by equipment. Attraction to artificial lighting used during nighttime construction can disorient ABBs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) and may make them more susceptible to predation. ABB was the most frequently collected active nocturnal beetle caught in lighted traps during a 2007 field study in Nebraska (Anshutz et al. 2007). The study concluded that foraging ABBs were more affected by light (particularly ultraviolet light) than other species of carrion beetles. Light sources are not expected to affect ABBs during the inactive season because ABBs are not above ground during that time period. 4.2.4 Human Presence and Movement Introducing or increasing human presence and movement within or adjacent to ABB habitat may trample soil and vegetation, leading to habitat degradation and potential displacement of ABBs in the area. It is possible that human activity could lead to a decrease in direct mortality because ABBs may abandon the area. These impacts are not well understood but are likely to be minimal in comparison to more intensive activities, such as soil disturbance, and would occur only when ABBs are above ground during the active season. 4.2.5 Altered Soil Moisture Although direct disturbances can expose ABBs to rapid desiccation, vegetation cover change associated with vegetation removal and maintenance activities can result in a more gradual decrease in soil moisture content, which may render it less suitable for ABB use. ABBs are known to be sensitive to changes in soil moisture and high temperature (Bedick et al. 2006; Hoback 2016). Furthermore, the soil may not support reproductive chambers structurally or adult or larval ABBs may become desiccated (Bedick et al. 2006). Vegetation clearing and ROW grading expose soils to sun

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-3 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

and wind, thereby resulting in decreased soil moisture and elevated soil temperature (Russel 1940). Soil compaction from off-road vehicle and equipment travel also limits the soil’s ability to hold moisture (Willemssens 2015). USFWS considers areas with vegetation less than 8 inches in height as unfavorable for ABB habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a). Vegetation management activities are most likely to adversely affect ABB when areas are managed to maintain vegetation cover below 8 inches in height, such as from mowing around poles and other AEP facilities, thereby resulting in loss of soil moisture to the point of making these areas unsuitable for ABB habitat. 4.2.6 Erosion Disturbance or vegetation clearing increases the susceptibility of soil to erosion. Deposition of eroded soils may bury ABB adults or broods (during the active season) or overwintering adults (during the inactive season) too deep for them to emerge. Conversely, erosion may expose ABBs (or adults or broods) to adverse environmental conditions if soils are washed or blown away. 4.2.7 Predation Increased edge habitat created by transmission ROW vegetation clearing and maintenance may increase direct predation on ABBs by some vertebrate scavengers (Jurzenski and Hoback 2011). Changes in soil composition, either by disturbing soil horizons or by importing soil, could indirectly affect ABB by importing pests such as red imported fire ant. Fire ants are voracious predators, and evidence exists that overall diversity declines in their presence (Porter and Savignano 1990). 4.2.8 Food Availability Food availability may decrease when human development fragments ABB habitat, thereby changing composition, lowering the reproductive success of prey species, and increasing the prevalence of scavengers, such as American crows, skunks, raccoons, foxes, and coyotes (Wilcove et al. 1986; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991; Marvier et al. 2004), that compete with ABB for carrion (Ratcliffe 1996; Amaral et al. 1997; Bedick et al. 1999). Additionally, fragmentation can reduce the carrion prey base for ABB reproduction (Oxley et al. 1974). However, the creation of additional edge in landscapes that are already fragmented does not necessarily lead to adverse impacts on the species.

Interspecific competition for resources could also increase if human activity displaces individual ABBs from the plan area to new areas. This displacement could also result in a potential increase in exposure to avian and mammalian predators. Such impacts are difficult to quantify and describe but are expected to be minor and short in duration. 4.2.9 Fire During the drier seasons, or in dry conditions, off-road vehicle and heavy equipment use could increase the risk of wildfire. Although highly unlikely to result from AEP’s activities, wildfire could directly affect ABB through loss of breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat; alteration of the small mammal community (for a period of time) to a less optimal size class for optimal ABB reproduction (Kirchner et al. 2011); and injury or mortality for individuals exposed to fire.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-4 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

4.3 Estimated Incidental Take and Impact of the Taking AEP is requesting take authorization for ABB in the form of death, injury, harm, and harassment to ABB. The amount of occupied habitat removed or temporarily disturbed by covered activities is a proxy for take of individual ABBs. This approach is consistent with other HCPs prepared and approved for ABB (Enercon Services, Inc., and ICF 2016; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014; Enercon Services, Inc. 2012). The objective of the incidental take analysis is to provide a reasonable projection of the amount of take over the permit term. This take would be documented and mitigated for up to the amount estimated in this plan. For the purpose of estimating the total amount of take in this HCP, “occupied ABB habitat” is defined as areas (1) suitable for ABB use (containing ABB habitat) and (2) within the effective survey radius of a valid ABB survey where ABBs were identified or ABBs are assumed present in lieu of surveys. The entire plan area is assumed to be the ABB known range for the purposes of estimating the total amount of take from covered activities. This approach conservatively accounts for potential range expansion throughout the 30-year permit term. However, the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements of this HCP will apply only to the USFWS- defined known range of ABB within the plan area (i.e., no take occurs outside of the USFWS-defined known range of ABB). When the USFWS expands or shrinks the known range of ABB, this HCP will immediately apply within that new range within the plan area (also see Section 6.3.1.4, Changes to ABB Range and CPAs).

In order to quantify take, this plan uses a framework consistent with the American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a), with some additional assumptions to address the uncertainty in the location and timing of covered activities. Although AEP will avoid and minimize impacts to the maximum extent practicable, covered activities have the potential to affect occupied ABB habitat. Accordingly, the following step-wise estimates are made to approximate the total occupied habitat affected: 1. Average annual and total area of ground-disturbance impacts9 over the permit term for each covered activity. 2. Acres of impact that would occur within ABB habitat (see definition of ABB habitat in Chapter 3). 3. Likelihood that impacts in ABB habitat would result in take (i.e., occur in occupied habitat).

The methods for estimating take from transmission activities and distribution activities are different. For transmission activities, the total take estimate is based on the annual total area of ground disturbance for each type of transmission-related covered activity. Transmission activities, except for emergency repairs, are typically planned and implemented as discrete projects, with the amount and location of each covered activity type planned and known well in advance of construction. As described in Chapter 5, during the planning phase for transmission projects, AEP will conduct ABB surveys within suitable habitat in the project area to determine occupancy. Impacts will be calculated for each project, based on the intersection of the proposed project with occupied habitat. The method used to determine impacts on transmission covered activities is shown in Table 4-2.

9 Vegetation management and routine inspections are non-ground-disturbing covered activities with the potential to result in very limited and non-quantifiable take, which is accounted for in the take estimates for other ground- disturbing covered activities.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-5 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

Table 4-2. Yearly Average and Total Estimated Ground-Disturbance Impact Area of Covered Activities

Assumptions Total2

Length of Impact Average Area Line or Average Annual over Road per Disturbance Number Impact Impact Permit Year Width per Area Area Term Activity Type1 (miles) (feet) Year Footprint (acres) (acres) Transmission Reconductoring 26 15 n/a n/a 47.3 1,418.2 Isolated Pole n/a n/a 105 1,000 sq. ft. 2.4 72.3 Replacement and Repair Emergency Response n/a n/a 53 1,000 sq. ft. 1.2 36.5 and Outage Repair Construction and 60 125 n/a n/a 909.1 27,272.7 Upgrading of Aboveground Electric Lines Road Construction and 2 20 n/a n/a 4.8 145.5 Improvement New Construction or n/a n/a 27 10 ac 270 8,100.0 Expansion of Support Facilities Distribution Pole Installations3 n/a n/a 696 1,000 sq. ft. 16.0 479.3 Reconductoring n/a n/a Impacts included in pole installations Isolated Pole n/a n/a Impacts included in pole installations Replacement and Repair Emergency Response n/a n/a Impacts included in pole installations and Outage Repair Aboveground Electric n/a n/a Impacts included in pole installations Line Construction and Upgrades 1 Vegetation management and routine inspections are non-ground-disturbing covered activities with the potential to result in limited and non-quantifiable take, which is accounted for in the take estimates for other ground- disturbing covered activities. 2 Numbers may not total exactly because of rounding. 3 For ease of measuring and tracking, the impacts of all covered activities associated with distribution are subsumed within a 1,000-square-foot impact footprint of the pole installations. See text for details. ac = acres n/a = not applicable sq. ft. = square feet

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-6 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

AEP conducts covered activities for distribution facilities in fundamentally different ways compared with transmission projects. Many distribution activities occur in maintained areas or in response to unplanned outages rather than large-scale projects that were planned in advance. Work on distribution lines often occurs in response to immediate needs identified in the field during outage inspections, restoration maintenance activities, or short line extensions in maintained areas along distribution circuits (a circuit is a segment of a distribution line). Impacts on ABB habitat could occur from all covered activities associated with distribution lines. However, it is impractical and prohibitively expensive for AEP to track impacts in the field for all of these activities. Instead, the amount of annual take from all distribution-related covered activities is based on an assumed (and overestimated) permanent impact associated with pole installations (new or replacement). Distribution pole installations, which are already tracked, will be associated with other distribution operations and maintenance as well as construction activities that may cause soil disturbance and affect ABB habitat.

The typical impact footprint for a pole replacement is only approximately 500 square feet (a radius of 12.6 feet around the center of the pole). However, to account for other associated and nearby disturbances to ABB habitat, the HCP assumes that each pole replacement in suitable ABB habitat would cause 1,000 square feet of permanent habitat loss. Using pole installations as a surrogate for the area of ground disturbance from all distribution activities is the most accurate, consistent, and efficient way to estimate take of ABB occupied habitat occurring from these activities (also see Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting). The method used to determine impacts on distribution covered activities is shown in Table 4-2. Only a portion of the total impact area would occur in suitable ABB habitat or occupied habitat. For distribution lines, the vast majority of pole installations would occur in developed areas or adjacent to roadways that would not affect ABB habitat. PSO and SWEPCO estimated the proportion of pole installations occurring in areas that could support ABB habitat, based on the proximity of distribution circuits to cities and roads. PSO estimated that 7.3% of distribution circuit miles occur in areas that could support ABB habitat. Assuming that PSO will install an average of 6,486 distribution poles per year in the plan area, based on bulk records of distribution pole installations in 2016, 475 pole installations (approximately 7.3% of 6,486 poles) are assumed to occur in PSO’s service territory in the plan area per year in areas that could support ABB habitat. SWEPCO estimated that 5.5% and 0.7% of distribution circuit miles in Arkansas and Texas, respectively, occur in areas that could support ABB habitat and that it will install an average of 3,636 distribution poles per year in Arkansas and 3,016 distribution poles per year in Texas in the plan area, based on pole installations over the last 2 years and the projected pole failure rate over the permit term. Therefore, approximately 200 pole installations in Arkansas and 21 pole installations in Texas, or 221 pole installations in SWEPCO’s service territory in the Arkansas and Texas plan area per year, are assumed to occur in areas that could support ABB habitat.

Mapped land cover (Homer et al. 2015) in the plan area was used to further determine where covered activities could affect ABB habitat. Lands that are unfavorable to ABB make up 14.9% of the plan area. Therefore, 85.1% of the plan area is considered suitable habitat for ABB where AEP’s covered activities could result in impacts (Table 4-3; see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016b and Chapter 3 of this HCP). The entire plan area is considered ABB range for the purposes of conservatively estimating take over the permit term, acknowledging the potential for the range to expand within the plan area over that time.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-7 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

Table 4-3. Estimated Take of Occupied ABB Habitat (acres)

Estimated Take Average Average Estimated of Occupied Annual Annual Annual Take Habitat over Impact Impact in of Occupied the Permit Covered Activity1 Area ABB Habitat2 Habitat3 Term4 Transmission Reconductoring 47.3 40.2 8.0 241.4 Isolated Pole Replacement and 2.4 2.1 0.4 12.3 Repair Emergency Response and Outage 1.2 1.0 1.0 31.1 Repair Aboveground Electric Lines 909.1 773.6 154.7 4,641.8 Road Construction and Improvement 4.8 4.1 0.8 24.8 Support Facilities 270 229.8 46.0 1,378.6 Distribution Pole Installations4 16.0 13.6 13.6 407.9 Total 1,250.8 1,064.4 224.8 6,737.9 1 Vegetation management and routine inspections are non-ground-disturbing covered activities with the potential to result in limited and non-quantifiable take, which are accounted for in the take estimates for other ground- disturbing covered activities. 2 Estimate based on the assumption that 85.1% of AEP’s covered activities would occur in land cover that is suitable ABB habitat. 3 Estimate based on the assumption that 20% of AEP’s non-emergency response and non-distribution covered activities occurring in suitable ABB habitat would occur in occupied habitat. Emergency response and outage repair and distribution activities in ABB habitat would assume 100% occupancy. 4 Estimate based on 30-year permit term. Numbers may not total exactly because of rounding. 5 Pole installations are a surrogate for all distribution-related covered activities. See Table 4-2 and the text for details.

Of the impacts in ABB habitat, only those occurring in occupied habitat could result in take. Habitat occupancy is determined through positive presence/absence surveys. Where no presence/absence surveys are conducted, occupancy is assumed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a). AEP will not conduct ABB surveys and assume occupancy for emergency response and outage repair or distribution pole installations because it is infeasible to conduct ABB surveys prior to these unpredictable and urgent activities. Therefore, for these activities, all affected suitable ABB habitat is assumed to be occupied, resulting in take (Table 4-3). For all other covered activities, ABB surveys would be conducted to determine occupancy. Based on the likelihood of positive surveys,10 and to account for additional instances when AEP would assume occupancy in lieu of surveys, an estimated 20% of the impact from these covered activities is assumed to be in occupied ABB habitat, resulting in take (Table 4-3).

10 ABB trap success in Oklahoma from 2012 through 2015 was 17.5% (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016b) and greater than 30% within CPAs (Levesque pers. comm.). Because the take estimate does not differentiate take inside or outside of CPAs, the Oklahoma-wide trap success rate is used as the basis for the proportion of habitat occupancy in the plan area.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-8 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

Table 4-3 provides the amount of take, measured by acres of occupied habitat, estimated to result from AEP’s covered activities over the permit term. The estimated amount of total take of occupied habitat, 6,737.9 acres, will function as a cap on allowable take under the permit.

USFWS categorizes impacts on ABB habitat as temporary habitat impacts, permanent cover change impacts, and permanent impacts, based on the duration over which these impacts would occur, as follows (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a):

 Temporary habitat impacts are those that affect ABB habitat for 5 years or less (areas affected by the project are restored to a condition suitable for ABB use within 5 years of the original impact). Based on the climate and vegetation types of eastern Oklahoma, USFWS expects that most grass and shrub-dominated cover types can be re-established to their pre-impact condition within 5 years.

 Permanent cover change impacts are defined as impacts that change the successional stage of an area to a different stage (e.g., forest or shrubland to grassland), resulting in habitat that is possibly less preferable for ABB use. As with temporary impacts, these areas will be restored to a condition suitable for ABB use within 5 years. However, if these areas will be permanently maintained at a different successional stage (through vegetation control, tree planting, or suppression of natural vegetation), USFWS considers the vegetation cover of the area to have been permanently changed.

 Permanent habitat impacts are those that eliminate ABB habitat (e.g., permanent structures such as buildings and roads, areas where vegetation is maintained below 8 inches, or where vegetation is otherwise unsuitable for ABB, such as Bermuda grass) as well as any impact on habitat that that takes more than 5 years to re-establish as suitable for ABB use.

Most of the impacts on occupied ABB habitat resulting from covered activities will cause temporary ground disturbance within the existing ROW. Habitat disturbed by these activities will be restored; therefore, these impacts are expected to qualify as temporary (See Section 5.5.1, Post-construction Restoration for Temporary and Permanent Cover Change Impacts).

Permanent cover change impacts could result in areas where AEP, in conjunction with the construction of new aboveground electric lines, clears new ROWs through forested areas and subsequently maintains them as grassland or shrubland. In these cases, ABB habitat could be re-established in these grassland or shrubland areas so long as vegetation returns to a height greater than 8 inches; however, USFWS accounts for the permanent change from forest to grassland or shrubland and the associated habitat fragmentation impacts on ABB as a permanent cover change impact.

Permanent habitat impacts would result only from the footprints of actual facilities, including new or upgraded poles, or where AEP maintains vegetation at a height less than 8 inches, usually immediately adjacent to facilities.

Because the locations of AEP’s future activities relative to ABB habitat are not known, an estimate of the nature of the impacts (e.g., temporary versus permanent) cannot be made for the purposes of the permit. The total take estimate of 6,737.9 acres will be used, and the nature of the impacts will be allocated and mitigated at the project-specific level. However, for the purposes of providing context, quantifying effects, and estimating the costs of implementing the HCP (including costs for on-site and off-site mitigation), AEP approximates that 66.5% (4,416.0 acres) of impacts would be temporary, 8.7% (586.5 acres) would be permanent cover change, and 25.8% (1,735.4 acres) would be permanent.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-9 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

The ESA and its regulations specify that the HCP must also describe the impact of the taking on the species. This HCP presents a habitat-based approach to identification of potential impacts on ABB. Using ABB occupied habitat as a proxy for take of individual ABBs is consistent with standard USFWS practice for listed insects and other organisms with a life history that makes estimates of take of individuals difficult and impractical. The annual estimated impact area (1,250.8 acres) from AEP’s covered activities would affect less than 0.01% of ABB habitat in the plan area (more than 27 million acres). Approximately 20% or less of this impact area is estimated to be occupied ABB habitat (224.6 acres), further reducing the impact of take on the species. Take resulting from habitat loss and other adverse effects, described above, is not expected to result in an adverse effect on the long-term conservation of the species for the reasons described below.

Take of ABBs and impacts on their habitat are not anticipated to negatively affect the population locally or throughout its range or to result in an adverse effect on the long-term conservation of the species. Avoidance and minimization measures were designed to reduce direct take from mortality. For unavoidable impacts on ABB habitat, mitigation will fully offset impacts through the protection, enhancement, and management in perpetuity of habitat for the beetle according to USFWS- established mitigation ratios designed to fully offset the impact of unavoidable incidental take. These mitigation measures are anticipated to completely if not more than offset any effects on individuals or their habitat.

Over the course of plan implementation, AEP will quantify ABB habitat impacts, including temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent habitat impacts, on a project-specific basis and mitigate for these impacts, as described in Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy. Chapter 6, Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding, describes the process by which AEP will document impacts and mitigation at the project-specific level; it also provides a cost estimate for implementing the HCP to ensure that AEP has secured the funds to fully implement the plan.

4.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts result from the proposed action’s incremental impact when viewed together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. An analysis of cumulative impacts is not required in an HCP. A description of cumulative impacts is included here to support the federal biological opinion, which will conclude the ESA Section 7 internal consultation process. The scope of the cumulative analysis in a biological opinion is limited to non-federal actions because federal actions (i.e., any federal project, project with federal funding, or project that requires a federal permit) will be the subject of future Section 7 consultations and NEPA review, during which time the cumulative impacts can be considered more fully. To support this analysis, the projects described in this section are limited to non-federal projects that are not covered by the plan.

In addition to those projects with a federal nexus that undergo consultation, there are at least as many and probably many more actions without a federal nexus. Within the plan area, these are predominantly industrial, commercial, and residential past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development actions that do not require federal funding, permitting, or authorization and consequently do not require consultation with USFWS. Industrial development includes expansion of oil and gas, wind energy, coal mining, and electric transmission facilities. Cities in the plan area, including Oklahoma City, Norman, Tulsa, and Fort Smith, are growing, with commercial and residential developments expanding into undeveloped lands on their periphery. The specific number

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-10 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 4. Effects Analysis and Take Assessment

of projects or associated acres of disturbance from these actions is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, it is clear that there are numerous, continuing, and expanding impacts on ABBs and their habitat from non-federal nexus projects, resulting in loss and further fragmentation of ABB habitat in the plan area. Any construction activities that disturb soils within the current range of ABB can cause mortality of ABB adults and (potentially) ABB larvae and eggs. Although direct mortality of ABBs from individual construction activities is local and constitutes a short-term adverse impact, the cumulative loss of ABB from multiple development projects in a larger area may eventually reduce the ability of a given population to survive in a fragmented landscape.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 4-11 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 5 Conservation Strategy

5.1 Introduction The Conservation Strategy describes the actions that AEP will implement to achieve the objectives of this HCP, particularly to minimize and mitigate the impact of the taking on ABB from HCP covered activities to the maximum extent practicable. The Conservation Strategy is designed to offset the temporary and permanent impacts on ABB by meeting the biological needs of ABB, consistent with the biological goals and objectives listed in Section 5.3, below. The Conservation Strategy contains the following integrated elements:

 Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs).

 Mitigation measures.

 Monitoring actions.

 Adaptive management (e.g., responses to monitoring results).

Many impacts of covered activities will be reduced or eliminated through the application of AMMs, described below. Mitigation measures were developed to offset unavoidable impacts. Monitoring ensures that AMMs and mitigation are successfully implemented. Adaptive management decisions will be based on monitoring results, as needed.

5.2 Definitions The following terms are used in this chapter and defined below.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures. These are actions taken, while conducting or in association with covered activities, to prevent or minimize impacts on ABB. These actions include all AMMs implemented to comply with the HCP, as discussed in Section 5.4.

Adaptive Management. A method for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable biological goals and objectives and then, if necessary, adjusting future conservation management actions according to what is learned (65 FR 35242, June 1, 2000).

Biological Goals. Guiding principles for mitigation within the plan area, based on the conservation needs of the covered species. The goals describe the vision for the covered species to be achieved by successfully implementing mitigation measures. Biological goals are typically qualitative rather than quantitative (65 FR 35242, June 1, 2000).

Biological Objectives. Measurable targets that will be sought to achieve the biological goal. Biological objectives are typically quantitative or at least measurable (65 FR 35242, June 1, 2000).

Compliance Monitoring. Monitoring that tracks the status of plan implementation, ensuring that planned mitigation measures are executed, including land protection, land management, and species monitoring.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

Mitigation Measures. Actions taken to offset, or compensate for, the adverse impacts of covered activities. These actions include all mitigation implemented to fulfill the HCP, as discussed in Section 5.5. Together with avoidance and minimization, these activities offset the impacts of the taking on ABB from covered activities to the maximum extent practicable.

Monitoring Actions. These actions include the specific monitoring activities that occur to ensure that AMMs and mitigation actions are taking place and evaluate the effectiveness of management. These actions ensure compliance with the terms of the HCP, including fulfillment of the biological goals and objectives, and provide the basis for adaptive management.

5.3 Biological Goals and Objectives Biological goals and objectives, required for inclusion in an HCP by the USFWS 5-Point Policy (65 FR 35242, June 1, 2000), are intended to describe the commitments of the Conservation Strategy and articulate the objectives of the HCP. Goals are broad guiding principles, based on the conservation needs of ABB. As defined by USFWS, biological goals should be commensurate with the scope of the proposed action to ensure that they are consistent with conservation actions needed. Biological objectives are expressed as conservation targets designed to achieve the biological goals. Objectives are written to be measurable and achievable within a given time frame, and they clearly state a desired result. The biological goals and objectives of this HCP are as follows:

Biological Goal 1: Minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, impacts on ABB from covered activities.

Objective: a. Implement AMMs to reduce the potential for short-term impacts on ABB from covered activities.

Biological Goal 2. Mitigate unavoidable impacts on ABB habitat.

Objectives: a. Re-establish ABB habitat at sites where covered activities result in temporary or permanent cover change habitat impacts. b. Conserve in perpetuity ABB habitat commensurate with the habitat impacts from covered activities by mitigating for temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent habitat impacts in accordance with USFWS-approved mitigation ratios.

5.4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures Before issuing a permit, USFWS must find that the applicant minimizes and mitigates to the maximum extent practicable and fully offsets the impacts of the take. In order to avoid and minimize impacts of take, a variety of AMMs will be implemented, depending on the covered activity, amount of ground disturbance, and site conditions. The AMMs described below are required for covered activities occurring in occupied ABB habitat where ABBs are assumed to occur or are documented to occur through a valid field survey. AMMs are not required for covered activities occurring outside the USFWS- defined known range of ABB (as shown in Figure 1.1 but subject to change, as described in Section

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-2 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

6.3.1.4), in areas unfavorable for ABB (see Section 3.4.5.1), or where a valid survey has negative results (as described in USFWS’s American Burying Beetle Oklahoma Presence/Absence Live-trapping Survey Guidance [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015]) because take is not expected in these areas. Because AEP’s emergency response and outage repair activities are unpredictable and often time sensitive, AEP will implement avoidance and minimization measures for these activities only when they do not affect the timing of the activities conducted. AEP will document these activities through compliance monitoring (see Section 5.6, Monitoring). Regardless of whether AMMs are implemented, AEP will mitigate impacts on occupied (or assumed occupied) ABB habitat from any temporary or permanent habitat impacts resulting from emergency response and outage repair activities. 5.4.1 Reduce Erosion by Implementing Stormwater Best Management Practices AEP will ensure that construction activities conform to state-approved, site-specific stormwater management plans using best management practices to control the volume, rate, and water quality of post-construction stormwater runoff. These practices may include erosion control measures such as silt fencing, hay bales, water bars, or other efforts to prevent topsoil from washing away, the formation of gullies, or other soil-erosion impacts to minimize the impacts on ABB habitat. AEP will use erosion and sedimentation control measures that minimize entanglement risk to wildlife (e.g., hydromulching and/or hydroseeding and loosely woven, natural fiber netting for erosion control mats). 5.4.2 Limit Use of Motor Vehicles, Machinery, or Heavy Equipment AEP will limit off-road use of motor vehicles and heavy equipment in occupied ABB habitat to that necessary to meet the objectives of the project or activity to minimize the potential for soil compaction adversely affecting ABB. If heavy equipment, machinery, or motor vehicle use is required in occupied ABB habitat for a project or activity, the vehicles will be allowed only in the areas that are necessary for the required activity. For covered activities resulting in ABB habitat impacts, all motor vehicles, machinery, and heavy equipment shall be parked within areas that are already affected, areas where disturbance is planned to occur, or areas where occupied ABB habitat impacts and mitigation, as appropriate, have been assessed. 5.4.3 Reduce Risk of Motor Vehicles Sparking Wildfire Vehicle use or improper maintenance of vehicles and machinery could ignite fires during dry conditions or in areas with dry vegetation, which may cause take of ABB. AEP will caution workers to avoid parking motor vehicles, machinery, and heavy equipment where dry grass or vegetation could be ignited. All vehicles will be maintained according to the respective service manuals. In dry conditions, grass and debris will be cleaned away from machinery exhaust systems and bearings on a weekly basis. All bearings will be lubricated, and all spark arrestors will be serviced as necessary to reduce the risk of sparking a fire. AEP will have on-site at each project a shovel and working fire extinguisher in case of accidental ignition of a wildfire.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-3 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

5.4.4 Increase Safety during Operation, Fluid Use, and Storage Accidental release or spill of operational fluids (fuel, oil, or other fluids for maintenance of equipment) may cause take of ABB. AEP will operate in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws regarding fuel use and storage. Additionally, all operational fluids (fuel and motor vehicle oil) will be stored and all equipment fueled within areas that are already affected, areas where disturbance is planned to occur, or areas where occupied ABB habitat impacts and mitigation, as appropriate, have been assessed. 5.4.5 Limit Disturbance from Mechanical Vegetation Management Vegetation management in ABB habitat may disturb individuals of the species and alter their normal behavior. AEP will limit vegetation management frequency and duration to that necessary to allow for visual inspection, prevent hazards, and comply with AEP’s ROW and overhead electric line vegetation clearing standards. In unaffected areas or areas with temporary or permanent cover change impacts within its ROWs where ABB habitat has been restored, AEP will not mow herbaceous vegetation more than once per year to maintain soil moisture for ABB habitat.11 Woody-stemmed vegetation (trees, shrubs, and existing stumps) may be cut as close to the ground as possible in compliance with the AEP Forestry Manual (Doc. #TVMD-010). The mowing and vegetation trimming equipment that AEP uses to maintain ROW vegetation typically leaves mulch in affected areas to minimize erosion and help maintain soil moisture in these areas. 5.4.6 Limit Use of Artificial Lighting AEP does not anticipate conducting covered activities outside of daylight hours, with the exception of emergency repair activities (see Section 2.2.3, Emergency Response and Outage Repair). However, should construction activities need to take place at night, they may require artificial lighting and could thereby affect ABBs by disrupting normal behavior patterns (Section 4.2.3, Artificial Lighting). Therefore, the following guidelines will be followed from April 15 through October 15 to encompass ABB’s active season,12 if necessary.

 Within occupied ABB habitat, AEP will down-shield necessary lighting associated with all operations or construction activities that extend beyond daylight hours to minimize the potential impact on ABBs. Emergency response and outage repair situations are not required to down- shield lighting.

 Areas that are not identified as ABB habitat altogether will require no limits to artificial lighting. 5.4.7 Training AEP will implement a training program for all personnel conducting or supervising covered activities that will disturb ABB occupied habitat (i.e., that will result in ground disturbance). Annually as part of AEP’s internal training, or prior to initiating activities within occupied ABB habitat, personnel will be

11 In rare instances, AEP may mow more frequently than annually per an existing landowner agreement. 12 This date range is intended to conservatively encompass ABB’s active season and will be easier for AEP to implement consistently than a date range that varies from year to year.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-4 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

given a presentation focused on identifying ABB and summarizing the requirements of AEP’s HCP. During covered activities other than emergency response and outage repair, personnel will be instructed to report any ABBs or their larvae observed to the project manager or environmental inspector, remove all food wastes from the ROW each day, and prohibit dogs or cats on the ROW (workers may not bring animals on to the ROW). Project managers or environmental inspectors will report the sightings to the appropriate USFWS Ecological Services Field Office. AEP will post signs at all access points to the project area, identifying areas of ABB occupied habitat and reminding workers to follow special restrictions in the area.

5.5 Mitigation Measures AEP will offset unavoidable impacts on ABB through mitigation. This mitigation will include restoring ABB habitat in areas with temporary and permanent cover change habitat impacts and conserving in perpetuity lands that support ABB habitat. 5.5.1 Post-construction Restoration for Temporary and Permanent Cover Change Impacts AEP will employ the following measures to restore ABB habitat in areas with temporary and permanent cover change habitat impacts resulting from covered activities. Areas with permanent impacts, either actual or assumed, are not subject to these measures.

5.5.1.1 Relief of Soil Compaction Following construction within ABB-occupied habitat, AEP will disk (mechanically break up) compacted soil in laydown areas and material storage areas where soil is compacted to relieve soil compaction, facilitate revegetation, and help restore soil conditions for use by ABB. This measure is not required for small project areas (such as maintenance work on a power pole) where the use of tractors and ripping equipment would result in increasing the impact area.

5.5.1.2 Revegetation for Temporary and Permanent Cover Change Impacts Following covered activities resulting in ground disturbance and where AEP would mitigate for temporary or permanent cover change habitat impacts (i.e., not permanent habitat impacts), AEP will re-establish vegetation with a native species composition similar to that of the surrounding area (typically warm season grasses) or of the same vegetation type that existed prior to impacts within the affected area. If construction/soil disturbance ends during the winter, when plants are dormant, bare soil will be temporarily stabilized, if necessary, to prevent erosion by broadcasting cool season species such as annual rye grass or wheat seed and, where necessary, using clean, weed-free wheat straw as mulch to protect seed and increase soil moisture. At the beginning of the next growing season (preferably prior to the start of ABB’s active season in mid- to late May), these areas will be re-established with vegetation. Seeds used during vegetation re-establishment will be free of invasive species seeds.

For temporary impacts, AEP will re-establish ABB habitat with low-growing vegetation that existed prior to disturbance (mixed grass pasture, native grass and scrub/shrub, and native grass pasture).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-5 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

Vegetation will be re-established to the original density (based on visual comparison of before/after photographs and comparison to adjacent undisturbed areas) within 5 years of initial disturbance, consistent with pre-disturbance conditions. For permanent cover change impacts where pre- disturbance vegetation type cannot be restored within 5 years (e.g., forests), AEP will restore vegetation to a condition suitable for ABB use within 5 years of initial disturbance. AEP will also conserve ABB habitat off-site to mitigate for temporary and permanent cover change impacts, as described in the following section. If revegetation and restoration of ABB suitable habitat is not achievable because of site conditions within 5 years, AEP will mitigate for permanent habitat impacts for the portion of the affected area that remains unrestored (see Section 5.5.2). Should AEP be required to conduct covered activities, such as emergency response or outage repairs, on sites being restored prior to complete restoration but following the initial impact (not to exceed 5 years), no additional mitigation (habitat mitigation through provision of mitigation lands or conservation bank credits) is required so long as these areas meet the restoration success criteria within 5 years of the initial impact. Once ABB habitat is restored, future impacts in the same area will be considered a new impact and may require additional mitigation, consistent with the terms of this HCP. 5.5.2 Off-site Habitat Mitigation for Temporary, Permanent Cover Change, and Permanent Impacts AEP will offset impacts by conserving in perpetuity ABB habitat in the plan area, according to USFWS- approved mitigation ratios, dependent on the type and location of the impact. USFWS provides guidelines for mitigating impacts on ABB habitat in Oklahoma in the USFWS document American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014). USFWS provides similar guidance for mitigating impacts on ABB habitat in Arkansas in American Burying Beetle Mitigation Lands Guidance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). AEP will use the mitigation ratios provided in this USFWS guidance, presented in Table 5-1, to mitigate temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent impacts on ABB habitat in known range in the plan area. Should these impacts occur within CPAs or ABB mitigation land, AEP will mitigate at the ratios shown in Table 5-1. The map of CPAs (Figure 3-2) is based on the USFWS designation of CPAs in 2016 in Oklahoma and in 2017 in Arkansas. This map will be used for the purposes of mitigation unless USFWS revises the CPA boundaries. If USFWS changes the CPA boundaries in Oklahoma or Arkansas (expands or shrinks), or adds CPAs in Texas, AEP will mitigate the impacts of covered activities according to the latest maps as soon as they are made available to the public, as noted in Section 6.3.1.4, Changes to ABB Range and CPAs.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-6 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

Table 5-1. Mitigation Ratios for ABB Habitat Impacts

Required Mitigation Ratios (Impact:Mitigation) Habitat Impact Duration ABB Range outside Conservation Priority Mitigation and Type Conservation Priority Area1 Area2 Land Temporary 1:0.25 1:0.5 1:1.5 Permanent Cover Change 1:0.5 1:1 1:2 Permanent 1:1 1:2 1:3 Note: ratio = acres of impact to acres of offset 1 This category in Arkansas includes any locations in Tier 2 Conservation Priority Areas and the ABB area. 2 This category in Arkansas is equivalent to Tier 1 Conservation Priority Areas. Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, 2017

If AEP is unable to or chooses not to restore ABB habitat in areas with temporary or permanent cover change impacts within 5 years of initial disturbance, these areas will be mitigated as permanent habitat impacts through off-site habitat conservation. Note that only the portion of the area that is unsuccessfully restored will require additional mitigation. Based on the estimated amount of temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent impacts that could occur (65.5, 8.7, and 25.8%, respectively), and an estimate of the proportion of these impacts that could occur within CPAs13 or mitigation lands, AEP estimates that 3,725 acres of ABB habitat would need to be conserved and managed for ABB in perpetuity to mitigate for impacts from covered activities. AEP would establish mitigation in two ways: ahead of time and in at least the amount to cover impacts for activities associated with distribution lines and emergency response and outage repairs for at least the following year, and on a project-specific basis for capital projects (new transmission lines, etc.) as described in the following sections and in Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting. AEP may choose to prepay for mitigation several years in advance to minimize the need to pay annually and to lock in more favorable mitigation costs (e.g., lower per acre cost when buying in larger amounts). This mitigation will be tracked cumulatively throughout the permit term, as stated above. Mitigation paid in advance will not be refunded if overestimated.

5.5.2.1 Approved Conservation Banks AEP may mitigate ABB habitat impacts by purchasing credits from a USFWS-approved conservation bank. AEP will purchase mitigation credits prior to impacts occurring. If it is infeasible to purchase mitigation credits prior to impacts, AEP will sign a purchase agreement with a mitigation banker prior to impacts occurring, and AEP will purchase the mitigation credits within 6 months after impacts occur (see Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting). Conservation banks are permanently protected lands that contain natural resource values for species listed under the ESA or other species at risk. By definition, a USFWS-approved conservation bank meets the minimum standards and other

13 USFWS delineates CPAs in Oklahoma and Arkansas, comprising 5,713,384 acres or 18% of the plan area and 34% and 8% of PSO’s and SWEPCO’s respective service territories in the plan area. The amount of total off-site mitigation (3,725 acres) is based on the estimated temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent habitat impacts from distribution and transmission activities, the proportion of these impacts that could occur in CPAs, and the mitigation ratios required inside and outside of CPAs.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-7 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

requirements described in USFWS guidelines, American Burying Beetle Conservation Strategy for the Establishment, Management, and Operations of Mitigation Lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014) and Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Conservation Banks (68 FR 24753, May 8, 2003). Conservation banks are established through an agreement between USFWS and the bank sponsor— the conservation easement for the bank must be approved by USFWS. Should AEP choose to mitigate through the purchase of credits in a USFWS-approved conservation bank (either currently approved or approved in the future), the bank sponsor is responsible for managing the mitigation land in perpetuity upon sale of the credits and ensuring success. AEP would purchase appropriate credits to ensure that it holds the adequate number of credits to account for any ABB-occupied habitat impacts that could result in take of ABB. Currently approved banks in the plan area are listed in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. USFWS-approved Conservation Banks in the Plan Area for ABB

Name Location1 Total Available ABB Credits2 Muddy Boggy Conservation Bank South Central Oklahoma 1,168 American Burying Beetle Pittsburgh County, Oklahoma 240 Conservation Bank Total Available Credits 1,408 1 A conservation bank in Arkansas is currently in the process of being approved by USFWS. 2 As of August 31, 2016.

5.5.2.2 First-party Mitigation Lands First-party mitigation lands are owned and managed by the permittee. To propose first-party mitigation land, AEP would obtain USFWS approval on a management and monitoring plan, including funding assurances, prior to impacts occurring. Like conservation banks, AEP would seek to establish first-party mitigation prior to impacts occurring. If it is infeasible to establish mitigation lands prior to impacts occurring, a purchase agreement will be in place at the time of impacts occurring, and AEP will purchase or dedicate its own mitigation lands within 6 months after impacts occur (see Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting). The permittee or its designee is responsible for managing the mitigation lands in perpetuity, even if the project is finite in duration, and ensuring success. If sufficient ABB credits are not available in a USFWS-approved conservation bank to meet the needs of AEP’s Conservation Strategy, or if a USFWS-approved conservation bank does not exist in the state where impacts would occur and mitigation is required to occur in state, AEP may opt to develop its own first-party mitigation site.

5.5.2.3 Third-party Mitigation Lands Third-party mitigation lands are typically established for a single project or permittee, unlike conservation banks, which are established for multiple projects. Similar to first-party mitigation lands, these lands and agreements must meet the minimum standards described by USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014a). Conservation easements and agreements must be approved by USFWS prior to any habitat impacts that could result in take of ABB. The landowner, or easement holder, must manage the lands in perpetuity and is responsible for ensuring the success of habitat conservation on the property. If sufficient ABB credits are not available at a USFWS-approved conservation bank, or if a USFWS-approved conservation bank does not exist in the state where

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-8 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

impacts would occur, AEP may work with a third party to establish a mitigation site for a single project with large impacts on ABB habitat.

AEP may also choose to pay into an USFWS-approved ABB in-lieu fee program to mitigate for impacts, should one exist in the plan area in the future during the permit term.

5.6 Monitoring Monitoring will be used to ensure that mitigation measures are being implemented. Monitoring also ensures that the mitigation measures benefit the species and collectively meet the biological goals and objectives of the HCP. Monitoring can help to identify problems at an early stage so that corrective actions can be implemented. For this HCP, monitoring will consist of three basic categories: (1) compliance monitoring, (2) monitoring of post-disturbance restoration areas, and (3) monitoring of off-site mitigation areas.

Compliance monitoring will be implemented to ensure that AEP is meeting the terms of the HCP. The compliance monitoring will consist of documenting compliance with AMMs implemented during covered activities and tracking the acres affected, restored where impacts occur, and preserved off- site according to the mitigation terms of this HCP, reported to USFWS annually by AEP (see Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting, for additional detail on annual reporting).

Monitoring of areas disturbed by covered activities with temporary or permanent cover change impacts will be the responsibility of AEP or its designees. This monitoring will include periodic site visits (at least annually) and documentation of site conditions via digital photographs to ensure restoration progress or that restoration criteria are being met, as described in Section 5.5.1.2, Revegetation for Temporary and Permanent Cover Change Impacts. This monitoring will occur at each site with temporary or permanent cover change impacts until restoration criteria are met, until AEP decides to mitigate for permanent habitat impacts, or until 5 years have passed from the impact start date, at which point AEP would mitigate for permanent impacts at the site. This process will provide a mechanism by which problem areas are identified and corrective actions implemented in a timely fashion. Monitoring results will be included in the annual report, further described Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting.

If first-party mitigation lands are used, AEP will develop a site-specific management and monitoring program to be approved by USFWS to document whether the biological objectives of the plan are being met. If conservation banks or third-party mitigation lands are used, monitoring will be the responsibility of the land owners or bankers consistent with their USFWS-approved agreement and monitoring plan for the site.

5.7 Adaptive Management Adaptive management is a process by which mitigation measures or management actions are evaluated and subsequently modified in response to new information. USFWS defines adaptive management as a formal, structured approach to dealing with uncertainty in natural resources management, using the experience of management and the results of research as an ongoing feedback loop for continuous improvement (65 CFR Section 35242 [June 1, 2000]). Adaptive

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-9 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

approaches to management recognize that the answers to all management questions are not known and that the information necessary to formulate answers is often unavailable. Adaptive management includes, by definition, a commitment to change management practices in response to new information and when determined appropriate.

The primary reason for using adaptive management in HCPs is to allow for changes to the Conservation Strategy that may be necessary to achieve the plan’s biological goals and objectives.

AEP will incorporate adaptive management into the management of first-party mitigation sites, if used. The adaptive management strategy would be included in management and monitoring plan that would be approved by USFWS to establish any first-party mitigation lands (see Section 5.5.2.2, First-party Mitigation Lands). To produce an efficient and effective management process, AEP will review the annual report and, in coordination with USFWS, recommend specific changes in management directions. Issues AEP may address include thoroughness of the annual report and implications of the monitoring efforts relating to the need for management changes. If AEP determines that the biological goals or objectives are not being met, or management and/or monitoring activity is ineffective in conserving ABB, then adjustments to the management program may be warranted. The annual report submitted to USFWS will directly address the adaptive management issue, and a statement will be made that management should or should not change. Based on monitoring findings, AEP, in coordination with USFWS, may recommend that the specific management or monitoring actions be changed.

For third-party mitigation sites (i.e., conservation banks or third-party mitigation lands), management plans developed for sites incorporate adaptive management principles that provide flexibility to accommodate needed changes to achieve established biological goals and objectives as described in the American Burying Beetle Conservation Strategy for the Establishment, Management, and Operations of Mitigation Lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014). Because this plan is using established ratios and, where feasible, USFWS-approved conservation banks, the role of adaptive management in mitigation is small. Adaptive management to meet biological goals and objectives in third-party mitigation sites and conservation banks are the responsibility of the landowner or banker.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 5-10 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 6 Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

6.1 Introduction This chapter details the administrative requirements associated with plan implementation and the roles and responsibilities of USFWS and the permittee (AEP). This chapter also describes the regulatory assurances sought by AEP, the costs associated with plan implementation and the funding sources proposed to pay for those costs, and the procedures for modifying or amending the plan.

6.2 Implementation HCP implementation will be overseen by AEP, with day-to-day tasks managed by AEP staff or contracted employees. According to the programmatic nature of this HCP, the total acres of ABB- occupied habitat affected over the permit term, estimated in Section 4.3, Estimated Incidental Take and Impact of the Taking, will function as the limit, or cap, of the amount of take permitted under this plan. An important component of implementing the HCP will be tracking the amount of take and mitigation relative to this take limit. The following sections describe the responsibilities of AEP and USFWS for implementing the HCP. 6.2.1 American Electric Power The tasks associated with implementing the HCP are described in Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy, and in the sections below. AEP will be responsible for the overall management of the HCP including implementation and funding of the following components that will be summarized in an annual report (see Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting):

 Avoidance and Minimization Measures. AEP will implement AMMs described in Section 5.4, Avoidance and Minimization Measures. AEP will conduct an annual assessment and review of its AMMs to determine if they are performing as anticipated.

 Mitigation. AEP’s mitigation strategy (Section 5.5, Mitigation Measures) to be implemented includes restoring ABB habitat in areas with temporary and permanent cover change habitat impacts and off-site permanent conservation of ABB habitat to offset permanent habitat impacts.

 Monitoring. AEP will implement a monitoring program (Section 5.6, Monitoring) to ensure that mitigation measures are being implemented and that the mitigation measures benefit ABB and meet the biological goals and objectives of the HCP. Monitoring will also help to identify problems at an early stage so that corrective actions can be implemented.

 Reporting Procedures. As described in Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting, AEP will develop an annual report documenting annual compliance with the terms described in the HCP.

 Remedial Measures. If AEP becomes aware of a changed circumstance (Section 6.3, Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances and Assurances Requested) in the plan area, AEP will notify USFWS immediately. At that time, AEP will modify implementation of the plan to the extent necessary to address the impacts of the changed circumstance.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

6.2.1.1 Annual Reporting AEP will prepare an annual report to document permit compliance and implementation of the Conservation Strategy. Each annual report will summarize the covered activities resulting in measurable take of ABB (i.e., acres of temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent habitat impacts) during the previous year and cumulatively over the permit term. The annual report will also document the extent of vegetation management and routine maintenance and inspection covered activities, for which habitat impacts would not occur and take is not quantified under the plan. The report will be delivered in electronic format to the Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office at [email protected], the Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office at [email protected], the East Texas Ecological Services Sub-Field Office at [email protected], and the Regional Office at [email protected] by March 31 following the reporting year. The report delivery date may be changed with mutual agreement of AEP and USFWS. The annual report will meet the following goals:

 Provide the necessary information to demonstrate AEP is implementing the HCP successfully and in compliance with the Section 10 permit.

 Document problems with plan implementation that occurred during the reporting year and the steps taken to resolve the problems.

 Document foreseeable issues with implementation that may require consultation with USFWS.

 Document that mitigation is being secured.

The annual report will organize and summarize reporting information in two ways. First, each annual report will summarize the previous calendar year’s activities, documenting all compliance requirements for the reporting year, including implementation of the Conservation Strategy. Second, the annual report will summarize the amount of take (impact on ABB-occupied or assumed occupied habitat) during the previous calendar year and the cumulative amount of mitigation from the previous year plus all years since implementation of the plan, starting from the date USFWS issues the permit. The last annual report will be due at permit expiration and will report on the entire permit period. At a minimum, each annual report will include the following information to document activities conducted during the previous year.

 For transmission activities, that is, activities associated with larger projects such as transmission line construction or rebuilds and facilities construction or expansion, project-level reports will be compiled to document the following:

 Location of ABB surveys conducted and survey results.

 Description of activity conducted within occupied or assumed occupied ABB habitat.

 Land cover type(s) and vegetation communities affected.

 Map identifying land cover types affected, whether they are ABB habitat based on criteria listed by USFWS in American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016) and in Section 3.4.5.1, Habitat in the Plan Area, and location(s) of impacts.

 Acres of ABB occupied habitat adversely affected, including temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent habitat impacts.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-2 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

 AMMs implemented within occupied ABB habitat.

 Location, amount (acres), and timing of restoration actions for temporary and permanent cover change impacts.

 Digital photographs of areas with temporary and permanent cover change impacts being restored by which to evaluate restoration progress and problem areas, including any areas infested with invasive plant species, or achievement of restoration success criteria.

 Documentation of mitigation commensurate with impacts to satisfy the requirements in Section 5.5, Mitigation Measures.

 For distribution activities where ABB surveys may not be cost-effective and mapping and tracking habitat impacts would be impractical, the number of total poles installed in ABB known range will be reported and the proportion assumed to be in ABB habitat, according to the methods described in Section 4.3, Estimated Incidental Take and Impact of the Taking. This number of poles will be multiplied by 1,000 square feet to determine the amount of habitat impacts each year for all distribution activities, which will be mitigated for as permanent habitat impacts to conservatively estimate the amount of take and simplify implementation. If AEP determines a more accurate method to estimate and track take occurring from distribution activities it will propose such a method to USFWS as a modification to the HCP (see Section 6.5, Plan Revisions and Amendments).

 For documenting activities resulting in non-quantifiable take, the approximate length of ROW subject to vegetation management activities over the previous year will be reported. The amount of routine maintenance and repair activities will be indicated by reported pole replacements and installations.

 A summary of the annual training provided to personnel conducting covered activities in ABB- occupied habitat.

 A summary of the cumulative amount (acres) of impacts and mitigation over the prior year and over the permit term:

 Amount of ABB habitat impacts (temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent).

 Results of monitoring of restoration sites, including the amount (acres) of ABB habitat restored, unrestored after fewer than 5 years from the impact, and unrestored after 5 years from the impact that would be mitigated for as permanent impacts.

 Amount (acres) of mitigation required based on impacts (temporary, permanent cover change, and permanent) on occupied ABB habitat and whether these impacts occurred within or outside of CPAs.

 Amount of mitigation secured through credit purchased from a USFWS-approved conservation bank for ABB (e.g., location of conservation bank, number of credits purchased, date of purchase) or acres of first-party or third-party mitigation land secured and documentation of these lands meeting standards for USFWS guidelines on ABB mitigation lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014).

 Foreseeable activities to be conducted within potential ABB-occupied habitat in the next year and an estimate of the approximate amount of mitigation required to offset the impact of these activities, including mitigation credits already purchased or established at a first-party or third- party mitigation site or, at minimum, a purchase agreement for estimated “pay ahead” mitigation

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-3 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

credits necessary to offset impacts from distribution activities adversely affecting ABB habitat in the subsequent year.

 AEP will conservatively estimate required mitigation to ensure that, notwithstanding unanticipated circumstances (e.g., an extensive outage repair situation), mitigation is established prior to impacts occurring. Should unanticipated circumstances result in impacts outpacing required mitigation, AEP will establish mitigation within 6 months of impacts occurring and document in the annual report (1) the mitigation balance that exists at the time of the report, (2) purchase agreements in place to address expected impacts in the next 6 months, and (3) mitigation established and date of establishment during the prior year.

 A list of all amendments or other important implementation decisions made to date, starting with the permit issuance. 6.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Successful implementation of the HCP relies on the participation and feedback of USFWS personnel. USFWS will participate in discussions and meetings with AEP to ensure that the HCP is implemented consistent with its terms. USFWS will be responsible for reviewing the annual report, reviewing and approving the acquisition of first- and third-party mitigation lands proposed by AEP, and assisting with other changes or modifications to the HCP as described in Section 6.5, Plan Revisions and Amendments. USFWS will assist with decisions regarding HCP implementation as expeditiously as possible.

USFWS is responsible for monitoring AEP’s compliance with this HCP and the permit. The primary means of compliance monitoring is through AEP’s annual report provided to USFWS (see Section 6.2.1.1, Annual Reporting). USFWS may also conduct site visits to project sites, first- or third- party mitigation lands, or conservation banks where credits are purchased to verify compliance with the terms of this HCP. USFWS is also responsible for identifying any unforeseen circumstances, should they occur, and notifying AEP of their occurrence.

6.3 Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances and Assurances Requested Changed circumstances are defined by federal regulation as those circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that can be reasonably anticipated by the applicant or USFWS and to which the parties can plan a response (50 CFR Section 17.3). Unforeseen circumstances are defined by federal regulation as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by an HCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the applicant or USFWS at the time of the HCP’s development and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species (50 CFR Section 17.3).

ESA regulations provide for regulatory and economic assurances to entities covered by approved HCPs concerning their financial obligations under the HCP (63 FR 8859). These assurances, called “no surprises,” are intended to provide a degree of certainty regarding the overall costs associated with implementation. If unforeseen circumstances occur that adversely affect species that are covered by an HCP, USFWS will not require of that HCP permittee any additional land, water, or financial

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-4 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

compensation or impose additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources as long as the HCP is being properly implemented.14 6.3.1 Changed Circumstances Provided for in the HCP The following sections describe the changed circumstances that AEP will provide for in this HCP. If AEP becomes aware of a changed circumstance in the plan area, it will notify USFWS immediately. At that time, AEP will modify implementation of the plan in the manner described below, to the extent necessary to address the impacts of the changed circumstances on the plan’s conservation program. AEP will make the modifications without awaiting notice from USFWS and will report to USFWS on its actions.

6.3.1.1 Species Delisted or Down-Listed If ABB is delisted during the term of the permit, the delisting would be made partly as a result of mitigation and conservation actions in approved HCPs, including this plan. Consequently, operation and maintenance of the mitigation lands (permittee-responsible/first-party mitigation lands) or conservation banks utilized for this HCP would continue in perpetuity and AEP may not seek authorization to discontinue management of permittee-responsible mitigation lands, or any refund for third-party conservation land or bank credits purchased.

Delisting would remove the prohibition for new project-related incidental take to occur. If delisting occurs during construction, AEP may choose to continue the AMMs to reduce threats to the species. However, this voluntary conservation may be especially important during USFWS’s required monitoring of the species’ status for the first 5 years after delisting.

If ABB is down-listed to threatened, AEP will evaluate the implications on the HCP of the down-listing and any possible 4(d) rule issued with that down-listing.

6.3.1.2 Fire, Flood, Drought, or Tornado ABB habitat with temporary or permanent cover change impacts that is being restored, as described in Section 5.5.1.2, Revegetation for Temporary and Permanent Cover Change Impacts, may experience fire, flooding, drought, or tornado impacts during the revegetation period.

In the event that fire caused by AEP’s activities occurs prior to a restoration site meeting success criteria, AEP will repeat restoration actions as necessary to restore ABB habitat at the site within 5 years of the initial impact. Alternatively, if restoration is no longer feasible within 5 years of the initial impact, AEP will mitigate for permanent habitat impacts at the site with off-site habitat conservation.

If natural events, such as fire, flood, drought, or tornados occur prior to a restoration site meeting success criteria, AEP will repeat restoration actions as necessary to restore ABB habitat at the site within 5 years of the natural event. Alternatively, if restoration is no longer feasible within 5 years, AEP will mitigate for permanent habitat impacts at the site with off-site habitat conservation.

If natural events affect previously affected sites that have already been fully restored to ABB habitat, AEP would not be responsible for any additional restoration or vegetation re-establishment efforts.

14 Properly implemented means that the commitments and provisions of the HCP and permit are being fully implemented (63 FR 8859 [February 23, 1998] amending 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5)).

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-5 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

6.3.1.3 Invasive Species Invasive plant or animal species could occur or be introduced into the areas of restored ABB habitat, subsequently reducing or affecting the quality of the habitat for ABB by changing the vegetation characteristics or carrion base. Invasive species spreading throughout the plan area within the permit term is a foreseeable event. Should noxious weeds, as listed by the Department of Agriculture in Oklahoma, Arkansas, or Texas, infest sites where AEP is restoring ABB habitat (i.e., after the temporary or permanent cover change impact has occurred but prior to the site being restored within up to 5 years) to a greater degree than that of pre-disturbance conditions or adjacent land, AEP will work with USFWS to develop and implement an invasive species control plan. AEP may also choose to increase mitigation ratios for these areas to be equivalent to ratios for permanent impacts in lieu of invasive species control.

6.3.1.4 Changes to ABB Range and CPAs As described in Chapter 5, AEP will implement the Conservation Strategy within the USFWS- designated ABB known range in the plan area. ABB range is expected to increase in the plan area during the permit term, although a range reduction is also possible. While Logan, Noble, and Oklahoma counties in Oklahoma do not contain known ABB range as defined by USFWS in 2016, the counties have been included within the western edge of the plan area. They are adjacent to counties to the east within ABB range that have documented ABB occurrence and habitat. Additionally, ABB range has expanded westward as more areas are surveyed for the species. AEP has included the entirety of Carter, Cleveland, Creek, Garvin, Kay, Lincoln, Love, McClain, Murray, Osage, Pawnee, Payne, and Pottawatomie counties in Oklahoma in anticipation of range expansion in these counties, which already contain a portion of the range of ABB. Similarly, in anticipation of the potential range expansion of ABB, AEP has included the entirety of Clark, Crawford, Franklin, Hempstead, Johnson, Little River, Logan, Miller, Scott, Sebastian, and Yell counties in Arkansas and Bowie, Fannin, Lamar, and Red River counties in Texas.

Should the USFWS-defined ABB range expand into these counties during the permit term, AEP will implement AMMs and mitigation measures described in Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy. The impact analysis estimates future take throughout the plan area, not only within the current USFWS-defined range of the species. Therefore, AEP does not anticipate any need to amend the plan to adjust the take authorization as a result of ABB range expansion. Should USFWS-defined ABB range expand beyond the plan area during the permit term, AEP would work with USFWS to modify or amend the plan to remain in compliance with the ESA. In addition, should the ABB range shrink, as defined by USFWS, the HCP-required pre-project surveys and/or associated mitigation will also be reduced to match the range.

If USFWS changes the CPA boundaries in Oklahoma or Arkansas (expands or shrinks), or adds CPAs in Texas, AEP will mitigate the impacts of covered activities according to the latest maps as soon as they are made available to the public.

6.3.1.5 New Listings During Permit Term In the event that a species occurring within the plan area becomes listed under the ESA, AEP with USFWS will evaluate (1) the degree to which the species has potential to be taken by the covered activities; (2) the degree to which the HCP, as it is being implemented, is providing conservation benefits to the species; and (3) what additional measures, if any, AEP could implement through the

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-6 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

HCP to provide conservation benefits for the species. Depending on this evaluation, AEP will work with USFWS to decide whether to seek coverage of the species through an amendment to the HCP.

6.3.1.6 Best Available Science Suggests a Different Type of Mitigation During the term of the permit and implementing the HCP, if a better or more appropriate method of mitigation is identified by the adaptive management program or new scientific findings; AEP and the USFWS may substitute mitigation based upon the new information. The mitigation must be agreed upon by both parties and provide the equivalent conservation to offset the impacts of the taking, as determined by the USFWS. 6.3.2 Unforeseen Circumstances In the event of an unforeseen circumstance, USFWS will provide at least a 30-day notice of a proposed finding of unforeseen circumstance to AEP. USFWS will then work with AEP to develop an appropriate response to the new conditions. AEP will have the opportunity to submit information to USFWS to rebut the proposed finding, if it deems necessary. Any action taken by AEP to address an unforeseen circumstance will be done voluntarily. 6.3.3 No-Surprises Assurances AEP requests no-surprises assurances consistent with ESA regulations and as described above. If a changed circumstance as defined by this plan occurs within the plan area, AEP will implement the appropriate remedial actions as described above to the extent necessary to address the impacts of the changed circumstance on the HCP’s Conservation Strategy. AEP will also report on its actions to USFWS. In the case of an unforeseen circumstance, USFWS or any other entity may take any actions necessary in order to conserve ABB, as long as the actions are at the expense of that entity. AEP may choose voluntarily to implement additional actions to conserve ABB.

6.4 Funding Section 10(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the ESA requires that HCP permittees must specify the funding that will be available to implement actions that will be enacted to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking. The ESA also requires that USFWS must find that “the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided” (Section 10(a)(2)(B)(iii)). AEP commits to providing sufficient funding to complete all of its implementation responsibilities described in Section 6.2, Implementation. The following section provides the estimated costs of these responsibilities. 6.4.1 Costs to Implement the Plan AEP estimates the average annual cost to implement the plan at $2,860,779 in 2018 dollars. The cost of implementing the plan may vary from year to year depending on the amount of covered activities that occur and how much mitigation is necessary in a given year. AEP commits to fund the plan’s successful implementation, including any remedial actions during the term of the permit that may be necessary in response to changed circumstances described in Section 6.3.1, Changed Circumstances Provided for in the HCP. Average estimated annual costs for program implementation, including

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-7 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

training, pre-construction surveys, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting are shown in Table 6-1. These costs are only those that are included as their own line item or in addition to the costs AEP typically includes as part of its existing budgeting for operations, maintenance, and construction activities. Many of the AMMs described in Section 5.4, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, AEP already implements as best management practices and are therefore not included as new costs to implement the HCP.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-8 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

Table 6-1. Estimated Average Annual Costs to Implement the Plan1

Average Amount per 6 Base Base Year Estimated Cost per Year Implementation Activity Cost/Unit Unit Distr. Trans. Distr. Trans. Total ABB Surveys Prior to Disturbance2 $4,000 survey -- 113 $0 $452,000 $452,000 ABB Training for Construction Personnel $1,000 event 2 1 $2,000 $1,000 $3,000 On-site Mitigation (Post-construction Restoration) $5,000 acre -- 167 $0 $833,746 $833.746 and Monitoring3 Off-site Mitigation4 $10,500 credit 17.1 107 $179,526 $1,124,279 $1,303,806 Project-Specific Reports (large) $45,000 report -- 2 --5 $45,000 $90,000 Project-Specific Reports (small-medium) $8,000 report -- 4 --5 $8,000 $32,000 Annual Reporting to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10,000 report -- 1 --5 $10,000 $10,000 Subtotal $177,900 $2,513,226 $2,724,552 Contingency for Changed Circumstances (5%) n/a n/a n/a n/a $8,895 $125,661 $136,228 Total $160,733 $2,638,887 $2,860,779 1 Only costs in addition to those already typically included in AEP’s operations, maintenance, and construction project budgets are included. 2 Based on one survey estimated per mile of electric line constructed, rebuilt, or reconductored and on survey per support facility constructed. 3 Based on approximate temporary and permanent cover change impacts per year and estimated cost of $5,000 per acre for restoration actions and monitoring. 4 Based on approximate price per credit paid by AEP in 2016. Credits per year accounts for proportion of plan area within Conservation Priority Areas where impacts may occur. Impacts occurring in mitigation lands are not accounted for, but assumed to be rare enough to result in a negligible difference for cost estimate purposes. 5 Annual reporting costs for distribution included in transmission. 6 Estimates are average annual costs over the 30-year term in 2018 dollars. AEP acknowledges that costs to implement the HCP could be greater than estimated due to inflation and commits to completely fund the plan, including remedial measures to address changed circumstances.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-9 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

6.5 Plan Revisions and Amendments It may be necessary for USFWS or AEP to clarify provisions of the plan or the permit to address issues that arise with respect to the administration of the process, or to be more specific regarding the precise meaning and intent of the language contained in those documents. Such clarifications can take two forms: minor modifications or amendments. Any minor modification or amendment will be in accordance with applicable legal requirements. 6.5.1 Minor Modifications It may be necessary to make minor administrative modifications to the plan that do not make substantive changes to any of the provisions, but may be necessary or convenient, over time, to more fully represent the overall intent of AEP and USFWS. Below are minor modifications that do not affect the impact assessment or Conservation Strategy described in the plan and do not affect the ability of AEP to achieve the plan’s biological goals and objectives. Clarifications to address small errors or other small changes to the HCP that would not substantively alter take level or project activities do not require an amendment to the permit, but they do require pre-approval by USFWS before being implemented:

 Correcting insignificant mapping errors

 Slightly modifying AMMs

 Modifying annual reporting protocols

 Making small changes to monitoring protocols

 Making changes to funding sources

 Changing the names or addresses of responsible officials

Any changes to the HCP or permit will be memorialized in writing through correspondence or revisions to the HCP or incidental take permit. AEP or USFWS may propose, through written notice, a minor modification to the federal permit and the plan. Such notice will include a statement of the reason for the proposed change and an analysis of its environmental impacts, including any impacts on covered activities and on ABB, and any other information required by law. Written response to the proposed minor modification is requested within 60 days of receipt of such notice.

AEP may object to a proposed minor modification upon any reasonable basis. USFWS may object to a proposed minor modification if it believes the change is substantial in nature. Before rejecting a proposed minor modification, USFWS first will consult with AEP and suggest reasonable conditions or alterations to the proposal. If AEP agrees, USFWS can approve the proposed minor modification. If USFWS reasonably objects to a minor modification, and the objection is not resolved by any conditions or alterations, the proposed modification will be processed as a request for amendment of the permit.

USFWS may not propose or approve a minor modification that results in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the plan, or that result in additional take not analyzed in connection with the plan.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-10 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 6. Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding

6.5.2 Amendments Substantive changes to the plan will require an amendment of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit and publication in the Federal Register. The following is a summary of the types of changes that may require a permit amendment.

 Addition of new species, either listed or unlisted,

 Increased level or different form of take for covered species,

 Changes to funding that affect the ability of the permittee to implement the HCP

 Changes to covered activities not previously addressed

 Changes to the plan area

 Significant changes to the Conservation Strategy, including changes to the mitigation measures

USFWS is responsible for deciding the level of review needed to satisfy ESA statutory and regulatory requirements for HCP and incidental take permit amendments. Amendments that are extensive in scale or scope require amending the HCP and the incidental take permit through the same formal review process as the original HCP and permit, including the internal Section 7 consultation and NEPA compliance. AEP will submit an application for an amendment to USFWS in a report that will include a description of the need for the amendment, an assessment of its impacts, and any alternatives by which the objectives of the proposal might be achieved. In this report, AEP will describe appropriate changes to the mitigation measures such that ABB are appropriately protected.

6.6 Suspension/Revocation of Permit USFWS may suspend or revoke the permit if AEP fails to implement the plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit or if suspension or revocation is otherwise required by law. Suspension or revocation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, in whole or in part, by USFWS shall be in accordance with 50 CFR Sections 13.27–29 and 17.22 (b)(8). The permit may be revoked for any of the following reasons:

 AEP willfully violates any federal or state statute or regulation, or any Indian tribal law or regulation, or any law or regulation of any foreign country, which involves a violation of the conditions of the permit or of the laws or regulations governing the permitted activity.

 AEP fails within 60 days to correct deficiencies that were the cause of a permit suspension.

 AEP becomes disqualified to hold the permit.

 The statute or regulation authorizing the permit changes in a way that prohibits the continued implementation of the permit issued by USFWS.

 AEP’s actions are inconsistent with issuance criteria, and the inconsistency has not been rectified.

Typically, USFWS would send a letter to AEP informing it of the issues of concern and the potential for permit suspension or revocation, and would provide an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not rectified within the timeframe specified, the permit may be suspended or revoked.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 6-11 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 7 Alternatives to the Taking

7.1 Introduction The federal ESA requires that Section 10 permit applicants specify in an HCP what alternative actions to the take of federally listed species were considered and the reasons why those alternatives were not selected. The Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 2016) identifies two types of alternatives commonly used in HCPs: (1) an alternative that would reduce take below levels anticipated under the HCP, and (2) a “no action” alternative that would avoid take completely and therefore not require a permit from USFWS.

Development of the HCP was an iterative process that included an evaluation of alternative HCPs that were not carried forward for detailed analysis. Some of the dismissed alternatives would reduce take below the levels anticipated for the proposed HCP but were eliminated because they would not have met the project purpose and need and/or they presented impracticable outcomes or exorbitant costs to AEP. The alternatives evaluation process consisted of identification of six main steps: covered species, covered activities, plan area delineation, reconsideration of covered species, permit duration, and mitigation options. Because ABB is the sole species covered by this HCP, the process began by identifying which counties AEP would include in the HCP that are likely to include ABB range and habitat and where it reasonably foresees conducting development and operation activities that could affect the beetle in the future. Following identification of the appropriate counties to include, AEP determined which activities would be covered in the HCP. Once the plan area boundaries and covered activities were determined, AEP reconsidered which species would be covered by the HCP for the incidental take permit. After concluding that ABB is the only species likely to require an incidental take permit for conducting covered activities in the plan area (see Section 1.2.3, Covered Species), AEP determined an appropriate duration for the HCP and requested an incidental take permit.

In addition to the alternatives considered throughout HCP development summarized above and in compliance with the requirements of the ESA, AEP analyzed in detail three alternatives: (1) A No Take Alternative, under which AEP would avoid all impacts on occupied ABB habitat; (2) an Extended Permit Term Alternative, under which AEP would request a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit to authorize incidental take of ABB from covered activities within the plan area for a 50-year duration; and (3) the No Action Alternative, under which AEP’s compliance with the ESA would continue with issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits on a project-by-project basis. The following section describes these alternatives in greater detail.

7.2 Description of Take Alternatives The alternatives to take addressed in this chapter are the No Take Alternative, Extended Permit Term Alternative, and No Action Alternative. These take alternatives are evaluated in regard to their impacts on ABB relative to the proposed HCP and their feasibility to implement.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 7-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 7. Alternatives to the Taking

As part of the NEPA process, a wider range of project alternatives has been identified and evaluated in the plan’s EIS. The analysis of take alternatives in this chapter serves a specific and narrow regulatory purpose, which is separate and apart from the analysis of project alternatives under NEPA. The EIS for the plan identifies a reasonable range of project alternatives and evaluates the potential environmental impacts of those alternatives relative to a no action alternative. 7.2.1 No Take Alternative Chapter 2, Covered Activities, describes the activities conducted by AEP that may result in take of ABB, including operations and maintenance and activities and electric line and support facility construction. As described in Chapter 4, Effects Analysis and Take Assessment, any ground-disturbing activity occurring within ABB habitat (approximately 85.1% of the plan area) has the potential to result in take of ABB, depending on if the habitat is (1) determined occupied via valid and current survey, or (2) presumed occupied. In order to avoid take of ABB, AEP would need to conduct covered activities only in areas unfavorable to ABB or, for activities in ABB habitat, only when ABB survey results are negative.

Given that only 14.9% of the plan area contains land unfavorable for ABB, AEP could not continue to operate and serve its customers if it were to only conduct ground-disturbing activities in this proportionally small area. Within areas favorable for ABB and according to survey records compiled by USFWS, ABB surveys conducted in Oklahoma were positive 17.5% of the time from 2013 through 2015 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016). Given this rate of habitat occupancy, avoiding ground- disturbing activities in ABB-occupied habitat (i.e., only conducting these activities where ABB surveys are negative) would also severely limit AEP’s operations, maintenance, and construction activities. Activities would either face delays until ABB survey results were negative for the area, or would not be able to proceed should surveys continue to come back positive. AEP’s ability to serve its customers depends on the timely installation, repair, and maintenance of numerous electric facilities within the plan area, and many of the covered activities are necessary for establishing electric service that directly affects human health and safety (e.g., emergency response and outage repair). Therefore, the No Take Alternative would be infeasible because it would prevent AEP, one of the largest electric utility providers in the country, from conducting these activities in a timely manner to adequately serve its customers and to ensure their health and safety. 7.2.2 Extended Permit Term Alternative Under the Extended Permit Term Alternative, AEP would seek a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit to authorize impacts on ABB from covered activities addressed in the HCP for a 50-year period instead of a 30-year period. Otherwise, the HCP and requested incidental take permit would be the same as the proposed HCP. The only difference between the proposed HCP and the Extended Permit Term Alternative is the amount of take, or impacts on ABB-occupied habitat, that would be requested, and the duration over which such incidental take/impacts would be permitted. Because the duration of the requested incidental take permit would be longer, AEP would conduct more covered activities during the permit term to affect ABB and thus the anticipated take under this alternative would be higher than the proposed HCP. Additional uncertainty would exist regarding how the conservation status, range, favorable land cover types, habitat impact types, and mitigation ratios, as currently defined by USFWS, could change over the extended permit term. Other assumptions used to determine the amount of take and mitigation proposed in the HCP, such as the amount of new transmission lines AEP anticipates to be constructed over the permit term, would also

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 7-2 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 7. Alternatives to the Taking

be less certain. This uncertainty increases the risk for AEP that the permit would need to be amended, thus increasing the level of effort associated with ESA compliance. The longer permit term also increases the chance that ABB’s conservation status and understanding of the species life history would change substantially, with more uncertainty and risk to USFWS as to how implementation of the HCP would continue to effectively avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on the species that far in the future. For these reasons, the Extended Permit Term Alternative was rejected by AEP. 7.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, AEP would not apply for and USFWS would not issue an incidental take permit covering all of AEP’s covered activities programmatically. AEP would continue to construct electric facilities and maintain existing facilities to provide vital services to its customers and therefore would continue to conduct activities proposed to be covered under the HCP. AEP would continue to avoid affecting ABB-occupied habitat and, where this would not be possible, to minimize the potential impacts. AEP would seek an individual Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit, or coverage under Section 7 consultation in the case of a federal nexus, on a project-by- project basis over the next 30 years if activities might result in incidental take of ABB within the plan area. Addressing the covered activities described in Chapter 2 on a project-by-project or activity-by- activity basis would be logistically challenging, and would not allow AEP to efficiently address maintenance and emergency issues to its electrical system in a safe and timely manner. The sheer volume and frequency of AEP’s activities and the amount of time it typically takes an incidental take permit to be issued makes the No Action Alternative infeasible because AEP would not be able to conduct operations, maintenance, and construction activities in a timely manner to effectively serve its customers. The project-by-project approach under the No Action Alternative would be more time consuming and less efficient, and would result in isolated independent areas of mitigation. Such isolated mitigation would not be as productive or beneficial for ABB as under this HCP. Furthermore, cumulative impacts of individual projects may be more difficult to evaluate compared to the impacts analyzed under this HCP. Ultimately, the No Action Alternative would result in greater adverse impacts on ABB, jeopardize AEP’s ability to provide service to its customers, and substantially increase the administrative burden on USFWS when compared with the proposed HCP. Therefore, AEP rejected this alternative.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 7-3 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 8 List of Preparers

8.1 American Electric Power Kelli Boren

Brent Garrett

8.2 Enercon Services, Inc. Rebecca Carroll

David Williams, Ph.D.

8.3 ICF Lucas Bare

Paola Bernazzani

David Zippin, Ph.D.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 8-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Chapter 9 References Cited

9.1 References for Chapter 1, Introduction Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2015. Endangered Species. Available: http://www.agfc.com/species/Pages/SpeciesEndangered.aspx. Accessed: March 31, 2015.

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 2015. Rare Species Search Engine: Find Arkansas Endangered Species. Available: http://www.naturalheritage.com/research-data/rarespecies- search.aspx. Accessed: April 13, 2015.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2015. Oklahoma’s Threatened and Endangered Species. Available: http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/endangeredspecies.htm. Accessed: March 31, 2015.

Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife. 2015. Nongame and Rare Species Program. Available: https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/nongame/listed-species/. Accessed: March 31, 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Information, Planning, and Conservation Tool. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed March 31, 2015.

9.2 References for Chapter 3, Environmental Setting Anshutz, R. M., W. J. Allgeier, D. G. Snethen, W. W. Hoback. 2007. The Impacts of Light and Light Types on Nocturnal Carrion Beetles, Including the American Burying Beetle. Poster presentation at North Central Branch Entomology Meeting, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Backlund, D. C., and G. M. Marrone. 1997. New Records of the Endangered American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera: ), in South Dakota. Coleopterists Bulletin 51(1):53–58).

Bedick, J. C., B. C. Ratcliffe, W. W. Hoback, and L. G. Higley. 1999. Distribution, Ecology, and Population Dynamics of the American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera, Silphidae), in South-central Nebraska. Journal of Conservation 3(3):171–181.

Bedick, J. C., W. W. Hoback, and M. C. Albrecht. 2006. High Water-loss Rates and Rapid Dehydration in the Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus marginatus. Physiological Entomology 31:23–29.

Chapman, S. S., J. M. Omernik, G. E., Griffith, W. A. Schroeder, T. A. Nigh, and T. F. Wilton. 2002. Ecoregions of Iowa and Missouri. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Available: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/mo_ia/moia_front.pdf.

Collins, L., and R. H. Scheffrahn. 2005. Featured Creatures: Red Imported Fire Ant. University of Florida, Department of Entomology and Nematology. Publication No. EENY-195.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 9-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 9. References Cited

Creighton, J. C. and G. Schnell. 1998. Short-term Movement Patterns of the Endangered American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus. Biological Conservation 86:281–287.

Garrott, R. A., P. J. White, and C. A. Vanderbilt White. 1993. Over-abundance: An Issue for Conservation Biologist? Conservation Biologist 7:946–949.

Hoback, W. W. 2011. Summary of Overwintering Field Activities. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Holloway, A. K., and G. D. Schnell. 1997. Relationship between Numbers of the Endangered American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera: Silphidae), and Available Food Resources. Biological Conservation 81:145–152.

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, J. Coulston, N. D. Herold, J. D. Wickham, and K. Megown. 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States–Representing a Decade of Land Cover Change Information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, vol. 81, No. 5, pp. 345–354. Available: http://www.asprs.org/a/publications/pers/2015journals/PERS_May_2015/HTML/files/assets /basic-html/index.html#345/z#noFlash.

Howard, D. R., C. L. Hall, and E. Bestul. 2012. Annual Status Update of the Endangered American Burying Beetle at The Nature Conservancy’s Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma. Unpublished report for The Nature Conservancy.

Hwang, S., and S. Shiao. 2010. Dormancy and the Influence of Photoperiod and Temperature on Sexual Maturity in Nicrophorus nepalensis (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Insect Science 18:225–233.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7, pb: 978-0-521-70597-4. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-05799-1.

Jurzenski, J., D. G. Snethen, M. L. Brust, and W. W. Hoback. 2011. New Records of Carrion Beetles in Nebraska Reveal Increased Presence of the American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Great Plains Research 21:131–43.

Kozol, A. J. 1990. The Natural History and Reproductive Strategies of the American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus. Report to USFWS, Hadley, MA. Unpublished manuscript.

Lomolino, M. V., J. C. Creighton, G. D. Schnell, and D. L. Certain. 1995. Ecology and Conservation of the Endangered American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus. Conservation Biology 9:605–614.

Lomolino, M. V. and J. C. Creighton. 1996. Habitat Selection, Breeding Success, and Conservation of the Endangered American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus. Biological Conservation 77:235–241.

Melillo, J. M., T. T. C. Richmond, G. W. Yohe (eds.). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 841.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 9-2 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 9. References Cited

National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Web application, version 1.8. Arlington, VA: NatureServe.

Ratcliffe, B. C. 1996. The carrion beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae) of Nebraska. Bulletin of the Nebraska State Museum, vol. 13.

Ray, J. C. 2000. Mesocarnivores in Northeastern North America: Status and Conservation Issues. WCS Working Papers No. 15. Available: http://www.wcs.org/science/.

Schneider, R., K. Stoner, G. Steinauer, M. Panella, and M. Humpert. 2011. The Nebraska Natural Legacy Project: State Wildlife Action Plan. Second edition. Lincoln, NE: The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

Schnell, G. D., A. H. Hiott, and V. Smyth. 1997–2006. Evaluation of American Burying Beetles on the Weyerhaeuser Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Final report to Weyerhaeuser Company. Unpublished manuscript.

Schnell, G. D., A. E. Hiott, J. C. Creighton, V. L. Smyth, and A. Komendat. 2007. Factors Affecting Overwinter Survival of the American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Journal of Insect Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10841-007-90865.

Scott, M. P., J. F. A. Traniello, and I. A. Fetherston. 1987. Competition for Prey between Ants and Burying Beetles: Differences Between Northern and Southern Temperate Sites. Psyche 94: 325– 333.

Scott, M. P. and J. F. A. Traniello. 1989. Guardians of the Underworld. Natural History 6:32–36.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2016. TPWD County Lists of Protected Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Wildlife Division, Diversity and Habitat Assessment Programs. Accessed: August 9, 2016.

The Nature Conservancy. 2003. Oauchita Ecoregional Assessment. Oauchita Ecoregional Team. Arkansas and Oklahoma Field Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,. 2003. Imported Fire Ants: An Agricultural Pest and Human Health Hazard. March 2003 Fact Sheet. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Available: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/fireants/downloads/ imported_fireant_ea_march2012.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Conservation Approach for the American Burying Beetle (ABB) in Counties Lacking or with Limited Recent Survey Data. Tulsa, OK, 4 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. 5-Year Review American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Recovery Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. American Burying Beetle Biology. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. Available: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/Documents/ABB/ American%20Burying%20Beetle%20Biology.pdf. Accessed: June 5, 2015.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 9-3 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 9. References Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. American Burying Beetle Oklahoma Presence/Absence Live- trapping Survey Guidance. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. American Burying Beetle: Additional Information—Range Map and Conservation Priority Areas Shape Files. Last revised: March 31, 2016. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. Available: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/ ABB_Add_Info.htm. Accessed: August 2, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. American Burying Beetle Mitigation Lands Guidelines. Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office. Available: https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/docs/ ABB%20Conservation%20Lands%20Guidelines%20in%20Arkansas.pdf. Accessed: December 18, 2017.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Changes in the Boston Mountains Ecoregion. Open file report.

Walker, T. L. and W. Hoback. 2007. Effects of Invasive Eastern Red Cedar on Capture Rates of Nicrophorus americanus and Other Silphidae. Env. Entolol. 36(2):297–307.

Warriner, M. D. 2004. Survey for the American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) on Arkansas Game and Fish Wildlife Management Areas (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Unpublished report. Little Rock, AR, 14 pp.

Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat Fragmentation in the Temperate Zone. In M.E. Soule (ed.), Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, pp. 237–256. Sunderlan, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Woods, A. J., J. M. Omernik, D. R. Butler, J. G. Ford, J. E. Henley, B. W. Hoagland, D. S. Arndt, and B. C. Moran. 2005. Ecoregions of Oklahoma. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

Young, B., E. Byers, K. Gravuer, K. Hall, G. Hammerson, and A. Redder. 2010. Guidelines for Using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index. Arlington, VA: NatureServe.

Personal Communication Lombardi, Melissa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 28, 2017—comment provided on the administrative draft Habitat Conservation Plan for American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas.

9.3 References for Chapter 4, Effects Analysis and Take Assessment Amaral, M., A. J. Kozol, and T. French. 1997. Conservation Strategy and Reintroduction of the Endangered American Burying Beetle. Northeastern Naturalist 4(3):121–132.

Anshutz, R. M., W. J. Allgeier, D. G. Snethen, W. W. Hoback. 2007. The Impacts of Light and Light Types on Nocturnal Carrion Beetles, Including the American Burying Beetle. Poster presentation at North Central Branch Entomology Meeting, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Bedick, J. C., B. C. Ratcliffe, W. W. Hoback, and L. G. Higley. 1999. Distribution, Ecology, and Population Dynamics of the American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus Olivier

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 9-4 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 9. References Cited

(Coleoptera, Silphidae), in South-central Nebraska, USA. Journal of Insect Conservation 3(3): 171–181. Available: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologypapers/40.

Bedick, J. C., W. W. Hoback, and M. C. Albrecht. 2006. High Water-loss Rates and Rapid Dehydration in the Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus marginatus. Physiological Entomology 31:23–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3032.2005.00477.x.

Enercon Services, Inc. 2012. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan. Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, LP Gulf Coast Project. August. Available: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/ Documents/ABB/Final%20Draft%20Keystone%20HCP%2020120815.pdf.

Enercon Services, Inc., and ICF. 2016. Draft Talawanda to McAlester Transmission Line Project Habitat Conservation Plan. June. Prepared for: American Electric Power.

Jurzenski, J., and W. W. Hoback. 2011. Opossums and Leopard Frogs Consume the Federally Endangered American Burying Beetle (Coleoptera: Silphidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 65(1): 88-90. doi: 10.1649/0010-065X-65.1.88.

Kirchner, B. N., N. S. Green, D. A. Sergeant, J. N. Mink, and K. T. Wilkins. 2011. Responses of Small Mammals and Vegetation to a Prescribed Burn in a Tallgrass Blackland Prairie. American Midland Naturalist 166:122–125.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Front Ecol. Environ. 2(4):191–198.

Marvier, M., P. Kareiva, and M. G. Neubert. 2004. Habitat Destruction, Fragmentation, and Disturbance Promote Invasion by Habitat Generalists in a Multispecies Metapopulation. Risk Analysis 24(4):869–878.

Oxley, D. J., M. B. Fenton, and G. R. Carmody. 1974. The Effects of Roads on Populations of Small Mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:51–59.

Porter, S. D., and D. A. Savignano. 1990. Invasion of Polygyne Fire Ants Decimates Native Ants and Disrupts Arthropod Community. Ecology 71(6):2095–2106.

Ratcliffe, B. C. 1996. The Carrion Beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae) of Nebraska. Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum, vol. 13.

Russel, J. C. 1940. The Effect of Surface Cover on Soil Moisture Losses by Evaporation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 4:65–70.

Sikes, D. S., and C. J. Raithel. 2002. A Review of Hypotheses of Decline of the Endangered American Burying Beetle (Silphidae: Nicrophorus americanus Olivier). Journal of Insect Conservation 6:103–113.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, MA, 80 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). Tulsa, OK. June. Available: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/Documents/ABB/ American%20Burying%20Beetle%20Biology.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016a. American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. March.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 9-5 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 9. References Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016b. ABB Location Data. https://www.fws.gov/ southwest/es/oklahoma/ABB_Add_Info.htm. Accessed: April 11, 2016.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. National Land Cover Database 2011 Land Cover (2011 edition). Published: March 31. Sioux Falls, SD. Accessed: April 15, 2015.

Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat Fragmentation in the Temperate Zone. In M.E. Soule (ed.), Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, pp. 237–256. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Willemssens, K. A. 2015. Soil Preferences of Nicrophorus Beetles and the Effects of Compaction on Burying Behavior. Dissertations and Theses in Natural Resources. Paper 112. Available: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natresdiss/112.

Personal Communication Levesque, Laurence P. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa Field Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma. May 1, 2017—communication.

9.4 References for Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. American Burying Beetle Conservation Strategy for the Establishment, Management, and Operations of Mitigation Lands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region. May 21. Available: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/ ABBICP.htm. Accessed: November 16, 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus, Oklahoma Presence/Absence Live-trapping Survey Guidance. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. May. Available: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/ABBICP.htm. Accessed: May 5, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. March.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. American Burying Beetle Mitigation Lands Guidelines. Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office. Available: https://www.fws.gov/arkansas- es/docs/ABB%20Conservation%20Lands%20Guidelines%20in%20Arkansas.pdf. Accessed: December 18, 2017.

9.5 References for Chapter 6, Plan Implementation, Assurances, and Funding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. March.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 9-6 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

American Electric Power Chapter 9. References Cited

9.6 References for Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Taking U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. ABB Location Data. Available: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/ es/oklahoma/ABB_Add_Info.htm. Accessed: April 11, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. December 21. Available: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/HCPBKTOC.PDF.

9.7 References for Figures U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. American Burying Beetle Biology. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. Available: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/Documents/ABB/ American%20Burying%20Beetle%20Biology.pdf. Accessed: June 5, 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. American Burying Beetle: Additional Information—Range Map and Conservation Priority Areas Shape Files. Last revised: March 31, 2016. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. Available: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/ ABB_Add_Info.htm. Accessed: August 2, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. American Burying Beetle Mitigation Lands Guidelines. Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office. Available: https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/docs/ ABB%20Conservation%20Lands%20Guidelines%20in%20Arkansas.pdf. Accessed: December 18, 2017.

Knoll, Erin, endangered species biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Field Office, Conway, Arkansas. April 14, 2015—geographic information system shape files for ABB range map attached to an email sent to Heath Garner, senior ecologist/environmental scientist at Enercon.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 9-7 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas

Appendix A AEP’s Procedures for Cultural Resources for the American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan

Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, is required by law for all Federal undertakings. This includes issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits for activities covered in an HCP. When coverage by the incidental take permit is based on pre-project surveys confirming activities within occupied ABB habitat, and no other federal agency is coordinating Section 106 compliance, AEP will coordinate with USFWS and conduct pre-project review to ensure compliance with appropriate state agencies’ protocols and regulations (i.e. state historic preservation office and/or state archaeological survey). Pre-project reviews, required cultural resources studies and consultations will be led by an archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as set forth in 36 CFR 61.

Under this approach, AEP will conduct the appropriate level of pre-project studies and coordinate with the appropriate federal agency, State Historic Preservation Officer, or as required to ensure compliance with Section 106. The archeologist may discuss any project concerns with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. However, the Service will lead the consultation with applicable Tribes in order to satisfy its obligations. Findings from AEP’s pre-project review, and findings from cultural resources field studies for those projects that require them, will be detailed in a report and submitted to USFWS. Reports will be prepared according to state-specific guidelines. USFWS will then prepare project notification letters and disseminate the cultural resources reports to appropriate agencies and Tribes. This approach will facilitate USFWS in fulfilling the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, 16 U.S.C. § 470f, and its implementing regulations at 36 C.F.R. § 800.

American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 A-1 Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas